[GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58

NO.6—JULY-AUGUST 1999

WE'RE REVITALIZING 'ADOPT-A-SCHOOL'—AND USDA WANTS YOU

 Students, Science Fairs, Tutors, Trains

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/July-August 99 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/cover.htm [10/5/1999 2:52:55 PM]
The USDA News is published by the Office of Communications, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This employee news publication, which is prepared by, for, and about this Department's employees, is

distributed to USDA's 106,400 federal employees--full-time, part-time, and temporary--by order of the

Secretary of Agriculture. Mailing address is Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg., OC, USDA, 1400 Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-1350.

To update your mailing address or change the quantity of USDA News copies received in your USDA

office, please contact your agency's mailing/distribution specialist.

Ron Hall, Editor

ron.hall@usda.gov

Joan Van Chantfort, Art Director

Cedric Drake, Printing and Distribution Coordinator

Charles Hobbs, Home Page Coordinator

charles.hobbs@usda.gov

The USDA News is also available on USDA's Home Page within the Internet. Use the World Wide Web

to access that Home Page version. Simply type the Home Page address--or Universal Resource Locator

(URL)--of the USDA News, which is http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/cover.htm

In addition, USDA employees may access the Department’s IntrAnet for information that is internal to

USDA and for its employees only. Employees will need to use a USDA computer, plus a USDA server

that permits IntrAnet access. The IntrAnet’s URL is http://www.hqnet.usda.gov/intranet/intranet.htm

USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The USDA News is printed on paper containing a minimum of 50 percent waste paper. The USDA News

is recyclable.

USDANEWS: Description of the Publication\July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/public.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:53:15 PM]
Return to:

The USDA News Cover Page

USDANEWS: Description of the Publication\July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/public.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:53:15 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

We're Revitalizing 'Adopt-A-School'—And USDA Wants You

 Students, Science, Fair, Tutors, Trains

by Ron Hall, Office of Communications

“Calling All Volunteers! We’re Lighting A New Fire Under This Program--And We Want You To Be A Part Of It!”

That’s the thrust of a message which USDA recently sent out to its employees at headquarters and field offices around the country.

The Department is reemphasizing its 'Adopt-A-School’ program and is encouraging employees to get--and/or stay-- involved.

“So you’re using

the flower to

represent the

positive

byproduct that

comes from

pairing

agriculture and

education, right?”

confirms FSIS’s

Francisco

Apodaca (left),

as he studies a

poster designed

by Washington,

DC 8th grade

student Vinh

Tran (right). It

was the grand

prize winner in a

contest, which

the Department

recently

sponsored, to

develop a poster

that best depicts

USDA’s 'Adopt-A-School’ program theme of “Agriculture and

Education, Planting the Seeds of Opportunity.” USDA has been

reemphasizing this program, encouraging employees to get involved as

volunteers.

--Photo by Ken Hammond

Earlier this year USDA updated its Adopt-A-School Program Guide.

The new version, dated May 1999 and titled “Agriculture and

Education, Planting The Seeds Of Opportunity,” updates an earlier

version that was issued six years ago. The updated version includes

an introductory message from Secretary Dan Glickman, in which he

noted that USDA “has long supported both the spirit and the reality of

an Adopt-A-School Program.”

And just what is this program?

Blondena Turner, executive assistant to the Office of Inspector

General’s assistant inspector general for policy development and

resources management, explained that 'Adopt-A-School’ refers to the

effort to encourage USDA employees to volunteer their time and

assistance, during the school day, to students in elementary, middle,

and/or high schools located in the general geographic area of USDA

offices. “Part of it is an attempt to help teach students the

fundamental skills necessary to live and work successfully in the

world of today,” she advised.

Iris Adams, director of OIG’s Equal Employment Opportunity

Division, said that, while the volunteer activities can be many and

varied, the Adopt-A-School programs share certain characteristics.

“For instance,” she noted, “there is usually some form of an 'adoptive

agreement’ which can last from a single school year to as long as the

school and the USDA employee wish it to be.”

In addition, the volunteer activity tends to support the goal of equipping students with basic competencies of reading, mathematics,

and other vital academic subjects.

In the past, such efforts have usually centered around USDA employees volunteering--with their supervisor’s advance approval and

generally for no more than a few hours during the work day when it is scheduled--to visit onsite at area schools and serve as tutors.

The April 1992 issue of the USDA News carried a story about the fact that the Department had clarified its policy and would grant

administrative leave to employees, both at headquarters and field offices, who were participating--with supervisory permission--in

such an 'Adopt-A-School’ volunteer activity.

But the program has taken on new dimensions since then. It has expanded into four general categories, as follows:

Instructional Support--Tutors and Mentors, which may include such activities as tutoring, a speakers bureau, and particular

programs to motivate students or staff.

1. 

2. Career Development, which may include student tours of the USDA workplace and 'career shadow’ days.

Academic and Institutional Support, which may include internships, the sponsorship of science fairs, and the donation of surplus

materials, furniture, and equipment.

3. 

Student Groups and Motivational Activities, which may include fundraising assistance and providing expertise in particular

projects.

4. 

USDA NEWS\Article 1\July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article1.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:53:38 PM]
Agricultural Research Service Special Emphasis Program Manager Lori Delgado noted that, at present, USDA agencies have over 30

adopted schools throughout the country.

For instance, at the Farm Service Agency’s Aerial Photography Field Office in Salt Lake City, employees worked with students at its

adopted elementary school to develop a model of a computerized train layout of the site in Park City, Utah for the 2002 Winter

Olympics. “As part of our help,” noted Dave Parry, FSA customer services specialist, “we provided aerial photos of satellite imagery

of that geographic area, for the train display.”

Carlos Dominguez, a historian with the Forest Service’s International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, said

that several FS employees work with three public high schools in Puerto Rico. “I work with biology teacher Noemi Mendez and

others,” he explained, “as we take students onsite to a local forest area that had been damaged by excessive agricultural practices and

ultimately abandoned, so they can study how the ecosystem is healing itself naturally.”

According to Francisco Apodaca, chief of the Financial Reviews and Analysis Branch in the Food Safety and Inspection Service,

FSIS was the first USDA agency to organize a science fair, with its employees serving as judges, when it initiated that activity with

students from Lincoln Multicultural Middle School in Washington, DC in 1996.

Agricultural Marketing Service international economist Ricardo Krajewski said USDA can see benefits through participation in

Adopt-A-School. “Volunteers can help improve the quality of their area schools--and their community.”

But there’s yet another potential benefit to the Department, as FSIS financial assistant Sonya Bankins pointed out. “By encouraging

our employees to work with students, we’re helping to develop and shape the work force for the new millennium, we’re ensuring

diversity in it--and we may help those students consider careers at USDA once they finish school.”

USDA formally kicked off the effort at reemphasizing its participation in Adopt-A-School with a ceremony at the Whitten Building at

USDA HQ in Washington, DC on May 26. FSIS Hispanic Employment Program Manager Gerry Flores noted that earlier, USDA

sponsored a contest in which students in all DC-area public schools, grades 7-12, were invited to design an Adopt-A-School poster.

Paula Hayes, OIG’s assistant inspector general for policy development and resources management, was a judge in the poster contest.

She said “The creativity displayed by the 54 children who submitted posters demonstrates that, when you plant a seed of knowledge

and challenge people’s creativity, they recognize their opportunity and act on it.”

Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDA NEWS\Article 1\July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article1.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:53:38 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 —

JULY-AUGUST 1999

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

We're Revitalizing 'Adopt-A-School'—And USDA Wants You

 Students, Science Fairs, Tutors, Trains

1. 

2. Pork Purchase Sets Precedent In Foreign Food Aid 

3. Secretary Dan Glickman

4. Administrative NUGGETS

5. Employees Make These Thing... Happen!

6. USDA-Sponsored Calendar Highlights

7. 1998's Winners Of Presidential Rank Awards At USDA

8. Editor's Roundup -- USDA people in the news

● Enrique Figueroa was appointed as the deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

Jim Kearney was appointed as the associate administrator for operations and management in the Farm

Service Agency.

● 

● Parks Shackelford was appointed as the associate administrator for programs in the Farm Service Agency.

● Vincette Goerl was selected as the deputy chief/chief financial officer in the Forest Service.

List of USDA NEWS/Articles for July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/newslett.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:54:14 PM]
List of USDA NEWS/Articles for July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/newslett.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:54:14 PM]
 News and Information

News... Information...

USDA News Releases

Speeches '97 - '98 - '99

Agency Reports/Schedule

Online Photo Center

Special Events

Publications

FOIA Information

Biotechnology Q & A's

Disaster Assistance

Domestic Assistance

Food Safety

Food Safety Database

Gleaning/Food Recovery

Home Canning Guides

Home Gardening

Mktg./Farmers Markets

Nutrition

Small Farms

Sustainable Development

Weather

Ag Calendar/Events

Civil Rights

Communications to Congress

Drought Information:

 Federal Resources

 USDA Assistance

Fed. Gov't Status[DC]

How To Get Information

USDA for Kids/Ed Resources

USDA Legislation

U.S. Trade Representative

USDA Celebrating the Millennium

Year 2000 Programs

News and Current Information

http://www.usda.gov/news/news.htm [10/5/1999 2:54:22 PM]
Past issues of

Issue Lead Articles

Volume 58 No.5

June 1999

1. We Honor 101 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

USDA Scores A 'Federal First' In Facility Support...And A

'JWOD Prototype' For Field Sites

2. 

Volume 58 No. 4

May 1999

How We're Helping The Refugees From Kosovo...Plus,

Our Food Aid May Result In Roads

1. 

A Chance To Revise Your Life Insurance For The New

Millennium...Salary Caps Out; Foster Children In

2. 

Volume 58 No. 3

March-April 1999

Workplace Violence: It's Real--But We're

Responding...'Stand-downs,' And Use Of Satellites

1. 

A New Approach To Resolving Conflicts at The

Department

2. 

Volume 58 No. 2

February 1999

USDA's 2000 Budget Calls For Cut Of $4.1 Billion, Gain

Of 412 Fed Staff Years

1. 

We've Been Enlisted To Help Conserve Military Lands

Around The World...Part Of "The Latest Generation"

2. 

Volume 58 No. 1

January 1999

1. USDA Opts Out Of A Buyout For FY 1999

Creative Employees Were Once Again 'Making A

Difference' In Anti-Hunger Efforts...Chopping Veggies, & A

'Food Fight'

2. 

Volume 57 No. 9

November-December 1998

We've Been Innovative In Our Workers' Comp

ProgramUSDA Opts Out Of A Buyout For FY 1999...2

For 1 'Carrots' & $5,000 'Sticks'

1. 

'Georges' Was Unique, And Our Assistance Was

Especially Needed

2. 

Volume 57 No. 8

October 1998

1. USDA's Budget For FY 1999 Is Signed Into Law

We're Trying Out Some New Methods Of Disaster

Assistance...El Nino Is Gone--But Not Forgotten

2. 

Volume 57 No. 7

September 1998

Some New Tools We're Using To Help Collect

Delinquent Debts...From Loan Borrowers to Arsonists

1. 

How We Responded In The Afermath Of The Embassy

Bombings

2. 

Volume 57 No. 6 1. 'Twas Long Awaited And Hotly Debated; It's 'Open

USDANEWS/Past Issues

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/pastiss.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:54:41 PM]
August 1998 Season' To Switch To FERS...And If You Do It, It's

Irrevocable

'Convergence' Is In; 3 Separate Support Structures Are

Out...Next Stop: October 1

2. 

Volume 57 No. 5

June/July 1998

1. We Honor 110 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

How Our Colleagues Coped with Evacuation from a

Foreign Hotspot...One Luggage Item, No Pets, Uncertainty

2. 

Volume 57 No. 4

May 1998

Here Is Our Progress On The Year 2000 Computer

Problem

1. 

New Linkage Can Help You In Your Job Search,

Online...And Up Next: 'Electronic Resumes'

2. 

Volume 57 No. 3

April 1998

At The One-Year Mark, Here Is Our Progress On The

Civil Rights Recommendations

1. 

For In-House Use, Now We're Relying On The

IntrAnet...Security, Plus More Bells & Whistles

2. 

Volume 57 No. 2

March 1998

USDA's FY99 Budget Calls For A Gain Of $3.1 Billion:

Cut Of 1,964 Fed Staff Years

1. 

We Got Creative In Our Latest Food Drive Efforts...From

Raffles To Red Beans And Rice

2. 

Volume 57 No. 1

Jan.- Feb. 1998

How USDA Collects The Money That Its Customers

Owe...From Foot Power, To Electronic

1. 

A Unique Team Helps To Suppress Fires In

Indonesia...Bigger Than The Size Of Tennessee

2. 

Volume 56 No. 10

Nov. - Dec. 1997

USDA's Budget For FY 1998 Is Signed Into Law...Plus,

The New Line-Item Veto

1. 

USDA's Buyout Plan For FY 1998 Is Now In Gear...2,838

Fewer Of Us Here By January?

2. 

Volume 56 No. 9

October 1997

Our Career Center Still Offers Services--Only Now

There's A New Mission...But YOU Still Manage Your Career

1. 

It Once Took Days; Now Mere Minutes--Plus, No

Paperwork...Hey, All You Lenders: Listen Up!

2. 

Volume 56 No.8

September 1997

USDA Adopts Its Own Policy On Reprisals...It's To Ensure

Fairness And Consistency

1. 

Watch This Space: Your Employee Pub Is Being

Computerized...But Goodbye Green--At Least For Now

2. 

Volume 56 No. 7

Auguest 1997

Employee Efforts In Food Recovery Make A

Difference...No Time To Waste

1. 

2. Our Test Lab Will Result in "Better Ways To Do Things"

Volume 56 No. 6

June - July 1997

GPRA Is Putting Its Stamp On How We Do Business At

USDA....It's A Whole New Ball Game

1. 

2. We Honor 93 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

USDANEWS/Past Issues

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/pastiss.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:54:41 PM]
Volume 56 No. 5

May 1997

Here Is Our Progress on the Civil Rights

Recommendations

1. 

2. Our Work Force Looks Like This, Statistically

Volume 56 No. 4

April 1997

We're Racing to Reprogram Our Computer Systems

Before Jan. 1, 2000...There's No Single 'Silver Bullet'

1. 

2. It's Springtime and Our Post-Flood Repairs Have Begun

Volume 56 No. 3

March 1997

Glickman Announces Civil Rights Plans; Releases Team

Report

1. 

Our "New Look" Helps Reflect a "One USDA"

Message...Two Colors--Not Six--Save Money

2. 

Volume 56 No. 2

February 1997

USDA's FY98 Budget Calls for a Gain of $4.6 Billion;

Cut of 1,790 Fed Staff Years

1. 

When We Leave USDA, Our Federal Records Don't Go

With Us...They Add to the "Institutional Memory"

2. 

Volume 56 No. 1

January 1997

1. A New Year + A New Reg=No Smoking at USDA

USDA Initiates New Purchase Cards and "Convenience

Checks"... Reduced from $77 to $32 to $17

2. 

Volume 55 No. 10

November/December 1996

1. There's No Place Like Home Page at USDA

How We Handled This Season's Big Storm ... Plus, Those

Chicken Carcasses

2. 

Volume 55 No. 9

October 1996

Full Steam Ahead for USDA's Buyout Plan for

FY97...3,750 Fewer of Us Here by January?

1. 

'High-Tech Hardware' Helps Us Save Bigtime on Our

Energy Costs...This Gives New Meaning to 'Chill Out'

2. 

Volume 55 No. 8

September 1996

More Options Can Now Be Used to Assess

Performance...But No 'Arbitrary Imposition'

1. 

Big Changes Ahead for USDA's Workers' Comp

Program...No More 'Good Riddance'

2. 

Volume 55 No.7

August 1996

USDA's Budget is the First One Approved for

FY97...Plus, a Four-Year Buyout Option

1. 

2. New Badges + New Guards=Tighter Security

Volume 55 No.6

July 1996

1. We Honor 106 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

USDA Puts Its Stamp on the Summer

Olympics...Preparation Wasn't Only by Athletes

2. 

Volume 55 No.5

June 1996

We Commemorate 50 Years of School Lunch...Billions

and Billions Served

1. 

2. "Building Bridges" Marks Theme of Civil Rights Forum

Volume 55 No. 3

March 1996

USDA's FY97 Calls For A Gain of $3.8 Billion; Cut of

885 Staff Years

1. 

2. Neither Sleet, Nor Snow, Nor Furlough....A New Chapter

USDANEWS/Past Issues

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/pastiss.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:54:41 PM]
in "Customer Service"

Volume 55 No. 1

January 1996

USDA is Ahead of Schedule on Staff Year Reductions

and Savings...But "Downsizing is Never Easy"

1. 

A Synopsis of Our Post-Storm Efforts...Sleeping on

Tables; Stolen Batteries

2. 

Return to:

Publications

News and Current Information

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Past Issues

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/pastiss.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:54:41 PM]
Secretary

Glickman's Events

United States Department of Agriculture:

[News/Information] [What's New] [About USDA] [Agencies] [Opportunities] [Search/Help]

Comments, Questions to vic. powell@usda.gov

Read our Privacy Policy

U.S. Department of Agriculture Homepage

http://www.usda.gov/usda.htm [10/5/1999 2:55:14 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Pork Purchase Sets Precedent In Foreign Food Aid

by Jeffrey Jackson, FSA Export Operations Staff

On August 2, USDA purchased 50,000 metric tons--equaling 110.2 million pounds--of pork for shipment to Russia. Vicki Hicks, the

Farm Service Agency’s deputy administrator for commodity operations, whose office coordinated this purchase, noted that “This is

the first time the U.S. Government has purchased meat products of this magnitude for foreign humanitarian food assistance programs.”

Here’s how a small group of USDA employees made this unprecedented event happen.

In March, Mary Chambliss, deputy administrator for export credits in the Foreign Agricultural Service, asked FSA to purchase the

50,000 metric tons of pork for Russia, in three separate shipments, under the Food for Progress program. “Because USDA, instead of

Russia, would be contracting directly for the product,” advised Amy Harding, a program manager in FSA’s Export Operations

Branch, “the responsibility fell on Commodity Operations--and, in turn, to FSA’s Commodity Office in Kansas City, Mo.--to prepare

contract specifications, coordinate shipping terms, and determine procurement policy for several new products.”

“I would note that these 'new products’--fresh frozen pork products--were unlike most of the processed grain products which we

commonly provide to our program recipients.”

Hicks added that her staff needed to resolve many complicated issues concerning both freight and commodity.

Resolving freight issues required the special cooperation of several parties, since, according to Bobby Richey, a program coordinator

in FAS’s Program Development Division, the Russians had clear preferences regarding shipping arrangements for the commodities.

“So, to avoid limiting the participation of U.S. companies,” Harding advised, “FSA’s Export Operations Branch staff initiated two

meetings among international shipping trade representatives, the Russian freight agent, and the U.S. Maritime Administration.”

She added that, in subsequent meetings, suggestions for changing the freight terms were negotiated with the Russian freight agent--to

the satisfaction of both the U.S. and the Russian freight representatives.

“The result,” affirmed Tom Harrelson, director of the Office of Cargo Preference at the U.S. Maritime Administration, “was a series

of shipping provisions which ensured the opportunity for the U.S. container carriers to competitively bid on the pork shipments to

Russia.”

But the commodity issues were more complex. Accordingly, Larry Meadows, chief of the Meat Grading and Certifications Branch in

the Agricultural Marketing Service, and AMS meat specialists Terry Lutz and Steve Olson helped to work out technical product

specifications. Then FSA marketing specialist Sharon Hadder coordinated with FSA’s Kansas City Commodity Office to develop an

entirely new commodity purchase announcement. Concurrently, Harding held meetings with representatives of commodity suppliers,

meat exporters, and national pork trade organizations.

“The pork trade representatives offered several suggestions,” Harding recounted. “But flexibility to change terms of the purchase

agreement was limited.”

The reason, explained Susan Sadocha, a program coordinator in FAS’s Program Support Division, was that the choice of shipping

period and commodity type had already been approved in advance by the USDA/Russian working group in Moscow. “So any change

needed to be cleared by that group,” she advised.

Lastly, all of the purchase and delivery details needed to be properly written into the procurement documents by Verna Garrett, a

marketing specialist in FSA’s Kansas City Commodity Office.

After obtaining approval from Russia for the product descriptions and delivery periods, on May 18 and then again on May 27 Garrett

issued invitations to pork suppliers to sell two cuts of pork to USDA for this foreign humanitarian food assistance initiative to Russia.

But in both instances, after discussions with FSA contracting officials and FAS pork trade analysts, Jim Firth, chief of FSA’s Export

Operations Branch, recommended that FAS reject all offers. “The bid prices were significantly higher than current market conditions

would justify,” he recounted. FAS concurred with both recommendations.

FSA then took several unparalleled steps in an attempt to increase competition and participation by the pork suppliers. “Specifically,”

USDANEWS\Article 2\JULY-AUGUST 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article2.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:55:22 PM]
Firth said, “our commodity invitation called for the Commodity Credit Corporation to contract for a single purchase of up to 50,000

tons of seven different pork products, with options for delivery of the entire quantity during any of three separate delivery periods

within calendar year1999.”

He acknowledged that this approach to CCC contracting deviated from standard procedures and increased the work involved in

evaluating the offers. “I realized,” he added, “that the unusual procurement procedure we imposed on our colleagues in Kansas City

resulted in a considerable increase in the work involved in this purchase--both in complexity and in that the procedure was effectively

three purchases conducted simultaneously.”

“But,” Firth pointed out, “this approach allowed the pork suppliers the greatest flexibility in calculating their offers, and it permitted

FAS--which would make the final purchase decision in this matter--an opportunity to decide which combination of products and

timing would best meet the program needs.”

“Frankly,” he observed, “we bent over backwards to make this purchase happen--and yet still make sure we got the best terms for the

program.”

Ultimately, on July 28, after having bids rejected twice in May, suppliers offered to sell pork, for this humanitarian food aid to Russia,

at prices averaging 80 cents a pound for the seven different cuts purchased.

Tim Reaman, chief of the Bulk Commodities Branch in FSA’s Kansas City Commodity Office, noted that “comparing just the two

cuts from the rejected bids, the new prices were about 30 cents a pound lower--so the program costs could have been over $30 million

higher if USDA hadn’t rejected the earlier bids.”

“To me,” he affirmed, “this shows that our efforts to accommodate the trade concerns and provide the broadest opportunity for

participation resulted in more competitive offers for the entire 50,000 tons of pork.”

Added Firth, “In over 20 years of working in USDA Commodity Operations, this is the first time that I’ve seen a change in

procurement policy that directly resulted in such a great reduction in program costs on a single commodity purchase.”

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS\Article 2\JULY-AUGUST 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article2.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:55:22 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Secretary Dan Glickman

Despite its devastating effects, drought doesn’t get the attention it

warrants because, unlike hurricanes, tornados or floods, it is the

kind of disaster that has to be around for awhile before anyone feels

its effects. The fact is, year in and year out, drought causes many

more problems for American agriculture than the natural disasters

we hear about more often.

In this decade alone, USDA has paid out $3.4 billion in crop

insurance benefits due to drought, compared to $268 million for

crops damaged by floods. USDA is providing some emergency

relief through low cost loans. And we’re providing cost-share

benefits through our Emergency Conservation and Emergency

Watershed Programs, to help with water needs such as installing

pipes, supplying emergency water for existing irrigations systems,

and more.

But, most importantly, this Administration is working with Congress to make sure farmers and ranchers

receive sufficient emergency assistance to help them get through the present crisis. In doing so, we need

to heed the lesson: be prepared.

We must also provide aid for family operations to help them cope with adverse conditions beyond their

control. Removing the cap on loan rates, expanding and improving crop insurance, and enlarging the

Conservation Reserve Program are the kinds of actions which will give farmers greater flexibility. I also

want to see a new farm bill that will grant more emergency authorities for the Secretary of

Agriculture--for example, extending commodity loans, helping to provide on-farm storage, increasing

food aid donations, or providing adequately funded livestock feed assistance.

In July I opened the first meeting of the National Drought Policy Commission, which will report back to

President Bill Clinton with a comprehensive plan on how to prepare for drought.

Some of the issues the commission will review include coordinating drought management through a

single government agency, a rapid response style program to provide immediate relief in emergencies,

and more technical assistance that will help farmers withstand drought.

We must recognize that managing our water resources is not just an agricultural issue. It is something

urban, suburban, and rural communities all have a stake in. So we must act quickly to help farmers and

ranchers now--and I believe that the Administration and Congress will do so.

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS:Secretary Dan Glickman's Column for July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article3.htm [10/5/1999 2:55:37 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

S.K. Worm?! Pie Chart Pam?!

Who ARE These Folks?!

“Mommy, Daddy, I’m Bored! There’s Nothing To Do!”

We’re well into summer now, and, if you have kids, you may have heard this refrain more

than a few times around your residence, as members of the pint-sized set search for

activities to keep themselves occupied.

Now, you may think that the only solution is to pray that the dates on the calendar shift into overdrive, with September and the

beginning of the school year as the only salvation for the kids--and for you. AAUGGHHH!

But wait: Check this out instead. The Department recently completed its “USDA for Kids” web site on the USDA home page. As of

June, members of the younger set can now click onto any one of 23 links that provide information--geared to a youthful

audience--about some aspect of USDA’s mission.

Kids and others can access this on USDA’s home page at http://www.usda.gov/news/usdakids

Julie Olson, the computer graphics manager with the Design Center in the Office of Communications who art-directed the design of

the “USDA for Kids” web site, noted that the 23 links include such creative offerings as the Rural Utilities Service’s “RUS, the Surfin’

Squirrel,” the Agricultural Research Service’s “Science for Kids,” the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s “Stanley Stat & Pie

Chart Pam,” the Word Agricultural Outlook Board’s “Weather,” the Economic Research Service’s “History of Agriculture,” the

Natural Resources Conservation Service’s “S.K. Worm,” the Forest Service’s “Nature Watch,” and the Farm Service Agency’s

“Agriculture for Kids.”

OC public affairs specialist Charles Hobbs established the “USDA for Kids” web site, edited the links, and currently maintains and

updates that site as appropriate.

“Some USDA agencies already had developed individual agriculturally-related web sites for kids,” he explained. “But this is the first

time that all of those sites have been available at one location.”

“So this represents a contribution from USDA to the education of our youngsters about agriculturally-related matters and about

USDA’s involvement in them.”

“And,” Hobbs quipped, “it’s also our contribution to help curb their summer boredom.”

Now if we can only find a similar cure for that other youthful refrain, that goes “Mommy, Daddy, Are We There Yet?!”

Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Administrative NUGGETS/July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article4.htm [10/5/1999 2:55:54 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

1 Agency With 3 Anniversaries

Happy Birthday, Food and Nutrition Service!

The agency turned 30 on August 8. Formed by [then] Secretary Clifford Hardin, it pulled together the various federal food programs

to "permit greater specialization and concentration" in administering those food programs. FNS now administers 15 different

programs.

According to Allen Ng, administrator of FNS's Western Region, based in San Francisco, FNS's programs now "reach into America's

inner cities, school classrooms and playgrounds, American Indian reservations, and child and adult care centers."

"Americans of all ages, from newborns to the elderly, receive the benefits at no cost or reduced cost," he added. "These programs

provide meals, snacks, or the means to purchase food, as well as nutrition education to promote healthy eating habits."

But that's not the only milestone for 1999.

An entire generation of America's children has grown up healthier and better educated nutritionally because of WIC, the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. The program turned 25 in February, but is celebrating all year

long.

"WIC encourages healthful habits for prenatal and postpartum women," said Carol Fahey, who was with the program at its early

stages and is now WIC director for FNS's Western Region. "It provides vouchers or checks for the purchase of nutritious food for

mothers and their young children, educates participants in the value of nutrition, promotes breastfeeding, and provides immunization

against a number of childhood diseases."

This looks pretty complete,” concludes Gwen Wilbert (right),

a program specialist with FNS’s Northeast Regional Office in

Boston. She is reviewing a list of surplus agricultural

Bob Mulvey, who has been with WIC since its beginning and is now chief of

program operations for FNS's Supplemental Food programs in its Northeast

Region, based in Boston, said that "WIC's successes are measured by

increased duration of pregnancies, reduced fetal death and infant mortality,

and decreased iron deficiency in children."

"WIC has started an entire generation of children on a healthy road through

life."

But wait. There's yet one more FNS milestone being commemorated in 1999.

The oldest of FNS's programs began in 1939 when Mabel McFiggen of

Rochester, N.Y., was the first to purchase food stamps under the newly

created Food Stamp Plan.

Al Nickels, food stamp director in FNS's Mountain Plains Region, based in

Denver, pointed out that, in 1939, America was still suffering under the Great

Depression. "Hunger was widespread, and thousands stood in 'bread lines'

every day for something to eat," he said. "The irony was that America's

farmers were producing crops in such abundance that the market prices were

USDANEWS/Article5/Happen!/July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article5.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:57:06 PM]
commodities stored at a warehouse in Nashua, N.H., with

volunteer Mary Stylianos--who uses those commodities to

prepare 2,300 food packages a month for area participants in

FNS’s Commodity Supplemental Food Program. That’s one

of FNS’s many missions, as it commemorates its 30th

birthday in August.

--Photo by Katrina Quinn

depressed. Secretary Henry Agard Wallace saw the Food Stamp Plan as a

way to both alleviate hunger and help farmers dispose of their surplus

harvests."

Doug Bowers, a social science analyst and historian with the Economic

Research Service, explained how the new Food Stamp Plan worked. "People

who were on 'relief'--that is, who qualified for federal assistance--could

purchase orange food stamps at a dollar value equal to their usual food expenditures," he said. "But, for every dollar's worth of those

orange stamps, they received--for free--50 cents worth of blue stamps."

He said that orange stamps were used at the grocery store to buy any type of food, while the blue stamps were redeemed only for

eligible surplus food commodities, such as butter, eggs, flour, fruit, dry beans, and some meats.

Bowers noted that during the next four years, over 20 million Americans benefited from the Food Stamp Plan. It was suspended in

1943 as World War II essentially ended unemployment, and the farm surplus was put toward the war effort.

Nickels said in the 1950s farmers were producing much more than they could profitably sell. This caused a renewed interest in the

concept of using surplus food commodities for food distribution, as appropriate. "Then," he noted, "in 1964 the Food Stamp Act set up

a permanent program of food assistance."

"The stamps became printed coupons," he added, "but the name has stayed the same."

Recent legislation has mandated that the coupons are to be replaced by Electronic Benefits Transfer--or EBT--cards by 2002. "EBT

cards are similar in look and convenience to credit cards," Nickels said. "But they provide fewer opportunities for people to abuse the

Food Stamp Program."

"These three remarkable programs are the heart of our network of nutrition assistance to America's families and children," said Under

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Shirley Watkins.

--Anne McGuigan

We're Serving Up 'Tip Sheets'

As agricultural producers grapple with some of the most challenging times in recent memory, many are seeking new ways to cut costs

and increase profits.

To help in that quest, information about a broad array of profitable alternatives is now available, courtesy of a new USDA education

campaign titled "Farming for Profit, Stewardship & Community."

The education campaign publicizes the availability of USDA 'tip sheets' that list free or low-cost resources on 10 topics considered

relevant to small-scale agricultural producers.

"Those resources can help small-scale farmers and ranchers create more profitable agricultural systems," said Jill Auburn, national

program leader for sustainable agriculture research and education in the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

and director of CSREES's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). "And they also address ways to improve farm

stewardship and return resources to the community."

USDANEWS/Article5/Happen!/July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article5.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:57:06 PM]
Jill Auburn (left), director of

CSREES’s Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education program,

reviews a USDA 'tip sheet’ titled

“Cut Livestock Costs” with Steve

Groff, a farmer in Lancaster County,

Pa., as Groff’s cattle eavesdrop on

their conversation. USDA’s 10 tip

sheets are part of an education

campaign the Department recently

launched nationwide to help

small-scale agricultural producers

cut costs and increase profits.

--Photo by Valerie Berton

Each single-page, double-sided tip sheet lists free and/or inexpensive resources which provide more detailed information about the

topic in question. Such topics include soil quality, marketing, pest prevention, organic production, livestock costs, weed management,

profit planning, networking, crop diversification, and agroforestry.

For example, Auburn noted, the resources on the tip sheets explain how cover crops not only improve soil and boost crop yields, but

also crowd out weeds and lessen erosion. Management-intensive grazing systems reduce labor costs and manure buildup. And

enterprises that add value to raw agricultural products, such as turning oranges into orange juice, create more profits for farmers as

well as new jobs in the community.

The education campaign was a recommendation from USDA's National Commission on Small Farms, which had issued a report dated

January 1998 and titled "A Time to Act." The report outlined ways that USDA could improve its programs and services for

small-scale agricultural producers. Staffers from CSREES's SARE program and the Office of Communications then developed the 10

tip sheets, and the campaign began in April.

“That’s a popular resource you’re pointing to,” observes

CSREES’s Jill Auburn (right), as she reviews a USDA

'tip sheet’ on marketing with Cass Peterson, a fruit and

vegetable farmer in Warfordsburg, Pa.

--Photo by Valerie Berton

By May, 10,000 tip sheets--which are also found at

http://www.sare.org/san/tipsheet/index.htm--were sent to USDA field offices.

"By early June," Auburn recounted, "the campaign was in full swing."

But USDA field staffers also found the tip sheets a valuable information source.

For instance, Sharon Hestvik, the small farms coordinator for the Risk

Management Agency, sent information about the campaign to RMA field offices.

Kathleen Gilbertson, program services branch chief for RMA's Billings, Mont.,

Regional Service Office, photocopied and distributed tip sheets for a risk

management educational meeting with farmers in Billings.

Bruce Wendland, an agricultural economist in RMA's Actuarial Division in

Kansas City, Mo., has relied on Tip Sheet #4, "Explore Organic Production."

"Having a tip sheet available," he explained, "gives me a quick reference guide

for a topic that I frankly don't know a lot about."

"Pam Kiessling, a risk management education coordinator in our Raleigh, North

Carolina Regional Service Office," Hestvik noted, "came up with several ideas on

how the tip sheets could benefit the work we do with small farms and risk

management education."

"Our goal," affirmed Auburn, "is to bring practical information and resources to agricultural producers."

--Valerie Berton

USDANEWS/Article5/Happen!/July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article5.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:57:06 PM]
How A Tornado Altered Our Aid

USDA's rural development specialists work with communities around the country to help implement USDA's "EZ/EC initiative." But

a recent incident in Vienna, Ga., may have been the first time that RD employees personally experienced a natural disaster while

working on EZ/EC, and then revised their planned EZ/EC assistance--on the spot--as a result.

"EZ/EC," which stands for "Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community," is an initiative designed to revitalize distressed

communities in both rural and urban locations by creating self-sustaining, long-term economic development in those areas. The Rural

Development mission area's focus is on the rural component of that initiative. The January 1999 issue of the USDA News carried a

story on EZ/EC.

At 10 a.m. on April 15, 1999, Jane Ferguson, an RD specialist based in Athens, Ga., and Patricia Simmons, an RD EZ/EC specialist

based in Cordele, Ga., began a meeting on upgrading Vienna, Ga.'s Dooly Medical Center. It is located in one of the nation's five

Empowerment Zone communities, named this year, covering rural areas.

Their role was to help the appropriate hospital and community personnel with the application for an RD Community Facility Program

combination loan and grant.

The meeting with hospital administrators and both the economic development director and the Chamber of Commerce director of

Dooly County was proceeding normally until 10:25 a.m.--when the hospital received notification of a tornado coming its way.

"The tornado hit ten minutes after we received the warning," Ferguson said. She and Simmons volunteered to pitch in, which included

moving hospital beds into the hallways away from the windows, changing bed linens, rounding up wheelchairs and stretchers, and,

eventually, feeding family members of patients in the hospital lobby.

The twister moved through the center of town, flattening a number of buildings and homes, but bypassing the hospital. No one in town

was killed by the tornado. But during the first hour after it had struck, 46 people crowded into the tiny Dooly Medical Center for help.

The facility's Emergency Room was designed to hold two.

"We started making notes on things the Medical Center needed almost immediately," Simmons said. "The hospital lost power and the

backup generator was insufficient. There was no emergency lighting. Doctors were holding flashlights to stitch people up."

"The telephone lines were all down, and the need for a backup telephone system quickly became apparent," Ferguson added. "The

only telephone was someone's personal cell phone. The hospital was completely shut off from communication."

“As the

tornado

showed us,

the

Emergency

Room of the

Dooly

Medical

Center

needs more

space,”

affirms

RD’s

Patricia

Simmons

(right). “So

the RD

Community Facility Program combination loan and grant will provide

funds for that--and this particular wall will be removed,” notes RD’s Jane

Ferguson (left), as they revisit the Center’s Emergency Room.

--Photo by Tracie Yawn

As a result of the onsite observations and revisions which Ferguson

and Simmons made, the Medical Center's application for a

combination loan and grant, under RD's Community Facility

Program, now includes those improvements. In addition, the

application expands the number of beds in the facility's Emergency

Room from two to six.

Simmons said that approval of the application is expected before

the end of the summer.

"We witnessed, first-hand, what a hospital would need during a

real-life disaster," Ferguson said. "That experience emphasized the

need for adequate rural health care."

--E.J. Stapler

Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Article5/Happen!/July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article5.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 2:57:06 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

USDA-Sponsored Calendar Highlights

August 13, 20, 27, September 3, 10, 17, 24

USDA Weekly Farmers Market

Washington, DC

1-800-384-8704 or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD)

September 15-October 15

Hispanic Heritage Month

USDA headquarters and field offices

(202) 720-7314 or (202) 720-8372

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDA NEWS/Calendar: July-August 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/calendar.htm [10/5/1999 2:57:10 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

1998's Winners Of Presidential Rank Awards At USDA

USDA has saluted its latest Presidential Rank Award winners--12 career Senior Executive Service managers. All were

honored for their leadership and management activities during 1998, the most recent year for which the awards were given.

The purpose of the Presidential Rank Award Program is to recognize and reward career SES members who have

demonstrated exceptional performance over an extended period of time.

There are two categories of Presidential Rank Awards. The “Distinguished Executive” Award is given to no more than one

percent of career senior executives for sustained, extraordinary accomplishment in carrying out federal goals and policies. It

carries a $20,000 cash award, paid for by the recipient’s agency. The “Meritorious Executive” Award is limited to no more

than five percent of the career SES members and is given for sustained accomplishment. It carries a $10,000 cash award.

Governmentwide, 54 career employees received “Distinguished Executive” Awards and 242 received “Meritorious

Executive” Awards for 1998. The Presidential Rank Award Program, which has been in existence since 1980, is coordinated

by the Office of Personnel Management.

USDA’s Presidential Rank Award winners for 1998 at the “Distinguished Executive” level included:

Roger Breeze, director of the Agricultural Research Service’s South Atlantic Area, based in Athens, Ga., for visionary

leadership and outstanding management of the South Atlantic Area and of USDA’s Plum Island Animal Disease

Center off Long Island, N.Y.

1. 

Scott Steele, deputy director for program analysis in the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, for outstanding skill,

innovation, dedication, and integrity developing sound, cost-effective public policies. He had previously received a

“Meritorious Executive” Award for 1989.

2. 

USDA’s Presidential Rank Award winners for 1998 at the “Meritorious Executive” level included:

Bobby Acord, [then] deputy administrator of wildlife services in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, for

outstanding contributions solving problems caused by wildlife.

1. 

Antoinette Betschart, director of ARS’s Pacific West Area, based in Albany, Calif., for creative leadership and

outstanding management of ARS’s Western Regional Research Center in Albany and subsequently of the entire Pacific

West Area.

2. 

Richard Dunkle, [then] director of ARS’s Midwest Area, based in Peoria, Ill., for vision and organizational skills that

have enhanced the relevance, productivity, and efficiency of research organizations at the state and federal levels.

3. 

Edward Knipling, ARS’s associate administrator, for sustained superior leadership and management of research

programs covering natural resources, crop and livestock production, post-harvest technology, and human nutrition. He

had previously received a ”Meritorious Executive” Award for 1988.

4. 

Robert Lewis, deputy chief for research and development in the Forest Service, for exceptional leadership in

managing the world’s largest forestry research organization.

5. 

Mark Mina, deputy administrator for field operations in the Food Safety and Inspection Service, for sustained

exemplary performance of duties and contributions to improving the nation’s dynamically changing regulatory meat,

poultry, and egg product inspection program.

6. 

Herbert Oberlander, director of ARS’s Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology Center in Gainesville, Fla.,

for a record of distinguished accomplishments and pioneering efforts in scientific research in pest management.

7. 

Richard Smythe, director of FS’s Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research Staff, for providing outstanding national

leadership to the Forest Service in managing the nation’s renewable natural resources.

8. 

Edward Wilson, deputy administrator for plant and animal production, protection, and processing in the Cooperative

State Research, Education, and Extension Service, for outstanding contributions to the science and education goals of

9. 

USDANEWS\Article 6\July-August 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article6.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:58:07 PM]
the nation and for exemplary leadership and outstanding management of CSREES’s Plant and Animal Systems unit. He

had previously received a “Meritorious Executive” Award for 1992.

Timothy Witt, deputy administrator for research and development in the Risk Management Agency’s Kansas City,

Mo., Office, for outstanding contributions to the goals of RMA.

10. 

R.Breeze

S. Steele

B. Acord

A.

Betschart

R. Dunkle

E Knipling

R. Lewis

M. Mina

H.

Oberlander

R. Smythe

E. Wilson

T. Witt

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS\Article 6\July-August 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/article6.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:58:07 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Editor's Roundup

USDA people in the news

Enrique Figueroa was appointed as the deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

He succeeded Isi Siddiqui, who held that position from November 1997 to March 1999, when he was

named by Secretary Dan Glickman to be his special assistant for trade issues.

From October 1997 until his appointment in June 1999, Figueroa was the administrator of the

Agricultural Marketing Service. The March 1998 issue of the USDA News carried his complete

biographical sketch, following his selection to that position.

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepa

USDANEWS/Editor's Roundup/July-August/E Figueroa

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/figueroa.htm [10/5/1999 2:58:23 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Editor's Roundup

USDA people in the news

Jim Kearney was appointed as the associate administrator for operations and management in the

Farm Service Agency. This is a newly-structured position, following the retirement of Randy

Weber, who served as FSA’s associate administrator from 1993 until he retired in July 1998, after

38 years of service with USDA.

From February 1998 until his recent selection, Kearney served as a special assistant to FSA

Administrator Keith Kelly. In that position his efforts included helping to carry out the

recommendations of USDA’s National Commission on Small Farms, working on improving farm

credit program outreach, and helping to ensure successful implementation of administrative

convergence at USDA. He served as the Department’s state director for Rural Development in

North Carolina, based in Raleigh, from 1993-98.

From 1980-93 Kearney was a district director with the [then] Farmers Home Administration, based

in Henderson, N.C. He served as an FmHA county supervisor for Bertie County, N.C., from 1971-

80, after having worked as an assistant county supervisor at that location from 1968-71. He began

his career with USDA in 1965 as an FmHA assistant county supervisor for Franklin County, N.C. He served on active duty as a U.S.

Army air defense artillery officer from 1966-68.

A native of Edgecombe County, N.C., where he grew up on a tobacco and peanut family farm, Kearney holds a B.S. degree in

agricultural economics from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University.

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Editor's Roundup/July-August/J Kearney

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/kearney.htm [10/5/1999 2:58:37 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Editor's Roundup

USDA people in the news

Parks Shackelford was appointed as the associate administrator for programs in the Farm Service

Agency. This is a newly- structured position, following the retirement of Randy Weber, who served as

FSA’s associate administrator from 1993 until he retired in July 1998, after 38 years of service with

USDA.

From October 1995 until his recent selection, Shackelford was FSA’s assistant deputy administrator for

farm programs. He served as deputy administrator for state and county operations with the [then]

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service from 1993-95.

From 1987-92 Shackelford was staff director and majority consultant for the Subcommittee on Cotton,

Rice, and Sugar in the Committee on Agriculture at the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked as a

legislative liaison with the National Commission on Agricultural Trade and Export Policy, based in

Washington, DC, during 1986. During 1985 he was the assistant to the majority consultant for the

House Agriculture Subcommittee on Cotton, Rice, and Sugar.

A native of Jones, La., where he grew up on a cotton, rice, and peanut family farm, Shackelford holds a B.A. degree in Latin American

studies from Tulane University in New Orleans.

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Editor's Roundup/July-August/P Shackelford

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/shackel.htm [10/5/1999 2:58:54 PM]
USDANEWS VOLUME 58 NO. 6 — JULY-AUGUST 1999

Editor's Roundup

USDA people in the news

Vincette Goerl was selected as the deputy chief/chief financial officer in the Forest Service. This is a

newly structured position as part of a Forest Service reorganization in April 1998.

Before joining USDA, from 1994 until her selection Goerl served as the assistant commissioner for

finance and chief financial officer at the U.S. Customs Service. She was a member of the Improving

Financial Management Team as part of Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review

initiative from 1993-94. From 1990-93 she worked at the General Services Administration as the

controller of its Information Resources Management Service and as the executive assistant to GSA’s

chief financial officer.

Goerl served in several positions at the Environmental Protection Agency from 1977-90, including

deputy director of information resources management, director of its Facilities Management and

Services Division, director of its Financial Management Division, and budget manager and analyst.

She worked as a program analyst for the chief of naval operations at the Department of the Navy from

1974-77, after having begun her federal career at that location as a clerk-typist in 1971.

A native of Hutchinson, Kan., Goerl holds a B.A. degree in history and political science from McPherson College in McPherson, Kan.,

and has served as a member of its Board of Trustees since 1997.

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

 News and Current Information

Past Issues

 USDA's ...Homepage

USDANEWS/Editor's Roundup/July-August/V Goerl

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/goerl.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:09 PM]
Sorry, that is still under construction

Sorry

http://www.usda.gov/graphics/art/sorry.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:16 PM]
 About USDA

Address for USDA and all its Agencies:

Agencies and Staff Offices

 Budget Summary 2000, 1999, 1998

County Office Locator

Headquarters Organization Chart

Message from the Secretary

Missions

Nondiscrimination Statement

 Posters:

 A History of American Agriculture

 "The People's Department

Photo and Biographical Information

Privacy/Security Notice

Strategic Plan

U.S. Code: Department of Agriculture

 Code of Federal Regulations:

 [Agriculture] [Animals] [Forests]

Constitution of the United States

Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States

USDA Fraud Hotline

Vision and Mission Statements

Visitor Information Center

Address: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 14th & Independence Ave. SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250

Telephone: (202) 720-2791

[TOP]

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

About USDA

http://www.usda.gov/about.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:59:25 PM]
[TOP]

USDA Vision: A healthy and productive Nation in harmony with the land.

USDA Mission: Enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting production of

agriculture:

● ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply

● caring for agricultural, forest, and range lands

● supporting sound development of rural communities

● providing economic opportunities for farm and rural residents

● expanding global markets for agricultural and forest products and services

● and working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.

About USDA

http://www.usda.gov/about.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 2:59:25 PM]
 What's New at USDA

October 5, 1999

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project

Aquaculture Outlook

Agriculture Research Magazine

Risk Management Agency redesigned website

October 4, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture Yearbook

Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture

September 30, 1999

Agricultural Prices

September 29, 1999

USDA Celebrating the Millennium page

September 28, 1999

National Food Safety Database

September 27, 1999

U.S. Agricultural Trade Update

September 24, 1999

Agricultural Income and Finance

USDA Technology Protection System (aka 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture

September 23, 1999

Agricultural Outlook

Rural Conditions and Trends

Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States

Constitution of the United States

September 20, 1999

Chromium Critical for Gluose Tolerance

September 16, 1999

Helping Rural America Face Crisis

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (1 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
September 15, 199

Hurricane Floyd

❍ FEMA Storm Watch

❍ National Hurricane Center

❍ Southeast Regional Climate Center

❍ North Carolina

❍ Virginia Climatology

September 14, 1999

Agricultural Outlooks

❍ Cotton and Wool

❍ Feed

❍ Oil Crops

❍ Rice

❍ Wheat

September 13, 1999

Marketing & Regulatory Programs Minneapolis Business Site

Crop Production

September 10, 1999

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

September 8, 1999

USDA History Collection

September 7, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine

September 3, 1999

Rural Development Perspectives

AgExporter Magazine

September 1, 1999

Benefits from the USDA/Land-Grant University Partnership

Agricultural Prices

August 30, 1999

Outlook for U.S. Agricultual Trade

August 25, 1999

Crop Progress (N)

U.S. Ag Trade Update (E)

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (2 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
August 23, 1999

Revised Thrifty Food Plan (pdf)

August 20, 1999

USDA Drought Information page

Homepage for Small Farms

August 18, 1999

Will Increased Highway Funding Help Rural Areas?

Athletes Need Zinc

August 17, 1999

Dioxin Advisories and Guidance

Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on Food Prices

August 16, 1999

Agricultural Outlooks

❍ Cotton and Wool

❍ Feed

❍ Oil Crops

❍ Rice

❍ Wheat

Information Resources Management

August 13, 1999

Community Food Security Initiative

August 12, 1999

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

August 11, 1999

Organic Perspectives Newsletter

August 10, 1999

Antioxidant Power of Natural Product Supplements Highly Variable

FoodReview: Annual Spotlight on the U.S. Food System

August 6, 1999

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping and Boating

August 5, 1999

U.S. Foreign Agriculture Trade- Database Search

August 4, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (3 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Natural Disaster Assistance

August 3, 1999

Impacts of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.

Agricultural Research magazine

Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

August 2, 1999

Agricultural Prices

1999 Farm Income Forecast

U.S. Farm Resource Regions

July 29, 1999

Diagnosing Bluetongue and Related Diseases

July 28, 1999

Does Washing Food Promote Food Safety?

July 27, 1999

Livestock, Dairy and Poultry report

July 26, 1999

Agriculture Prices annual summary

July 23, 1999

Vegetables and Specialties Yearbook

Conservation Reserve Tree Thinning for Wildlife (pdf)

July 22, 1999

County Courthouse Photos

Agricultural Outlook

Farm Production Expenditures

July 21, 1999

Rural Conditions and Trends

Rural America at a Glance

July 20, 1999

Rural Labor Market Indicators

July 19, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

July 18, 1999

Vice President Gore Announces Plans for Additional Cash Payments for

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (4 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Struggling Hog Farmers

July 16, 1999

Food & Nutrition Research Briefs

July 13, 1999

Biotechnology Overview

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

Agricultural Outlook

❍ Cotton and Wool

❍ Feed

❍ Oil Crops

❍ Rice

❍ Wheat

July 12, 1999

Crop Production report

July 9, 1999

Latest Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels (pdf)

July 8, 1999

Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid: Implications for U.S. Agriculture

Agricultural Cash Rents

July 7, 1999

Benefits of the Market Access Program

Recent Publications of the Forest Service Southern Research Station

Projected and Actual Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Payments

July 6, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine

June 29, 1999

Medical Ingredients from Gene-Engineered Plants

June 28, 1999

Hogs and Pigs report

June 25, 1999

Karnal Bunt: A Fungal Disease of Wheat

June 24, 1999

NASS Monthly Ag Newsletter

USDA Sends Teachers to South Africa

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (5 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
June 23, 1999

Nature Watch Coloring Contest

Proposed Changes to WIC Food Delivery Systems

June 22, 1999

State and County Profiles from the latest Census of Agriculture

June 21, 1999

Rural Cooperatives magazines

State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

June 18, 1999

Trio of New Seedless Grapes

Agricultural Marketing Service new website

June 17, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

June 16, 1999

World Agricultural Production

Agricultural Outlooks:

Cotton and Wool

Feed

Oil Crops

Rice Outlook

Wheat Outlook

June 14, 1999

Dioxin Advisories and Guidance

Rural Conditions and Trends

June 11, 1999

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

Crop Production report

June 10, 1999

Animal Regulations, Exporting & Interstate Movement

June 9, 1999

Foodborne Illness Report

June 8, 1999

World Trade Organization and Agriculture

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (6 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade

Healthy Animals newsletter

June 7, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine

Interagency Commodity Estimates Committees Study

June 2, 1999

Accepting Nominations for Glickman Pyramid of Excellence Awards

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Crop Policies

International Trade Shows

Best Prospects for U.S. Exports of Food and Fiber

June 1, 1999

A Method to Prevent E.coli and Salmonella

May 28, 1999

Listeria monocytogenes: Guidance and News

Iron for Premature Infants

May 27, 1999

Research Current Awareness Literature Service

Adopt-A-School Program Guide: Agriculture and Education, Planting the Seeds of Opportunity [pdf format

May 25, 1999

A Citizen's Guide to Food Recovery

May 24, 1999

Farm Labor report

May 21, 1999

New Attractant Targets Pest Ants

Agricultural Outlook

May 19, 1999

American Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences [pdf]

Sugar and Sweeteners report

Wheat Variety Helps Fight Scab

May 18, 1999

Official Standards for Grain, Rice, Beans, Peas

May 17, 1999

Food Review magazine: The Diet Quality Balancing Act

Celebrating 100 Years of the National Cooperative Soil Survey

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (7 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Travel: What you shouldn't bring into the U.S.

May 14, 1999

World Agricultural Production

Agricultural Outlooks:

Cotton and Wool

Feed

Oil Crops

Rice Outlook

Wheat

May 13, 1999

Highway Investment and Rural Economic Development

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (May)

Healthy Eating/Healthy Kids Partnerships Backgrounder

May 10, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine (May 1999)

Guide to Animal Handling and Transport

May 5, 1999

Rural Development Perspectives magazine

National Grasslands Website

May 3, 1999

Sustainable Development and Small Farms New Website

April 26, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

April 22, 1999

New USDA for Kids/Ed Resources Page

Soybean Genome Mapping

April 21, 1999

Aerial Electrostatic Spray System

Flower Garden Blooming Dates

April 20, 1999

Agricultural Outlook

April 19, 1999

Crop Progress

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (8 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
April 16, 1999

Tongass National Forest Record of Decision

National Town Meeting for a Sustainable America

April 15, 1999

Growing Power Tomatoes

Organic Program International Standards Guide 65 Assessment Training

April 14, 1999

Food & Nutrition Research Briefs

World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference

Missing Pet Network, with State Contacts

For Kids: S.K. Worm Answers Questions About Soil

April 12, 1999

Worldwide Review of Organic Food Information, from Attache Reports

April 9, 1999

National Agricultural Library New Home Page

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

April 8, 1999

USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1998

AgExporter Magazine

Methyl Bromide Alternatives

Genetic Resources Research

April 7, 1999

Food Safety and Quality Research

Restrained Eating May Put Bones at Risk

April 6, 1999

Land Values and Cash Rents

April 5, 1999

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program

Agricultural Research Magazine (April)

April 2, 1999

Crop Prospective Planting annual forecast

Recent Publications of Forest Service Southern Research Station

Taxol Anti-Cancer Drug Production

March 31, 1999

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (9 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Agricultural Prices

March 30, 1999

Judicial Officer home page

Administrative Law Judges Office home page

Wetlands Reserve Program

Evaluating Equivalence of Foreign Meat & Poultry Food Regulatory Systems [pdf]

U.S. Food Assistance Package for Russia

Wheat Yearbook

March 26, 1999

Animal Productivity Research

Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children

March 25, 1999

March 24, 1999

Soil, Water & Air Quality research

U.S. State Fact Sheets from the Census of Agriculture

March 22, 1999

Crop Diseases and Pests research

U.S. Agricultural Trade Update

March 19, 1999

Agricultural Outlook

Foodborne Illness Education Information Center

Millennium Discussions on Agriculture --"Crop Biotechnology" [Transcript]

 WordPerfect [93KB] or ASCII [78KB]

March 18, 1999

User-Fee Financing of USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection

Crop Productivity Research

March 17, 1999

Agricultural Baseline Projections

Food Economy Publications

March 16, 1999

Progress Report on Salmonella Testing

Government Food Safety Information

March 15, 1999

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (10 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
A Risk Factor in Heart Disease

March 12, 1999

AgExporter Magazine (March)

Issues Center

Research Results Into the Marketplace

March 11, 1999

U.S. Crop Production

March 10, 1999

Managing Risk in Farming

Human Nutrition

March 9, 1999

International Organic Perspectives

US-EU Hormone Issue

March 5, 1999

Natural Plant Extracts Could Be Methyl Bromide Substitute

March 4, 1999

Crop Profiles

March 3, 1999

Equine Survey - Inventory and Sale Values

March 2, 1999

Farm Numbers and Land In Farms

Agricultural Research Magazine (March)

Some Starchy Foods May Contribute to Overeating

Feb. 26, 1999

Agricultural Income and Finance (AIS)

Feb. 25, 1999

Hog Relief Information

Wetlands Reserve Program

Production Flexibility Contracts, Marketing Payments-Loans [pdf]

Feb 23, 1999

Children's Health Insurance Program

Proposed Rule on Meat Irradiation

Feb. 22, 1999

Irradiation of Meat and Poultry

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (11 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Agricultural Exports Outlook

Feb. 19, 1999

Agricultural Outlook

Farm Labor

Feb. 18, 1999

Crop Insurance Protection Bonus - Deadlines and Examples

Export Assistance Update: Quarterly Report

Feb. 17, 1999

AgExporter Magazine

Feb. 16, 1999

Away-From-Home Foods in American Diet

Irradiation Backgrounder

Feb. 12, 1999

Y2K and Food Supply - International

Feb. 11, 1999

Interim Rule on Forest Service Roads

Changing the Food Distribution Programs

Feb. 10, 1999

Risk Management Agency news releases page

Feb. 9, 1999

Certain Foods May Slow Aging

Feb. 8, 1999

New Clue Treating Lethal Disease of Horses

Feb. 5, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine (February)

Feb. 4, 1999

Nutrient Database (Handbook 8)

Feb. 3, 1999

Crop Loss Assistance Program

Unified Export Strategy

Feb. 2, 1999

Listeria

Women in Agriculture

National Network for Child Care

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (12 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
Feb. 1, 1999

Reforming Crop Insurance: The Administration's Principles and Preliminary Proposals

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

USDA/OC:What's New

http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm (13 of 13) [10/5/1999 2:59:30 PM]
 Opportunities

Access America for Seniors

Civil Rights

Employment

❍ USDA

❍ All Federal Government

Nonprofit Gateway

Procurement

Small Business Opportunities

U.S. State and Local Gateway

USDA/Opportunities

http://www.usda.gov/opportun.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:35 PM]
Missions

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food Safety

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Natural Resources and Environment

Research, Education, and Economics

Rural Development

USDA Mission: Enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting production of

agriculture:

● ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply

● caring for agricultural, forest, and range lands

● supporting sound development of rural communities

● providing economic opportunities for farm and rural residents

● expanding global markets for agricultural and forest products and services

● and working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.

USDA Vision: A healthy and productive Nation in harmony with the land.

Intro to USDA Mission 

http://www.usda.gov/mission/miss-toc.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:40 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58 NO.5--JUNE 1999

We Honor 101 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues, starting

from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request by

writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/June 1999 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol58no5/cover.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:45 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58 NO.4--MAY 1999

How We're Helping The Refugees From Kosovo

 Plue, Our Food Aid May Result In Roads

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/May 1999 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol58no4/cover.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:50 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58 NO.3--MARCH-APRIL 1999

Workplace Violence: It's Real--But We're Responding

 'Stand-downs,' And Use Of Satellites

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues,

starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you

may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400

Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/March-April 1999 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol58no3/cover.htm [10/5/1999 2:59:56 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58 NO.2--FEBRUARY 1999

USDA's 2000 Budget Calls For Cut Of $4.1 Billion, Gain Of 412 Fed Staff Years

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues,

starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you

may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400

Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Feb. 1999 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol58no2/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:00 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 58 NO.1--JANUARY 1999

USDA Opts Out Of A Buyout For FY 1999

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues,

starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you

may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400

Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Jan. 1999 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol58no1/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:04 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.9--November-December

1998

We've Been Innovative In Our Workers' Comp Program

 ...2 For 1 'Carrots' & $5,000 'Sticks'

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues, starting

from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request by

writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Nov.-Dec. 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no9/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:09 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57

NO.8-OCTOBER 1998

USDA's Budget For FY 1999 Is Signed Into Law

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back issues,

starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you

may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, 1400

Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/October 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no8/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:15 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.7-SEPTEMBER 1998

Some New Tools We're Using To Help Collect Delinquent Debts

From Loan Borrowers to Arsonists

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/September 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no7/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:21 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.6-AUGUST 1998

'Twas Long Awaited And Hotly Debated; It's 'Open Season' To Switch

To FERS

And If You Do It, It's Irrevocable

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/August 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no6/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:27 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.5-JUNE/JULY 1998

We Honor 110 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/June/July 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no5/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:32 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.4-MAY 1998

Here Is Our Progress On The Year 2000 Computer Problem

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/May 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no4/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:37 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.3-APRIL 1998

At The One-Year Mark, Here is Our Progress On The Civil Rights

Recommendations

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/April 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no3/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:43 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.2-MARCH 1998

USDA's FY99 Budget Calls For A Gain Of $3.1 Billion;

Cut Of 1,964 Fed Staff Years

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/March 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no2/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:47 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 57 NO.1-JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

How USDA Collects The Money That Its Customers Owe

 From Foot Power, To Electronic

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Jan. - Feb. 1998 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol57no1/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:52 PM]
 [GET THE SCOOP] VOLUME 56 NO.10-NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1997

USDA's Budget For FY 1998 Is Signed Into Law

 Plus, The New Line-Item Veto

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Nov. & Dec. 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no10/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:00:58 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.9-OCTOBER 1997

Our Career Center Still Offers Services--Only Now There's A New

Mission

 But YOU Still Manage Your Career

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/October 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no9/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:13 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.8-SEPTEMBER 1997

USDA Adopts Its Own Policy On Reprisals

 It's To Ensure Fairness And Consistency

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/September 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no8/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:17 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.7-AUGUST 1997

Employee Efforts In Food Recovery Make A Difference

 No Time To Waste

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/Auguest 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no7/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:22 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.6-JUNE/JULY 1997

GPRA Is Putting Its Stamp On How We Do Business At USDA

 It's A Whole New Ball Game

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/June/July 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no6/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:27 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.5-MAY 1997

Here Is Our Progress on the Civil Rights Recommendations

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/May 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no5/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:41 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.4-APRIL 1997

We're Racing to Reprogram Our Computer Systems Before Jan. 1, 2000

There's No Single 'Silver Bullet'

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/April 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no4/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:48 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.3-MARCH 1997

Glickman Announces Civil Rights Plans;

Releases Team Report

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of back

issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard copy

only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/March 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no3/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:53 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.2-FEBRUARY 1997

USDA's FY98 Budget Calls for a Gain of $4.6 Billion;

Cut of 1,790 Fed Staff Years

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/FEB. 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no2/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:01:58 PM]
 VOLUME 56 NO.1-JANUARY 1997

A New Year + A New Reg = No Smoking at USDA

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/JAN. 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol56no1/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:25 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.10-NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1996

There's No Place Like Home Page at USDA USDA

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/JAN. 1997 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no10/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:29 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.9 - OCTOBER 1996

Full Steam Ahead for USDA's Buyout Plan for FY97

3,750 Fewer of Us Here by January?

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/October 1996 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no9/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:33 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.8 - SEPTEMBER 1996

More Options Can Now Be Used to Assess

Performance

But No 'Arbitrary Imposition'

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

back issues, starting from January 1996 to the most recent issue. All other back issues are available in hard

copy only, which you may request by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of

Communications, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/September 1996 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no8/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:41 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.7 - AUGUST 1996

USDA's Budget is the First One Approved for FY97

Plus, a Four-Year Buyout Option

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of the

most recent back issues. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request by

writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, Washington,

DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/July 1996 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no7/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:45 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.6 - JULY 1996

We Honor 106 Award-Winning USDA Achievers

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of the

most recent back issues. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request by

writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, Washington,

DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication/July 1996 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no6/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:02:49 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.5 - JUNE 1996

We Commemorate 50 Years of School Lunch

Billions and Billions Served

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

the most recent back issues. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request

by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA,

Washington, DC 20250-1300.

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no5/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:03:07 PM]
 VOLUME 55 NO.3 - MARCH 1996

USDA's FY97 Budget calls for a Gain of $3.8 Billion;

Cut of 885 Staff Years

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of the

most recent back issues. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request by

writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA, Washington,

DC 20250-1300.

Return to:

 Inside the "USDA NEWS"

Past Issues

News and Current Information

 USDA's ...Homepage

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication 

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no3/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:03:32 PM]
VOLUME 55 NO.1 - JANUARY 1996

USDA Is Ahead of Schedule on Staff Year

Reductions

and Savings

But "Downsizing Is Never Easy"

INSIDE THE "USDA NEWS"

In addition to this current issue of the "USDA NEWS," you may also access the Home Page version of

the most recent back issues. All other back issues are available in hard copy only, which you may request

by writing c/o "USDA NEWS," Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg, Office of Communications, USDA,

Washington, DC 20250-1300.

Return to:

Past Issues

News and Current Information

 USDA's ...Homepage

United States Department of Agriculture

Published by the Office of Communications

USDA Employee News Publication (January 1996) Cover Page

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/old/vol55no1/cover.htm [10/5/1999 3:03:46 PM]
 Publications issued by Office of Communications

 The USDA News--an Employee News Publication (Volume 58 No6 - July-August 1999)

Broadcasters Letter

1997 Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture

Agriculture Fact Book 1998 or Agriculture Fact Book 1997 or Agriculture Fact Book 1996

"The People's Department" a poster about USDA

The USDA Symbol: Its Purpose and Use (electronic formats)

 Program Aid No. 1641 - It may not be too late for your complaint!

Adopt-A-School Program Guide: Agriculture and Education, Planting the Seeds of Oportunity [pdf format]

USDA Handbook on Workplace Violence Prevention and Response [Secretary's Workplace Violence

Steering Committee]

"A Citizen's Guide to Food Recovery"

Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives

 For Agency Publications

How To Order USDA Publications for sale:

Contact the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents by

World Wide Web - http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/sale/asale001.html

or Telephone - (202) 512-1800

or Fax - (202) 512-2250

● 

USDA/Publications

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:03:51 PM]
 Search/Help

Site Map

USDA Web Search

USDA E-Mail Directory

USDA Metropolitan-area Employee Phone Directory

Federal Telephone Directories

Government Information Locator Service

Government Information Exchange

USDA/Search and Help

http://www.usda.gov/search/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:03:58 PM]
 SITE MAP

September 1999

USDA's HOME PAGE

NEWS AND CURRENT INFORMATION

USDA's News Release Index

● News Releases 1999

● News Releases 1998

● News Releases 1997

● News Releases 1996

● News Releases 1995

● Search News Releases

● Comunicados de prensa

Additional News Releases by Agencies

❍ Agricultural Marketing Service

❍ Agricultural Research Service

❍ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

❍ Economic Research Service

❍ Farm Service Agency

❍ Food and Nutrition Service

❍ Food Safety and Inspection Service

❍ Foreign Agricultural Service

❍ Forest Service

❍ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

❍ Natural Agricultural Statistics Service

❍ Natural Resources Conservation Service

❍ Office of the Chief Economist

❍ Risk Management Agency

❍ Rural Development

❍ Rural Utilities Service

● 

■ 

❍ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (1 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
❍ Staff Offices

■ Speeches '97 or '98 or '99

1999 Agencies Reports/Schedule Calendar

Latest Agency Reports:

❍ Economic Research Service

❍ Foreign Agricultural Service

❍ National Agricultural Statistics Service

❍ World Agricultural Outlook Board

● 

■ 

■ Special Events

Disaster Assistance

Food Stamps and Emergency Food Programs

❍ State Food Stamp Information hotline numbers

❍ USDA's Food and Nutrition Service homepage

● 

Keeping Food Safe

❍ Meat and Poultry Hotline food storage and handling

❍ Food Safety information

❍ USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service homepage

● 

Emergency Help for Farmers

❍ USDA's Farm Services Agency homepage

❍ Disaster Handbook

❍ Emergency Loan Assistance for production and physical losses.

❍ Emergency Conservation Program for rehabilitating damaged farmland.

❍ Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance for noninsurable crops.

❍ USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service homepage

❍ Watershed Protection

❍ USDA's Risk Management Agency

❍ Emergency Relief for Farmers

❍ Coping with Winter

❍ Coping with Floods

❍ Coping with Drought

● 

Other Federal Emergency Help for Citizens

❍ After the Storm Fact Sheets

❍ Extension Disaster Education Network

● 

■ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (2 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
❍ Cooperative State Research Education & Extension Service homepage

❍ Individual and public assistance

❍ Disaster News Locator

❍ Federal Emergency Management Agency homepage

❍ Flood Cleanup at home

❍ Reporting Hazardous Substances Spills

❍ Pesticide Cleanup and Disposal

❍ Environmental Protection Agency homepage

❍ USDA Natural Disaster Assistance Booklet

❍ USDA Emergency Preparedness Personnel

Other Disaster Assistance

❍ Disaster services of the American Red Cross

❍ American Red Cross homepage

● 

■ Domestic Assistance

■ Food Safety

■ Gleaning and Food Recovery

■ Home Canning Guides

Home Gardening

● Horticulture Solutions Series

● Home Horticulture

● Gardening, Fruit Production, Landscaping

● Lawn and Garden Care

● Backyard Conservation

● Organic Vegetable Gardening

● USDA Vegetable Laboratory

● Eco-region map

● National Arboretum

■ 

■ Mktg./Farmers Markets

■ Nutritions

Weather

● Agricultural Weather & Climate

● El Nino

● National Weather Service

■ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (3 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
● National Weather Warning

● Satellite Images

● Weather World 2010 Project

USDA Legislation

● 1999 Budget Summary

● 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act

● 1996 Farm Bill

● Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

■ 

■ Civil Rights

Communications to Congress

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

❍ Farm Service Agency

❍ Foreign Agricultural Service

❍ Risk Management

● 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service

❍ Food and Nutrition Service

● 

Food Safety

❍ Food Safety and Inspection Service

● 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

❍ Agricultural Marketing Service

❍ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

❍ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

● 

Natural Resources and Environment

❍ Forest Service

❍ Natural Resources Conservation Service

● 

Research, Education, and Economics

❍ Economic Research Service

● 

● Rural Development

Staff Offices

❍ Office of Chief Information Officer

❍ Office of Communications

❍ Office of Chief Economist

❍ Office of Inspector General

● 

■ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (4 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
■ USDA for Kids and Educational Resources

■ Federal Government Status [DC]

■ How To Get Information

■ U.S. Trade Representative

Year 2000 Programs

● President's Council on Year 2000 Food Supply Working Group

● Agricultural Research Service

● Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

● Cooperative State Research Education Extension Service

● Farm Service Agency

● Food Nutrition Service

● Food Safety and Inspection Service

● National Finance Center

● NITC Y2K Tools and Solutions

● Natural Resources Conservation Service

● Rural Utilities Service

● USDA Year 2000 Program Office

■ 

Publications

● USDA Employee News Publication

● Broadcaster Letter

● 1997 Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture

● Agriculture Fact Book 1998 or 1997 or 1996

● "The People's Department"

● The USDA Symbol: Its Purpose and Use

● Program Aid No. 1641 - It may not be too late for your complaint!

USDA Handbook on Workplace Violence Prevention and Response [Secretary's

Workplace Violence Steering Committee]

● 

● "A Citizen's Guide to Food Recovery"

● Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives

● For Agency Publications

■ 

Freedom of Information Act

● How to Make a FOIA Request

● Electronic Reading Room (by agency)

■ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (5 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
● Agency FOIA Contacts

● USDA FOIA Regulations

Publications

❍ USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1997 

❍ USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1996

● 

❍ WHAT'S NEW at USDA

ABOUT USDA

■ Address for USDA and all its Agencies

■ Agencies and Staff Offices

■ Budget Summary 2000, 1999, 1998

■ County Office Locator

■ Headquarters Organization Chart

■ Message from the Secretary

■ Missions

■ Nondiscrimination Statement

■ A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990's

■ "The People's Department updated

■ USDA Photo Gallery and Biographical Information

■ Privacy/Security Notice

■ USDA Strategic Plan

■ U.S. Code: Department of Agriculture

■ USDA Code of Federal Regulations [Agriculture] [Animals] [Forests]

■ Constitution of the United States

■ Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States

■ USDA Fraud Hotline

■ Vision and Mission Statements

■ Visitor Information Center

❍ 

OPPORTUNITIES

■ Civil Rights

Employment

● USDA

● All Federal Government

■ 

■ Nonprofit Gateway

❍ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (6 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
Business

❍ Business Loans & Grants

● 

Business

❍ Business Loans & Grants

● 

Business

❍ Business Loans & Grants

● 

Business

❍ Business Loans & Grants

● 

Community Development

❍ Community Facilities Loans

❍ Computers for Learning Organizations

❍ Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZEC)

❍ Fund for Rural America

❍ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

❍ Rural Economic Social Development

❍ Rural Housing Loans, Grants & Assistance

❍ Water and Waste Loans & Grants

● 

Research & Education

❍ Children, Youth and Family Information

❍ Distance Education - Technical Assistance for Nonprofits

❍ Distance Learning & Telemedicine Grants

❍ Food & Ag Sciences Graduate Fellowship Grants

❍ Forestry and Natural Resources Grants & Scholarships

❍ Higher Education Grants

❍ National Research Initiative Grants

❍ Teachers Aides - Coloring Books

● 

Volunteers

❍ Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE)

❍ Earth Team

❍ USDA Gleaning and Food Recovery Home Page

❍ U.S. Forest Service

❍ 4-H Youth Development Opportunities/References

● 

■ 

■ Procurement

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (7 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
■ Small Business Opportunities

■ U.S. State and Local Gateway

AGENCIES AND STAFF OFFICES

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

● Farm Service Agency

● Foreign Agricultural Service

● Risk Management

■ 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service

● Food and Nutrition Service

● Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

■ 

Food Safety

● Food Safety and Inspection Service

■ 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

● Agricultural Marketing Service

● Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

● Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

■ 

Natural Resources and Environment

● Forest Service

● Natural Resources Conservation Service

■ 

Research, Education, and Economics

Agricultural Research Service

❍ National Agricultural Library

● 

● Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

● Economic Research Service

● National Agricultural Statistics Service

■ 

Rural Development

● Rural Business - Cooperative Service

● Rural Community Development

● Rural Housing Service

● Rural Utilities Service

■ 

Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization

Corporation[AARCC]

■ 

■ Administration

❍ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (8 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
● Administrative Law Judges Office

● Board of Contract Appeals

● Civil Rights

● Disaster Management and Coordination Staff

● Ethics Office

● Human Resources Management

● Judicial Officer

● Operations

● Procurement

● Property Management

● Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Staff Offices

Office of Chief Financial Officer

■ National Finance Center

● 

Office of Chief Information Officer

■ National Information Technology Center

● 

● Office of Communications

● Office of Congressional Relations

● Office of Budget and Program Analysis

Office of Chief Economist

❍ Risk Assessment and Cost Benfit Analysis

❍ World Agricultural Outlook Board

● 

● Office of Executive Secretariat

● National Appeals Division

● General Counsel

● Office of Inspector General

■ 

■ ADMINISTRATIVE CONVERGENCE

SERVICE CENTER INITIATIVE

● Business Process Reengineering

● Customer Service and Change Management

● Information

● Information Technology

● Partners

■ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (9 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
Affiliate of USDA

■ USDA Graduate School

■ 

SEARCH AND HELP

● Site Map

● USDA Web Search

● USDA E-Mail Directory

USDA Metropolitan-area Employee Phone Directory

■ Federal Telephone Directories

● 

● Government Information Locator Service

● Government Information Exchange

❍ 

webmap

http://www.usda.gov/search/webmap.htm (10 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:04:09 PM]
This Compass interface requires a JavaScript-enabled Web Browser. If you cannot enable

JavaScript in your Browser, then you may use this interface instead.

Search everything in Compass:

 

 Hints...

 Advanced Search...

Compass: Search

http://www.usda.gov:3000/compass [10/5/1999 3:05:06 PM]
USDA Directory Server

Read entry of

Department of Agriculture

Input your search criteria below to search for entries with a specific value or set of values (an * is a wild

card). NOTE: A maximum of 150 entries are returned at a time. Not all the names that exist are displayed

if your search is too broad.

 of 

 of 

● Affiliate, (Agency)

● Agricultural Marketing Service, (Agency)

● Agricultural Research Service, (Agency)

● Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, (Agency)

● Chief Financial Officer, (Agency)

● Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, (Agency)

● Department of Administration, (Agency)

● Economic Research Service, (Agency)

● Farm Service Agency, (Agency)

● Food Safety and Inspection Service, (Agency)

● Food and Nutrition Service, (Agency)

● Foreign Agricultural Service, (Agency)

● Forest Service, (Agency)

Department of Agriculture,U.S. Government, UNITED STATES 

http://ds.usda.gov/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:05:22 PM]
● Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, (Agency)

● National Agricultural Statistics Service, (Agency)

● National Agricutural Library, (Agency)

● National Food Agriculture Council, (Agency)

● Natural Resources Conservation Service, (Agency)

● Office of Budget and Program Analysis, (Agency)

● Office of Communications, (Agency)

● Office of Operations, (Agency)

● Office of the Chief Economist, (Agency)

● Office of the Chief Information Officer, (Agency)

● Office of the General Counsel, (Agency)

● Office of the Secretary, (Agency)

● Rural Business Services, (Agency)

● Rural Development, (Agency)

Back To Previous Page

Click Here for Help Searching!

 © Click here for the main USDA home page February 1999

Send questions or comments on this Directory Service to - NOC@usda.gov

http://ds.usda.gov

Department of Agriculture,U.S. Government, UNITED STATES 

http://ds.usda.gov/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:05:22 PM]
United States

Department of Agriculture

To search, enter the person's last

name. Add more information for

better results. If you have trouble

using this application please refer

to Help online.

This directory uses the latest

information provided by USDA

agencies 9/08/99. *Any errors,

changes, or omissions should be

reported to the appropriate

telephone directory contact. A listing

of these contacts can be found

online.

First Name:

Last Name:

Phone number:

Agency Name:

This service is provided by Departmental Administration, Network Communications Technology

Services Division

The USDA Telephone Directory

http://www.usda.gov/phonebook/ [10/5/1999 3:05:46 PM]
Federal Telephone Directories Frequently Requested Toll-Free

Telephone Numers

Federal Government Blue Pages

Directories for U.S. House & Senate Members

Cabinet Agencies

Other Agencies and Commissions

Directories for U.S. House and Senate Members

● Congressional Telephone Directory

● U.S. Senate Members

Cabinet Agencies

Department of Agriculture (Washington Area

Telephone Directory)

● 

● Department of Commerce

Department of Education

Includes: National Center for Education

Statistics, National Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, and

National Center on Adult Literacy.

● 

● Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Includes: Centers for Disease Control, Food and

Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute,

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious

Diseases, National Health Information Center,

and the National Institute of Health.

● 

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

● 

Department of the Interior

Includes: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of

● 

Other Agencies/Commissions

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

202-606-8503

● 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

202-523-8143

● 

African Development Foundation

202-673-3916

● 

Agency for International Development

202-712-4810

● 

American Battle Monuments Commission

703-696-0129

● 

Appalachian Regional Commission

202- 884-7799

● 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers

Compliance Board

202-272-5434

● 

Arms Control Disarmament Agency

202-647-2034

● 

● Central Intelligence Agency

Federal Telephone Directories

http://www.info.gov/fed_directory/phone.shtml (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:06:06 PM]
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service,

and National Wildlife Refuge Service.

Department of Justice

202-514-2000

- Antitrust Division

- Civil Rights Division

- Community Relations Service

- Drug Enforcement Agency

- Federal Bureau of Investigation

- Executive Office for US Attorneys

- United States Trustee Program

- Bureau of Prisons/National Institute of

Corrections

- National Institute of Justice

- United States Marshals Service

● 

Department of Labor

202-219-5000

● 

Department of State

202-647-4000 (DC area only)

- Domestic Telephone Numbers

● 

● Department of Transportation

Department of Treasury

202-622-2111 (DC area only)

- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

- Financial Management Service

- Office of Thrift Supervision

● 

Department of Veterans Affairs

202-273-5400 (DC area only)

● 

703-482-1100

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation

Board

● 

● Commission On Civil Rights 202-376-8364

Commission of Fine Arts

202-504-2200

● 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

202-418-5000

● 

Consumer Product Safety Commission

301-504-0990 (HQ only)

● 

Corporation for National Service

202-606-5000

● 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

1-800-788-4016 or 202-208-6400

● 

● Environmental Protection Agency

● Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

● Farm Credit Administration 703-883-4000

● Federal Aviation Administration

● Export and Import Bank

● Federal Communications Commission

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

202-393-8400

● 

Federal Election Commission

1-800-424-9530 or 202-694-1100

● 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

202-646-2500

● 

● Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Housing Finance Board 202-408-2500

(DC area only)

● 

● Federal Labor Relations Authority

Federal Maritime Commission

202-523-5773

● 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

202-606-5460

● 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission

202-653-5633 (DC area only)

● 

Federal Reserve System

202-452-3000 (DC area only)

● 

● Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Federal Telephone Directories

http://www.info.gov/fed_directory/phone.shtml (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:06:06 PM]
202-942-1680 (DC area only)

Federal Trade Commission

202-326-2000 (DC area only)

● 

● General Services Administration

General Accounting Office

202-512-3000

● 

Government Printing Office

202-512-0000

● 

Institute of Museum and Library Services

202-606-8536 (DC area only)

● 

● International Trade Commission

● Library of Congress

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

202-653-7220

● 

● Merit System Protection Board

National Academy of Engineering

202-334-3400 or

202-334-1628

● 

National Academy Of Public Administration

202-347-3190

● 

● National Academy of Sciences 202-334-3400

● National Aeronautics & Space Administration

● National Archives and Records Administration

National Capital Planning Commission

202-482-7200

● 

National Commission on Libraries and

Information Services

● 

● National Council on Disability

● National Credit Union Administration

National Endowment for the Arts

202-682-5400

● 

National Endowment for the Humanities

202-606-8400

● 

● National Labor Relations Board

National Mediation Board 202-523-5920 (DC

area only)

● 

National Partnership for Reinventing

Government (NPR)

● 

● National Science Foundation

Federal Telephone Directories

http://www.info.gov/fed_directory/phone.shtml (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:06:06 PM]
703-306-1234

National Transportation Safety Board

202-314-6230

● 

● Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission

202-606-5390

● 

● Office of Government Ethics 202-208-8000

Office of Personnel Management

202-606-2424

● 

● Office of Special Counsel 202-653-7188

● Offices of Inspectors General

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

202-336-8400

● 

● Peace Corps

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

202-326-4000

● 

Postal Rate Commission

202-789-6800

● 

President's Council on Physical Fitness

202-690-9000

● 

Railroad Retirement Board

312-751-4500

● 

Securities Exchange Commission

202-942-4150

● 

Selective Service System

703-605-4000 (HQ only)

● 

Social Security Administration

410-965-8882 (HQ area only)

● 

● Small Business Administration

● Smithsonian Institution

● Tennessee Valley Authority

● Trade and Development Agency

U.S. Information Agency

202-619-4700

● 

US Postal Service

202-268-2020

(Postal Facility Locators)

● 

Voice of America

202-619-4700 (DC area only)

● 

Federal Telephone Directories

http://www.info.gov/fed_directory/phone.shtml (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:06:06 PM]
The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) is a U.S.

Government-wide program to help the public access Federal

information systems. The records in this database represent the

information systems of the USDA organizations and were created by

these organizations to foster public access to their systems.

Search the USDA GILS database records:

Enter word(s). You

can connect terms

with and or or

and will find items

that contain both

terms

or will find items

that contain either

word, but not

necessarily both

Example:

disadvantaged and

students

Maximum # of Items

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact Howard Baker on 202-720-8657 or

via e-mail at howard.baker@usda.gov.

OMB Bulletin No. 95-01 was issued under the authority of the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and became effective on December 7, 1995. This bulletin describes OMB and

agency responsibilities, and includes definitions, specifications, implementation schedules,

and information contacts.

 [Return to the USDA Home Page]

 [Return to the USDA Departmental Administration Home Page]

United States Department of Agriculture

GILS database search

http://www.usda.gov/cgi-bin/gils.pl [10/5/1999 3:06:35 PM]
[Text Version] [ Fed Web Locator ] Need help?

For general information about the Federal government,

call the Federal Information Center (FIC) @

1-800-688-9889.

If you have questions on the Year 2000 computer

problem, call the Y2K Hotline @

1-888-USA-4 -Y2K .

Please read our Notice of Disclaimers and Privacy Statement.

This service is provided by the Center for Emerging Technologies within the Federal Technology

Service, General Services Administration. Please send any comments or inquiries to gix@gsa.gov

The Government Information Xchange

http://www.info.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:06:45 PM]
 Agencies and Staff Offices

 Mouse Over for additional information:

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Risk Management 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food and Nutrition Service 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 

Food Safety

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Research, Education, and Economics

Agricultural Research Service 

❍ National Agricultural Library 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

Economic Research Service 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Rural Development

USDA's Agencies and Programs

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/agencies.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:07:04 PM]
Rural Business - Cooperative Service 

Rural Community Development 

Rural Housing Service 

Rural Utilities Service 

Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation

Administration

Administrative Law Judges Office

Board of Contract Appeals

Civil Rights

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center

Disaster Management and Coordination Staff

Ethics Office

Human Resources Management

Judicial Officer

Operations

Procurement

Property Management

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Staff Offices

Office of Chief Financial Officer

● National Finance Center

❍ 

Office of Chief Information Officer

● Information Resources Management

● National Information Technology Center

❍ 

❍ Office of Communications

❍ Office of Congressional Relations

❍ Office of Budget and Program Analysis

Office of Chief Economist

● Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

● Global Change Program Office

● Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis

● World Agricultural Outlook Board

❍ 

USDA's Agencies and Programs

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/agencies.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:07:04 PM]
❍ Office of Executive Secretariat

❍ National Appeals Division

❍ General Counsel

❍ Office of Inspector General

Administrative Convergence

Service Center Initiative

❍ Business Process Reengineering

❍ Customer Service and Change Management

❍ Information

❍ Information Technology

❍ Partners

Affiliate of USDA

USDA Graduate School

USDA's Agencies and Programs

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/agencies.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:07:04 PM]
USDA 2000 BUDGET SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

FUNDING OVERVIEW

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

INITIATIVES

EXPLANATION OF MAJOR CHANGES BY AGENCY:

 FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES:

 Farm Service Agency

 Risk Management Agency

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

 Rural Development

 Rural Utilities Service

 Rural Housing Service

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation

 FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES:

 Food and Nutrition Service

 FOOD SAFETY:

 Food Safety and Inspection Service

 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT:

 Natural Resources Conservation Service

 Forest Service

 MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS:

 Agricultural Marketing Service

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

 RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS:

 Agricultural Research Service

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (1 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Economic Research Service

 National Agricultural Statistics Service

 DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

 SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

APPENDIX:

 Food Safety Activities

 Secretary's Civil Rights Initiative

 Food Quality Protection Act

 Climate Change Related Programs 116 Budget Authority by Agency, 1998-2000

 Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency, 1999-2000

 Outlays by Agency, 1998-2000

 Discretionary Budget Outlays by Agency, 1999-2000

 Staff Years by Agency, 1993 and 1998-2000

 2000 User Fee Proposals

 2000 Other Proposed Budget-Related Legislation

INTRODUCTION

The Budget Summary describes the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). All references to years

refer to fiscal year, except where specifically noted. Throughout the booklet, the acronym, 1996 Farm Bill, is used to refer to the

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

The Summary is organized into five sections: Funding Overview, Program Highlights, Initiatives, Agency Programs, and Appendix

Tables.

Basic budget terminology:

Program Level represents the gross value of all financial assistance USDA provides to the public. This assistance may be in

the form of grants, guaranteed or direct loans, cost-sharing, professional services such as research or technical assistance

activities, or in-kind benefits such as commodities.

● 

Budget Authority is the authority to commit funds of the Federal Treasury. Congress provides this authority through annual

appropriations acts and substantive legislation which authorizes direct spending. The President's budget requests the Congress

to appropriate or otherwise provide an amount of budget authority sufficient to carry out recommended Government programs.

● 

Obligations are commitments of Government funds. In order for USDA to make a valid obligation, it must have a sufficient

amount of budget authority to cover the obligation.

● 

● Outlays are cash disbursements from the Federal Treasury to satisfy a valid obligation.

Program level measures are used in most instances. However, there are some cases when other measures are used and the reader

should take care to note which measure is being used. Also, the reader should understand that many 2000 estimates are very tentative

especially where programs are sensitive to weather or economic conditions.

Questions may be directed to the Office of Budget and Program Analysis via e-mail at bca@obpa.usda.gov or telephone at (202)

720-6176.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (2 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
FUNDING OVERVIEW

2000 Funding Overview

USDA outlays are projected to decline from $63.1 billion in 1993 to an estimated $55.2 billion in 2000 -- a 13 percent reduction,

following a one-year increase in 1999. The increase in 1999 is largely due to emergency supplemental funding provided to address

the farm economic crisis and funding for the President's Food Aid Initiative.

USDA's 2000 discretionary program outlays, about $15.5 billion, or about 28 percent of total USDA outlays, include the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); rural development; research and technical assistance; soil

and water conservation technical assistance; management of the National Forests and Grasslands; State and Private Forestry

programs; and domestic and international marketing assistance. Mandatory programs account for the remaining 72 percent of USDA

outlays, about $39.7 billion in 2000. These programs provide services as required by law and include the majority of the food

assistance programs, commodity programs, and a number of conservation programs. The total USDA program level is projected to

decrease from $94.2 billion in 1999 to an estimated $90.1 billion in 2000.

The budget will strengthen the safety net for farmers and low income populations, provide economic opportunities for rural

Americans, protect our natural resources and further improve the safety of the food supply. Funding is included within a number of

agencies to support programs proposed as segments of multi-agency Administration initiatives. More detailed information is

provided under the relevant sections of this document.

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Program

Level Outlays

 1999 

Change 1999 Change

 1998 Current 2000 1999

to 1998 Current 2000 1999 to

 AGENCY / PROGRAM Actual Estimate Budget 

2000 Actual Estimate Budget 2000

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Farm Service Agency:

 Farm Loan and Grant Programs ............... $2,158 $2,828 $3,013 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (3 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
$185 $430 $144 $92 -$52

 Conservation Reserve Program ............... 1,760 1,576 1,596 

20 1,731 1,580 1,578 -2

 Conservation and Other Programs ............ 40 87 0 

-87 52 80 52 -28

 Commodity Programs ......................... 14,752 24,214 19,548 

-4,666 7,891 14,633 9,287 -5,346

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs ...... (21,240) (32,318) (26,988) 

(-5,330) (10,419) (18,450) (12,603) (-5,847)

 Salaries and Expenses ...................... 911 966 1,006 

40 924 888 1,000 112

 Total, Farm Service Agency ............... 19,621 29,671 25,163 

-4,508 11,028 17,325 12,009 -5,316

Risk Management Agency:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses ...... 63 64 71 

7 68 70 70 0

 Crop Insurance Fund ........................ 1,305 1,607 1,694 

87 1,205 1,302 1,602 300

 Total, Risk Management Agency ............ 1,368 1,671 1,765 

94 1,273 1,372 1,672 300

Foreign Agricultural Service:

 Export Credit Guarantees ................... 4,037 4,721 4,506 

-215 257 440 473 33

 Market Access Program ...................... 90 90 90 

0 92 89 91 2

 Export Enhancement Program ................. 2 550 494 

-56 1 550 494 -56

 Dairy Export Incentive Program ............. 110 102 99 

-3 130 115 100 -15

 P.L. 480 ................................... 1,138 1,932 987 

-945 953 1,749 977 -772

 Section 416(b) Donations: Ocean Freight and 

 Overseas Distribution Costs .............. 678 3 

-675 649 33 -616

 Food for Progress Program .................. 111 133 91 

-42 138 136 112 -24

 Salaries and Expenses ...................... 209 200 204 

4 179 160 158 -2

 Total, Foreign Agricultural Service ...... 5,697 8,406 6,474 

-1,932 1,750 3,888 2,438 -1,450

 Total, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Ser 26,686 39,748 33,402 

-6,346 14,051 22,585 16,119 -6,466

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural Utilities Service:

 Loans and Grants ........................... 2,837 3,206 3,346 

140 347 534 407 -127

 Salaries and Expenses ...................... 66 66 68 

2 59 59 61 2

 Total, Rural Utilities Service ........... 2,903 3,272 3,414 

142 406 593 468 -125

Rural Housing Service:

 Rural Housing Loan and Grant Programs ...... 4,998 5,263 5,873 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (4 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
610 925 1,279 1,021 -258

 Salaries and Expenses ...................... 412 422 446 

24 370 380 400 20

 Total, Rural Housing Service ............. 5,410 5,685 6,319 

634 1,295 1,659 1,421 -238

Rural Business - Cooperative Service:

 Loans and Grants ........................... 1,306 1,167 1,186 

19 288 349 282 -67

 Salaries and Expenses ...................... 27 27 28 

1 24 24 25 1

 Total, Rural Business - Cooperative Servic 1,333 1,194 1,214 

20 312 373 307 -66

Alternative Agricultural Research and

 Commercialization Corporation ............... 7 4 10 

6 8 6 9 3

Rural Community Advancement Program .......... (2,836) (2,798) (3,045) 

(247) (580) (759) (683) (-76)

 Total, Rural Development ................. 9,653 10,155 10,957 

802 2,021 2,631 2,205 -426

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Program

Level Outlays

 1999 

Change 1999 Change

 1998 Current 2000 1999

to 1998 Current 2000 1999 to

 AGENCY / PROGRAM Actual Estimate Budget 

2000 Actual Estimate Budget 2000

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Food and Nutrition Service:

 Food Stamp Program ......................... 20,469 21,464 21,730 

266 20,041 21,114 21,407 293

 Child Nutrition Programs ................... 9,136 9,504 10,001 

497 8,964 9,474 9,919 445

 Women, Infants and Children (WIC) .......... 4,035 4,064 4,205 

141 3,890 3,936 4,097 161

 Commodity Assistance Program ............... 248 246 255 

9 235 247 251 4

 Food Donations Programs .................... 142 141 151 

10 141 142 148 6

 Food Program Administration ................ 109 112 121 

9 102 107 123 16

 Total, Food and Nutrition Service ........ 34,139 35,531 36,463 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (5 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
932 33,373 35,020 35,945 925

 Section 32 Funds ........................... 211 135 116 

-19 112 151 135 -16

 Total, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Servi 34,350 35,666 36,579 

913 33,485 35,171 36,080 909

FOOD SAFETY

Food Safety and Inspection Service ........... 679 706 742 

36 596 621 151 -470

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

 Conservation Operations .................... 629 641 681 

40 596 680 680 0

 Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations .. 236 230 83 

-147 221 279 176 -103

 Other Conservation Operations .............. 52 61 102 

41 95 108 77 -31

 Programs financed by CCC:

 Environmental Quality Incentives Program . 194 174 300 

126 101 121 160 39

 Wetlands Reserve Program ................. 231 132 209 

77 88 179 214 35

 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program ...... 26 24 10 

-14 5 14 13 -1

 Farmland Protection Program .............. 17 0 28 

28 8 9 10 1

 Total, Natural Resources Conservation Se 1,385 1,262 1,413 

151 1,114 1,390 1,330 -60

Forest Service ............................... 3,419 3,404 3,486 

82 3,402 3,440 3,330 -110

 Total, Natural Resources and Environment . 4,804 4,666 4,899 

233 4,516 4,830 4,660 -170

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Agricultural Marketing Service ............... 229 242 256 

14 153 158 174 16

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ... 533 590 499 

-91 526 530 566 36

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin 59 70 70 

0 24 27 11 -16

 Total, Marketing and Regulatory Programs ... 821 902 825 

-77 703 715 751 36

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Agricultural Research Service ................ 762 834 857 

23 726 816 853 37

Cooperative State Research, Education, & Exten 896 930 1,073 

143 843 888 891 3

Economic Research Service .................... 72 65 56 

-9 55 55 57 2

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (6 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
National Agricultural Statistics Service ..... 118 104 101 

-3 124 102 101 -1

 Subtotal, Research, Education, and Economics 1,848 1,933 2,087 

154 1,748 1,861 1,902 41

Construction:

 Agricultural Research Service .............. 81 56 44 

-12 56 75 70 -5

 Cooperative State Research, Education, & Ext 0 0 0 

0 61 40 25 -15

 Total, Research, Education, and Economic 1,929 1,989 2,131 

142 1,865 1,976 1,997 21

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Departmental Offices and Centralized Activitie 255 297 322 

25 262 302 318 16

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers .. 3 3 10 

7 1 9 10 1

Office of the Inspector General .............. 63 65 68 

3 63 65 68 3

Fund for Rural America ....................... 0 0 60 

60 9 12 39 27

Support Services Bureau ...................... 0 0 90 

90 0 0 14 14

Pre - Credit Reform Loan Repayments .......... 0 0 0 

0 -2,651 -4,418 -6,423 -2,005

Receipts ..................................... 0 0 0 

0 -974 -1,087 -822 265

 USDA, TOTAL ................................ $79,243 $94,197 $90,085 

-$4,112 $53,947 $63,412 $55,167 -$8,245

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

The Department's FY 2000 Budget supports achievement of its Strategic Goals as follows:

● Expand economic and trade opportunities for agricultural producers and other rural residents.

● Ensure food for the hungry, and a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply.

● Promote sensible management of our natural resources.

Following are highlights of the Department's budget proposals in support of these goals:

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

This mission area supports expanded economic and trade opportunities for agricultural producers through commodity and income

support, export promotion, farm credit, risk management, and related programs. These programs provide a safety net to help ensure

the long-term economic vitality of American farmers and ranchers. International trade and export programs promote economic

opportunity by developing and protecting expanded export markets. Income support payments help ensure the economic vitality of

producers. The economic viability of a farm sector which is heavily dependent on unstable international markets and unpredictable

weather is influenced significantly by the Department's risk management and export programs. The Department also provides farm

credit assistance as a lender of last resort, paying particular attention to small, limited resource and minority farmers.

The Administration is committed to working with the Congress to improve the safety net for farmers, particularly with respect to

broadening and strengthening the crop insurance program. Under current law, the 2000 budget includes resources to:

● Expand crop revenue coverage to protect producers from lower prices and production losses. Revenue coverage, a

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (7 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
product developed as a result of the partnership between the Federal government and the private insurance industry, is now

available on almost 90 percent of the corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and grain sorghum grown in the United States. The budget

also includes funding for additional risk management education programs for producers. (See page 28.)

Provide farm credit assistance to over 31,000 farmers in 2000. The budget proposes a total loan level of $3 billion, $183

million more than in 1999, for farm ownership, farm operating and emergency loans. In particular, funding for direct farm

ownership loans is $42 million more than the 1999 level of $86 million, and will support loans to almost 1,500 farmers in

2000. At least 19 percent of direct farm ownership loans and 15 percent of direct farm operating loans will be targeted to

socially disadvantaged farmers, and 38 percent and 47 percent respectively to limited resource farmers. Primarily due to low

interest rates, the cost of the program decreases significantly from $121 million to $77 million. (See page 20.)

● 

Enroll additional acreage into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP produces environmental benefits for

the Nation as well as income benefits for farmers. The 2000 budget assumes acreage enrolled in CRP will be about 31.1

million acres in 1999, increasing to 34.4 million acres in 2000, and to an eventual enrollment of 36.4 million acres by 2002.

About 30.3 million acres were enrolled in the program at the end of fiscal year 1998. The total enrollment of 34.4 million in

2000 includes acreage enrolled in the 18th signup, conducted in October through early December 1998 as well as the acreage

accepted in the continuous, non-competitive signup which has been underway since September 1996. Acreage enrolled under

the continuous signup includes enrollment under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the National

Conservation Buffer Initiative. (See page 22.)

● 

Continue efforts to improve agricultural trade by providing a total program level of nearly $6.5 billion for the

Department's international programs and activities. This includes a program level of $4.5 billion for the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) export credit guarantee programs, $494 million for the Export Enhancement Program and $90 million for

the Market Access Program. The budget also provides a total program level of $987 million for P.L. 480 foreign food

assistance programs, which is expected to provide approximately 3.2 million metric tons of commodity assistance in 2000.

(See page 31.)

● 

Implement the President's Food Aid Initiative and the emergency and market loss assistance programs authorized by

the Congress in 1999. These programs are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). CCC farm income

support outlays totalled $7.9 billion in 1998. They are expected to reach $14.6 billion in 1999 and are projected at $9.3 billion

in 2000. In 1999, a total of about $1.4 billion will be provided under the President's Food Aid Initiative for purchasing,

processing, and shipping wheat overseas. Outlays for emergency spending authorized in the appropriations legislation will

total nearly $5.7 billion, including $3.1 billion for market loss payments, $2.4 billion to compensate producers for crop losses,

and $0.2 billion for livestock feed assistance. (See page 24.)

● 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The Rural Development (RD) mission area helps to improve the quality of life for rural Americans and helps rural businesses and

cooperatives compete in the global marketplace. The Administration remains strongly committed to providing economic

opportunities to support sound development of rural communities. RD provides financial and technical assistance to help individuals,

local communities and rural businesses, concentrating on those with the greatest need. These opportunities include decent, safe,

affordable housing, establishment of rural businesses and community facilities, development of modern and affordable water and

waste services, and installation of electric and telecommunications services.

The budget provides about $11 billion for direct loans, loan guarantees, grants, and technical assistance -- over $800 million more

than the 1999 level. Highlights of the request include:

Funding to support the President's National Homeownership Initiative by making approximately 50,000 more

homeownership opportunities available in rural America. The budget requests $1.1 billion in direct loans and $3.2 billion

in guaranteed loans for decent, safe, affordable single family housing, representing an increase of nearly 9 percent over 1999.

(See page 45.)

● 

A 12 percent increase in funding to provide over 1 million rural Americans with safe, affordable drinking water.

Continuation of the program at these levels is consistent with the President's Water 2000 Initiative which is designed to ensure

that all rural households have access to clean running water. Included in the request is $503 million in grants and $975 million

in loans for technical assistance and financing modern, affordable water and waste services in rural communities. The

combined total of loans and grants represents an increase of $156 million over the 1999 level. (See page 43.)

● 

Business and industry loan funding to create or save over 40,000 jobs in rural America. Funding levels of $1 billion in

guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans reflect the emphasis that this Administration is giving to ensuring that there

are more job opportunities in rural America. (See page 47.)

● 

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

This mission area ensures food for the hungry, and a nutritious, accessible food supply. The Department's 2000 budget requests $36.5

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (8 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
billion for Nutrition Assistance Programs for needy Americans. The budget request fully funds the expected needs of the Food

Stamp, Child Nutrition, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programs. The

requested funding level guarantees the nutrition safety net to ensure that all needy Americans, especially children, have access to

food and nutrition assistance. The budget includes:

Funding to support 20.1 million Food Stamp participants, including 15,000 under a legislative proposal which would

restore Food Stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who entered the U.S. before August 22, 1996, and who have since

reached the age of 65. The 2000 budget funds the Food Stamp Program at a program level of $21.7 billion, an increase of

$0.3 billion above 1999. The budget will allow the Department to continue its efforts in aggressively fighting error and fraud

and implementing the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system. Additional funding is requested for food stamp nutrition

education and for a program to inform the working poor. Also funded in this request is the Food Distribution Program on

Indian Reservations, Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico, Nutrition Assistance to American Samoa, and the Community Food

Projects. Further, the budget requests a $1 billion contingency reserve for the Food Stamp Program. (See page 51.)

● 

$10 billion for Child Nutrition Programs, including $13 million to fund a pilot project to evaluate providing breakfasts

to all children regardless of income. This includes funds to provide for additional meals in child care and after school

settings as newly authorized by the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998, P.L. 105-336. This level

provides for increases in participation and food inflation costs and will allow the Department to undertake a new initiative to

improve program integrity. The budget also provides funding for strengthened education efforts on food safety in school meals

as part of the President's Food Safety Initiative. (See page 51.)

● 

Funding for 7.5 million participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children

(WIC). The request reflects an increase of $141 million for the WIC program for a total program level of $4.2 billion. (See

page 52.)

● 

A $5 million increase to expand the WIC Farmers' Markets program to 4 additional states and Tribal Organization

and to serve additional participants within the 35 States and Tribal Organizations already participating. The WIC

Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides WIC participants access to fresh fruits and vegetables and expands the awareness

and use of farmers' markets by consumers. The program also provides support to thousands of mostly small, family farmers.

The 2000 budget proposes a total of $20 million within the Commodity Assistance Program account for this program. (See

page 53.)

● 

Funding to initiate a new Program Integrity Initiative to improve payment accuracy in the Food Stamp and Child

Nutrition Programs. It is proposed that a new program integrity initiative begin in 2000 and be funded at $8 million within

the Food Program Administration (FPA) account. This funding includes $6 million to be used to measure and improve

payment accuracy in the Food Stamp Program and $2 million to improve management oversight of the WIC, Child Nutrition,

and Food Distribution Programs.

● 

FOOD SAFETY

This mission area ensures that the Nation's meat, poultry and processed egg product supply is safe, wholesome and properly labeled,

and oversees the work of the U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. The meat and poultry inspection system is being modernized

through the implementation of the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Systems. Both industry and USDA have worked hard to successfully implement HACCP in large plants in 1998. During 1999,

HACCP is being implemented in small plants, followed by very small plants in 2000. The 2000 budget requests resources to maintain

the inspection workforce and to complete implementation of HACCP and to strengthen programs under the President's Food Safety

Initiative. A summary of USDA food safety activities is presented on page 16. The budget includes:

Increased funding to enhance the safety of the Nation's food supply through the President's Food Safety Initiative and

further support for HACCP. Funding will be used to minimize food safety risks from farm-to-table through enhanced

emergency response coordination with the States and validation of State inspection and laboratory pathogen testing. Funds will

also support the conversion of 388 current inspection personnel and hiring 250 new personnel as Consumer Safety Officers.

Some of these personnel will be redeployed to cover critical inspection vacancies in very small establishments. These

employees will be responsible for conducting scientific testing and inspections and for covering critical inspection vacancies.

An increase of $13.7 million is proposed for these enhancements. The President's proposal builds on a strong record of

accomplishments to ensure that Americans have the safest food possible. (See page 57.)

● 

Proposed legislation to recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg products inspection; excluding

Grants to States and Special Assistance to States Programs. Charging user fees for Federal inspection services will ensure

that sufficient resources are available to provide the mandatory inspection services needed to meet increasing industry demand

and would result in savings to the taxpayer. The overall impact on prices as a result of these fees has been estimated to be less

than one cent per pound of meat, poultry, and egg products. Appropriated funds are requested to convert the Federal program

to user fees and to maintain Federal support of State inspection programs. (See page 58.)

● 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (9 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

The Natural Resources and Environment mission area promotes conservation and sustainable use of natural resources on the Nation's

private lands through education, technical and financial assistance. The mission area is also responsible for meeting public demands

for recreation, timber and other goods and services through management of over 191 million acres of National Forests and

grasslands. The Administration is committed to preserving natural resources for future generations through assistance to farmers,

ranchers and other private landowners and through sound management of public lands. The budgets for conservation and Forest

Service programs include resources to:

Provide additional technical and financial assistance to enhance the conservation of natural resources, including water

quality improvements under the President's Clean Water Action Plan. An increase of $37 million is proposed for

Conservation Technical Assistance, for a total of $585 million in 2000. A portion of the increase will support additional

technical assistance to operators of animal feeding operations to help them develop and implement waste management plans.

The budget also proposes an increase of $126 million, for a total program of $300 million, for the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program which provides financial, technical and educational assistance to help landowners address serious

challenges impacting soil, water and related natural resources. (See page 60.)

● 

Protect productive farmland, preserve open space, and support smart growth as part of the President's Lands Legacy

Initiative. The USDA budget includes $268 million as part of the President's $1 billion Lands Legacy Initiative. Within this

amount, $50 million is proposed for a new discretionary Farmland Protection Program, which will provide State and local

governments with matching funds for the purchase of permanent conservation easements on farmland threatened by

development. Another $118 million will fund acquisition of lands valuable for recreation, wildlife habitat and watershed

protection in the National Forests. A new Smart Growth Partnership Program will support $50 million in subsidized loans to

help communities protect open spaces, limit sprawl and enhance air and water quality. Funds under the Initiative will also

provide grants to protect habitat threatened by development, expand urban greenspaces and protect State and private forests.

● 

Assist troubled USDA borrowers and protect the environment through debt forgiveness under the Debt for Nature

Program. This program will provide technical and financial assistance to USDA borrowers with serious cash flow problems

who also have environmentally valuable lands. Participants will receive assistance in exchange for the development and

implementation of a conservation plan. (See page 63.)

● 

Enhance the ability of the National Forest System to meet multiple demands. A total of $1.4 billion is proposed for

management of the National Forests, including $197 million for timber sales to support a sales offer level of at least 3.3 Billion

Board Feet (bbf) depending on salvage sales volume. In 1999, 3.6 bbf will be offered for sale. Also included in this account are

funding increases of $7 million to improve wilderness management, $24 million to improve wildlife and fish habitat and $11

million for Soil, Water and Air to support watershed improvements, HAZMAT Project implementation and Abandoned Mine

Lands Cleanup. In addition, an increase of $8 million is proposed to meet additional needs for rangelands, in particular to slow

the spread of invasive exotic weed species on these lands. (See page 65.)

● 

Provide the necessary scientific foundation for sound management of public forest and rangelands. Forest and

Rangeland Research is funded at $235 million which is an increase of $38 million over 1999. Additional funds will support the

President's initiatives in global climate change and integrated sciences for ecosystem challenges.

● 

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The mission of the Marketing and Regulatory agencies is to facilitate the domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural

products and to ensure the health and care of animals and plants while improving market competitiveness and the economy for the

overall benefit of both consumers and American agriculture. The budget proposes funding to:

Protect American agriculture from imported pests and diseases and enhance the marketability of American

agricultural products abroad. A total program level of $485 million is proposed for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) salaries and expenses account. This includes $178 million for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI)

activities, the frontline defense to protect American agriculture from imported diseases and pests. The budget also includes an

increase of $1.7 million to begin development of a new, National rapid assessment and response system for invasive alien plant

pests in the U.S. APHIS will contribute substantially to the Department's goal of doubling agricultural exports by placing more

emphasis on animal health monitoring and surveillance to strengthen the domestic and international marketability of U.S.

livestock and poultry. The agency will also strengthen the Nation's pest detection and exclusion activities to reassure U.S. trade

partners of the Department's commitment to pest control and thereby help maintain the market share for U.S. agricultural

products. (See page 79.)

● 

Expand economic and trade opportunities for agricultural producers through marketing services. The Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) budget includes an increase of $1.4 million to expand foreign market news reports; increase

reporting on livestock and poultry markets; and identify alternative marketing strategies for small farmers. The budget also

includes an increase of $0.6 million to continue implementation of the Organic Certification Program, provide extensive

● 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (10 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
customer outreach, and develop an International Certification Program. (See page 75.)

Collect pesticide and microbiological data to support pest control alternatives and food safety enhancements. For 2000,

a total of $19 million is requested for the Pesticide Data Program, including $8.6 million in program increases above 1999.

First, as part of the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative, an increase is requested to broaden the scope of PDP to

include microbiological testing of fruits and vegetables. This testing will provide a baseline of microbiological data needed to

assess the risks of contamination in the U.S. food supply. USDA and other agencies will use the microbiological data to

respond more quickly and effectively to food safety issues. Second, an increase is proposed to provide rapid risk assessments

and to collect data for meat, poultry, eggs and drinking water. (See page 75.)

● 

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

REE programs support the development of new agricultural and forestry systems that will reduce production costs, and find new uses

for crops and animal products to expand economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers. The economic and statistical data and

analyses developed by REE agencies also provide information on a wide range of topics related to agricultural productivity, trade

issues, and rural development. These analyses directly contribute to sound policy-making, management, and marketing decisions.

Total spending for the four REE agencies will be $2.1 billion in 2000, an increase of 8 percent from 1999 levels. Included is $200

million for the National Research Initiative competitive research grants program and $120 million for the Initiative for Future

Agriculture and Food Systems. This $120 million initiative, authorized by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act of 1998, is a program of direct spending for competitively-awarded research, extension, and education grants to address

critical emerging issues related to food production; environmental quality and natural resources; and farm income including enhanced

economic viability of smaller-scale farmers. Highlights of the REE budget include funding to:

Ensure the availability of environmentally acceptable pest management strategies for agricultural producers. The Vice

President has provided specific direction to the Department and to the Environmental Protection Agency to implement the

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), to provide a reasonable transition to new pest control methods for producers of

commodities with limited pest control options. This budget provides an additional $36 million for pest control activities,

including $25 million for REE pest control research to develop alternative pest control practices to serve as substitutes for

chemical pesticides at risk of being restricted or eliminated. Emphasis will be placed on developing interim alternative pest

controls for fruits and vegetable crops and on developing long-term pest management systems for all major acreage crops and

minimizing pesticide residues in food products and surface and ground water. An additional $5 million is proposed to fund a

program of competitive grants for research and technology transfer of short- to intermediate-term methyl bromide replacement

strategies. The budget also proposes an increase for additional research needed to develop effective means to control and

eradicate invasive alien species. Research will focus on developing pest biology, impact and control technologies to be used in

effective and sustainable pest management programs for weeds and other plant pests. (See page 114.)

● 

Empower communities to reduce hunger through gleaning and food recovery. The budget provides $15.8 million in new

funds for gleaning and food recovery activities to reduce hunger. Funds will provide financial and technical assistance to

non-profit entities actually involved in gleaning and food recovery and will encourage the development of collaborative efforts

with state and local governments, public and private entities, and educational institutions. (See page 97.)

● 

Develop a scientific foundation and provide education for better human nutrition. An increase of $20 million is provided

for ARS human nutrition research to develop greater understanding of the impacts of nutrition on human health and

well-being, with particular emphasis on the role of nutrition in preventing bone loss, cancer and heart diseases. In addition, $20

million is proposed to construct ARS human nutrition research labs in Davis, California and Beltsville, Maryland. An increase

of $2.3 million is proposed to continue activities to enhance nutrition education through the Expanded Food and Nutrition

Education Program (EFNEP), to provide nutrition education to low-income clientele.

● 

Conduct research and extension needed by agricultural producers to meet immediate and long-term challenges posed

by global climate change. REE funding in support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) increases by $16

million from 1999 to 2000. Research supported with these funds would provide information needed to understand how carbon

cycles through the earth system, the potential impacts of global change on the sustainability of agriculture, and the economic

impacts of climate change mitigation tactics such as carbon sequestration. In addition, the budget proposes an increase of $7

million for ARS research and demonstration projects under the Climate Change Technology Initiative. These projects will help

to transfer to users the technology for predicting and adapting to climate change impacts. (See page 116.)

● 

Provide research, extension and analysis related to small-scale, limited resource and socially disadvantaged producers.

The budget includes an increase for ERS to lead interagency research to assess the Department's role in providing accessible,

analytically-based information on agricultural markets to small, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers.

Modifications of market information programs, in accordance with assessment results, could assure better customer service

and increased program efficiencies. The CSREES Small Farms Program, funded at $4 million, will provide support to

Land-Grant institutions and other partners to develop research, education and extension programs to support small farms.

● 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (11 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
These programs will facilitate the development of public and private sector information networks; provide support to

beginning small farmers; and promote marketing and business skills of small farmers.

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Although few support programs have high visibility, they are, nevertheless, vital to USDA's success in providing effective customer

service and efficient program delivery. An overarching principle of USDA operations is good management of our human, capital,

information, and other infrastructure resources. Selected highlights include funding and actions to:

Ensure the achievement of the Secretary's Civil Rights goals. Civil Rights continues to be one of the Secretary's highest

priorities. There are a number of ongoing activities at the Department level and within the agencies to support this priority. In

addition, the budget includes a number of proposed funding increases to support USDA civil rights activities. For example:

● 

Recently, President Clinton and Secretary Glickman worked with Congress to enact new legislation that waives the statute of

limitations for older discrimination cases and allows USDA to help the farmers and ranchers whose complaints were ignored

or not properly processed. The budget includes additional funds for the Office of Civil Rights to process these cases in a timely

manner.

The Secretary established the National Commission on Small Farms in July 1997 to examine the status of small farms in the

United States and to determine a course of action for USDA to recognize, respect, and respond to their needs. The

Commission's report, A Time to Act, which was released last January included 8 policy goals and a comprehensive set of 146

recommendations to improve USDA service to small and beginning farmers. Many of these recommendations have already

been carried out, and the budget proposes to increase funding for many of the small farms programs highlighted in the

Commission's report.

The Department's Office of Outreach was established to provide leadership and coordination for all USDA outreach activities

to assure that all eligible customers have access to USDA programs and services. The budget proposes additional staffing for

this office to further strengthen and expand its leadership capabilities.

Create a Unified System of Information Technology Management. The appropriate application of information technology

is critical to USDA's ability to deliver programs and services to the public. A strong foundation has been created within USDA

to insure that information can be more readily shared across organizational lines and investment decisions are based on sound

business principles. Building on this foundation, the Chief Information Officer is continuing to implement a plan to strengthen

USDA's management of information technology. The budget provides an increase of $2.4 million for the Chief Information

Officer to support the following:

● 

Improving the Departmentwide management and security of telecommunications;

Strengthening the information technology capital planning, review and evaluation processes and refining the

Department-wide architecture;

Developing a workforce planning capacity to improve the management of the USDA information technology

infrastructure; and

Oversight of the single information technology infrastructure and supporting organization for FFAS, and RD agencies

and NRCS.

Improve Financial Management and Reporting. The budget includes an increase of $2 million for the Chief Financial

Officer activities. The two primary goals are the implementation of a single, integrated financial information system, and

the preparation of financial statements that warrant an unqualified audit opinion. In addition, the Chief Financial Officer

coordinates the development of cost accounting standards and systems, modernized methods of payment and collection,

implementation of the Government Performance Results Act and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,

improved management of assets and receivables, and improved processes for administering grants and agreements with

non-Federal organizations. The Working Capital Fund includes increases for the continued implementation of the

Foundation Financial Information System project. These initiatives will provide improved information for

decisionmaking and strengthen management accountability.

❍ 

Streamline and Restructure the County Offices. The Department has made major changes in the county-based field

agencies in order to efficiently use declining resources and to improve customer service. USDA is implementing a field

office streamlining plan which collocates the county-based agencies (FSA, NRCS, and RD) in one-stop USDA Service

Centers. This collocation effort will result in streamlining the total number of field office locations from over 3,700 to

about 2,560. All USDA Service Center agency offices throughout the country will have a common telecommunications

network allowing efficient e-mail, records transfer, and voice communications to provide for better customer service.

❍ 

To effectively serve the needs of farmers and others in rural America, the Secretary's streamlining plan continues

beyond collocation to create a team approach to program delivery in which the partner agencies share resources in order

to maximize customer service and administrative efficiency. The Department is proceeding with administrative

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (12 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
convergence to combine three separate structures into one administrative unit. The consolidated administrative structure

will:

■ Deliver better services to local customers and employees;

■ Help preserve limited budget resources for program delivery;

■ Provide a new consistency in administrative policy and operations, such as information technology; and

■ Make better use of limited administrative resources.

The budget proposes a new account, the Support Services Bureau, to provide these consolidated administrative support

functions, including information technology. An appropriation of $74 million is requested specifically to support this

modernization initiative. In addition, $16 million will be made available from CCC, and transfer authority is requested to

merge the central administrative costs into this common account. (See page 107.)

INITIATIVES

INITIATIVES

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 Current 2000

 Initiative Estimate Budget

Food Safety Initiative:

 Food Safety and Inspection Service $18.5 $21.4 

 Food and Nutrition Service 2.0 2.0 

 Agricultural Research Service 69.9 81.6

 Coop., State Research, Educ. & Ext. Svc. 24.8 35.8

 Economic Research Service 0.9 1.4

 Agricultural Marketing Service 0.1 6.3 

 Office of the Chief Economist 0.2 0.2 

 National Agricultural Statistics Service -- 2.5

 Total, Food Safety 116.4 151.2

Gleaning and Food Recovery:

 Coop. State Research, Educ., and Ext. Svc. 0 15.8

Global Change Research Program:

 Agricultural Research Service 25.9 34.2

 Coop. State Research, Educ., and Ext. Svc. 9.6 16.2

 Economic Research Service 0.8 1.8

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1.5 13.7

 Forest Service 16.9 22.9

 Total, USGCRP 54.7 88.8

Climate Change Technology Initiative:

 Agricultural Research Service -- 7.0

 Natural Resources Conservation Service -- 3.0

 Forest Service -- 6.0

 Total, CCTI -- 16.0

Lands Legacy Initiative:

 Forest Service:

 Land Acquisition 117.9 118.0

 Forest Legacy 7.0 50.0

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (13 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Urban and Community Forestry 30.5 40.0 

 Smart Growth - Budget Authority -- 10.0

 Total, FS 155.4 218.0

 Natural Resources Conservation Service:

 Farmland Protection Program. -- 50.0 a/

 Total, Lands Legacy Initiative $155.4 $268.0

Clean Action Water Plan:

 Agricultural Research Service $1.0 $5.0

 Natural Resources Conservation Service:

 EQIP (mandatory) 174.0 300.0

 Partnership Grants 0.0 20.0

 Monitoring 0.0 3.0

 Animal Feeding Operations Strategy 0.0 20.0

 Total, NRCS 174.0 343.0

 Forest Service 280.0 369.0

 Total, Clean Water Action Plan 455.0 717.0

a/ In addition, the budget proposes $27.5 million in mandatory funding

 for the Farmland Protection Program.

INTERAGENCY FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

On January 25, 1997, the President announced the Interagency Food Safety Initiative. The initiative included seven

components for improving the Federal food inspection system from farm-to-table. Key components include expansion of the

Federal food safety surveillance system, improved coordination between Federal, State, and local health authorities, improved

risk assessment capabilities, increased inspection, expanded research, consumer education, and strategic planning. In 1999, the

focus of the initiative is on enhancing the safety of imported and domestic fruits and vegetables, targeted food safety

education, transformation of inspection systems to HACCP, and development of scientific information and tools to control a

greater range of food safety hazards. For 2000, the budget will include an increase of $34.8 million for USDA to address a

broad range of program needs, including research, improved State inspection programs, surveillance, microbiological testing,

and education activities.

GLEANING AND FOOD RECOVERY INITIATIVE

The American agricultural system is one of the most productive and efficient in the world. Nonetheless, 37 million people

were living below the official poverty level in 1996, while 27 percent, or 96 billion pounds, of the 356 billion pounds of edible

food available for human consumption in the U.S. were lost to human use. The budget includes $15.8 million for new

community and university based grant programs of financial and technical assistance to help Americans recover some of that

abundance before it is lost and use it to help alleviate hunger and distress. The goal is to increase food recovery by 33 percent,

or 500 million pounds. This would provide approximately 500,000 needy individuals with 3 pounds of food per day.

GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

The budget proposes an increase of $34 million for the USDA research program on global change. Research will be aimed at

investigating mitigation tactics to minimize the adverse effects of climate change on agricultural production, including effects

of changes in temperature, carbon dioxide levels, and other plant stresses. Increased funds are also provided for USDA

participation in the National Assessment Activities which are designed to provide a detailed understanding of the consequences

of climate change for the Nation. Increases are also provided for soil surveys and inventories to provide baseline soil carbon

inventories and develop a soil carbon database. Increases are also provided for studying the economic consequences of climate

change, increases in the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program for global change, and the UV-B monitoring

network. Within the total, $10 million is provided for ARS and FS to participate in the U.S. Global Change Research

Program-Carbon Cycle Science Program, to study the role of agriculture and forests in the carbon balance and ways to increase

carbon storage in soils.

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (14 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Increases are proposed in the budget to support the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) as part of the

Research Fund for America. The Department is requesting $16 million to support the initiative in 2000. Within the total

increase, $7 million will be devoted to developing technology for predicting and adapting agricultural production to global

change impacts. The Forest Service will provide $6 million for increased research on forest and rangeland carbon sequestration

and the NRCS will support projects to demonstrate and test various greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and monitoring

mechanisms. In total, the ARS budget includes $7 million, the Natural Resources Conservation Service includes $3 million,

and the Forest Service research proposal includes $6 million to support this Initiative.

LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE

As the Nation's population and prosperity grows, there are new challenges to preserve the natural heritage and green spaces

that Americans have come to treasure. The 2000 budget proposes a $1 billion National program to protect great places and to

provide the tools for localities and States to plan for smart growth and open space preservation. Of this total program $268

million is proposed for USDA through the Forest Service (FS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

FS land acquisitions will continue to add lands valuable for recreation, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection to the

national forests. The Forest Legacy Program provides funds for the acquisition of easements on private lands to protect critical

environmental habitat threatened with development. The Urban and Community Forestry Program provides grants to States

and localities to establish, maintain, or expand urban and community forests and related green spaces that serve to support

viable communities and neighborhoods. The new Smart Growth Partnership Program is a revolving loan program for States

and municipalities to use subsidized loans for smart growth land acquisition and management. This will help communities to

protect open spaces, limit sprawl, enhance air and water quality, reduce greenhouse emissions and increase greenspace. The

program will be based on the Department's existing Intermediary Relending Program, in which direct loans are provided to

intermediate borrowers such as State and local governments, non-profit corporations, Indian tribes and cooperatives which in

turn relend the funds to land trusts, private non-profit organizations, etc.

CCC's Farmland Protection Program (FPP) is designed to forge new and enhance existing partnerships between Federal, State

and local governments in sharing the costs of acquiring conservation easements. FPP provides technical, and financial

assistance to State, tribal and local programs for the purchase of farmland easements on eligible lands to address wetlands,

wildlife habitat, soil, water and related natural resource concerns. This program is funded through CCC and the 2000 request

level is $28 million. To support the proposed Lands Legacy Initiative, the 2000 budget proposes to provide an additional $50

million in discretionary funding for FPP to enhance Federal support for "smart growth" programs that address urban sprawl

issues, protect productive farmland and preserve open space.

CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN

The budget proposes an increase of $262 million for USDA Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) activities, for a total funding

level of $717 million. In order to improve water quality on the Nation's forested lands, funding for FS programs such as the

Stewardship Incentives Program, Rangeland Management, and Forest Stewardship will increase by a total of $89 million over

1999 enacted levels. The budget also proposes an increase of $169 million for NRCS CWAP activities such as monitoring,

animal feeding operations, and partnership grants. Included in the NRCS increase is a proposal to increase funding for the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $100 million over currently authorized levels, to $300 million. This additional

funding will provide producers with the needed resources to address water quality issues such as waste management and

grazing practices. Lastly, ARS is provided $5 million, an increase of $4 million over 1999 levels, to carry out research on

hypoxia, pfiesteria and related problems.

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

MISSION

The mission of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) area is to ensure the well-being of U.S. agriculture through

delivery of commodity, credit, conservation, insurance, and export programs. FFAS agencies include the Farm Service Agency

(FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) is the source of funding for most of the conservation and commodity programs administered by FSA and

the export programs administered by FAS.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (15 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Farm Loan and Grant Programs $2,158 $2,828 $3,013

Conservation and Other Programs 1,800 1,663 1,596

Commodity Programs 14,752 24,214 19,548

Salaries and Expenses 911 966 1,006

 Total, FSA $19,621 $29,671 $25,163

Farm Service Agency

Farm Loan and Grant Programs

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Farm Operating Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized $754 $9 $1,098 $13

$1,698 $24

 Guaranteed Subsidized 226 22 357 31 

97 9

 Direct 557 37 734 50 

500 29

 Total, Operating Loans 1,537 68 2,189 94 

2,295 62

Farm Ownership Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized 424 16 425 7 

432 2

 Direct 84 11 86 13 

128 5

 Total, Ownership Loans 508 27 511 20 

560 7

Emergency Loans 59 14 25 6 

53 8

Indian Land Acquisition Loans 1 a/ 1 a/ 

1 a/

Credit Sales of Acquired Property 11 1 0 0 

0 0

Boll Weevil Eradication 40 a/ 100 1 

100 0

 Subtotal, Farm Credit

 Programs 2,156 110 2,826 121 

3,009 77

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (16 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
State Mediation Grants 2 2 2 2 

4 4

 Total, Farm Loan and

 Grant Programs $2,158 $112 $2,828 $123

$3,013 $81

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

Demand for the farm loan and grant programs will likely remain very strong given the continuing economic stress in the

agricultural sector. Small-scale farmers in particular generally do not have the resources to handle unforeseen economic

stresses, and the Department has made a commitment to provide credit assistance to small farmers, many of whom are

minority and beginning farmers. Favorable interest rates will allow more guaranteed loans to be made without an increase in

the Government subsidy, and more borrowers to be served through guaranteed loans than direct loans. Favorable interest rates

also reduce significantly the subsidy cost of the program, from $121 million in 1999 to $77 million in 2000 despite an $183

million overall increase in the loan level. The share of direct loans made at the reduced interest rate for limited resource

borrowers would be continued at current levels, about 38 percent for farm ownership loans and about 47 percent for farm

operating loans.

The budget provides $2.3 billion in direct and guaranteed farm operating loans, about $100 million more than in 1999. The

proposed loan level for direct farm operating loans is $500 million in 2000, the statutory limit. The 2000 funding level for

direct and guaranteed farm operating loans will serve an estimated 20,000 beginning and small farmers, about 12,000 of whom

will receive direct loans.

For farm ownership loans, the 2000 budget provides for increased loan levels for both direct and guaranteed loans. The direct

loan level would be increased from $86 million to $128 million, significantly more than the $85 million level recommended by

the Secretary's Civil Rights Action Team. This reflects Secretary Glickman's commitment to improve the opportunities for

beginning and small farmers and, in particular, members of socially disadvantaged groups. The program level for guaranteed

loans would be increased to about $432 million from $425 million in 1999. In terms of people served, this means that 4,000

beginning and small farmers will be given an opportunity to either acquire their own farm or to save an existing one, 600 more

than in 1999. Of those served, about 1,500 will receive direct loans and the rest will receive guarantees.

The budget also provides funding for the emergency loan, Indian acquisition, credit sales, and boll weevil eradication

programs. The request for emergency loans is increased to $53 million. Legislation will be proposed to close the eligibility gap

between disaster loans provided by USDA and the Small Business Administration, to ensure a seamless Federal emergency

loan availability. In addition, funding for State mediation grants is increased from $2 million in 1999 to $4 million in 2000.

Mediation benefits family farmers, including many low income and socially disadvantaged farmers, who, because of

mediation, are often able to resolve credit and other issues and remain on the farm. This program also supports the Vice

President's National Performance Review initiative to achieve savings through the use of alternative dispute resolution. The

increased funding will be used to support mediation programs in the 21 States certified in 1998, as well as any additional states

which gain certification by 2000. Several States have expressed interest in establishing new programs or expanding their

existing programs to include the mediation of other agricultural issues in addition to credit disputes.

Farm Service Agency

Conservation and Other Programs

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Conservation Reserve Program $1,760 $1,576 $1,596

Emergency Conservation Program 29 84 0

Tree Assistance Program 11 3 0

Total, Conservation Programs $1,800 $1,663 $1,596

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (17 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is a CCC program administered by FSA. The CRP offers producers annual

rental payments for a 10- to 15-year period to remove highly erodible cropland and other environmentally sensitive land from

production. Participants also receive cost-share help to establish long-term resource-conserving cover. About 30.3 million

acres were enrolled in the program at the end of fiscal year 1998.

The 1996 Farm Bill authorized funding for CRP from CCC and provided for new signups through 2002 to increase enrollment

to a total of 36.4 million acres. The 15th signup, conducted in March 1997, was the first major signup since 1996 and the

largest CRP signup ever. CCC accepted about 17 million acres of the 23 million acres offered for enrollment. In the 16th

signup, conducted in October and November 1997, CCC accepted about 6 million acres of the 9 million acres that were offered

for enrollment. The 2000 budget assumes 5.8 million acres will be accepted in the 18th signup, conducted in October through

early December 1998. As in past signups, acreage offered for enrollment in the 18th signup was ranked using an environmental

benefits index to protect the Nation's natural resource base.

In addition to these scheduled signups, a continuous, non-competitive signup has been underway since September 1996 to

enroll land in filter strips, riparian buffers, and similar conservation practices. Acreage enrolled under the continuous signup

includes enrollment under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the National Conservation Buffer Initiative,

programs which are designed to target program benefits to achieve specific local and regional conservation goals.

The 2000 budget assumes acreage enrolled under these signups will bring CRP enrollment to about 31.1 million acres in 1999,

to 34.4 million acres in 2000, and to an eventual enrollment of 36.4 million acres by 2002.

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). Under this program, the Department shares the cost of carrying out practices to

assist and encourage farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters. In particular, it addresses those problems

which if left untreated would: 1) impair or endanger the land; 2) materially affect the productive capacity of the land; 3) be so

costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance would be required to return the land to productive agricultural use; and 4)

represent damage that is unusual in character and not the type which would recur frequently in the same area. Supplemental

appropriations provided a total of $34 million for the ECP program in 1998. No funds have been appropriated to date for the

program in 1999, and the budget proposes no funding for the program in 2000.

Tree Assistance Program (TAP). TAP provides cost-share payments to orchard and vineyard growers who replant or

rehabilitate orchard trees and vineyards lost to damaging weather, including freeze, excessive rainfalls, floods, droughts,

tornadoes, and earthquakes. Trees used for pulp and/or timber are excluded from eligibility for cost-share payments. The 1998

Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, P.L. 105-174, provided $14 million for TAP, of which $3 million remains

available for use in 1999.

Farm Service Agency

Commodity Program Outlays

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Commodity:

 Feed Grains $3,354 $5,716 $3,566

 Wheat 2,187 2,918 1,291

 Rice 491 707 433

 Upland Cotton 1,132 1,629 781

 Tobacco 376 -254 -143

 Dairy 291 435 528

 Soybeans 139 450 2,339

 Peanuts -11 1 a/

 Sugar -30 -48 -41

 Honey a/ 1 -1

 Wool and Mohair a/ 6 -6

 Other Crops 49 63 112

 Subtotal $7,978 $11,624 b/ $8,859

 Disaster Assistance 3 2,632 4

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (18 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Working Capital -36 250 250

 Other c/ -54 127 174

 Total, Commodity Programs $7,891 $14,633 $9,287

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ Includes $3 billion in marketing loss assistance payments

 for feed grains, wheat, rice, upland cotton and dairy.

c/ Includes interest and operating expenses, reimbursable agreements,

 equipment, and an adjustment for Food for Progress commodity purchases.

Commodity loan and income support programs are administered by FSA and financed through CCC. These commodity

programs were changed dramatically by provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. In the past, deficiency payments for producers of

feed grains, wheat, upland cotton and rice (contract commodities) were tied to market prices and decreased when market prices

were high and increased when market prices were low. The 1996 Farm Bill replaced deficiency payments with fixed

production flexibility contract payments. The production flexibility contract payments, based on historical program acreage

and yields, are set by law for each of the 7 years, from 1996-2002, and do not vary with market prices or current plantings.

About 98 percent of the eligible crop acreage base has been enrolled in production flexibility contracts.

The CCC marketing assistance loan programs for contract commodities and oilseeds have provided producers with some

protection against sharp declines in market prices in 1997 and 1998. Marketing assistance loan placements are projected to

double between 1997 and 2000, and marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments are projected to increase from

negligible levels to nearly $3.5 billion in the same period.

The 1999 appropriations legislation provided nearly $5.7 billion in emergency assistance to help farmers manage through some

of the lowest commodity prices in many years. The emergency funding included $3.1 billion for market loss payments and

nearly $2.6 billion to compensate farmers for crop and livestock losses. Included in funding for the crop loss assistance is $400

million in incentive payments for farmers purchasing crop insurance on 1999 crops. The incentive payments underscore the

importance of crop insurance programs that will help farmers better manage production risk in the future. The Noninsured

Assistance Program (NAP), administered by FSA and funded through CCC, will continue to provide assistance to producers

with losses on crops for which insurance is unavailable.

The 1996 Farm Bill also modified CCC loan program provisions for dairy, sugar, and peanuts. Dairy marketing orders are

being reformed and consolidated and the price support program will be replaced in fiscal year 2000 with a recourse loan

program. With respect to sugar, loan forfeiture fees were imposed, marketing assessments were increased, and marketing

allotments were suspended. The peanut program was made no-net-cost (program costs may not exceed program receipts), the

minimum national peanut poundage quota was eliminated, and the quota loan rate was reduced. In addition, appropriations

legislation for 1999 provided for recourse loan programs for mohair and for the 1998 crop of honey. A new increased tobacco

marketing assessment, which replaces the current assessment expiring at the end of the 1998 crop year, is also proposed in the

2000 budget.

Salaries and Expenses. FSA's salaries and expenses account funds all management related activities for FSA programs. FSA

also provides administrative support to FAS and to the Risk Management Agency (RMA) under a reimbursable agreement.

The 2000 budget proposes a program level of $1,006 million estimated to support a ceiling of 5,745 Federal staff years and

10,048 non-Federal county staff years. The total program level includes appropriated funds and transfers.

Farm Service Agency

Commodity Credit Corporation

(Dollars in Millions)

 Program Levels Net Outlays

 Program FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 1999 FY 2000

Commodity Programs:

 Price Support and Marketing

 Assistance Loans $8,813 $10,524 $55 $982

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (19 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Production Flexibility Contracts 5,544 5,042 5,544 5,042

 Loan Deficiency Payments 1,804 2,713 1,804 2,713

 Market Loss Assistance Pymts 3,058 0 3,058 0

 Noninsured Assistance Payments 67 89 67 89

 Disaster Assistance 2,632 4 2,632 4

 Other Direct Payments 288 10 288 10

 Purchases and Sales 1,314 526 634 -69

 Interest Expenditures 411 450 152 181 

 Other 283 190 399 335

 Total, Commodity Programs 24,214 19,548 14,633 9,287

Conservation Programs:

 CRP Program Payments 1,508 1,578 1,508 1,578

 Environmental Quality Incentives 174 300 121 160

 Wetlands Reserve Program 128 201 179 214

 Farmland Protection Program 0 28 9 10

 Total, Conservation Programs 1,810 2,107 1,817 1,962

Export Programs:

 Export Credit 4,721 4,506 440 473

 Market Access Program 90 90 89 91

 Foreign Market Development

 Cooperator Program a/ 28 a/ 28

 Quality Samples Program 0 2 0 2

 Export Enhancement Program 550 494 550 494

 Dairy Export Incentive Program 102 99 115 100

 Section 416(b) Donations b/ 678 3 649 33

 Food for Progress Program 133 91 136 112

 Other 20 20 21 21

 Total, Export Programs 6,294 5,333 2,000 1,354

 Subtotal, CCC 32,318 26,988 18,450 12,603

Pre-credit Reform Loan

 Repayments 0 0 -246 -240

 Total, CCC $32,318 $26,988 $18,204 $12,363

a/ Funded through FAS appropriation in 1999.

b/ Value of commodities to be made available under 416(b) are

 included under purchases and sales.

CCC is the source of funding for commodity programs administered by FSA, conservation programs administered by FSA and

NRCS, and export programs administered by FAS. CCC borrows funds needed to finance these programs from the U.S.

Treasury and repays the borrowings, with interest, from receipts and from appropriations provided by Congress.

Changes over the last decade in commodity, disaster, and conservation programs have dramatically changed the level, mix, and

variability of CCC outlays. CCC outlays, which reached a record high of $26 billion in 1986, are projected to increase from

$10 billion in 1998 to $18 billion in 1999, and then to decline again to about $12 billion in 2000. The increase in spending

between 1998 and 1999 is accounted for by higher loan program outlays, expenditures related to the President's Food Aid

Initiative, and by emergency spending authorized in the disaster supplemental enacted with appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

Outlays for emergency spending authorized in the appropriations legislation totaled nearly $5.7 billion, including $3.1 billion

for market loss payments, $2.4 billion to compensate producers for crop losses, and $0.2 million for livestock feed assistance.

In fiscal year 2000, commodity program outlays account for about three-fourths of total CCC outlays, with production

flexibility contract payments and loan deficiency payments accounting for nearly all of the commodity program outlays.

Conservation program outlays represent the second largest major category of CCC expenditures. The 1996 Farm Bill

authorized CCC funding for CRP administered by FSA and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and several new

conservation programs administered by NRCS. The Agricultural Conservation Program, the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Great Plains Conservation Program were replaced by the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP and the Conservation Farm Option (CFO) give producers incentives

to create long-term comprehensive farm plans. The Farmland Protection Program provides for the purchase of easements

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (20 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
limiting nonagricultural uses on prime and unique farmland.

Finally, provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act limit CCC expenditures for computer equipment and cap

at the 1995 level total allotments and transfers to State and Federal agencies under Section 11 of that Act for administrative

support services.

Approximately $16 million remaining under the limit on CCC expenditures for computer equipment will be transferred in

2000 to a central account for the Support Services Bureau in order to fund the implementation of the Service Center

Modernization Initiative for the county-based agencies (FSA, NRCS, and RD). In addition, the Department will propose

legislation to raise the limit on CCC expenditures for computer equipment by a total of $105 million for the period 2000

through 2002. The increase in the multi-year cap will cover a portion of FSA's computer operations and maintenance costs for

the farm programs, and will be offset by an equivalent reduction in authorized spending for the Export Enhancement Program

(EEP). Additional reductions in EEP will be proposed to offset increased spending for the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, the Cooperator Program, and the Quality Samples Program.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY (RMA)

Crop Insurance Program

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Net Indemnities to Producers:

 Gross Indemnities $1,394 $1,980 $2,084

 Producer-Paid Premium -928 -905 -954

 Total, Net Indemnities 466 1,075 1,130

Administrative/Delivery and Other

 Expenses 902 596 635

 Total, Government Cost 1,368 1,671 1,765

Recap:

Mandatory Program Level:

 Delivery Expenses $240 $401 $426

 Other Federal Expenses -3 4 4

 Dairy Options Pilot Program 1 a/ a/

 Indemnities 1,394 1,980 2,084

 Total, Mandatory Program Level 1,632 2,385 2,514

Discretionary Program Level:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses 63 64 71

 Delivery Expenses 189 b/ b/

 Total, Discretionary Program Level 252 64 71

Subtotal, Program Level 1,884 2,449 2,585

Less: Producer Premium -928 -905 -954

Underwriting Gains 412 127 134

 Total Government Costs $1,368 $1,671 $1,765

Loss Ratio .95 1.075 1.075

a/ Funding is provided through CCC.

b/ The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform

 Act of 1998, P.L. 105-185, authorizes these expenses to be paid from the

 mandatory FCIC fund.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (21 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
The primary responsibility of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) is to administer the crop insurance program. The program

provides about $26 billion in risk protection on about 187 million acres. About one-third of the insured acres is covered at the

catastrophic (CAT) level which is 50 percent of approved yield at 55 percent of expected market price. This coverage is

available to producers for a modest processing fee, with the Government providing a 100 percent subsidy of the premium cost.

Most of the remaining two-thirds of insured acres is covered at a level of 65 percent of approved yield and 100 percent of

expected market price, for which producers pay about 60 percent of the premium. The crop insurance program also offers

coverage up to 80 percent of approved yield and, in recent years, revenue insurance products that combine the risk of loss from

price declines as well as production shortfalls. Approximately 63 percent of insurable farmland will be covered by crop

insurance in 1999, about the same level as 1998, with over 1.3 million policies in force.

The program, which is shown as mandatory spending in the budget, is administered on behalf of the Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation (FCIC) which is an entity subject to a Board of Directors composed of both Government and private sector

members. The Board makes decisions relating to the scope and provisions of the program that have an impact on the budget.

For example, it approves requests for program expansions, such as the recent development of revenue insurance products.

Crop insurance is delivered to producers through private insurance companies that share in the risk of loss. These companies

are reimbursed for their delivery expenses and may receive underwriting gains for favorable loss experience.

RMA provides overall support, including actuarial and research work, program compliance, and risk management education.

In addition to the headquarters in Washington, D.C., the agency maintains an office in Kansas City, Missouri, where most of

its staff are located, and regional offices. The agency's salaries and expenses are reflected as discretionary spending in the

budget. For fiscal year 2000, $71 million is being requested for this purpose, an increase of nearly $7 million over fiscal year

1999 to provide support for the Administration initiative to improve program performance. Of this increase, $3 million is to

help continue efforts to inform producers about risk management tools and alternatives. Another $2 million would expand

research and development to create and implement programs which would cover more crops or expand the range of programs

offered to existing crops.

All other program costs, including premium subsidy and delivery expenses, are paid out of the FCIC Fund which is a

mandatory spending account, although subject to the appropriation process. Because these costs are subject to variations in the

level of participation and yearly loss experience, the appropriation request is for "such sums as necessary."

The crop insurance program was reformed in 1994 with the expectation that it would be the primary source of disaster

assistance. Since then, program participation has been increased, loss experience has been favorable, new insurance products

have been developed, and the need for ad hoc disaster assistance has been alleviated. However, certain program limitations

were exposed in 1998. Repeated disasters, especially in the Great Plains, resulted in coverage levels that provided a producer

with less than adequate protection during sustained serious disasters, while prices declined. This led to the enactment of

emergency relief for both disaster and price losses in the form of a 1999 supplemental appropriation. The Administration

supported the enactment of that legislation, but remains committed to the concept of providing risk protection through an

insurance program rather than ad hoc payment assistance. Efforts will be undertaken to resolve program weaknesses through

administrative action, to make needed legislative changes, and to encourage producers through risk management education and

outreach efforts to participate more fully in the program.

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (FAS)

International Programs and Activities

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

CCC Export Credit Guarantees:

 Short-term Guarantees (GSM-102) $3,963 $4,431 $4,216

 Intermediate-term Guarantees

 (GSM-103) 56 100 100

 Supplier Credit Guarantees 18 145 145

 Facilities Financing Guarantees 0 45 45

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (22 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Total, Export Credit Guarantees 4,037 4,721 4,506

Market Access Program 90 90 90

Export Enhancement Program 2 550 494

Dairy Export Incentive Program 110 102 99

Foreign Food Assistance:

 Public Law 480 1,138 1,932 a/ 987

 Section 416(b) Donations

 (Ocean Freight and Overseas

 Distribution Costs) b/ 678 c/ 3

 Food for Progress d/ 111 133 91

 Total, Foreign Food Assistance 1,249 2,743 1,081

FAS Salaries and Expenses

 (Including Cooperator and Quality

 Samples Programs) 209 200 204

 Total, International Programs $5,697 $8,406 $6,474

a/ Includes $850 million of assistance for Russia.

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

c/ Does not include the costs of approximately $695 million of

 wheat/wheat products being purchased by CCC under its surplus removal authority

 and subsequently being made available for donation overseas under section

 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949.

d/ Includes only that portion of Food for Progress programming

 supported by CCC funds.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers a variety of export promotion, food assistance, and foreign market

development programs. These activities are instrumental for achieving a primary objective of the Department's strategic plan --

the expansion of global market opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers. Changes in Federal farm policy have made U.S.

farmers and ranchers more dependent upon exports to maintain and expand their income, and more vulnerable to shifting

conditions in international markets. By helping to maximize export sales opportunities, the export programs help to stabilize

prices and incomes and thereby contribute to a greater safety net for U.S. producers.

CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs. Under these programs, CCC provides payment guarantees for the commercial

financing of U.S. agricultural exports. These programs facilitate exports to buyers in countries where credit is necessary to

maintain or increase U.S. sales, but where financing may not be available without CCC guarantees.

In response to the financial crisis in Asia and elsewhere, the programming of export credit guarantees was expanded

substantially in 1998 in order to maintain access for U.S. agricultural products to those markets. Sales registrations under the

guarantee programs exceeded $4.0 billion in 1998, an increase of 40 percent over the previous year. This higher level of

programming is expected to continue in 1999 and 2000 as well. The budget includes a projected overall program level of $4.7

billion for export credit guarantees in 1999 and $4.5 billion for 2000.

Of the total program level for export credit guarantees expected to be issued by CCC in 2000, $4.2 billion will be made

available under the GSM-102 program, which provides guarantees on commercial export credit extended with short-term

repayment terms (up to 3 years), and $100 million will be made available under the GSM-103 program, which provides

intermediate-term credit guarantees (3 to 10 year repayment terms).

For supplier credit guarantees, the budget includes an estimated program level of $145 million for 2000. Under this credit

activity, CCC guarantees payments due from importers under short-term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters extend

directly to the importers for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products. This credit activity is particularly useful in facilitating

sales of high value agricultural products.

The budget also includes an estimated program level of $45 million for facility financing guarantees in 2000. Under this

activity, CCC provides guarantees to facilitate the financing of manufactured goods and services exported from the United

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (23 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
States to improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets. By supporting such facilities, these guarantees

enhance sales of U.S. agricultural products to countries where demand may be constricted due to inadequate storage,

processing, or handling capabilities.

The budget continues the approach adopted in last year's budget for presenting the annual program levels, budget authority,

and outlays for the export credit guarantee programs. These estimates now reflect the actual level of sales expected to be

registered under the programs for which CCC guarantees will be issued rather than authorized program levels. The actual level

of guarantees to be issued during the course of the year will not be limited by the budget estimates; instead, the annual level of

programming will be determined by program demand, market conditions, and other relevant factors, similar to other

CCC-funded programs.

Market Development Programs. FAS administers a number of programs which support the development, maintenance, and

expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. The largest of these is the Market

Access Program (MAP). Under this program, CCC funds are used to reimburse participating organizations for a portion of the

costs of carrying out overseas marketing and promotional activities, such as direct consumer promotions. Historically, more

than 80 percent of MAP funding has been devoted to building export markets for U.S. high value agricultural products. MAP

participants include nonprofit agricultural trade organizations, State regional trade groups, cooperatives, and private companies

which qualify as small business concerns under the Small Business Act. The budget provides funding for MAP in 2000 at the

maximum authorized level of $90 million, unchanged from 1999.

Under the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, cost-share assistance is provided to nonprofit commodity and

agricultural trade associations to support overseas market development activities which are designed to remove long-term

impediments to increased U.S. trade. These activities include technical assistance, trade servicing, and market research. Unlike

MAP, Cooperator Program activities are carried out on a generic commodity basis and do not include brand-name or consumer

promotions.

The budget proposes that, beginning in 2000, funding for the Cooperator Program will be provided through CCC. Proposed

legislation will be submitted in conjunction with the budget to authorize annual CCC funding of $27.5 million for the program.

This proposal is consistent with section 5(f) of the CCC Charter Act which authorizes the use of CCC funds for export

promotion and market development activities. Program funding for other market development activities carried out by FAS,

including MAP, is already provided through CCC. This change would consolidate the source of funding and financial

management activities for these various programs. In addition, by providing CCC funding, the proposal would provide stability

for future program activities and would thereby enhance long-term planning by program participants.

The budget also proposes a new market development activity, the Quality Samples Program. Under this initiative, samples of

U.S. agricultural products will be provided to foreign importers in order to promote a better understanding and appreciation of

their high quality. Similar to the Cooperator Program, the Quality Samples Program will be carried out through commodity

organizations and agricultural trade associations. The budget proposes annual funding of $2.5 million for this program through

CCC.

Export Subsidy Programs. The Department currently has two export subsidy programs: the Export Enhancement Program

(EEP) and Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP). Under these programs, bonus payments are made available to exporters of

U.S. agricultural commodities to enable them to be price competitive and thereby make sales in targeted overseas markets

where competitor countries are making subsidized sales.

EEP programming has been limited in recent years due to world supply and demand conditions, and no bonuses were awarded

through the first quarter of 1999. For 2000, proposed legislation will be submitted with the budget to limit EEP programming

to $494 million, a reduction of $85 million from the level currently authorized by the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978. This

limitation is being proposed in order to provide "PAYGO" offsets to meet the costs of a number of high priority initiatives

proposed in the budget which will increase mandatory spending for agricultural programs. Although the proposal would limit

the authorized level of EEP programming, the program will remain in place and the awarding of bonuses could be resumed

should market conditions warrant.

For DEIP, the budget assumes a level of program activity for 2000 which is largely unchanged from 1999. The actual level of

DEIP programming will be determined by market conditions in 2000, subject to the Uruguay Round Agreement subsidy

reduction commitments.

Foreign Agricultural Service

Public Law 480 Food Assistance Programs

Program and Tonnage Levels

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (24 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Title I Credit Sales:

 Dollars in Millions $252 $1,070 a/ $150

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 1.3 2.8 b/ 0.8

Title II Donations:

 Dollars in Millions 861 837 837

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 2.2 2.4 2.4

Title III Grants:

 Dollars in Millions 25 25 0

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 0.1 0.2 0.0

Total, P.L. 480 Programs:

 Dollars in Millions $1,138 $1,932 $987

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 3.6 5.4 3.2

a/ Includes $850 million of assistance for Russia to be provided

 under P.L. 480 Title I and Title I-funded Food for Progress agreements.

b/ Includes 1.8 million metric tons of assistance for Russia.

Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). Also referred to as Food for Peace, P.L. 480 is the primary means by which the United States

provides foreign food assistance. This assistance is provided through three separate program authorities.

Title I of P.L. 480 provides for sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities through

concessional financing. In allocating assistance to be provided under the Title I program, priority is given to agreements which

provide for the export of U.S. agricultural commodities to those developing countries which have demonstrated the potential to

become commercial markets, are undertaking measures to improve their food security and agricultural development, and

demonstrate the greatest need for food. The Title I program is administered by FAS.

Title II provides for donations of humanitarian food assistance to needy people in foreign countries in response to malnutrition,

famine, and other extraordinary relief requirements. The assistance is provided primarily through private voluntary

organizations, cooperatives, or international organizations, including the World Food Program of the United Nations. In the

case of donations made in response to emergency needs, Title II assistance can also be provided through

government-to-government agreements. The Title II program is administered by the Agency for International Development

(AID).

Title III provides food assistance on a grant basis to least developed countries through government-to-government agreements.

The donated commodities may be sold in the domestic market of the recipient countries, and the revenue generated from the

sale is used to support programs of economic development. The Title III program is also administered by AID.

The P.L. 480 budget estimates for 1999 have been adjusted to reflect the package of food assistance for the Russian

Federation, which was announced on November 6, 1998. The package includes an estimated $850 million of assistance which

will be provided through Title I concessional financing agreements and Food for Progress grant agreements carried out with

Title I funds. To meet the estimated costs of these agreements, $726 million of CCC funds is being transferred to the P.L. 480

Title I program for this purpose. Once fully implemented, the agreements are expected to support the export of 1.8 million

metric tons of U.S. food commodities.

For 2000, the budget includes a total program level for P.L. 480 food assistance of $987 million, which is expected to provide

approximately 3.2 million metric tons of commodity assistance. In a change from past years, the budget requests no specific

level of funding for Title III grants; however, current authorities provide that up to 15 percent of the funds of any title of P.L.

480 may be transferred to carry out any other title. This authority provides flexibility for program managers to determine the

appropriate level of resources for the individual P.L. 480 programs and thereby enhances the U.S. response to changing world

food needs.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (25 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Section 416(b) Donations. Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 authorizes the donation of surplus CCC-owned

commodities in order to carry out programs of assistance in developing and other, friendly countries. Commodities eligible for

donation include those which have been acquired by CCC through price support operations or otherwise acquired in the normal

course of its operations and which are excess to domestic program requirements.

Donations under section 416(b) authority are expected to be at a record level in 1999 as a result of the Food Aid Initiative

announced by the President on July 18, 1998. Under this initiative approximately 5 million metric tons of wheat and wheat

products will be made available for donation overseas through agreements with foreign governments, private voluntary

organizations, and the World Food Program. This includes just over 1.5 million metric tons to be provided to Russia as part of

the package of U.S. food assistance. The wheat and wheat products which are being donated under the Food Aid Initiative are

being acquired by CCC under its surplus removal authority, following a determination by the Secretary of Agriculture that the

United States is experiencing a surplus wheat situation.

The total estimated value of the assistance to be provided under section 416(b) authority during 1999 is $1.47 billion. Of this,

approximately $1.37 billion is associated with the President's Food Aid Initiative, including approximately $695 million for the

value, including processing, of the wheat and products and $678 million for associated ocean freight, and overseas distribution

costs.

The budget assumes a much lower level of commodity donations will be made under section 416(b) authority in 2000. At

present, the total value of this assistance is projected to be $49 million, including $45 million for the value, including

processing, of commodities to be supplied from CCC inventory and $3 million for estimated ocean freight and distribution

costs.

Food for Progress. Under this program, U.S. agricultural commodities are provided to developing countries and emerging

democracies which have made commitments to introduce and expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies. Food for

Progress agreements can be entered into with foreign governments, private voluntary agencies, nonprofit agricultural

organizations, cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations. Agreements may provide for the commodities to be supplied

on either long-term credit or grant terms.

P.L. 480 Title I funds may be used for the procurement and transportation costs of the commodities. Alternatively,

CCC-owned commodities may be made available under the authority of section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 or CCC

may purchase commodities if not in its inventory, with transportation and other non-commodity expenses paid with CCC

funds.

The authorizing statute for Food for Progress limits annual programming to not more than 500,000 metric tons and limits CCC

funding for the non-commodity costs (e.g., transportation) of programming to $30 million per year. However, the limitation on

non-commodity costs has been increased to $35 million for 1999 by a provision of the 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act,

which will facilitate additional commodity programming. The budget assumes that approximately $133 million of CCC funds

will be used to support Food for Progress programming in 1999 and $91 million in 2000.

Foreign Agricultural Service

Salaries and Expenses

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Market Access $26 $26 $26

Market Development, Promotion, and

 Outreach 65 65 39

a/

Market Intelligence 23 23 24

Financial Marketing Assistance 9 9 9

Long-term Market and

 Infrastructure Development 16 17 17

 Total, Appropriated Programs 139 140 115

Emerging Markets Program Funded

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (26 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 by CCC 10 10 10

CCC Computer Facility and Other IRM

 Costs Funded by CCC 10 10 10

Development Assistance Programs

 Funded by AID and Other Organizations 46 37 37

Other Reimbursable Agreements 4 3 2

 Total Reimbursable Program Activity 70 60 59

Cooperator and Quality Samples Programs

 Funded by CCC -- -- 30

 Total, FAS Program Level $ 209 $200 $204

a/ Cooperator Program funding of $27.5 million provided by CCC.

FAS' mission is to serve U.S. agriculture's international interests by expanding export opportunities for U.S. agricultural, fish,

and forest products and promoting world food security. FAS carries out its mission on a worldwide basis through the following

program activities:

Market Access -- international trade policy formulation, negotiation and monitoring activities designed to reduce

foreign trade barriers and increase market access for U.S. agricultural products.

❍ 

Market Development, Promotion, and Outreach -- activities designed to increase domestic awareness of export

opportunities, facilitate export readiness, and link export-ready and new-to-export firms to market entry opportunities;

and activities designed to create demand for U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets, including the Foreign Market

Development Cooperator Program, Market Access Program, and food and agricultural trade shows.

❍ 

Market Intelligence -- market intelligence and reporting activities which provide U.S. producers, exporters, and

government officials with information and analysis of world agricultural production and trade.

❍ 

Financial Marketing Assistance -- administration of the Department's major commercial export programs, including

the CCC export credit guarantee and export subsidy programs.

❍ 

Long-Term Market and Infrastructure Development -- administration of foreign food assistance programs and

international cooperation and development activities, including scientific and technical exchanges, cooperative research,

liaison with international food and agricultural organizations, and agricultural technical assistance and training,

including the Cochran Fellowship Program.

❍ 

The budget includes appropriated funding of $115 million for FAS, which excludes $27.5 million for the Cooperator Program

which will be provided through CCC. Within the overall level of FAS appropriated funding proposed for 2000, the budget

includes increased funding to support several agency initiatives. These include $370,000 for the costs of opening an

Agricultural Trade Office in the southern Africa region; $250,000 for a Reverse Trade Missions Program which will bring

buying missions of foreign importers, retailers, and trade officials to the United States to orient them on the quality and

diversity of U.S. agricultural products; and $250,000 for FAS to re-engineer its crop and market intelligence gathering,

analysis, and dissemination processes.

In addition, the budget includes an estimated $59 million in funding to be made available to FAS through reimbursable

agreements. The largest component of this is funding for technical assistance, training, and research activities which FAS

carries out overseas on behalf of the Agency for International Development, foreign governments, and international

organizations. It also includes funding made available by CCC for the Emerging Markets Program. This program supports

technical assistance and related activities in order to further U.S. market development objectives in promising overseas growth

markets.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (27 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
RURAL DEVELOPMENT

MISSION

The Rural Development mission area strives to improve the quality of life in rural America by providing financial assistance

and working with rural communities through partnerships, empowerment and technical assistance. Outreach and targeting are

used to ensure that rural communities that have been under-served in the past will have an opportunity to receive their fair

share of Federal assistance.

Three agencies comprise the Rural Development mission area: the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Utilities Service

(RUS) and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) which also houses the Alternative Agricultural Research and

Commercialization Corporation (AARCC). Under the Department's streamlining and reorganization effort, the field office

delivery system for the three agencies was consolidated and is now co-located within USDA Service Centers.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Rural Utilities Service $2,903 $696 $3,272 $771 

$3,414 $675

Rural Housing Service 5,410 1,279 5,685 1,299 

6,319 1,174

Rural Business-Cooperative

 Service 1,333 103 1,194 116 

1,214 150

Alternative Agricultural Research

 and Commercialization Corporation 7 7 4 4 

10 10

 Total, Rural Development $9,653 $2,085 $10,155 $2,190 

$10,957 $2,009

a/ An additional $60 million is available from the Fund for Rural

 America to support Rural Development activities and research, extension

 and education grants of which at least $20 million will support Rural Development

 activities. The distribution of the funds among the authorized activities

 has not been developed.

The 2000 budget includes $2 billion in budget authority for Rural Development, which is intended to support about $11 billion

in program level. This is an increase of about $800 million in program activity over 1999 and reflects the Administration's

strong support for ensuring that rural Americans have the same opportunities for economic growth that exist in urban areas.

The major provisions of the Rural Development budget include:

$1.1 billion in direct loans and $3.2 billion in guaranteed loans for single family housing. These levels support the

President's National Homeownership initiative by making more homeownership opportunities available in rural

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (28 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
America. Direct loans will continue to be available only to low income families who receive an interest subsidy,

low-income meaning less than 80 percent of area median income. Guaranteed loans will remain available to families up

to 115 percent of median area income. The 2000 program levels will allow the agency to provide over 50,000 home

ownership opportunities in rural America and improve over 11,000 existing homes.

$25 million in farm labor housing direct loans, which with the $15 million in proposed grants, will provide 960 units for

farmworkers and their families.

❍ 

$100 million for direct loans and $200 million in guaranteed loans for multi-family housing. The Administration will

propose elimination of the statutory requirement that 20% of the loans guaranteed must receive interest assistance. The

proposed change would reduce the subsidy cost of this program to zero. The guaranteed loan program was first

introduced in 1997 and operated as a pilot program. It has shown great potential, particularly where it can be used to

leverage other Federal, State and local or private financing. Experience has shown that projects for low-to-moderate

income families do not necessarily require interest assistance because subsidies are available from other sources. The

reduction in subsidy cost will provide for the program's expansion to $200 million, which is $125 million over 1999.

The number of units built would be over 5,000 units.

❍ 

A total of $640 million for rental assistance of which $440 million will be available on October 1, 1999 and $200

million will be available on October 1, 2000. Rental Assistance is provided to multi-family and farm labor housing

project owners. This assistance makes up the difference between what the low-income tenant pays and the rent required

for the project owner to meet debt servicing requirements.

❍ 

$503 million in grants, $900 million in direct loans, and $75 million in guaranteed loans for water and waste disposal

projects. The combined totals of loans and grants represent an increase of $156 million over the 1999 level. This level

will provide safe affordable drinking water to over 1 million people.

❍ 

$1 billion in guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans for business and industry. These levels reflect the emphasis

this Administration is giving to ensuring that there are more job opportunities in rural America. It is estimated that $1

billion in guaranteed loans creates or saves almost 40,000 jobs.

❍ 

$1.65 billion in direct loans for rural electric and telephone systems, including a proposal which would provide $400

million for Treasury rate electric loans.

❍ 

$220 million in loans and grants for Distance Learning & Telemedicine (DLT), an increase of $58 million over the 1999

level. This level of funding will provide about 800 grants and 40 loans, and will provide assistance to over 1,000 schools

and over 2,000 health care facilities.

❍ 

The budget includes $15 million for grants to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). Five new

rural empowerment zones were authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Twenty new enterprise communities

were authorized by the 1999 Appropriations Act, which also provided $15 million in discretionary funds for the first

year grants. The Administration's proposal would provide funding as mandatory spending for the full ten years. The

longer term financing would allow recipients greater assurance for strategic planning. This funding would be in addition

to funding targeted to EZ/EC's under Rural Development's on-going programs, which is estimated at $203 million in

2000.

❍ 

The budget reflects the funding flexibility under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) that was enacted

as part of the 1996 Farm Bill. RCAP allows funds to be transferred among programs to ensure better coordination in

meeting local priorities and the 2000 budget assumes the full transfer flexibility authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill. The

table below indicates the programs and funding levels included in RCAP.

❍ 

Rural Community Advancement Program

Sources of Funding

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999 2000

 Program Program

 Program Level Level

Water and Waste Disposal Loans:

 Direct $724 $900

 Guarantees 75 75

Water and Waste Disposal Grants 523 503

Solid Waste Management Grants 3 3

Community Facility Loans:

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (29 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Direct 169 250

 Guarantees 210 210

Community Facility Grants 7 13

Business and Industry Loans:

 Direct 50 50

 Guarantees 1,000 1,000

Rural Business Opportunity Grants 0 5

Rural Business Enterprise Grants 37 36

 Total, Loans and Grants. $2,798 $3,045

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Loan Programs:

 Electric Loans:

 Direct 5% $125 $9 $72 $9 

$50 a/

 Direct, Treasury (Proposed Leg) 0 0 0 0 

400 a/

 Municipal 500 21 295 26 

250 $9

 FFB Guaranteed 300 3 700 0 

300 0

 Total, Electric Loans 925 33 1,067 35 

1,000 10

 Telecommunications Loans:

 Direct 5% 75 3 75 7 

50 1

 Treasury Rate 288 a/ 300 1 

300 2

 FFB Guaranteed 34 0 120 0 

120 0

 Total, Telecom. Loans 397 3 495 8 

470 3

 Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) 168 4 157 4 

175 3

 Total, Elec., Tele. and RTB 1,490 40 1,719 47 

1,645 16

 Distance Learning and Telemedicine

 Treasury Rate Loans 5 a/ 150 a/ 

200 1

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (30 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Water and Waste Disposal Loans

 Direct b/ 787 73 724 120 

900 64

 Guaranteed b/ 15 0 75 0 

75 0

 Total, Wtr & Wst Dis Loans 802 73 799 120 

975 64

Grant Programs:

 Distance Learning & Telemed. 21 13 12 12 

20 20

 Water and Waste Disposal b/ 516 501 523 523 

503 503

 Solid Waste Management b/ 3 3 3 3 

3 3

 Total, Grants 540 517 538 538 

526 526

 Total, RUS Loans & Grants 2,837 630 3,206 705 

3,346 607

Salaries and Expenses 66 66 66 66 

68 68

 Total, RUS $2,903 $696 $3,272 $771

$3,414 $675

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

 (See page 42.)

The electric and telecommunications programs administered by RUS provide loans to establish, expand, and modernize

facilities to improve service to rural residents. The 2000 budget signals a shift in these programs from the highly subsidized

direct 5 percent and municipal rate loans to greater reliance on FFB-insured and direct Treasury rate loans. To facilitate this

shift, the Administration will propose legislation authorizing $400 million in direct Treasury rate electric loans. This authority

will be similar to the direct Treasury rate authority currently used by the telecommunications program. Overall, the 2000

program level for electric loans is about $67 million lower than 1999. This level of funding is expected to create about 23,000

jobs in rural areas and provide improved electric service to 1.6 million rural residents.

The total funding for the telecommunications programs will be $7 million less than the 1999 levels. Direct 5 percent

telecommunications loans will decrease about $25 million, while the Rural Telephone Bank programs will increase about $18

million. The total level of telecommunications assistance will result in the creation of almost 15,000 jobs in rural areas, over

200,000 new residents and businesses will receive telecommunications service.

The water and waste disposal program provides grant and direct and guaranteed loan assistance to communities with

populations not in excess of 10,000. Communities must first be denied access to commercial credit to be eligible for assistance.

Loan and grant funds are provided to communities to establish, expand, and modernize water treatment and waste disposal

facilities. Through the Administration's Water 2000 initiative, the Department targets a portion of its water and waste disposal

resources to the rural residents who have some of the Nation's most serious drinking water availability, dependability, and

quality problems. At the 2000 budget levels, the program is expected to create 41,000 rural jobs, provide new water services to

648,000 rural residents and improved water services to over 1.3 million rural residents. The 2000 level will also provide new

or improved waste disposal facilities serving an estimated 619,000 rural residents.

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) program provides assistance for facilities and equipment to provide

telecommunications linkages among education and health care facilities. Grant funding is available for those areas

experiencing high poverty levels while loans or a combination loans and grants are available for areas with higher income

levels. The program continues to experience a demand for grant funds far in excess of the amount of funding that has been

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (31 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
available. The budget provides $20 million in grants and $200 million in loans for distance learning and telemedicine. This

would increase grant funding by about $7.5 million and loan funding by $50 million over 1999. The total funding is expected

to provide assistance for about 800 grants and 40 loans and provide assistance to over 1,000 schools and over 2,000 health care

facilities.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Rural Housing Loans:

 Single-Family:

 Direct $1,008 $128 $965 $114

$1,100 $94

 Guarantees 2,822 7 3,000 3 

3,200 20

 Multi Family Housing:

 Direct (Sec 515) 151 68 114 55 

100 40

 Guarantees (Sec 538) 40 1 75 2 

200 0

 Very Low-Income Repair 30 10 25 9 

32 10

 Farm Labor Housing 15 7 20 10 

25 11

 Self-Help Housing a/ a/ 5 a/ 

5 a/

 Housing Site Development a/ a/ 5 a/ 

5 a/

 Credit Sales 23 3 17 4 

8 1 

 Total, Housing Loans 4,089 225 4,226 197 

4,675 176

Community Facility Loans:

 Direct b/ 211 17 170 23 

250 15

 Guarantees b/ 65 a/ 210 0 

210 0

 Total, Community Facility Loans 276 17 380 23 

460 15

Grants and Payments:

 Community Facility 9 9 7 7 

13 13

 Very Low-Income Repair 26 25 22 22 

30 30

 Farm Labor Housing 13 10 11 11 

15 15

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (32 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Mutual and Self-Help 27 26 26 26 

30 30

 Supervisory and Technical Asst. a/ 0 0 0 

0 0

 Compensation for Const. Defects a/ 0 a/ 0 

a/ 0

 Rural Housing Preservation 11 11 8 8 

9 9

 Rental Assistance Payments c/ 545 542 583 583 

640 440

 Fire Protection Grants 2 2 d/ d/ 

d/ d/

 Total, Grants 633 625 657 657 

738 537

Total, Loans and Grants 4,998 867 5,263 877 

5,873 728

Salaries and Expenses 412 412 422 422 

446 446

 Total, RHS $5,410 $1,279 $5,685 $1,299 $6,319 

$1,174

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

 (See page 42.)

c/ Of the $640 million program level, $440 million shall become

 available on October 1, 1999 and $200 million shall become available on

 October 1, 2000.

d/ Funding is requested in the Forest Service budget.

The 2000 budget for RHS supports a program level of over $6.3 billion, an increase of more than $600 million from 1999. Of

the total program level, over $5 billion is in the form of loans.

The single family housing direct loan program provides subsidized loans for the purchase of modest housing in rural areas.

Loans are made at a graduated interest rate level from 1 percent to 100 basis points over the Treasury rate, which is currently

6.06 percent, depending on family income, to families who have income under 80 percent of the area median. The average

annual income of a direct loan borrower is generally about 55 percent of area median income or about $17,000 on a National

basis. Loan guarantees primarily serve families with moderate incomes, with the interest rate negotiable between the lender

and borrower.

The Section 515 multifamily housing loan program would be funded at $100 million in 2000. This program provides direct

loans to construct and maintain multifamily rental projects that serve low and very low income families. Projects receive

payment assistance to make rents affordable. The average annual income of a Section 515 tenant is $7,300. The 2000 request

will provide for the construction of 1,900 new units and the rehabilitation of over 2,400 existing units.

The Section 538 multifamily housing loan guarantee program guarantees loans that are made by private lenders. It differs from

the Section 515 direct loan program in that the projects it finances serve tenants with incomes up to 115 percent of the area

median, rather than those below 80 percent of the area median. The 2000 request of $200 million would provide for the

construction of over 5,000 units.

The 2000 budget provides $640 million for the rental assistance program, an increase of $57 million from the 1999 level.

Rental assistance is provided to project owners in the form of 5-year contracts. These contracts are tied to the income of

tenants in low-income units, who pay no more than 30 percent of their income in rent. Rental assistance makes up the

difference between what the low-income tenant pays and the rent required for the project owner to meet debt servicing

requirements. When the 5-year contracts expire, they typically are renewed to keep the unit available for low income families

and the project viable for the sponsor.

Consistent with meeting the Secretary's civil rights goals, the 2000 budget recommends $25 million for farm labor housing

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (33 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
loans and $15 million for farm labor housing grants, an increase of $5 million in loans and $3.5 million in grants from 1999

levels. This would provide for the construction of about 600 new units and rehabilitation of about 350 existing units of housing

for farm workers.

The community facilities program provides direct loans, guarantees and grants to finance essential community facilities, with

priority given to health and safety facilities. There are three interest rates available on direct loans, with the lowest, 4.5 percent,

offered to communities where the median income is below the poverty level and for projects to meet health and safety

standards. The 2000 budget provides $250 million in direct loans, $210 million in guarantees, and $13 million in grants,

including $5 million for early warning system grants that would allow rural areas to reduce the loss of life resulting from

inadequate warnings of hazardous weather. This level of funding will support over 200 new or improved health care facilities

and other facilities which improve the standard of living in rural America.

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Loans:

 Business and Industry:

 Guarantees a/ $1,100 $11 $1,000 $10

$1,000 $31

 Direct a/ 21 0 50 0 

50 0

 NAD Bank 72 0 0 0 

0 0

 Intermediary Relending Prog. 35 17 33 17 

52 23

 Rural Economic Development 25 6 15 4 

15 3

 Total, Loans 1,253 34 1,098 31 

1,117 57

Grants:

 Rural Business Enterprise a/ 37 37 37 37 

36 36

 Rural Business Opportunity a/ b/ b/ 1 1 

5 5

 Rural Cooperative Development 2 2 2 2 

5 5

 Appropriate Technology Transfer

 for Rural Areas 1 1 1 1 

2 2

 Rural Economic Development 11 c/ 11 c/ 

4 c/

 Cooperative Research

 Agreements 2 2 2 2 

2 2

 Agribusiness and Cooperative

 Development Program 0 0 b/ b/ 

0 0

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (34 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Empowerment Zones and

 Enterprise Communities 0 0 15 15 

15 15

 Total, Grants 53 42 69 58 

69 65

Total, Loans and Grants 1,306 76 1,167 89 

1,186 122

Salaries and Expenses 27 27 27 27 

28 28

 Total, RBS $1,333 $103 $1,194 $116

$1,214 $150

a/ These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

 (See page 42.)

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

c/ Earnings generated by the interest differential on voluntary

 cushion of credit payments made by RUS borrowers provide the subsidy to

 support these grants.

RBS administers the Department's rural business assistance programs, including technical assistance, development, and

research on agricultural cooperatives. The agency delivers a wide variety of services to its clients. Business and Industry (B&I)

loan guarantees, for example, provide protection against loss so that private lenders are willing to extend credit to establish,

expand, or modernize rural businesses. Other programs, including the intermediary relending program and the rural economic

development loan and grant programs allow local sponsors to borrow from the agency in order to make loans to businesses and

other organizations for developmental purposes. Special efforts are being made to help rural communities diversify,

particularly into value-added processing, by directing B&I funds to cooperatives.

The budget provides $1 billion in guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans under the business and industry loan

program. Direct loans will be targeted to those areas which have traditionally been under-served by commercial lenders. Loan

guarantees help expand investment in rural areas by protecting commercial lenders against loss. In addition, loan guarantees

may be used to provide financing to farmers for the purchase of start-up capital stock in a cooperative which will process the

commodity being produced by the farmer. The proposed level of assistance is consistent with the Administration's strong

commitment to expanding the rural economy and is expected to create or save almost 40,000 jobs in rural America.

The budget provides $52 million for the intermediary relending program (IRP). The intermediary relending program provides

loans at 1 percent interest to local intermediaries who relend those funds to local businesses and other organizations to expand

or improve the local economic base. This level of funding is expected to create or save about 40,000 jobs in rural America.

Included in the Forest Service request is a $50 million loan program entitled the Smart Growth Partnership Program. This

program, part of the Lands Legacy Initiative, will be administered by the Forest Service through an agreement with RBS to run

the loan program through IRP. (See Page 71.)

The budget provides $5 million for partnership technical assistance grants to help rural communities develop comprehensive

strategies for revitalization and to better coordinate Federal assistance.

Rural cooperatives are growing not just in numbers but also in terms of non-traditional forms and uses. Cooperatives are

forming strategic alliances with privately held corporations, engaging in value-added processing, and entering the retail and

export markets. Through the cooperative form of business, rural residents are finding ways to save their way of life, add value

to their product, and bring more income home to the farm gate. Funding for rural cooperatives is $7 million in 2000, up from

the $4 million available in 1999. The additional funding will provide technical assistance to small farmers and small farm

related operations in developing market and management skills.

ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION (AARCC)

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 

2000

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (35 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Actual Estimate 

Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. 

P.L. B.A.

Investments $7 $7 $4 $4 

$10 $10

The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation (AARCC) makes equity investments in rural

businesses to assist in the technological development and commercialization of industrial (non-food, non-feed) uses for

agricultural and forestry materials and animal by-products. These equity investments allow start-up businesses an opportunity

to become successful prior to undertaking repayment, thereby offering greater flexibility towards repayment than can be

accommodated under conventional loan terms, which require immediate repayment.

The budget provides $10 million for AARCC, including, about $1.5 million for administrative expenses. This level of funding

is expected to help bring 6 new products to market and create about 1,500 new jobs in rural America. This level of funding

compares to about $3.5 million in 1999.

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers America's domestic nutrition programs. The mission of FNS is to provide

children and needy families better access to a healthful diet through nutrition assistance programs and nutrition education. FNS

fulfills its mission via the programs in the table below. Food stamps remain the cornerstone of our National commitment to

protect the nutrition, health, and well-being of low-income families. These programs support the Administration's goals of

encouraging work, family and responsibility, as well as improving the nutritional levels of low-income households.

Food and Nutrition Service

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Food Stamp Program a/ $19,265 $20,228 $20,462

b/

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico 1,204 1,236 1,268

 Total, Food Stamp Program 20,469 21,464 21,730

Child Nutrition Programs 9,136 9,504 10,001

Special Supp. Nutrition Program (WIC). 4,035 4,064 4,205

Commodity Assistance Programs:

 Commodity Supp. Food Program 89 96 90

 Soup Kitchens, Food Banks and The

 Emergency Food Assistance

 Program (TEFAP) 147 135 145

 WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program 12 15 20

 Total, CAP 248 246 255

Food Donations Programs:

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly 141 140 150

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (36 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance 1 1 1

 Total, Food Donations 142 141 151

Food Program Administration 109 112 113

 WIC and Child Nutrition Integrity

 Initiative -- -- 2

 Food Stamp Integrity Initiative -- -- 6

 Total, FPA 109 112 121

Total, FNS $34,139 $35,531 $36,463

a/ Includes funding for Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

 (FDPIR).

b/ In addition, $1 billion is requested in 2000 for a contingency

 reserve.

The Department's 2000 budget funds the anticipated needs of the Food Stamp, Child Nutrition, WIC and other programs and

includes cost-neutral legislative proposals to increase incentives for States to collect claims and improve program integrity.

The budget continues the emphasis on modernizing benefit delivery systems and improving the overall integrity and efficiency

of the Food Assistance Programs, to assure that resources go to those who need them most. Further, with Welfare Reform it is

critically important to help willing work-able persons find and retain jobs through training, job search assistance, and

affordable child care. Central to the nutrition assistance mission, these programs provide nutrition education to empower

participants with the skills and knowledge to make food choices for a healthy diet. Additional funds are also requested for food

stamp nutrition education and for a program to inform working poor families and to ensure the safety of school meals. The

details of the nutrition programs follow.

Food Stamps. The 2000 budget funds anticipated growth in participation of about 400 thousand over 1999 estimates (for a

total of 20.1 million), projected food inflation, and provides $1 billion for a contingency reserve. In addition, cost-neutral

legislation is proposed to establish an incentive payment system to foster increased claims collections and improve program

integrity. Legislation has also been proposed at a funding level of $10 million to restore food stamp benefits to approximately

15,000 immigrants who entered the U.S. before August 22, 1996 and who have subsequently reached the age of sixty-five.

FNS continues to aggressively fight food stamp trafficking fraud and the sale of non-food products for food stamps by

coordinating with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conduct "sweeps" to identify and eliminate ineligible stores

from the program. Also, implementing Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) will continue during FY 2000. Substituting

electronic debit cards for food coupons simplifies benefit delivery, makes benefit use more secure and convenient for

recipients, and reduces retailer and program administrative costs. In addition, EBT provides USDA with data useful in

detecting retailer and recipient trafficking and fraud. Funding for the Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Program is requested at

$1.3 billion, the same as the authorized level.

Child Nutrition Programs. Increasing the public understanding of proper nutrition, a major Departmental objective, is also

promoted through the nutrition assistance programs. A priority continues to be increasing children's understanding of nutrition

and improving their diets through the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. The National School Lunch, School

Breakfast, Summer Food Service, Special Milk, and Child and Adult Care Food Programs (CACFP) play a significant role in

achieving this goal by assisting State and local governments in serving healthful, nutritious meals to children in various

settings, with greatest emphasis on helping low-income children. These programs assist pre-school and school-aged children

by subsidizing the provision of nutritious meals. They also help assure that children are in school ready to learn, and that the

children can learn by proper nutritional example. Special subsidies are also provided under these programs so that low-income

children receive meals free or at a greatly reduced price. Under the current Child Nutrition Programs, especially CACFP,

USDA helps support child care that helps the Nation's working people as well as work-able welfare recipients be able to train

for, gain and maintain employment.

Since good nutrition is key to health and learning, the budget proposes $13 million to fund a pilot project to evaluate providing

breakfasts to all children regardless of income. This pilot was authorized by the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition

Reauthorization Act of 1998, P.L. 105-336, and limited to six School Food Authorities. The Act authorizes USDA to evaluate

the effects of providing free breakfasts to elementary school children, without regard to family income, on participation,

academic achievement, attendance, and dietary intake over the course of a day. USDA's budget request will carry out the intent

of this law by fully funding the pilots in 6 districts.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (37 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
For 2000, the Child Nutrition Programs are funded at a level that will support anticipated participation, which includes

increases in participation and food costs. The budget also reflects the fact that the percentage of free school lunches has

continued to climb. The Department continues to work with the States to improve the appeal and nutritional quality of school

meals, and to help schools bring their meals into compliance with The Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Department will

continue to place emphasis on food safety education. The budget includes $2 million for nutrition education and training.

National nutrition standards, consistent National eligibility standards, and the guarantee of free meals to children from

low-income households are the central strengths of the Child Nutrition Programs.

WIC. The budget of $4.2 billion for the WIC program would support 7.5 million participants. The WIC program helps

improve the health and nutritional status of low-income pregnant, breast-feeding and postpartum women, infants and children

up to their fifth birthday. WIC supplements households' food resources with vouchers which may be redeemed for specified

foods such as milk, eggs, cheese, fruit juices, cereal and infant formula. In addition to these food supplements, WIC provides

nutrition education and linkages to other important health and social services. Approximately 46 percent of all infants born in

the United States are WIC beneficiaries. The program also has contributed to better birth outcomes and reductions in childhood

anemia, key indicators of the health of America's children.

WIC will work to improve program integrity and increase efficiency through enhanced vendor and recipient integrity

activities. For example, USDA and the States are taking action to strengthen income documentation so that benefits are

targeted only to those meeting income guidelines. Finally, USDA is working with the States to further reduce per person food

costs, building on WIC's performance in keeping unit food costs essentially flat for the past 10 years.

Commodity Assistance Programs. The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP) provide commodities distributed through

several programs. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides administrative funding and wholesome

commodities to the network of food banks and other programs which assist households in need of immediate, short-term food

assistance. TEFAP providers also typically distribute significant quantities of commodities donated by the private sector,

thereby leveraging the Federal investment. Commodities are also made available to soup kitchens and food banks. Funding for

TEFAP includes both discretionary funding of $45 million usable for program administration or food, at the election of State

officials, and $100 million available under the Food Stamp Program appropriation to be used for purchasing commodities for

distribution to the States.

In twenty States, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) provides commodities to low-income elderly and

women, infants and children not on WIC. The CSFP budget request will fund current participation levels.

The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) provides WIC participants access to fresh fruits and vegetables and

expands the awareness and use of farmers' markets by consumers. The 2000 budget proposes $20 million within the

Commodity Assistance Program account for FMNP. This is a $5 million increase over the 1999 appropriated level. The

increase will permit expansion into new counties in States currently participating in the program, as well as bring 4 new States

into the program. The most recent data available shows that the FMNP provided coupons to over 1 million WIC participants.

The participants redeemed their coupons at 1,345 farmers' markets, providing revenue to 9,161 small, family farmers.

Food Donations Programs. In coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), FNS also provides

funding for Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) which provides subsidized meals to persons aged 60 or older at

low-income elderly centers and through "meals on wheels" programs. The 2000 budget would increase this program by $10

million, to $150 million. This increase will permit participation to remain steady by maintaining the value of the meal

reimbursement rate, which has been eroded over the years by inflation.

The program also provides nutrition assistance to certain Pacific Islands and contingency funds for non-Presidentially declared

disasters.

Food Program Administration. Funding of $121 million is requested to maintain program operations, pursue program and

financial integrity initiatives and increase the emphasis on improved nutrition among participants in the domestic nutrition

assistance programs. FNS is on schedule with Y2K changes to maintain and improve the efficiency of administration for

America's nutrition programs. However, FNS' antiquated software and hardware must be replaced to ensure adequate program

and financial integrity. Funds are included to provide for development and implementation of improvements relating to both

program and financial integrity weaknesses.

In further support of the Department's healthy meals initiative, and recognizing the proven link between good nutrition and

good health (and lower health care costs), the budget recognizes the role of nutrition education for all nutrition assistance

programs with a request for $2.5 million for the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). In addition to helping

USDA coordinate the policies and regulations of its nutrition assistance programs with other Federal agencies, the CNPP will

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (38 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
coordinate and increase the effectiveness of the funds spent within USDA on developing and promoting the message of good

nutrition.

A new program integrity initiative will begin in 2000 and will be funded at $8 million within the Food Program Administration

(FPA) account. This funding includes $6 million to be used to measure and improve payment accuracy in the Food Stamp

Program and $2 million to reduce school overclaiming for the Child Nutrition Program.

Food and Nutrition Service

Key Indicators

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Average Participation, millions:

 Food Stamps 19.8 19.7 20.1

a/

 Free School Lunch 13.0 13.5 13.7 

 School Lunch, Total 26.6 26.9 27.3

 Free Breakfast 5.6 6.1 6.3

 Total Breakfast 7.1 7.5 7.8

 WIC 7.4 7.4 7.5

 Commodity Supp. Food Program (CSFP):

 WIC-type 0.13 0.13 0.13

 Elderly 0.25 0.28 0.28

 Food Distribution Program on Indian

 Reservations (FDPIR) 0.12 0.13 0.13 

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly

 (NPE), annual meals 249.9 252.7 252.7

Unemployment Rate 4.6% 4.7% 5.0%

Average/person/month food benefit in $:

 Food Stamps $71.09 $74.73 $75.28

 WIC 31.81 32.63 33.42

 CSFP: WIC-type (FNS Funded) 17.47 18.21 18.72

 CSFP: Elderly (FNS Funded) 13.21 14.02 14.36

 FDPIR (FNS Funded) 31.44 34.44 35.97

Per meal subsidies including commodities:

 Free School Lunch $2.05 $2.10 $2.14

 Reduced Price School Lunch 1.65 1.70 1.74

 Paid School Lunch 0.33 0.33 0.34

 Free Breakfast 1.05 1.08 1.10

 Paid Breakfast 0.20 0.20 0.21

 NPE per meal subsidy (cents) 56.07 55.40 59.35

a/ Legislation is proposed to restore benefits to an estimated

 15,000 legal immigrants yearly. The participants are included in the estimate

 shown.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (39 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
FOOD SAFETY

MISSION

Food Safety, the public health mission area of USDA, provides scientific focus, leadership and expertise in addressing the

important domestic and international public health and safety issues related to meat, poultry, and egg products regulated by the

Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and the general oversight of the Office of the U.S. Manager of the Codex Alimentarius

Commission. Food Safety also leads efforts within the Department to respond to food safety emergencies and coordinates

policies and program development with international organizations, other countries, and State and local governments on these

food safety issues.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Federal Food Inspection $494 $515 $546

Import/Export Inspection 12 12 12

Laboratory Services 35 36 40

Field Automation & Information Mgmt 8 8 8

Grants to States 41 41 42

Special Assistance to State Programs 0 5 5

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds 89 89 89

 Total, FSIS Program Level 679 706 742

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds -89 -89 -89

New User Fees -- -- -504

 Total, FSIS Appropriations $590 $617 $149

FSIS provides in-plant inspection to all domestic establishments preparing meat, poultry, and processed egg products for sale

or distribution into interstate commerce, and also reviews foreign inspection systems and plants exporting these products to the

United States. FSIS provides technical and cost-sharing assistance to States that maintain inspection programs equal to the

Federal inspection program. To accomplish these functions, FSIS employees are stationed in approximately 6,000

establishments, including approximately 150 import stations. Headquarters personnel are responsible for overseeing

administration of the program and ensuring that the latest scientific and technological developments are incorporated into

inspection procedures. FSIS coordinates the development of its policies with other USDA agencies, the Food and Drug

Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as international

organizations, to ensure an integrated farm-to-table approach to food safety.

HACCP Implementation. On July 25, 1996, FSIS published the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Points (HACCP) Systems that is expected to reduce foodborne illness by 25 percent by the year 2000. The

Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule: (1) requires all meat and poultry plants to develop and implement a system of

preventive controls, known as HACCP, to improve the safety of their products, (2) sets pathogen reduction performance

standards for Salmonella that slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet, (3) requires all meat and

poultry plants to develop and implement written standard operating procedures for sanitation, and (4) requires meat and poultry

slaughter plants to conduct microbial testing for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the

prevention of fecal contamination.

Implementation of the rule began on January 27, 1997, and will be completed by January 25, 2000. On January 26, 1998,

approximately 300 of the largest meat and poultry slaughter and processing establishments, producing 75 percent of all

Federally inspected product, implemented HACCP programs designed to target and reduce harmful bacteria on their products.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (40 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
More than 2,800 small establishments were required to implement HACCP and Salmonella requirements on January 25, 1999.

The remaining very small establishments will be required to implement HACCP by January 25, 2000. In order to facilitate

implementation, FSIS has conducted extensive training of Federal and State inspection personnel in preparation for the new

regulatory oversight procedures generated by the HACCP rule.

For 2000, the budget proposes a program level of $742 million, a net increase of $36 million over the 1999 current estimate.

The 2000 budget includes increases for pay costs and a one-time request for $1 million for civil rights training for FSIS

employees. In 2000, FSIS will continue the process of transforming the inspection process without an increase in staffing

levels. The budget includes the following programmatic increases:

Workforce Transition. The 2000 budget includes $10.8 million to help the FSIS inspection workforce make the transition to a

new HACCP environment, including conversion of 388 current inspection personnel and hiring 250 new personnel as

Consumer Safety Officers. In these new positions, these employees will be responsible for conducting scientific testing and

inspections throughout the farm-to-table continuum. Some of these personnel will be redeployed to cover critical inspection

vacancies in very small establishments. These redeployments and upgrades will increase the professional qualifications of the

inspection workforce and cover a broader segment of the farm-to-table continuum.

Food Safety Initiative. In fiscal year 2000, the budget includes increases to build on the investments begun with the

President's Food Safety Initiative. Continued investment in food safety activities will enhance public health by minimizing

foodborne illness from meat, poultry, and egg products. An increase of $2.9 million is requested to address food safety risks

from farm-to-table, including: emergency response coordination with the States in investigating foodborne illness outbreaks;

validation of the ability of State laboratories to meet HACCP pathogen testing requirements; and pathogen testing in Federal

laboratories of State inspected product.

New User Fees. The 2000 budget request proposes legislation to recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and

egg products inspection. The user fees exclude Grants to States and Special Assistance for State Programs. Requiring the

payment of user fees for Federal inspection services would not only result in savings to the taxpayer, but would also ensure

that sufficient resources are available to provide the mandatory inspection services needed to meet increasing industry demand.

The overall impact on prices as a result of these fees has been estimated to be less than one cent per pound of meat, poultry,

and egg products production. The implementation of the user fee authority would be designed to be fair and equitable, promote

accountability and efficiency, and minimize the impact on the competitive balance among affected industries. Appropriated

funds are requested to convert the Federal program to user fees and for maintaining Federal support of State inspection

programs.

FSIS' primary program responsibilities include:

Federal Food Inspection. FSIS inspects all carcasses in slaughter plants for disease and other abnormalities, and samples for

the presence of chemical residues. Other responsibilities ensure that establishments develop and implement sanitation standard

operating procedures, and humane methods of slaughter. Meat and poultry processing operations are inspected by FSIS on a

daily basis. Typical processing operations include cutting, boning, curing, and canning. Inspector activities include review of

plant operations for sanitation and cleanliness, labeling, and packing functions. FSIS provides mandatory continuous in-plant

inspection to egg product processing plants. The inspector checks the acceptability of eggs, the sanitation of plant and

equipment, and determines if the egg products have been properly processed. FSIS reviews inspection systems in countries

exporting meat, poultry and egg products to the U.S. and inspects imported products at ports-of-entry.

Laboratory Services. FSIS operates three laboratories and has agreements with two other private laboratories to perform the

scientific testing in support of inspection operations. Samples sent to the laboratories are analyzed for food chemistry and to

identify the presence of pathogens, residues, additives, disease, and foreign matter.

Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM). FAIM provides automated technology, regulatory information

and improved telecommunications capability among the widely dispersed field inspection workforce. FY 1999 is the fourth

year of the five-year implementation of the FAIM project.

Grants to States. FSIS has authority to approve State meat and poultry inspection programs for products travelling in

intrastate commerce. FSIS reviews State inspection programs to assure that standards, at least equal to Federal standards, are

applied to meat and poultry plants under State jurisdiction. For State inspection programs, USDA contributes, through the

Grants to States Program, up to 50 percent of each State's costs. Currently, 26 States participate in the program.

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds. Currently, user fees are collected to recover the cost of inspection provided beyond

regularly scheduled operations and on holidays. Establishments requesting voluntary inspection services, which are not

mandated by law are also charged a user fee to recover the full cost of the inspection.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (41 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

MISSION

The mission of the Natural Resources and Environment area is to promote the conservation, and sustainable use of natural

resources on the Nation's private lands and to sustain production of all the goods and services that the public demands of the

National Forests. Two agencies, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service, are primarily responsible

for achieving this mission.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Conservation Operations:

 Conservation Technical Assistance $537 $548 $585

 Soil Surveys 77 78 81

 Snow Surveys 6 6 6

 Plant Materials Centers 9 9 9

 Total, Conservation Operations 629 641 681

Watershed Surveys and Planning 11 10 12

Watershed and Flood Prevention 106 99 83

 Emergency Watershed Prot. (carryover) 130 131 0

Forestry Incentives Program 6 16 0

Resource Conservation and Development. 35 35 35

Debt for Nature -- -- 5

Farmland Protection Program--Discretionary -- -- 50

Programs Funded by CCC:

 Environmental Quality Incentives

 Program 194 174 300

 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 26 24 10

 Farmland Protection Program 17 0 28

 Wetlands Reserve Program 231 132 209

 Total, NRCS $1,385 $1,262 $1,413

 Recap:

 NRCS Appropriations $917 $932 $866

 Funded from CCC 468 330 547

NRCS directs its financial and technical assistance programs to land users through the USDA service centers and through local

conservation districts, which are units of State government organized for the purpose of developing and carrying out local

conservation programs. USDA has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with each conservation district and these

formal agreements provide a basis for the Department's working relationship with each district.

Within the proposed funding level of $1.4 billion for NRCS conservation programs in 2000, the Department will maintain its

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (42 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
focus on supporting locally-led conservation assistance through which the conservation districts, farmers and ranchers and

other private landowners and users work with NRCS to identify the most critical local natural resource needs and concerns.

This information is then used to help target USDA and other federal and state environment and conservation programs in the

most cost-effective manner possible. It has also been used by the agency to meet its GPRA strategic planning objectives which

include the development of an annual performance plan and specific multi-year performance goals.

The agency's annual performance goals rely on measures of actual conservation achieved on the land with direct technical and

financial assistance from NRCS and its partners in the district offices. The two long-term goals that NRCS will focus on over

the next several years will include: 1) working directly with farmers and landowners to promote the conservation ethic and to

encourage more effective stewardship of the natural resources on their property; and 2) enhancing the health and productivity

of the nation's cropland in order to sustain food and fiber production and healthy watersheds and natural systems.

In order to meet these ambitious goals, NRCS will still need to rely heavily on the full array of conservation programs

provided in the 1996 Farm Bill including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Reserve

Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives

Program. In addition, USDA will continue to place emphasis on working in partnership with the conservation districts and

state conservation agencies to provide assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners and users to conserve and protect

the country's natural resources on private lands. The Department will also seek to better coordinate the functions and personnel

of the different field agencies in order to provide a more seamless and efficient field delivery system.

Under this budget, the Department will support implementation of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan primarily

through competitive partnership grants and through additional financial and technical assistance to owners and operators of

animal feeding operations. In the watershed construction area, the Department will continue its efforts to direct funds to only

those projects that meet established environmental criteria and where local sponsor support is strong.

Conservation Operations (CO). The 2000 budget proposes $681 million for conservation operations which includes $585

million for conservation technical assistance (CTA). This will fund the agency's activities that support locally led, voluntary

conservation through the unique partnership that has been developed over the years with each conservation district. This

partnership provides the foundation on which the Department can implement many of the critical natural resource programs

including conservation compliance, the CRP and the conservation initiatives called for in the 1996 Farm Bill.

Addressing the water pollution problem caused by animal feeding operations (AFO's) has been a high priority within the

Department. In September 1998, as called for in the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan, the Department and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly released for public comment a draft AFO Strategy that establishes national

performance expectations for all AFO owners and operators and presents a series of actions that USDA and EPA will take to

minimize the water quality and public health impacts of the nearly 450,000 AFO's in the United States. To help those AFO

operators that need to develop and implement waste management plans, NRCS will direct $20 million in CTA funding in

2000, including an increase of $8 million to support the voluntary component of the AFO Strategy, under which producers

would receive necessary technical assistance without financial assistance. Implementation of the President's Clean Water

Action Plan will also be supported in the budget through a $20 million investment in competitive partnership grants that will

be used to strengthen the leadership capacity of locally-based institutions such as conservation districts, watershed councils,

RC&D councils, etc. A further increase of $3 million will be used by NRCS for additional monitoring to help target resources

and document baseline conditions and performance.

The proposal for CO also includes $15 million to help support the USDA share of the Administration's global climate change

initiatives. This includes $12 million for soil studies and inventories to provide accurate baseline soil carbon data and to assess

the impacts of Federal programs on soil carbon stocks at the national, regional, and field levels. The remaining $3 million

increase will be used to fund demonstration and pilot projects to test various carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas

mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms.

Finally, $31 million of work which was previously funded through the CO account is proposed as part of a consolidated

administrative support services request. This work includes acquisition of digitized soils data and ortho photographic data as

well as support for the Common Computing Environment.

As part of the Administration's "digital earth" vision, the budget proposes an increase of $5 million to enable access and

standardization of geospatial data supporting Federal, State and local governmental programs.

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO). The 2000 budget proposes a funding level of $83 million for this

activity which will be devoted to technical assistance and project implementation costs. The budget request includes the use of

$1 million for educational assistance to notify watershed sponsors about the need to inspect and rehabilitate the aging dams

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (43 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
built during the past 50 years. The Department will again focus project implementation funds on the most cost effective and

environmentally beneficial projects and emphasize nonstructural management systems. NRCS will also continue its effort to

reduce the backlog of unfunded work by examining approved watershed plans in order to deactivate or revise those that have

become infeasible or where local sponsor interest is no longer strong.

Watershed Surveys and Planning. NRCS works with local sponsoring organizations to develop plans on watersheds dealing

with water quality, flooding, water and land management, and sedimentation problems. These plans then form the basis for

installing needed works of improvement. The agency also works cooperatively with State and local governments to develop

river basin surveys and floodplain management studies to help identify water and related land resource problems and evaluate

alternative solutions. In 2000, this activity is proposed to be funded at $12 million.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D). The purpose of the RC&D program is to encourage and improve the

capability of State and local units of government and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out

programs for resource conservation and development. NRCS also helps coordinate available Federal, State, and local

programs. The 2000 budget will support the 315 RC&D areas now authorized.

Debt for Nature. The budget includes $5 million to help implement the Debt for Nature program which will provide technical

and financial assistance to USDA borrowers with serious cash flow problems who also have lands that require conservation

treatment. In order to help the thousands of borrowers who face foreclosure as a result of the declining farm economy, NRCS

will direct these funds to provide for expanded technical and cost-share assistance.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). WHIP is a voluntary program that provides cost-sharing for landowners to

apply an array of wildlife practices to develop habitat that will support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and

endangered species, fisheries, and other types of wildlife. A total of $50 million was authorized for the program in the 1996

Farm Bill and these funds will be fully exhausted in 1999. In order to continue the program in 2000, new legislation will be

proposed authorizing an additional $10 million in spending for WHIP in 2000.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP combines into a single program the functions of four previous

incentive-based programs: the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, the Water Quality

Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The purpose of the program is to provide flexible

technical, educational and financial assistance to landowners that face serious natural resource challenges that impact soil,

water and related natural resources, including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat management. In addition, it was

designed to help producers make beneficial and cost-effective changes to cropping and grazing systems, and in manure,

nutrient and pest management, that conserve and improve soil, water, and related natural resources. In 2000, EQIP funding will

be increased by $126 million primarily to: 1) address the President's Clean Water Action Plan by boosting the level of financial

assistance available to operators of animal feeding operations, and 2) to allow NRCS to increase financial assistance to small

and limited resource farmers as called for in USDA's Civil Rights Action Team report.

Farmland Protection Program (FPP). FPP is designed for the Federal government to establish partnerships with State, tribal

or local government entities in sharing the costs of acquiring conservation easements or other interests to limit conversion of

agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. FPP acquires perpetual conservation easements or other interests on a voluntary

basis on lands with prime, unique, or other productive soil that presents the most social, economic, and environmental benefits.

FPP will provide matching funds of no more than 50 percent of the purchase price for the acquired easements. Since

authorized funding levels were reached in 1998, new funding authority of $27.5 million is being proposed in 2000.

The Administration's budget also proposes to provide $50 million in discretionary funding for FPP to enhance Federal support

for "smart growth" programs that address urban sprawl issues, protect productive farmland and preserve open space.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). WRP is a voluntary program in which landowners are paid to retire cropland from

agricultural production if those lands are restored to wetlands and protected, in most cases, with a long-term or permanent

easement. Landowners receive fair market value for the land and are provided with cost-share assistance to cover the

restoration expenses. The 1996 Farm Bill changed WRP to give producers the option of long-term or permanent easements, or

restoration cost-share agreements under which landowners will agree to restore wetlands without payment for the land,

receiving only cost-share assistance. For 2000, the budget proposes to enroll an additional 199,820 acres into the program

which would bring total cumulative enrollment to 975,000 acres by the end of 2000, the maximum level currently authorized

for the program.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency and is described on page 22.

FOREST SERVICE (FS)

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (44 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Discretionary Accounts:

 Management of the National Forest System:

 Land Mgmt. Planning/Inventory $128 $121 $138

 Recreation Use 186 188 195

 Wildlife/Fisheries Mgmt. 97 100 124

 Rangeland Management 45 57 65

 Timber Sales Management 209 227 197

 Soil, Water/Air Mgmt. 51 56 67

 Landowner Management 62 61 64

 Infrastructure Management 56 71 76

 General Administration 262 256 256

 Other 177 162 175

 Subtotal, NFS 1,273 1,299 1,357

 Reconstruction and Construction 251 297 295

 Wildland Fire Management:

 Presuppression 322 325 325

 Suppression and Hazardous Fuels 265 235 236

 Land Acquisition 53 118 118

 Other Accounts 5 5 4

 Total 2,169 2,279 2,335

Forest and Rangeland Research 188 197 235

State and Private Forestry:

 Forest Health/Fire Protection 74 78 95

 Cooperative Forestry:

 Forest Stewardship 24 29 29

 Stewardship Incentives 7 0 5

 Smart Growth -- -- 10

a/

 Forest Legacy 4 7 50

 Urban/Community Forestry 27 31 40

 Other 25 26 23

 Total, Cooperative Forestry 87 93 157

Supplemental 48 0 0

 Subtotal, S&PF 209 171 252

 Total, Discretionary Accounts 2,566 2,647 2,822

Mandatory Accounts:

 Permanent Working Funds 247 254 180

 Payments to States, National Forests 234 242 263 

 Payment Funds, Grasslands/Minn 7 7 7

 Trust Funds 198 250 214

 Total, Mandatory Accounts 686 754 664

Total, Ongoing Programs 3,252 3,401 3,486

One-time Transfer from

 Interior for Land Acquisition 167 0 0

 Subsistence Maintenance 0 3 0

 Total, Program Level 3,419 3,404 3,486

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (45 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Fire Emergency Accounts:

 Fire Suppression:

 Available Fire Supp. Contingency (250) (102) (90)

 Total, FS $3,419 $3,404 $3,486

a/ Will support $50 million in subsidized loans.

The Forest Service, with an employment ceiling of 34,984 staff years in 1999, is the largest employer in USDA. The FS

operates in three major program areas:

Management of the National Forests and Grasslands. The Forest Service manages approximately 191 million acres

of public land -- about 110 percent of the area of the State of Texas -- located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands. These lands, known collectively as the National Forest System, are managed for multiple use on a

sustained-yield basis using sound ecological principles to meet the needs of people today while maintaining or

improving the productivity, health, resilience and vigor of forest resources for future generations. The National forests

produce diverse benefits for the American people ranging from outdoor recreation, wildlife and fish and watershed

protection, to timber, forage, and minerals.

❍ 

Forest and Rangeland Research. The Forest Service maintains one of the world's largest forest research organizations.

While it has a very broad mission to develop the knowledge and technology needed to enhance the economic and

environmental values of all the Nation's forests and related industries, it also must support the specific research needs

that arise from the FS's prime responsibility of managing the National Forest System.

❍ 

State and Private Forestry. The Forest Service makes grants and provides technical assistance to State forestry

agencies and other cooperators for protecting forest resources and improving forest management on nonindustrial

private forest lands. Funding is provided for forest pest suppression on all Federal lands and cost-share assistance is

made available for pest suppression on private lands. A cooperative fire protection program provides technical and

limited financial support for State wildfire fighting organizations. The Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentives

Programs provide technical and financial assistance to nonindustrial private landowners for a variety of stewardship

practices including tree planting. In addition, there are several small programs which provide technical and financial

assistance to natural resources dependent rural communities.

❍ 

Forest Service

Programs Related to Watershed Protection and Restoration

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Watershed Improvements $25.6 $30.2 $40.2

Range Vegetation Management 17.8 28.5 36.5

Forestland Management 274.6 285.2 270.2

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat 96.8 100.4 123.8

Road Maintenance 85.0 99.9 122.5

Hazardous Fuels Reduction 50.0 65.0 65.0

Forest Stewardship 23.9 28.8 28.8

Stewardship Incentives Program 6.5 0.0 5.0

Forest Legacy 4.0 7.0 50.0

Smart Growth a/ -- -- 10.0

Land Acquisition 53.0 b/ 118.0 118.0

 Total $637.2 $763.0 $870.0

a/ Budget Authority level will support a $50 million intermediate

 relending program.

b/ Does not include $167 million made available in 1998 as a

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (46 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 one-time increase.

Watershed Protection and Restoration. In 1997, Secretary Glickman directed the Chief of the Forest Service to develop a

comprehensive natural resources agenda to guide the agency. One immediate priority is maintaining and restoring the health of

the land, with the first emphasis area being watershed health and restoration. Several Forest Service programs play an

important role in protecting and restoring degraded watersheds. The aggregate funding proposed for these programs is $107

million above the 1999 level, a 14 percent increase.

Forest Service

Recreation Related Programs

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Recreation and Trails:

 Recreation Operations and Maint. $143.0 $145.0 $145.0

 Wilderness Management 29.4 29.6 36.6

 Heritage Resources 13.9 13.1 13.1

 Facilities Construction 49.6 57.5 59.5

 Trail Construction 27.3 29.6 13.2

 Total, Recreation and Trails 263.2 274.8 267.4

Wildlife:

 Wildlife Habitat 31.2 32.1 37.1

 Inland Fisheries Habitat 17.8 19.0 26.0

 Total, Wildlife Related to Rec. 49.0 51.1 63.1

Land Acquisition a/ 53.0 118.0 118.0

 Total $365.2 $443.9 $448.5

a/ Land Acquisition does not include $167 million made available

 in 1998 as a one-time increase.

Recreation Related Programs. The National Forests are the leading provider of total outdoor recreation use. The recreation

programs contribute to the GPRA strategic plan goal of Providing Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of

Ecosystems. The public uses the National Forests for a broad array of outdoor recreational experiences, including camping,

hiking, hunting, fishing, and skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, bird watching and participating in archaeological

excavations. Funding in support of recreation includes the operation and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities, wildlife

and fish habitat work which supports game species as well as the wildlife resource generally, and land acquisition which gives

a high priority to ensuring the protection of national recreation areas, designated wilderness, and wild and scenic river

corridors.

Payments to States. Under existing law, 25 percent of most FS receipts are paid to the States for distribution to the counties in

which the forests are located for financing roads and schools. About 800 counties across the Nation receive such payments.

Historically, the largest source of receipts is from the sale of timber on the National Forests. Timber receipts have declined in

recent years due to the need to manage forests on an ecosystem basis which takes into account the needs of a broad range of

resources such as wildlife, water quality, and outdoor recreation. In addition, the program emphasis has shifted from timber

production and sales as a strictly commodity activity to forestland management. A significant portion of the program now

consists of the sale of lower valued material such as smaller diameter or dead and dying trees to achieve better forest and

watershed conditions. This also tends to dampen receipts.

In the 1999 budget, the Administration proposed legislation which would provide all county governments with a predictable

and equitable level of payments for the national forests. While it was not enacted, the problem of declining payments linked to

timber receipts remains. In 2000, the Administration will again propose legislation to stabilize the payments. The program will

continue to be funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation to ensure that payments will not decline in future years.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (47 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Timber Program. The timber program contributes to the achievement of the Forest Service GPRA strategic plan goal of

Providing Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems as well as the goal of Ensuring Sustainable

Ecosystems. In 1998, 3.4 Billion Board Feet (BBF) was offered for sale and 3.0 BBF was sold. The current estimate is that 3.3

BBF will be offered for sale in 2000 compared to an estimated 3.6 BBF in 1999.

Forest and Rangeland Research. The GPRA strategic plan objective of Ensuring Organizational Effectiveness commits FS to

striving for better resource management decisions based on the best available scientific information and knowledge. For 2000,

the Forest Research budget proposes $235 million, a $38 million and a 19 percent increase over 1999. The increase includes $5

million for the Global Change Initiative, $6 million for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, $5 million for optimization

research related to decision support systems such as land management planning, and $14 million for the Administration's

Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges (ISEC) Initiative. Included in the funding for the ISEC initiative, is an increase of

$5 million for research related to controlling invasive species.

State and Private Forestry. State and Private Forestry programs contribute to all three GPRA strategic plan goals. Total

funding is proposed at $292 million for 2000. Protection of forest resources of all ownerships, including Federal lands, from

damage due to pests is funded at $62 million, a $7 million increase over 1999. Most of the increase will be used for the Gypsy

Moth Slow-the-Spread project. Assistance to State wildfire fighting agencies and rural volunteer fire departments is funded at

$34 million, an increase of $10 million (+43 percent) over 1999. The cooperative forestry programs provide grants and

assistance to State forestry agencies and other cooperators for a variety of purposes ranging from assisting nonindustrial

private landowners with stewardship planning to acquiring interests in woodlands threatened with conversion to other uses.

These programs are funded at $157 million, an increase of $64 million (+69 percent) over 1999. The programs in the Lands

Legacy Initiative, described on page 71, account for most of the increase.

Wildland Fire Management. This program funds both preparedness costs such as the pay and training of permanent fire

crews and aircraft availability, as well as the cost of operations to suppress fires. These activities contribute to the achievement

of the GPRA strategic plan goal of Ensuring Sustainable Ecosystems. The cost of fire suppression has varied dramatically

during the last two decades, and is inherently unpredictable.

The 1994 and 1996 fire seasons were two of the most severe and expensive firefighting seasons on record. $678 million was

spent on fire suppression in 1994, and $513 million was spent in 1996. The 1998 fire season was $219 million, and the 10 year

average (1989-1998) is $292.7 million. Firefighting has become more expensive because of the growth of urban areas into

what were previously wildlands. This has meant that fire must be fought vigorously to protect human life and property rather

than making decisions based solely on natural resource values. In addition, drought, insect infestations and continual

suppression in some areas have caused a significant buildup of fuels.

The 2000 budget provides $326 million for fire suppression consisting of $236 million in direct appropriations and $90 million

of emergency contingency funding to be used on an as needed basis. In addition, $352 million of emergency contingency funds

from prior years remains available. For preparedness activities, the Wildland Fire Management request includes $325 million,

the same level appropriated in 1999. The hazardous fuels management program (a component of fire suppression) is funded at

$65 million, the same amount estimated for 1999.

Forest Service

Programs Included in Lands Legacy Initiative

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Land Acquisition $53.0 a/ $117.9 $118.0

Forest Legacy 4.0 7.0 50.0

Urban and Community Forestry 26.8 30.5 40.0

Smart Growth b/ -- -- 10.0

 Total $83.8 $155.4 $218.0

a/ Does not include $167 million made available in 1998 as a

 one-time increase.

b/ Budget authority level will support a $50 million intermediate

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (48 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 relending program.

As the Nation's population and prosperity grows, there are new challenges to preserve the natural heritage and green spaces

that Americans have come to treasure. The 2000 budget proposes a $1 billion national program to protect great places and to

provide the tools for localities and states to plan for smart growth and open space preservation.

Forest Service land acquisitions will continue to add lands valuable for recreation, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection to

the national forests. The Forest Legacy Program provides funds for the acquisition of easements on private lands to protect

critical environmental habitat threatened with development. The Urban and Community Forestry Program provides grants to

States and localities to establish, maintain, or expand urban and community forests and related open spaces that serve to

support viable communities and neighborhoods. The new Smart Growth Partnership Program is a revolving loan program for

State and local governments, non-profit corporations, Indian tribes and cooperatives to use subsidized loans for smart growth

land acquisition, easements and land use management. This will help communities to protect open spaces, limit sprawl,

enhance air and water quality, reduce greenhouse emissions and increase greenspace. The program will be based on the

Department's existing Intermediary Relending Program, in which direct loans are provided to intermediate borrowers such as

state and local governments, non-profit corporations, Indian tribes and cooperatives which in turn relend the funds to land

trusts, private non-profit organizations, etc. Sufficient budget authority ($10 million) has been provided to support a loan

program level of $50 million.

Forest Service

Land and Facility Restoration Initiative

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Recreation Operations a/ $143.0 $145.0 $145.0

Infrastructure Management a/ 56.2 70.7 75.7

Road Maintenance and Decommissioning a/ 85.0 99.9 122.5

Facilities Construction and Reconstruction 50.7 69.9 63.4

Road Construction and Reconstruction 88.1 98.0 96.5

Trail Construction and Reconstruction 27.3 29.6 13.1

 Total, Land and Facility Restoration $450.3 $513.1 $516.2

a/ The 1998 figures for Recreation, Infrastructure, and Road

 Maintenance have been adjusted for comparability due to budget structure

 changes made in the 1999 appropriation.

Land and Facility Restoration Initiative. Funding of $516.2 million is proposed as part of the second year of the

Administration's facilities restoration initiative, maintaining the effort at essentially the 1999 level, 15 percent above 1998

funding. This emphasizes the Administration's commitment to the long-term stewardship of federal lands and facilities. Within

the initiative, increased funding is focused on road maintenance and decommissioning and on infrastructure management.

Road construction and reconstruction is funded at approximately the 1999 level which was a significant increase over 1998.

During 1998, the Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the regulations governing the

Forest Service road system which includes 373,000 miles of inventoried forest system roads. An 18 month moratorium on

construction of roads in certain roadless areas was also proposed as an interim measure to provide ample time for consideration

of public comments and for the careful development of a new forest road policy.

Offsetting Adjustments. In order to partially defray the cost of Forest Service programs a number of legislative proposals and

administrative measures are being developed which will have the effect of offsetting some of the increases in discretionary

funding available for Forest Service activities. These include:

Timber sales are made for commodity, stewardship, and personal use purposes. Timber sale receipts equal to some of

the direct costs incurred in the past in the preparation of the sales will be recovered at the time of sale. This is analogous

to charging a user fee and is consistent with other proposals for user fees in the Department's programs. Another change

to the timber program is the institution of a sealed bid system for timber sales in those geographic areas currently

permitting oral bids.

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (49 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Overhead and indirect expenses will no longer be charged against the timber salvage and brush disposal permanent

appropriations nor the Knutson-Vandenberg trust fund. These costs will be financed through discretionary

appropriations.

❍ 

There will be increased efforts to charge fair market value for commercial goods and services provided by the Forest

Service. This addresses recommendations made in a number of General Accounting Office reports.

❍ 

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

MISSION

The mission of Marketing and Regulatory Programs is to facilitate the domestic and international marketing of U.S.

agricultural products and to ensure the health and care of animals and plants while improving market competitiveness and the

economy for the overall benefit of both consumers and American agriculture.

The Marketing and Regulatory Programs are administered by three agencies: the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Marketing Services:

 Market News $22 $22 $24

 Shell Egg Surveillance and

 Standards Development 6 6 6

 Market Protection and Promotion:

 Pesticide Data Program 8 11 19

 Organic Standards 1 1 2

 Other 5 4 3

 Wholesale Market Development 2 2 3

 Transportation Services 3 3 3

 Total, Marketing Services 47 49 60

Payments to States 1 1 1

Section 32 Funds:

 Marketing Agreements and Orders (MA&O) 10 11 12

 Commodity Purchase Services 6 7 9

 Total, Section 32 Funds 16 18 21

User Fees:

 Perishable Agricultural Commodities

 Act 8 7 7

 Commodity Grading Services 157 167 167

 Total, User Fee Funded Programs 165 174 174

 Total, AMS Program Level $229 $242 $256

 Recap:

 AMS Appropriations $48 $50 $61

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (50 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 User Fees 165 174 174

 Section 32 Funds 16 18 21

AMS facilitates the marketing of agricultural products in domestic and international markets, while ensuring fair trading

practices. AMS programs promote a competitive and efficient marketplace, which benefits consumers and producers. A

majority of AMS programs are voluntary and funded by the users of the program. AMS has cooperative agreements with the

States to administer in whole or in part several AMS programs. Under these agreements, State employees carry out the

program. AMS is organized along commodity lines that reflect major segments of the agricultural industry. Headquarters staff

are responsible for overseeing the administration of programs. AMS field employees are located in processing plants, at

shipping points, produce terminals, auction houses, and warehouses. Field offices, established for supervision and

administrative purposes, are located in key production areas.

For 2000, the AMS budget proposes a program level of $256 million of which $174 million (68 percent) will be funded by

user fees and $82 million (32 percent) by appropriations and section 32 funds.

Marketing Services. AMS administers a variety of programs that enhance the marketing and distribution of agricultural

products. Activities include the dissemination of market information, surveillance of shell egg handling operations,

development of grade standards, protection of producers from unfair marketing practices, random testing of commodities for

pesticide residues, development of organic standards, research and technical assistance aimed at improving efficiency of food

marketing and distribution, and pesticide recordkeeping.

The 2000 budget requests programmatic increases of $11.4 million for a variety of program activities including:

$2.4 million to enhance data collection to support EPA data requirements under Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

(FQPA). FQPA requires a rapid response capability for EPA to complete risk assessment evaluations for pesticides

affecting multiple commodities. More than 9,000 tolerances will need to be reviewed in the next 10 years. In addition,

AMS will modify existing methodologies to test meat, poultry, eggs, and drinking water for pesticide residues. This data

is necessary for EPA to fulfill the requirements of FQPA. PDP data will play a crucial role in EPA's evaluations,

because it provides information concerning the actual presence of pesticides in foods. Without PDP data, EPA would

need to rely on assumptions that may overstate the risk of important pest controls.

❍ 

$6.2 million to broaden the scope of PDP to include microbiological testing of fruits and vegetables as part of the

President's Food Safety Initiative. Scientifically-sound estimates of pathogenic contamination will be used to assess the

food safety risk posed by microbiological pathogens on fruits and vegetables and target resources to the highest risk

areas. Program costs will be minimized by utilizing PDP's existing sampling infrastructure, State laboratories, and data

reporting capabilities.

❍ 

$1.4 million to establish Market Reporting of organic products and to finalize implementation of the National Organic

Program, including development of an international certification program, accreditation of State departments of

agriculture and private persons, establishment of a system to prevent fraudulent labeling, and extensive customer

outreach.

❍ 

$1.4 million to improve the marketing of agricultural products by expanding foreign market news reports; increasing the

reporting of livestock and poultry markets; and identifying alternative marketing strategies for small farmers.

❍ 

Payments to States. Under this program, AMS provides matching funds to State departments of agriculture for projects aimed

at improving marketing efficiency, reducing marketing costs for producers, and lowering food costs for consumers. This

program is funded at the 1999 level.

Section 32 Funds. Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, authorizes the appropriation for each fiscal year of an amount

equal to 30 percent of the gross receipts from duties collected under custom laws of the United States during the preceding

calendar year. Unused amounts which do not exceed $300 million are available for use in the following fiscal year. These

funds are used to: encourage exports of agricultural commodities; encourage domestic consumption of such commodities; and

to re-establish farmers purchasing power. Section 32 funds are also used to finance the administrative costs associated with the

purchase of commodities that support domestic food assistance programs, such as the National School Lunch Program. In

addition, AMS is responsible for developing the specifications used for food procurement throughout the Federal Government.

For 2000, AMS is requesting additional funds:

$1.5 million as part of a multi-agency effort to improve the Processed Commodity Inventory Management System, used

to allocate, distribute, and account for more than $1.6 billion of commodities purchased each year to support domestic

feeding programs.

❍ 

❍ $0.2 million to pay the Small Business Administration for the costs that agency incurs in certifying firms participating in

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (51 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
the Small and Disadvantaged Business Program.

Marketing agreements and orders help stabilize market prices and the supply of milk, fruit, vegetables, and certain specialty

crops. The orders are administered locally by marketing order committees and market administrators. Local activities are

funded through assessments on regulated producers and handlers. Section 32 funds are also used to finance the administration

of marketing agreements and orders at the national level; and for public hearings and producer referenda. For 2000, the budget

includes a $1.4 million increase for the following activities: (1) the enforcement of regulations ensuring that imported

commodities meet the same or comparable minimum quality requirements as domestically produced commodities; (2) the

administration and enforcement of the the peanut marketing agreement; and (3) the economic analysis used to support

commodity procurement and marketing order administration programs.

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. This Act provides protection to producers, shippers, distributors, and retailers

from unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities. Full and prompt payment for

such products is a key objective of the program. The program is funded through an annual licensing fee paid by those subject

to the Act.

Commodity Grading Services. AMS provides voluntary commodity grading and classing services for dairy products, fresh

and processed fruits and vegetables, meat and meat products, poultry, eggs, tobacco, and cotton. AMS recovers the cost of

these services through user fees.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Pest and Disease Exclusion:

 Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) $168 $172 $178

 Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection 21 23 25

 All Other. 54 54 54

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring:

 Animal Health Monitoring and Survey 61 63 68

 Animal and Plant Health Regulatory

 Enforcement 6 6 6

 National Animal Health Emergency

 Management System -- -- 1

 Pest Detection 6 6 7

Pest and Disease Management:

 Boll Weevil 16 16 3

 Brucellosis Eradication 19 12 10

 Emerging Plant Pests 4 1 4

 Noxious Weeds a/ a/ 2

 Wildlife Services Operations 29 30 28

 All Other 29 30 30

Animal Care 10 10 10

Scientific and Technical Services 55 52 55

Contingency Fund 6 5 4

 Total, APHIS Salaries and Expenses 484 480 485

Emergency Programs funded from CCC 31 95 0

Trust Funds 14 7 7

Buildings and Facilities 4 8 7

 Total, APHIS Program Level $533 $590 $499

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (52 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Recap:

 APHIS Appropriations $347 $347 $340

 AQI User Fees 141 141 143

 Emergency Programs 31 95 0

 Trust Funds 14 7 7

 New User Fees 0 0 9

a/ Funding is less than $0.5 million

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting U.S. animal and plant resources from

diseases and pests, addressing conflicts with wildlife, and responding to issues of animal well-being. The major areas of

activity are as follows:

Providing inspection and quarantine services at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of foreign or exotic

diseases or pests;

❍ 

Surveying and monitoring the spread of plant pests and animal diseases for Federal, State, local, and private action and

to document U.S. agricultural health status for trading partners;

❍ 

❍ Administering control and eradication programs to combat outbreaks of plant pests and animal diseases;

Providing scientific and technical assistance to mitigate damage caused by wildlife to agricultural, industrial, natural

resources, or human health;

❍ 

❍ Inspecting for humane care and handling of animals used in research, exhibition or the wholesale pet trade; and

Providing scientific and technical assistance for biotechnology, disease diagnostics, and pest control methods

development.

❍ 

APHIS conducts agricultural pest and disease inspection services at all major international airports, shipping ports, and land

borders. The agency's field activities are managed through 13 Regional offices and 407 field offices. Much of the agency's

work is conducted in cooperation with State and local agencies, private groups, and foreign governments.

The 2000 budget proposes a program level of $485 million for Salaries and Expenses, a $5 million increase above the 1999

current estimate. However, this funding level reflects significant redirection of agency activities due to the program successes

in many pest and disease management programs such as brucellosis eradication, increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries of

Wildlife Services Operations, and transferring more responsibilities of eradicating boll weevil to cotton producers through

USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan program. This funding level also includes increases for Fruit Fly Exclusion and

Detection and Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance activities to increase protection of American agriculture from pests

and diseases. Additionally, the 2000 budget proposes user fees to recover some of the costs for administering animal welfare

and biotechnology programs.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI). The AQI program is the Nation's frontline defense against the introduction of

dangerous agricultural pests and diseases from other countries. User fees are charged for inspection of international passengers,

aircraft, ships, railcars and trucks. The 2000 budget proposes $178 million for AQI activities. Expansion of the global economy

and free trade have caused an increase in the volume of passengers and cargo arriving in the U.S. creating the need for

increased inspections to reduce the risk of introducing exotic agricultural pests into the U.S. APHIS will improve

point-of-entry inspection programs by providing additional inspectors at new ports-of-entry, expanding facilities at high risk

ports-of-entry on the Canadian and Mexican borders, and increasing Hawaii pre-departure staffing based on pest risk analyses.

APHIS will likely inspect upwards of 85 million passengers and could make about 72,000 interceptions of pests that could

endanger U.S. agriculture. APHIS intends to clear most international passengers through the inspection process within 30

minutes or less. Passengers crossing at U.S. land border points, in non-peak traffic periods, can expect clearance through the

inspection system in 20 minutes or less on the northern border and 30 minutes or less on the southern border.

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection. The 2000 budget provides a program increase of $2.2 million to strengthen fruit fly

detection and control activities in California and Florida. The agency will initiate efforts to carry out the Environmental

Protection Agency recommendations to minimize the use of Malathion by enhancing exclusion and detection activities through

increased trapping. APHIS will enhance current efforts by working cooperatively with States at increased trapping at levels in

Florida and by increasing quality assurance activities in California. The increased funding will reassure U.S. trading partners of

our commitment to fruit fly control and ease entry of U.S. produce into foreign countries.

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHMS). The 2000 budget requests $68 million, $4.6 million above 1999.

APHIS would establish a National, voluntary certification and control program for Johnes Disease, an intestinal disease which

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (53 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
causes a loss of production in dairy cattle. Funding would support cooperative Federal-State-University studies to determine

the epidemiological and statistical principles of Johnes control and test diagnostic methods critical to effective Johnes control.

The requested increase would also be used to train State regulatory officials, agency and private accredited veterinarians to

perform herd inspections for Johnes Disease.

National Animal Health Emergency Management System. The agency would enhance its emergency preparedness, and

response capabilities by establishing a new comprehensive system to address animal disease issues that threaten the U.S. food

supply. APHIS would implement a system to detect emerging animal disease threats through ongoing environmental risk

assessments and analyses of data. This new system would enable APHIS to provide resources and conduct activities to assist

with State and local emergency response efforts directed at bioterrorism.

Boll Weevil. The 2000 budget proposes a reduction of approximately $13 million below the 1999 current estimate. APHIS

would continue to provide an equitable but lower cost-share percentage to all active eradication zones. APHIS would maintain

oversight and technical support responsibilities in eradicated and non-infested areas but would discontinue program activities

where boll weevil no longer exists. Boll weevil eradication provides significant grower financial benefits. Loans made

available to the grower foundations from USDA's FSA will assist growers in paying a greater share of program costs.

Brucellosis. The Department cooperates with State governments, industry organizations, and individual herd owners to

eradicate brucellosis. Consistent with continued program success, the 2000 budget proposes a $2 million reduction in

brucellosis eradication expenditures. APHIS has only 7 States in the final stages of eradication and anticipates that all 50 States

will be in Class "Free" Status by the end of 1999. As of January 1999, there were 5 herds under quarantine.

Emerging Plant Pests. The budget proposes an increase of $2.1 million to expand the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB)

programs in Illinois and New York and to target other exotic wood-boring pests. APHIS will conduct and evaluate surveys to

assess the pests' scope, will provide tree removal through cooperative agreements with the States, and will conduct methods

development activities to prevent spread and future ALB infestations. In doing so, APHIS attempts to maintain the $80 billion

trade market between the U.S. and China.

Noxious Weeds. The proposed funding increase of $1.7 million would allow APHIS to begin development of a new, national

rapid assessment and response system for invasive alien plant pests in the U.S. in support of the Presidential Executive Order

on Invasive Alien Species. This program is critical to the establishment of an effective noxious weed prevention and control

strategy for the U.S.

Wildlife Services (WS). The 2000 budget proposes a reduction of $1.8 million in the Federal share of the WS operating

expenses requiring cooperators to assume a larger share of direct program costs.

Emergency Program. In FY 1999, $95 million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds are being transferred to

APHIS utilizing the Secretary's emergency transfer authority. These funds are being provided to fund programs to control or

eradicate pests and diseases including efforts to control pseudorabies in hogs ($80 million), Asian longhorned beetle in Illinois

and New York ($6.9 million), Classical Swine Fever in the Dominican Republic ($5.3 million), and Medfly in California and

Florida ($3.2 million).

Buildings and Facilities. An appropriation of $7.2 million is proposed for general maintenance and to support continued

modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) facilities in 2000. Of this amount, $3.2 million would be

provided for PIADC, in addition to $8.2 million included in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) budget for this joint

ARS-APHIS facility. General repairs and maintenance of other APHIS buildings would be funded with the remaining $4

million.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION (GIPSA)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Salaries and Expenses:

 Grain Inspection Activities $11 $11 $12

 Packers and Stockyards Activities

 Total, Salaries and Expenses 24 27 27

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (54 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Inspection and Weighing User Fees 33 43 43

 Reserve Account Supplemental 2 0 0

 Total, GIPSA Program Level 59 70 70

Existing User Fees -33 -43 -43

New User Fees:

 Grain Standardization -- -- -4

 Capitalization and Startup Costs -- -- 4

 Packers and Stockyards Activities -- -- -15

 Total, GIPSA Appropriations $26 $27 $12

a/ Includes a one-time restructuring cost of $2.5 million.

GIPSA establishes the official U.S. standards for grain, conducts official weighing and grain inspection activities, and grades

rice, dry beans and peas, processed grain products, and hops. The agency also provides assurance for the financial integrity of

the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. The agency monitors the activities of dealers, market agencies, live poultry dealers

and packers in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices in the meat and

poultry industries.

GIPSA supervises 8 State and 54 designated private agencies for grain inspection and weighing services at domestic locations;

provides supervision and other services from 25 field offices; and handles appeals of grain inspection services in Kansas City,

Missouri. Packers and Stockyards (P&S) Programs currently operates out of 12 field offices.

In FY 1999, $2.5 million was appropriated for restructuring the Packers and Stockyards (P&S) activities of GIPSA. The

restructuring consolidates two current program divisions and six branches into a single policy/litigation support office with

three branches, consolidates eleven regions into three, and transfers at least 20 percent of headquarters positions to the field.

GIPSA recently opened the Des Moines, Iowa Regional office. Employee relocations are expected to be completed by

mid-June 1999. Nine of the remaining field offices will be closed by June 30, 1999 completing the consolidation into the three

Regional offices in Atlanta, Denver and Des Moines.

For 2000, the budget proposes a program level for Salaries and Expenses of $27 million with $12 million being devoted to

grain inspection activities for standardization, compliance, and methods development. GIPSA expects to inspect 237 million

metric tons of grain and 4 million metric tons of rice. The 2000 budget proposes legislation, which if enacted, would authorize

the collection of $4 million in additional user fees to cover costs of developing, reviewing, and maintaining official U.S. grain

standards used by the entire grain industry.

The 2000 budget proposes $15 million for Packers and Stockyards Programs, which includes the following program changes:

An increase of $0.2 million to enable electronic submission of industry data as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and would enable savings to businesses;

❍ 

An increase of $0.8 million to expand poultry compliance activities. GIPSA would increase the number and scope of

poultry compliance investigations; and,

❍ 

An increase of $0.6 million for monitoring and analyzing packer competitive practices and the implications of structural

changes and behavioral practices in the meat packing industry.

❍ 

❍ A decrease of $2.5 million for one-time restructuring cost.

The Department continues to support and implement recommendations made by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on

Agricultural Concentration to promote competition and improve market performance and confidence in the livestock and

poultry sectors. For example, continuous, systematic collection and analysis of data along with aggressive investigative

activities enable GIPSA to survey procurement practices, trade practices and competitive conditions and to analyze whether

violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act are occurring or likely. GIPSA has directed efforts towards investigating trade

practices of packers, market agencies, and dealers to detect fraudulent transactions and to guard against unfair trade practices

detrimental to producers and the industry. The recruitment of investigators with economic and legal expertise allows GIPSA to

move towards developing additional skills for investigations involving complex, anti-competitive practices. The proposed

additional resources are needed to expand the agency's capability to monitor and investigate the competitive implications of

structural changes and behavioral practices in the meat packing and poultry industries.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (55 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
The 2000 budget also reproposes legislation, which if enacted, would authorize the collection of license fees to administer the

Packers and Stockyards Act (the Act). License fees would be applied to those subject to the Act (i.e., packers, livestock and

poultry dealers, and meat buyers) to protect them from unfair and fraudulent marketing practices. The budget also proposes $4

million to capitalize a reserve fund and to finance start-up costs.

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

MISSION

The Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission area is assigned Federal leadership responsibility for the discovery

and dissemination of knowledge spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences related to agricultural research,

extension, higher education, economic analysis, and statistics. REE responsibilities are carried out by four agencies:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house research agency in USDA in the area of natural and

biological sciences.

❍ 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is the Federal partner in the

USDA-supported system of extramural research, higher education, and extension activities.

❍ 

❍ The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural social science research agency in USDA.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provides the official current statistics on agricultural production

and indicators of the economic and environmental welfare of the farm sector. In FY 1997, NASS assumed responsibility

for conducting the Census of Agriculture, previously conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the Department of

Commerce.

❍ 

The REE mission is accomplished through ongoing programs and initiatives proposed in the 2000 budget that disseminate

scientific knowledge, promote technology transfer, and provide educational opportunities to achieve the five Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals of the REE mission area as follows:

❍ An agricultural production system that is highly competitive in the global economy;

❍ A safe and secure food and fiber system;

❍ A healthy, well-nourished population;

❍ An agricultural system which protects natural resources and the environment; and

❍ Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

Funds proposed for ARS, ERS and the research and education activities of CSREES are included in the President's 21st

Century Research Fund.

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Agricultural Research Service $843 $890 $901

Cooperative State Research, Education

 and Extension Service 896 930 1,073

Economic Research Service 72 65 56

National Agricultural Statistics Service 118 104 101

 Total, REE $1,929 $1,989 $2,131

The budget provides $2.1 billion for the four REE agencies in 2000, an increase of 8 percent over 1999. Proposed increases

support high priority initiatives and programs addressing critical issues and problems facing agriculture and the Nation, such as

food production, food safety, pest management, and environmental quality. The budget includes $120 million for the Initiative

for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (56 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (ARS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Information:

 Soil, Water and Air Sciences $84 $86 $108

 Plant Science 253 275 278

 Animal Science 120 127 131

 Commodity Conversion and Delivery 148 162 160

 Human Nutrition 70 68 89

 Integration of Agricultural Systems 28 30 31

 Information and Library Services 20 19 21

 Repair and Maintenance 18 18 18

 Contingency Research Fund 1 1 1

 Total, Ongoing Research and Info. 742 786 837

Supplemental Drug Control Research

 Funding -- 28 --

 Total, Research and Information 742 814 837

Trust Funds 20 20 20

Buildings and Facilities 81 56 44

 Total, ARS $843 $890 $901

ARS provides access to agricultural information and develops new knowledge and technology needed to solve technical

agricultural problems of broad scope and high national priority. ARS is responsible for the National Agricultural Library

(NAL), the Nation's major information resource in the food, agricultural and natural resource sciences. ARS has 105 locations

throughout the U.S. and abroad. Beltsville, Maryland is the site of the world's largest multi-disciplinary agricultural research

facility. The ARS base budget is comprised of seven programmatic objectives which determine ongoing research priorities and

areas of emphasis as follows:

Soil, Water, and Air Sciences. Development of a sound scientific basis to provide advanced technical assistance and

education to producers to manage and conserve soil, water, and air resources is the main emphasis of this research area.

❍ 

Plant Science. Ongoing ARS research addresses a wide range of crop production issues, including pest and disease

resistance, maintenance and improvement of plant germplasm.

❍ 

Animal Science. Research in this program is directed toward solving major issues faced by producers and consumers of

meat and poultry products. Areas of emphasis include disease prevention, genetics and genome mapping, reproduction,

production-related nutrition, food quality, and food safety concerns.

❍ 

Commodity Conversion and Delivery. This research within ARS focuses on post-harvest food safety and quality

concerns, development of new food and industrial uses for agricultural commodities and elimination of barriers to the

export of commodities.

❍ 

Human Nutrition. ARS supports six research centers striving to enhance understanding of nutritional needs of diverse

populations, including children, the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and healthy adults. Results of this work

identify the impact of nutrients in reducing chronic disease risks and predicting health outcomes. ARS research activities

in this area are closely coordinated with other nutrition-related programs in USDA and medical research programs in the

Department of Health and Human Services.

❍ 

Integration of Agricultural Systems. Research in this category includes projects to integrate the results of specific

programs into production systems which are sustainable, environmentally-benign and profitable for farmers and

ranchers. Projects include the development of models and decision support systems to assist producers in making

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (57 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
production decisions and managing natural resources.

Information and Library Services. As part of ARS, NAL will continue to provide access to agricultural information

through its online database and CD-Roms. NAL is striving to provide agricultural information electronically and has

initiated efforts to catalog, manage, and disseminate agricultural related data through the Internet.

❍ 

The 2000 budget includes a $51 million net increase for ongoing ARS research and information programs above the 1999

enacted level. Within that total, the agency will fund increases of $76 million in support of major Presidential Initiatives and

other high priority research, including genetics, emerging plant and animal diseases, food safety, biological pest control,

sustainable ecosystems, and global change. Of the total increase, $35 million will be funded through savings from termination

of lower priority projects. An increase of $10 million is proposed to partially offset the cost of the proposed Federal pay

increase.

Human Nutrition. An increase of $20 million is provided for human nutrition research to develop a greater understanding of

the impacts of nutrition on human health and well-being. The increase will provide for continued implementation of the

President's Human Nutrition Initiative with particular emphasis on nutrition's role in individual body composition and weight

gain, improved brain and cognitive function, prevention of osteoporosis and bone loss in the elderly population, and reduction

in the occurrence of serious chronic diseases, such as cancer and heart diseases.

Food Safety. An increase of $11.7 million is provided for research in support of the President's Food Safety Initiative. Of the

total, $7.3 million is included under Animal Science for preharvest food safety research aimed at understanding the antibiotic

resistance of animal pathogens, reducing pathogen infestation found in animal waste, and assessing the risks associated with

the transmission of zoonotic pathogens from animals to humans. The remaining $4.4 million is provided for postharvest

research under the Commodity, Conversion, and Delivery program for postharvest research aimed at enhancing detection and

measurement of microbial pathogens during handling, distribution, and storage of fresh fruits and vegetables to determine

sources of contamination and factors that increase the risk of disease transmission.

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). An increase of $3 million is provided under Plant Science to increase the development

of alternative pest control practices to serve as substitutes for chemical pesticides that are at risk of being restricted due to EPA

regulatory actions under FQPA. The increase includes additional support for the Office of Pest Management and Policy

(OPMP) charged with coordinating all pest control activities within the Department, and collaborating with EPA on related

FQPA issues.

Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests. The budget includes an increase of $2.2 million under Animal Science for developing

diagnostic tests, vaccines, and other preventive measures to control emerging and infectious diseases afflicting animals, such

as classical swine fever, and zoonotic diseases, such as avian leukosis and chronic wasting disease of cervids. An additional

$1.9 million is included to develop vaccines for brucellosis in wildlife and methods to control livestock pests. An increase of

about $4 million is provided under Plant Science for research on emerging and exotic plant diseases, insects, and weeds to

further enhance product quality and increase crop production. Within the totals an increase of $0.9 million is provided for

wheat and barley scab research.

Genetics. An increase of about $3 million is provided in the ARS budget for genetic research aimed at enhancing U.S.

agricultural competitiveness through a healthier, and more diversified production system. Of the total, $1 million is provided

under Plant Sciences to develop more rapid and efficient methods to identify and manipulate plant genes for developing

improved crops and maximizing production yields, $0.8 million is included in Animal Sciences for research on animal

genomes to characterize the most valuable animal germplasms and identify the genes responsible for animal diseases and

parasite resistance, and $1 million is included under Commodity Conversion and Delivery for the production and development

of value-added and alternative crop varieties.

Sustainable Ecosystems. The budget includes an increase of $6.3 million under Soil, Water, and Air Sciences for research to

sustain and manage the Nation's ecosystems, including $4 million to address specific water research concerns related to

harmful algal blooms in support of the Clean Water Action Plan, hypoxia, and eutrophication. The increase will support ARS

research coordinated through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) under the National Science and

Technology Council (NSTC) to address multiple stressors affecting land resources, pollution, and atmosphere. An increase of

$3 million is provided under Plant Science for additional research to control invasive weed species such as melaleuca and salt

cedar.

Global Change. An increase of $15.3 million is provided under Soil, Water, and Air Sciences for global change, including $7

million as part of the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative, and $3.3 million to develop methods to mitigate the

adverse effects of climate change on agricultural production. The budget provides $5 million to support research on carbon

storage in soils and to document agriculture-related greenhouse gas emission rates, as part of the Carbon Cycle Science

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (58 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Program.

Air Quality. An increase of $2 million is provided under Soil, Water, and Air Sciences for research to develop practices to

minimize the negative effects of ozone on agricultural crops and implement measures to control particulate matter in

compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.

Initiative on Digital Libraries. An increase of $2 million is proposed to enhance the availability and delivery of information

through the Internet and to provide grants to land-grant universities to establish "Centers of Excellence" to address topics such

as food safety, pest management, water quality, and agricultural productivity.

Buildings and Facilities. Innovative research depends upon the availability of modern facilities. Many of the major ARS

facilities were constructed prior to 1960, are functionally obsolete and need major modernization to bring them up to current

health and safety code requirements. A total of $45 million is proposed in 2000 at seven locations.

Beltsville, Maryland ($13 million). Supports the first phase of new construction of an addition to the Beltsville Human

Nutrition Research Center ($11.4 million) and miscellaneous small projects at the Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center.

❍ 

Davis, California ($9 million). Provides for the relocation of the Western Human Nutrition Research Center from the

Presidio complex in San Francisco. Proposed funding would be added to funds provided in 1998 and 1999 to allow

construction to proceed.

❍ 

Plum Island, New York ($8.2 million). Continued modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, including

replacement of the boiler and sewage decontamination plants.

❍ 

❍ New Orleans, Louisiana ($5.5 million). Modernization of the industrial wing at Southern Regional Research Center.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ($4.4 million). Modernization of the chemical wing laboratory at the Eastern Regional

Research Center.

❍ 

Albany, California ($2.6 million). Modernization of Western Regional Research Center. Funds will be used to design a

multi-phase project to upgrade deteriorating plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems.

❍ 

Peoria, Illinois ($1.8 million). Modernization of the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research. Funds would

be used for design work on the chemical wing.

❍ 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Education $425 $471 $470

Extension Activities 409 418 402

Integrated Res., Educ. & Ext. Program 20 30 73

Native American Endowment Fund 5 5 5

 Subtotal, Programs 859 925 950

Community Food Projects 3 3 3

Fund for Rural America 34 2 a/

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food

 Systems -- -- 120

 Total, CSREES $896 $930 $1,073

a/ A total of $60 million is available from the Fund for Rural

 America, to support research, extension and education grants and Rural

 Development activities, of which at least

 $20 million will support research, extension and education grants. The

 distribution among the authorized activities has not been developed.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (59 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Formula Grants:

 Smith-Lever 3(b&c) Formula $268 $277 $258

 Hatch Act 169 181 154

 1890 Research and Extension 53 56 53

 Cooperative Forestry 20 22 20

 Animal Health 5 5 5

 Total, Formula Grants 515 541 490

National Research Initiative (NRI) 97 119 200

Integrated Research, Education and Extension

 Competitive Grants Program:

 Small Farms Initiative -- -- 4

 Water Quality 12 13 16

 Food Safety 4 12 15

 Pesticide Impact Assessment 5 5 5

 Crops at Risk from FQPA Implem. -- -- 3

 FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for

 Major Food Crop Systems -- -- 10

 Methyl Bromide Transitions Prog. -- -- 5

 Gleaning and Food Security -- -- 15

 Total, Integrated Program 21 30 73

Pest Research and Extension Programs:

 Improved Pest Control Research 14 14 18

 Pesticide Applicator Training -- -- 2

 Pest Management 11 11 12

 Total, Pest Res. and Ext. 25 25 32

Sustainable Agriculture Res. and Ext. 11 11 12

Higher Education Programs 19 20 19

Programs Supporting Civil Rights Initiative:

 Indian Reservation Extension Agents 2 2 5

 1890 Facilities 8 8 12

 Extension Services at 1994 Institutions 2 2 4

 Hispanic Serving Insts. Education Grants 3 3 3

 1994 Inst. Research Program -- -- 1

 Total, Programs in CR Initiative 15 15 25

Low Income Nutrition Educ. (EFNEP) 59 59 61

Native American Inst. Endow. Fund 5 5 5

Community Food Projects 3 3 3

Fund for Rural America 34 2 a/

Initiative for Future Ag. & Food Systems -- -- 120

Other Research Grants 52 60 9

Other Extension Programs 20 19 14

Federal Administration 22 22 10

 Total, CSREES. $896 $930 $1,073

RECAP:

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (60 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 CSREES Appropriations $859 $925 $950

 Community Food Projects 3 3 3

 Initiative for Future Ag. & Food Systems -- -- 120

 Fund for Rural America 34 2 a/

 Total, CSREES. $896 $930 $1,073

a/ A total of $60 million is available for the Fund for Rural

 America, to support research, extension and education grants and Rural

 Development activities. The distribution among the authorized activities

 has not been developed.

CSREES has primary responsibility for providing linkages between the Federal and State components of a broad-based,

national agricultural research, extension, and higher education system. CSREES provides funding for projects conducted in

partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, land-grant universities,

colleges and other institutions. Federal funds are distributed to universities and institutions by statutory formulas and

competitive awards. CSREES is responsible for administering USDA's primary competitive grants program, the National

Research Initiative (NRI) which supports highly meritorious research with strong potential to contribute to major

breakthroughs in agricultural production.

The CSREES budget proposal which totals $1.1 billion, reflects the priorities outlined in the Agricultural, Research, Extension,

and Education Reform Act of 1998. Beginning in FY 2000, CSREES will be responsible for administering competitive grants

for research, education, and extension for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (the Initiative) authorized by

the Research Reform Act. The Initiative provides $120 million per year for research, education or extension competitive grants

targeted to address critical issues related to agricultural productivity and competitiveness. The agency is also responsible for

administering competitive grants under the Fund for Rural America. Approximately one-half of $60 million will be devoted to

supporting multi-disciplinary research and extension projects. The top priority activities in the CSREES budget proposal are as

follows:

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. Mandatory spending of $120 million per year over the next 5 years is

provided for the Initiative under Sec. 401 of the Research Reform Act. Competitive grants of up to 5 years will be awarded to

address pressing agricultural needs by supporting activities targeting enhanced agricultural competitiveness, improved food

safety, and greater farm efficiency and profitability for small and medium-sized farms. Special emphasis will be placed on

awarding grants to small and mid-sized institutions who have not previously been successful in obtaining NRI competitive

grants. Priority will be given to multi-institutional and multi-state projects that integrate agricultural research, extension, and

education activities.

National Research Initiative. The 2000 budget proposes an increase of $81 million for the National Research Initiative

(NRI), a 68 percent increase over the 1999 appropriated level. The NRI supports both fundamental and mission-linked research

through a competitive, peer-reviewed process that is open to all of the Nation's top scientists. The need for additional support is

prompted by a wide range of environmental, human health, and nutrition concerns which have added complexity to production

management decisions faced by agricultural producers. The key concerns can only be addressed through an enhanced scientific

and technological knowledge base. The proposed increase will address the key concerns through additional investments in

biotechnology and animal and plant genetics, global change research, food safety and human nutrition research, animal waste

management, and value added agricultural commodities.

FQPA-related Pest Control Programs. The budget provides $13 million for two new programs to develop new pest control

alternatives needed to replace the traditional pest controls that are at risk of being restricted or prohibited as the result of the

stricter safety standards being imposed by EPA under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The Vice President's direction

to the Department and EPA is to work jointly in implementing FQPA to ensure safer food for consumers and a reasonable

transition period for producers of at-risk commodities. This budget sets forth the research, technology, and information

programs that are needed to fulfill the Vice President's direction and commitment to agriculture. New programs are proposed

for the development and implementation of innovative pest management systems for major acreage crops and fruits and

vegetables, that are safer for consumption. An additional $5 million is proposed for demonstrating short- and intermediate-term

methyl bromide replacement strategies, in preparation for the chemical's scheduled production phase-out beginning in 2005.

Food Safety. The budget provides $36 million, an increase of $15 million above the comparable 1999 appropriated level for

research, education, and extension competitive grants, including the NRI Competitive Grants Program, in support of the

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (61 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
President's Food Safety Initiative. Research emphasis will be placed on prevention, detection, and control of microbial

pathogens resulting from fruit and vegetable production and handling. Emphasis will also be placed on developing food safety

education programs that provide HACCP training to small retailers and food distributors. Approximately 10 percent of the

$200 million proposed for competitive grants under the NRI will be devoted to food safety research.

Water Quality. The budget includes $16 million, an increase of $3 million above the comparable 1999 appropriated level for

competitive research, education, and extension grants to improve water quality. Emphasis will be placed on mitigating some of

the negative impacts of agricultural production on water quality such as hypoxia and harmful algal blooms by reducing

phosphorous and nitrogen build-up, and improving animal waste management systems.

Gleaning and Food Recovery Activities. The budget includes $15.8 million in new funds for activities in gleaning and food

recovery to empower communities to reduce hunger. The focus will be on establishing a technical assistance and education

network to develop and extend knowledge about food security issues, including food safety, integration of systems, and

leadership and volunteer development. It will also support community infrastructure programs to improve food transportation,

storage and distribution. Special emphasis will be placed on establishing linkages with public and private institutions,

educational institutions, and local governments.

Formulas and Non-Competitive Special Grants. As indicated in the Department's latest strategic plan, an increasing portion

of Federal funds will be distributed competitively to address the most critical needs of the agricultural community and fund the

most highly meritorious projects. The increases proposed for competitive projects are offset by decreases in formula funds and

non-competitive projects slated for reductions due to constrained budget resources. The additional flexibility provided in the

Research Reform Act where a portion of the formula funds can be used to support either research or extension projects, allows

states more authority to use Federal funds in addressing their highest priority needs.

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE (ERS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Economic Analysis and Research $72 $65 $56

Trust Funds a/ a/ a/

 Total, ERS $72 $65 $56

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

ERS provides economic analysis on efficiency, efficacy, and equity issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and

rural development to improve public and private decision making. Activities to support this mission include research and

development of economic and statistical indicators on a broad range of topics.

Increased funding is included to support economic research and analysis on five high priority issues:

Food Safety ($453,000). This increase would result in more accurate assessments of the costs of foodborne illness and

support more informed policy decisions related to food safety. ERS would participate in the Risk Assessment

Consortium established as part of the President's Food Safety Initiative to assess the costs of foodborne illness and the

economic consequences of options to improve food safety. ERS would collaborate with the Food and Drug

Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis and other

USDA agencies on the development of risk assessment models to identify where pathogens enter the food chain and

where control efforts would be most cost-effective.

❍ 

Commodity Market Analysis ($854,000). This increase will allow the Agency to enhance its program in commodity

market analysis. The provided funds will be used in several ways to assure the maintenance of sufficient program

capacity to analyze the structure and performance of commodity markets in a dynamic era, to lend that analytical

expertise to Departmental commodity forecasting and projections activities, and to enhance the dissemination of market

analytical information and its underlying data to those producers, processors, traders, and other sellers who rely upon its

availability.

❍ 

❍ Information for Small Farmers ($350,000). Funding is included for an assessment of the Department's role in meeting

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (62 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
the information needs of small farmers, niche marketers, limited resource and socially disadvantaged agricultural market

participants. ERS will assess how information needs vary by the type and size of an operation, how well USDA and

private information services meet the needs of small farmers, and what reforms and modifications in the Department's

current market information programs are needed in order to better serve smaller and limited resource farmers.

Electric Utility Deregulation ($200,000). This increase would support research on electric utility deregulation in order

to assess the potential impacts of deregulation on the Department's rural utility loan programs, the competitiveness of

rural businesses and communities, and the well-being of rural households.

❍ 

Global Climate Change ($1,000,000). Funding ($700,000) is included to support an initiative aimed at reducing

greenhouse gases while improving the economic performance of agricultural resources and reducing other

environmental problems. ERS will assess three components: 1) economic potential for domestic carbon sequestration in

agricultural soils and trace gas control, 2) economic incentives for carbon sequestration and the potential for targeting

existing conservation programs and, 3) an assessment of the global potential for agricultural trace gas mitigation and

sequestration. Funding ($300,000) is also provided to support the U.S. Global Change Research Program National

Assessment Activities in which several agencies collaborate to provide a detailed understanding of the consequences of

climate change for the Nation and to examine the availability of mechanisms that exist to aid with adaptation to climate

changes.

❍ 

In addition, the budget reflects the Administration's proposal to fund food program studies ($12.2 million), which were

included in the ERS appropriation in 1999, in the Food and Nutrition Service.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE (NASS)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Agricultural Estimates $79 $77 $81

Statistical Research and Service 3 3 3

Census of Agriculture 36 24 17

Trust Funds a/ a/ a/

 Total, NASS $118 $104 $101

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

NASS statistics provide the basic information necessary to keep agricultural markets stable and efficient and help maintain a

"level playing field" for all users of agricultural statistics. The mission of NASS is to meet the basic agricultural and rural data

needs of the people of the United States, those working in agriculture, and those living in rural communities by providing

important, objective, usable, and accurate statistical information and services for informed decision making.

Overall, the budget reflects a net decrease of $3 million which is comprised of a $9 million reduction due to the cyclical

funding needs of the Census partially offset by $6.5 million in increases. Program increases are requested for:

$1.8 million to conduct the decennial Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS). This survey

provides the only comprehensive source of data on agricultural land ownership, financing and inputs by farm operators

and landlords for each State.

❍ 

$2.5 million to conduct a Fruit and Vegetable Food Safety Survey as part of the President's Food Safety Initiative. This

survey will establish a baseline for good agricultural practices as they relate to microbial food safety issues.

❍ 

$1.6 million to collect pesticide use data for the horticulture and greenhouse industries and expand pesticide use surveys

for minor commodities. Collection of this data will assist in the setting of safe pesticide use standards and provide

needed information on the expanding horticulture and greenhouse sectors of agriculture.

❍ 

❍ $304,000 to establish a permanent NASS office in Puerto Rico.

$300,000 to expand the Mid-Atlantic Pilot Project measuring chemical usage on cropland, and to improve data

collection, storage, and accessibility of ecosystem information in the project.

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (63 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES AND CENTRALIZED ACTIVITIES

The Departmental offices provide leadership, coordination and support for all administrative and policy functions of the

Department. These offices assist program agencies throughout the Department in their efforts to provide efficient and effective

service to all USDA customers. The Department also has a number of centralized activities which have separate

appropriations. These centrally managed operations provide efficient, economical services through economies of scale and

management attention for the benefit of all participating agencies. These activities are managed by the Departmental staff

offices or coordinated at the Departmental level.

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Departmental Offices:

 Office of the Secretary $11 $11 $13

 Departmental Administration

 Staff Offices 27 32 36

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged

 Farmers 3 3 10

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 6

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 6 6 8

 Supplemental for Y2K Conversion 0 29 0

 Office of the General Counsel 29 29 33

 Office of Communications 8 8 9

Executive Operations:

 Office of the Chief Economist 5 6 7

 National Appeals Division 12 12 13

 Office of Budget and Program

 Analysis 6 6 7

 Total, Departmental Offices 111 146 142

Centrally Financed Activities:

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities

 and Rental Payments 130 137 166

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16 23

 Trust Funds 1 1 1

 Total, Centralized Activities 147 154 190

 Total, Departmental Offices

 and Centralized Activities $258 $300 $332

This budget reflects a number of increases to strengthen department-wide management oversight and leadership to support

USDA programs. Following are some highlights of the budget proposals for the above offices and activities.

The Departmental Administration (DA) Staff Offices provide staff support to policy officials and overall direction and

coordination for the management of human resources, civil rights, outreach, property, procurement, and the regulatory hearing

and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges, Judicial Officer, and Board of Contract Appeals.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (64 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
The request includes additional resources for DA staff offices of $3.9 million. The funds will support the following activities:

Additional staffing for the Office of Outreach to strengthen and expand leadership and coordination capabilities and

expand outreach activities to minority and limited resource customers.

❍ 

Additional staffing for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to support the Bringing Rural

America Venture Opportunities project as a means of creating new jobs in rural America.

❍ 

The Office of Civil Rights within DA provides overall leadership responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities

including both employment opportunity and program discrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and

compliance activities. The Office is responsible for reducing under representation and under utilization in the workforce and

for monitoring the delivery of program activities to ensure that all USDA programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory

manner. One of USDA's top priorities is to continue efforts to correct past weaknesses in the civil rights area by implementing

recommendations of the Secretary's Civil Rights Action Team. Included in the DA proposal is an increase of $837,000 to

process civil rights complaints submitted under the change to the statute of limitations enacted in the 1999 Agriculture

Appropriations Act. Also included is an increase of $802,000 to expand employment complaints investigation capability and

enhance complaint tracking to provide increased accountability.

The Office of Outreach within DA assumed responsibility in 1998 for providing Departmentwide leadership and coordination

to assure that all eligible customers have access to all USDA programs and services. As noted above, the funds requested will

support additional staffing to strengthen and expand leadership, coordination and outreach activities. It also has responsibility

for administering the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach Program. Authorized by Section 2501 of the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the program is designed to assist socially disadvantaged farmers and

ranchers to participate in USDA programs and be successful in their operations by providing outreach and technical assistance.

The proposal for 2000 includes an increase of $7 million, which will enable support of approximately 35 projects that will

serve more than 10,000 small producers with the goal of turning them into solvent enterprises and stemming the continual

reduction of the number of minority farmers and ranchers. Through the assistance offered by this program, more socially

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers will become aware of the various programs and assistance available to them from USDA

and will have more productive farms and fiscal solvency.

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides overall direction and leadership in the development of modern

financial systems in the Department. The proposed increase of $2 million for 2000 includes funds to restore the Department's

financial credibility and accountability including successful implementation of legislative mandates such as the Government

Performance and Results Act, debt collection and cost accounting.

The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) provides policy guidance, leadership, and coordination to USDA's

information management and technology investment activities. To meet the business demands of the Department's IT systems,

this request includes an increase of $2.4 million to enhance OCIO's capability to respond to USDA infrastructure security and

emergency response issues; enhance IT project management activities; strengthen workforce planning activities to ensure

USDA maintains a highly qualified IT workforce; and continue oversight of the Department's Service Center Implementation

initiative.

Supplemental funding of $28.7 million was provided to OCIO to support an aggressive program of remediation activities to

address Year 2000 computer and embedded chip problems and to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of USDA programs and

services.

Legal oversight, counsel, and support for the Department's programs is provided by the Office of the General Counsel

(OGC). The request provides an additional $3.5 million to strengthen OGC's ability to provide timely response to requests for

legal assistance from the program agencies, especially in the areas of trade practices, natural resources, and general law. Funds

are also included to provide information technology improvements to further enhance the efficiency of the office.

The Department's Office of Communications (OC) plays a critical role in disseminating information about USDA's programs

to the general public. The request includes increases of $1.2 million to enable OC to utilize new technology to reach audiences

in a more timely and effective manner, and to lead a Departmentwide communications outreach effort to reach underserved

populations.

The Chief Economist advises the Secretary on policies and programs related to U.S. agriculture and rural areas, provides

objective analysis on the impacts of policy options on the agricultural and rural economy, and participates in planning and

developing programs to improve the Department's forecasts, projections, and policy analysis capabilities. Staff of OCE also

coordinate small farm activities within USDA by identifying new opportunities for USDA involvement in small farm issues,

integrating a small farm emphasis into USDA policies and programs, and coordinating USDA agencies' responses to the

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (65 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
recommendations of the National Commission on Small Farms established by the Secretary in 1997. In addition, the Office of

Energy has been transferred from ERS to OCE. The Office of Energy assists the Secretary in developing Departmental energy

policy and coordinating Departmental energy programs and strategies. It provides economic analysis on energy policy issues,

coordinates USDA energy-related activities within and outside the Department, and studies the feasibility of new uses of

agricultural products. The 2000 request includes an increase of $211,000 to enable OCE to maintain these activities.

The National Appeals Division conducts fair and impartial administrative appeals of adverse decisions issued by certain

agencies within USDA. The 2000 request includes an increase of $392,000 to maintain this activity.

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides analyses and information to support informed decisionmaking

regarding the Department's programs and policies, budget, legislative, and regulatory actions. The request includes an increase

of $463,000 to strengthen budget and program analysis capabilities, and support information technology improvements to

enhance efficiency.

In 2000, the Department is requesting $166 million for its facilities programs covered under the Agriculture Buildings and

Facilities Appropriation. The request includes $115.5 million for rental payments to the General Services Administration

(GSA); $24.8 million for the operation and maintenance of the headquarters complex including the new Beltsville facility, and

$26 million for the continued renovation of the South Building to correct health and safety hazards and update the mechanical

and electrical systems in the over-60-year-old building to provide a safe, efficient and functional workplace for USDA

employees. The renovation project is part of the ongoing USDA Washington Area Strategic Space Plan. Occupancy of the

Beltsville facility, the first part of the Plan, began in February 1998. The design for the first phase of the South Building

renovation was completed in 1997, and a construction contract was awarded in July 1998. The design for phase 2 of the

modernization is substantially completed. The 2000 request includes funds for the construction of phase 2.

The Hazardous Waste Management program provides for Departmental compliance with the requirements of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Oil Pollution Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. An increase of $7 million is

requested to accelerate investigative and cleanup activities to protect human health and the environment. The increase also

supports an increased workload in connection with negotiations and cleanup agreements with responsible parties in the cleanup

of hazardous waste sites.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Office of the Inspector General $63 $65 $68

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to programs and

operations of the Department, reviews and makes recommendations on existing and proposed legislation and regulations, and

recommends policies and activities to promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud and mismanagement in

USDA operations. The request provides additional resources of $3.1 million to enhance the ability of OIG to conduct special

operations while continuing to support ongoing investigation and audit operations. Special operations - both long-term and

rapid response efforts - would target activities which have the potential to adversely affect the safety of the food supply or

threaten agricultural production through the introduction of pests.

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (66 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU (SSB)

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Service Center Implementation $90 a/ $50 a/ $90

b/

a/ Funded through county-based agency budgets.

b/ Includes $16 million to be funded from CCC.

Implementation of the Secretary's administrative convergence initiative will provide efficient administrative services to the

Department's county-based agencies, including the Farm Service Agency, the Rural Development mission area and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service. A new consolidated organization, the Support Services Bureau, will provide these services,

including information technology activities. Salaries and expenses of the new bureau will be financed through transfers by the

serviced agencies.

Service Center Implementation. A program level of $90 million is proposed for service center implementation activities in

2000, primarily for the continued development and implementation of the common computing environment (CCE). One of the

keys to success of improved customer service, while streamlining the field structure, is the replacement of the aging business

and technology systems of the field service agencies. A collective re-engineering of business processes for administrative

services and program delivery is underway, along with testing information technology alternatives. Common information

shared by the partner agencies will reduce the redundant requests made of program participants, as well as customer office

visits and paperwork burden, and ease workload for internal staff. CCE will enable USDA to: optimize the data, equipment,

and staff sharing opportunities at the service centers; overcome the extreme limitations of the current legacy systems; and

enhance customer service into the 21st Century.

Administrative Convergence. Currently, three separate administrative structures provide support to NRCS, the Farm and

Foreign Agricultural Services, and RD mission areas -- down from nine such organizations in 1993. An initial plan has been

developed to combine these three structures into one unit. The consolidated structure will:

❍ Deliver better services to local customers and employees;

❍ Help preserve limited budget resources for program delivery;

❍ Provide a new consistency in administrative policy and operations, such as IT; and

❍ Make better use of limited administrative resources.

APPENDIX

 FOOD

SAFETY ACTIVITIES

 

Budget Authority

 

(Dollars in Millions)

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (67 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
USDA FUNDING FOR PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE:

 

1999

 1998 

Current 2000

 Approp.

Estimate Budget

A. EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE

 Economic Research Service (ERS) ............................ a 

$0.3 $0.3

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) .................. $1.5 

1.5 1.5

 

___________________________

 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL, EARLY WARNING SYSTEM 1.5 

1.8 1.8

 

B. RISK ASSESSMENT 

 Agricultural Research Service (ARS)......................... 4.5 

4.9 6.5

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 0.2 

2.6 3.7

 Economic Research Service (ERS)............................. a 

0.2 0.7

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)................... a 

3.3 3.3

 National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS)............ 0.0 

0.0 2.5

 Office of the Chief Economist (OCE)......................... 0.1 

0.2 0.2

 

___________________________

 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL, RISK ASSESSMENT....................... 4.7 

11.2 16.8

C. BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH 

 Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)........................ 0.0 

0.1 6.3

 Agricultural Research Service (ARS)......................... 50.4 

65.0 75.1

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 6.3 

14.8 23.8

 

___________________________

 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL, BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH................... 56.6 

79.8 105.2

D. INSPECTIONS

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)................... 0.6 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (68 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
10.1 12.5

E. EDUCATION 

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 2.4 

7.4 8.3

 Economic Research Service (ERS)............................. 0.4 

0.4 0.4

 Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)............................ 0.0 

2.0 2.0

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)................... 0.0 

3.7 3.7

 Office of the Chief Economist (OCE)......................... 

a a a

 

___________________________

 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL, EDUCATION............................. 2.8 

13.4 14.4

F. EMERGENCY OUTBREAK RESPONSE COORDINATION

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)................... 0.0 

0.0 0.5

 

___________________________

 TOTAL, USDA Funding for President's Food Safety Initiative....... 66.3 

116.4 151.2

ADDITIONAL FOOD SAFETY ACTIVITIES:

 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).............. 587.2 

598.5 631.5

 

___________________________

TOTAL, USDA Food Safety Activities................................... 653.4 

714.9 782.7

Footnote a: less than $0.1 million.

THE PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

The 2000 Food Safety Initiative builds on the foundation established in 1998 and 1999 and will target resources to: (1) further

develop a nationally integrated food safety system by expanding and strengthening the partnership between Federal, State, and

local agencies, (2) continue enhancing surveillance of foodborne diseases and increasing the speed and efficiency of responses

to outbreaks of foodborne illness, and (3) put greater emphasis on the control of foodborne hazards in the pre-harvest phase of

the farm-to-table continuum.

2000 Budget Request:

For USDA, the 2000 budget includes increases above the 1999 President's budget request for the following activities:

Agricultural Research Service (+$11.7 million): ARS will expand risk assessment modeling to include the production

or pre-harvest phase; expand research in antimicrobial resistance for the development of new pathogen

prevention/intervention technologies; initiate research that will lead to a better understanding of how the use of

antibiotics in food-producing animals increases the risk of emergence of micro-organisms that are resistant to specific

antibiotics; develop effective methods to handle and treat manure during production to prevent transmission of

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (69 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
pathogens to agricultural lands and to crops used for human food; and develop enhanced food safety procedures for use

during food handling, distribution and storage.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (+$11.0 million): CSREES will support food safety

activities through competitively awarded grants that will improve: detection methods for the most prevalent pathogens;

the effectiveness of best management practices interventions in the production setting related to control of antibiotic

usage in food; and the integration of research and education in food safety through technology transfer and through the

development of educational programs that focus on the adoption of recommended food handling practices consistent

with the research findings.

❍ 

Agricultural Marketing Service (+$6.2 million): AMS will establish microbiological baselines for pathogens on fruits

and vegetables utilizing existing program infrastructure.

❍ 

Food Safety and Inspection Service (+$2.9 million): FSIS will strengthen emergency response coordination with the

States in investigating foodborne illness outbreaks; validate the ability of State laboratories to meet HACCP pathogen

testing requirements; and conduct pathogen testing in Federal laboratories of State inspected product.

❍ 

Economic Research Service (+$0.5 million): ERS will provide the economic analysis necessary to evaluate the

effectiveness of various risk-reduction strategies for reducing foodborne illness.

❍ 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (+$2.5 million): NASS will conduct a Nationwide survey of fruit and

vegetable growers and packinghouse handling practices with regard to food safety. Survey data reported by producers

would inform domestic and international data users on U.S. grower food safety practices.

❍ 

 SECRETARY'S CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE 

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Million)

 1999

 Program Current 2000

 Estimate Budget

Fund Civil Rights Activities in Department

 Administration, including Office of Outreach $17.8 $21.1

Grants and Cooperative Agreements to improve

 Outreach to USDA Customers and Socially

 Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers ... 3.0 10.0

Civil Rights Division Within OGC ....... 0.9 0.9

Fund Small Farms Initiative (CSREES) ... 0.0 4.0

Address Disparities in Funding of Institutions

 of Higher Education:

 1890 Facilities Programs ........... 8.4 12.0

 Extension Services at 1994 Instituti 2.1 3.5

 Research at 1994 Institutions ...... 0.0 0.7

 Hispanic Serving Institutions Educat 2.9 3.2

Increase Extension Indian Reservation Pr 1.7 5.0

Farm Ownership and Farm Operating Loans:

 Farm Ownership ....................... 12.8 4.8

 Loan Level ......................... (85.6) (128.0)

 Farm Operating ....................... 50.1 29.3

 Loan Level ......................... (733.8) (500.0)

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (70 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Farm Labor Housing Program:

 Farm Labor Housing Loans ............. 10.4 11.3

 Loan Level ......................... (20.0) (25.0)

 Farm Labor Housing Grant Level ....... 11.4 15.0

 Rural Rental Assistance Payments ..... 10.0 15.0

Address the Needs of Farmworkers:

 Fund NASS Pesticide Use Survey ....... 0.0 1.6

Pesticide Applicator Training .......... 0.0 1.5

Debt for Nature:

 Financial Assistance to Historically 

 Underserved for Land Stewardship ... 0.0 4.0

 Technical Assistance ................. 0.0 1.0

 Total, Civil Rights ............... $131.5 $143.9

In February 1997, the Secretary's Civil Rights Action Team issued a report on civil rights issues in USDA which included the

Team's findings and many recommendations for action. Later, the Secretary established the National Commission on Small

Farms to examine the status of small farms in the United States and to determine a course of action for USDA to recognize,

respect, and respond to their needs. The Commission's report was released in January 1998 and included a comprehensive set

of recommendations to improve USDA service to small and beginning farmers.

The ongoing implementation of many of the recommendations from these reports and other improvements in the Department's

civil rights area continues to be one of the Secretary's highest priorities. Reflecting the Secretary's interest in this area, the

budget proposes a number of funding increases to support USDA civil rights activities. These include:

Administration. Additional resources are requested for the Office of Civil Rights to continue processing discrimination

complaints submitted under the change to the statute of limitations enacted in the 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act.

Increased staffing is also requested to expand the employment complaints investigation capability and enhance

complaint tracking to provide increased accountability. An increase is also proposed for the Office of Outreach to

strengthen its leadership and coordination capabilities as well as for the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach

Program, which is authorized by Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. An

increase is proposed for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to support the Bringing Rural

America Venture Opportunities project as a means of creating new jobs in rural America.

❍ 

Research, Education, and Economics. A new $4 million program is proposed in the CSREES budget for competitive

research, extension, and education grants to support small farms. The main goal of the program is to enhance

agricultural production on small farms by developing and facilitating networks between small farmers and trained

professionals in the public and private sectors.

❍ 

Additional funds are requested to enhance the Department's cooperative efforts with institutions of higher education that

aim to expand educational opportunities for minority students. This includes an increase for the renovation and

construction projects for facilities at 1890 institutions. The budget also provides additional funds for the Extension

Indian Reservation Program to support outreach activities of 30 extension agents as well as to expand the extension

capacity at 1994 institutions to address the most pressing concerns faced by Native American communities. Additional

emphasis is also being placed on enhancing the educational capacity of Hispanic Serving Institutions to deliver

science-based instruction in food and agricultural production disciplines.

❍ 

Farm Credit. Direct farm ownership loans would be increased from $86 million in 1999 to $128 million in 2000.

Guaranteed farm ownership loans would be increased from $425 million in 1999 to $432 million in 2000. This funding

increase will enable about 4,000 family farmers to either acquire their own farm or to save an existing one -- 600 more

than in 1999. Roughly 60 percent of the direct loans are provided to limited resource borrowers.

❍ 

Farm Labor Housing. Funds are provided to support a total of $40 million in loans and grants to construct housing for

some of the Nation's neediest families. This is almost a 30 percent increase from the 1999 level.

❍ 

Debt for Nature. The budget includes $5 million to help implement the Debt for Nature program which will provide

technical and financial assistance to USDA borrowers with serious cash flow problems who also have lands that require

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (71 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
conservation treatment. In order to help the thousands of borrowers who face foreclosure as a result of the declining

farm economy, NRCS will direct these funds to provide for expanded technical and costshare assistance. This proposal

will compliment other Departmental efforts to provide the best possible assistance to minority, limited resource, and

socially disadvantaged landowners who wish to implement stateoftheart conservation stewardship practices in exchange

for forgiveness of all or a portion of their borrowers debt load.

With respect to additional budget recommendations of the National Commission on Small Farms, the budget assumes full

funding for the Fund for Rural America, and an increase in funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension

Program (SARE), the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural America program (ATTRA), and Rural Cooperative

Development Grants (RCDG). Sustainable Agriculture Extension and Renewable Resources Extension formula funding for

small farm programs would continue at current levels. Small farm marketing efforts are supported with continued funding for

the Federal State Market Improvement Program (FSMIP), increased funding for the WIC Farmers Market Program, National

Organic Standards, Wholesale Market Development, and strengthened livestock and poultry industry analysis. Small farm

conservation initiatives include increased funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP).

PROGRAMS RELATED TO USDA RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE

FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Food Quality Protection Act

 CSREES Crops at Risk From

 FQPA Implementation 0 0 $3

 CSREES FQPA Risk Mitigation

 Prog. for Major Food Crop Systems 0 0 10

 CSREES Methyl Bromide Transitions

 Program 0 0 5

 ARS: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide $15 $15 15

 ARS: Office of Pest Management Policy 1 1 3

 Total, FQPA 16 16 36

Integrated Pest Management -- Research and Extension to Address

Producer-Identified Needs

 CSREES IPM Research Grant Program 3 3 3

 CSREES Pest Management Alternatives 2 2 4

 CSREES IPM Application 11 11 12

 ARS Areawide IPM Research 5 5 6

 ARS Contributing Research 78 83 84

 ERS IPM Research 1 1 1

 FS-IPM Research 12 12 17

 Total, IPM Initiative 112 117 127

Pesticide Use Data Collection and Analysis

 ARS Food Intake Surveys 5 0 0

 NASS Pesticide Use Surveys 6 6 7

 ERS Pesticide Use Analysis 2 2 2

 AMS Pesticide Data Program 8 11 12

 Total, Data Collection and Analysis 21 19 21

Pesticide Registration, Clearance, Assessment, Training

 ARS-Minor Use Clearance (IR-4) 2 2 2

 CSREES Minor Crop Pest Mgmt (IR-4) 9 9 11

 CSREES/ERS/FS NAPIAP 5 5 5

 CSREES Pest. Applicator Training 0 0 2

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (72 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Total, Pesticide Registration 16 16 20

 Total, FQPA and Related Programs $165 $168 $204

The enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, established stricter safety standards for pesticide registration,

particularly for pesticides used on foods consumed by infants and children. While EPA has primary responsibility for pesticide

registration, USDA has significant responsibilities to develop alternative pest controls, promote widespread adoption of safer

pest control practices, and collect and develop information on pesticide use. Last April, the Vice President's direction to the

Department and EPA was to work jointly in implementing FQPA to ensure safer food for consumers and a reasonable

transition period for producers of at-risk commodities. This budget sets forth the research, technology transfer, and pesticide

data programs that are needed to fulfill the Vice President's direction and commitment to agriculture.

Food Quality Protection Act. The Department has been supportive of extramural Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

research and extension activities as viable strategies for pesticide risk reduction. Building on the IPM principles, the

budget provides $36 million, an increase of $20 million above the 1999 level, for new integrated research, education,

and extension competitive grants and other extramural programs to support the development and implementation of

innovative pest management systems for major acreage crops and fruits and vegetables. Within the increase, additional

funds are proposed for the Department's Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP), which will work closely with

producers and stakeholders at the state level in establishing priorities for developing alternatives for crops that are most

at-risk of being restricted by FQPA.

❍ 

Research and demonstration of pest management practices. The Department places a high priority on continued

development of areawide pest management projects that have been highly successful in replacing chemical pesticides in

a large area setting. The budget provides $127 million, an increase of $10 million above the 1999 level, for additional

support of research and extension projects and projects selected for implementation for at-risk pesticides as a result of

FQPA. The knowledge and technologies developed by expanded research efforts will form the building blocks for

developing comprehensive IPM systems to make the transition to new alternative pest management strategies. The

increase also provides support for continued development of alternatives on a single crop basis under the Pest

Management Alternatives Program. These programs support research needed to develop biologically-based pest

management strategies for invasive species.

❍ 

Data collection and analysis activities. The Department continues to place emphasis on collecting information to meet

a wide range of needs, including data on pesticide residues and frequency of pesticide usage. Ongoing assessments are

also conducted to assist policy officials in understanding the economic implications of pesticide registration decisions

for the agricultural community.

❍ 

CLIMATE CHANGE RELATED PROGRAMS

Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Global Change Research Program

 Agricultural Research Service $27 $26 $34

 Cooperative State Research, Education

 and Extension Service 7 9 16

 Economic Research Service 1 1 2

 Forest Service 17 17 23

 Natural Resources Conservation Srvc. 1 2 14

 Total, GCRP 53 55 89

Climate Change Technology Initiative

 Agricultural Research Service -- -- 7 

 Forest Service -- -- 6

 Natural Resources Conservation Srvc. -- -- 3 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (73 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Total, CCTI -- -- 16

 Total, Climate Change Related Progs. $53 $55 $105

GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

The budget proposes an increase of $34 million for the USDA research program on global change. Research will investigate

technology and production strategies to minimize the adverse effects of global change on agricultural production and on

understanding how agriculture and forestry contribute to global change. Increases totalling $1 million are provided to ARS,

ERS, and NRCS for USDA participation in the National Assessment Activities, which is designed to provide a detailed

understanding of the consequences of climate change for the Nation. In support of the Administration's Global Change

Initiative, the budget includes $12 million for NRCS to develop accurate baseline soil carbon data and to determine the impacts

of Federal programs on soil carbon stocks at the National, Regional, and field levels. ERS will study the economic

consequences of climate change, such as the costs and benefits of carbon sequestration. An increase in the National Research

Initiative Competitive Grants Program totalling $6 million is provided for global change research, and the UV-B monitoring

network will be expanded to collect more data on UV radiation at the ground level. Within the total, $10 million is provided

for ARS and FS to participate in the U.S. Global Change Research Program Carbon Cycle Science Program, to study the role

of agriculture and forests in the carbon balance and ways to increase carbon storage in soils. FS will accelerate interpretation

and prediction capabilities which provide greater understanding of the role of disturbance processes such as fire, insect and

disease infestations, and drought. FS will also use the additional funds for the development and management of forest

activities, technologies, and strategies to reduce emissions, increase carbon storage, enhance biological functions and increase

resiliency to disturbances. The Forest Service will also redirect $1 million in additional funding from the Forest Research base

to provide increased support to the GCRP.

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Increases are proposed in the budget to support the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). The Department

is requesting $16 million to support the initiative in 2000. Within the total increase, $7 million will be devoted to developing

technology for predicting and adapting agricultural production to global change impacts. Additional work will include research

on biomass for energy. The Forest Service will expand research and demonstration projects to develop methods to reduce

emissions and increase carbon sequestration and fiber production capability of forests and forest soils. Specific research will

focus on storage of carbon in forest soils, development of improved forest-based renewable energy systems, and increased

durability and use of wood products to sequester more carbon. NRCS will support projects to demonstrate and test various

greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms. In addition, the projected funds will be used to carry out

pilot projects on Animal Feeding Operations and livestock management issues and cropland management.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 1998 Current 2000

 AGENCY Actual Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Farm Service Agency ......................... $238 -$43 -$20

Commodity Credit Corporation Programs ....... 10,803 21,296 11,895

Risk Management Agency ...................... 953 1,614 1,068

Foreign Agricultural Service ................ 146 -333 -359

P.L. 480 .................................... 1,063 1,056 915

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural Utilities Service ..................... -453 -737 -2,931

Rural Housing Service ....................... 356 236 -314

Rural Business - Cooperative Service ........ 49 48 58

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (74 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Rural Community Advancement Program ......... 652 814 670

Rural Empowerment Zones / Enterprise ........ 0 15 15

Alternative Agricultural Research 

 and Commercialization Corp............... 7 4 10

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Food and Nutrition Service .................. 37,627 36,477 36,929

Section 32 Funds ............................ 113 187 269

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 866 802 876

Forest Service .............................. 3,369 3,365 3,416

FOOD SAFETY

Food Safety and Inspection Service .......... 593 621 153

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Agricultural Research Service ............... 846 890 901

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

 & Extension Service ..................... 859 1,045 950

Economic Research Service ................... 72 63 56

National Agricultural Statistics Service .... 118 104 101

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Agricultural Marketing Service .............. 156 163 174

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .. 495 499 559

Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Admini 24 27 11

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Office of the Secretary ..................... 11 11 13

Fund for Rural America ...................... 0 60 0

Support Services Bureau ..................... 0 0 74

Departmental Administration ................. 27 32 36

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers . 3 3 10

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ........ 130 137 166

Hazardous Waste Management .................. 16 16 23

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ....... 4 4 6

Office of the Chief Information Officer ..... 6 35 8

Office of the General Counsel ............... 29 29 33

Office of the Inspector General ............. 63 65 68

Office of Communications .................... 8 8 9

Executive Operations ........................ 23 24 26

Gifts and Bequests .......................... 1 1 1

Subtotal .................................... 59,273 68,638 55,875

Offsetting Receipts ........................... -974 -1,087 -822

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ......... $58,299 $67,551 $55,053

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Budget Authority

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (75 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 (Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 Current 2000

 AGENCY Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency ......................... $1,101 $1,090

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs ....... 4 -56

 Risk Management Agency ...................... 64 71

 Foreign Agricultural Service ................ 136 110

 P.L. 480 .................................... 1,056 915

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service ..................... 122 102

 Rural Housing Service ....................... 1,269 1,146

 Rural Business - Cooperative Service ........ 53 63

 Rural Community Advancement Program ......... 723 670

 Rural Empowerment Zones / Enterprise ........ 15 0

 Alternative Agricultural Research 

 and Commercialization Corp. 4 10

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service .................. 4,312 4,578

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 802 866

 Forest Service .............................. 2,652 2,711

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service .......... 617 149

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service ............... 870 881

 Cooperative State Research, Education, 

 & Extention Service ....................... 925 830

 Economic Research Service ................... 63 56

 National Agricultural Statistics Service .... 104 101

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service .............. 50 61

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .. 433 433

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration ............... 27 11

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary ..................... 11 13

 Fund for Rural America ...................... 0 -60

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (76 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Support Services Bureau ..................... 0 74

 Departmental Administration ................. 32 36

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers . 3 10

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ........ 137 166

 Hazardous Waste Management .................. 16 23

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer ....... 4 6

 Office of the Chief Information Officer ..... 35 8

 Office of the General Counsel ............... 29 33

 Office of the Inspector General ............. 65 68

 Office of Communications .................... 8 9

 Executive Operations ........................ 24 26

 Subtotal .................................. 15,766 15,210

Offsetting Receipts ........................... -5 -5

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ......... $15,761 $15,205

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 Current 2000

 AGENCY Actual Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency ......................... $278 $40 $32

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs ....... 10,142 18,204 12363

 Risk Management Agency ...................... 1273 1372 1672

 Foreign Agricultural Service ................ -364 -334 -365

 P.L. 480 .................................... 953 1737 963

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service ..................... 212 -1142 -3080

 Rural Housing Service ....................... 479 394 -48

 Rural Business - Cooperative Service ........ 57 71 51

 Rural Community Advancement Program ......... 580 759 683

 Rural Empowerment Zones / Enterprise ........ 0 0 5

 Alternative Agricultural Research 

 and Commercialization Corp................. 8 6 9

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service .................. 33373 35020 35945

 Section 32 Funds ............................ 112 151 135

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 917 1081 946

 Forest Service .............................. 3402 3440 3330

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service .......... 596 621 151

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (77 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service ............... 782 891 923

 Cooperative State Research, Education, 

 & Extention Service ....................... 904 928 916

 Economic Research Service ................... 55 55 57

 National Agricultural Statistics Service .... 124 102 101

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service .............. 153 158 174

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .. 526 530 566

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration ............... 24 27 11

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary ..................... 12 15 14

 Fund for Rural America ...................... 9 12 39

 Support Services Bureau ..................... 0 0 14

 Departmental Administration ................. 30 30 34

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers . 1 9 10

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ........ 140 141 162

 Hazardous Waste Management .................. 15 21 22

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer ....... 5 4 6

 Office of the Chief Information Officer ..... 4 32 11

 Office of the General Counsel ............... 28 27 33

 Office of the Inspector General ............. 63 65 68

 Office of Communications .................... 8 8 9

 Executive Operations ........................ 21 23 26

 Working Capital Fund ........................ -2 0 0

 Gifts and Bequests .......................... 1 1 1

 Subtotal .................................. 54921 64499 55989

Offsetting Receipts ........................... -974 -1087 -822

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ......... $53,947 $63,412 $55,167

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1999

 Current 2000

 AGENCY Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency ......................... $1,111 $1,143

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs ....... 4 -56

 Risk Management Agency ...................... 70 70

 Foreign Agricultural Service ................ 138 107

 P.L. 480 .................................... 1,749 977

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service ..................... 144 140

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (78 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Rural Housing Service ....................... 1,314 1,312

 Rural Business - Cooperative Service ........ 65 49

 Rural Community Advancement Program ......... 668 683

 Rural Empowerment Zones / Enterprise ........ 0 5

 Alternative Agricultural Research 

 and Commercialization Corp................. 6 9

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service .................. 4,344 4,554

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 1,028 927

 Forest Service .............................. 2,603 2,633

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service .......... 617 147

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service ............... 874 903

 Cooperative State Research, Education, 

 & Extention Service ....................... 928 892

 Economic Research Service ................... 55 57

 National Agricultural Statistics Service .... 102 101

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service .............. 44 60

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .. 433 440

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration ............... 27 11

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary ..................... 15 14

 Fund for Rural America ...................... 0 -33

 Support Services Bureau ..................... 0 11

 Departmental Administration ................. 30 34

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers . 9 10

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ........ 141 162

 Hazardous Waste Management .................. 21 22

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer ....... 4 6

 Office of the Chief Information Officer ..... 32 11

 Office of the General Counsel ............... 27 33

 Office of the Inspector General ............. 65 68

 Office of Communications .................... 8 9

 Executive Operations ........................ 23 26

 Subtotal .................................. 16,699 15,537

Offsetting Receipts ........................... -5 -5

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ......... $16,694 $15,532

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (79 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
 Staff Years 

 FY 1993 1999 

2000 Change 1993 Change 1999

 Agency Ceiling 1998 Estimate 

Budget Amount Percent Amount Percent

Farm Service Agency ....................... 7,628 5,666 5,845 

5,745 -1,883 -24.7% -100 -1.7%

Risk Management Agency .................... 664 530 545 

550 -114 -17.2% 5 0.9%

Foreign Agricultural Service .............. 923 914 900 

885 -38 -4.1% -15 -1.7%

Rural Utilities Service ................... 890 696 715 

715 -175 -19.7% 0 0.0%

Rural Housing Service ..................... 8,222 6,029 6,109 

6,081 -2,141 -26.0% -28 -0.5%

Rural Business-Cooperative Service ........ 428 297 304 

304 -124 -29.0% 0 0.0%

Alternative Agricultural Research

 and Commercialization Corporation ....... 7 6 11 

11 4 57.1% 0 0.0%

Food and Nutrition Service ................ 2,009 1,638 1,717 

1,805 -204 -10.2% 88 5.1%

Forest Service ............................ 43,025 34,798 34,984 

35,614 -7,411 -17.2% 630 1.8%

Natural Resources Conservation Service .... 13,784 11,916 11,466 

11,194 -2,590 -18.8% -272 -2.4%

Food Safety and Inspection Service ........ 9,950 9,698 9,702 

9,702 -248 -2.5% 0 0.0%

Agricultural Research Service ............. 8,426 7,431 7,762 

7,762 -664 -7.9% 0 0.0%

Cooperative State Research, Education & Ext 408 404 405 

440 32 7.8% 35 8.6%

Economic Research Service ................. 788 531 533 

533 -255 -32.4% 0 0.0%

National Agricultural Statistics Service .. 1,487 1,147 1,140 

1,146 -341 -22.9% 6 0.5%

Agricultural Marketing Service ............ 4,027 3,517 3,524 

3,524 -503 -12.5% 0 0.0%

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 6,552 6,342 6,461 

6,461 -91 -1.4% 0 0.0%

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stock. Admini 936 757 775 

775 -161 -17.2% 0 0.0%

Office of the Secretary ................... 83 64 82 

82 -1 -1.2% 0 0.0%

Departmental Administration ............... 727 649 701 

730 3 0.4% 29 4.1%

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ..... 1,221 1,279 1,186 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (80 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
1,171 -50 -4.1% -15 -1.3%

Office of the Chief Information Officer ... 297 250 272 

275 -22 -7.4% 3 1.1%

Office of the General Counsel ............. 420 340 374 

379 -41 -9.8% 5 1.3%

Office of the Inspector General ........... 850 737 753 

753 -97 -11.4% 0 0.0%

Office of Communications .................. 150 118 123 

123 -27 -18.0% 0 0.0%

Office of the Chief Economist ............. 45 39 60 

60 15 33.3% 0 0.0%

National Appeals Division ................. 152 129 133 

133 -19 -12.5% 0 0.0%

Office of Budget and Program Analysis ..... 76 70 66 

67 -9 -11.8% 1 1.5%

 Subtotal, USDA .......................... 114,175 95,989 96,648 97,020 

-17,155 -15.0% 372 0.4%

Thrift Savings Plan ....................... 367 421 545 

585 218 59.4% 40 7.3%

Total, USDA, Federal ...................... 114,542 96,410 97,193 97,605 

-16,937 -14.8% 412 0.4%

FSA, Non-Federal County ................... 14,953 10,733 10,700 

10,048 -4,905 -32.8% -652 -6.1%

Total, USDA ............................... 129,495 107,143 107,893 107,653 

-21,842 -16.9% -240 -0.2%

2000 User Fee Proposals

(Dollars in Millions)

Agency and Program Budget 

Authority 

Food Safety

Food Safety and Inspection Service: 

Salaries and Expenses 

This proposal would charge fees for the full cost of providing Federal inspection of

meat, poultry, and egg products. The user fees exclude Grants to States and Special

Assistance to State Programs. 

❍ 

-$504 

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service: 

Recreation Fee Demonstration Program 

This proposal would permanently extend the Recreation Fee Program beyond 2002 and

would authorize the direct expenditure of all recreations fees collected by the Forest

Service. The current 2000 estimate for this program is $20 million. 

❍ 

 0 

Timber Sales Preparation Pilot 

The budget proposes that timber purchasers bear a portion of the direct costs (excluding

environmental analysis costs) for timber sales preparation and harvest administration for

green timber from the National Forest System lands. 

❍ 

 -20 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (81 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Timber Salvage Sales Fund 

The budget proposes to implement a pilot program to charge a fee to recover federal

direct costs (excluding environmental analysis costs) for timber sales preparation and

harvest administration for salvage timber from National Forest System lands. 

❍ 

 -9 

Forest Uses 

The budget proposes that, contingent upon the enactment of authorizing legislation, fair

market value user fees are to be charged for certain land uses, such as oil and gas

pipelines, powerlines, telephone lines, fiber optic communications lines, ditches and

canals, and road and trail rights of way and commercial services on National Forest

System lands. 

❍ 

 -3 

Specialty Forest Products 

The budget proposes that, contingent upon the enactment of authorizing legislation, fair

market value user fees are to be charged for specialty forest products such as fuel wood,

mushrooms, nuts and ferns. Use of the revenue from the fees will begin on October 1,

2000. 

❍ 

 -12 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and Expenses 

This proposal would establish user fees for costs for animal welfare inspections and

issuance of biotechnology certificates. 

❍ 

 -9 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and Expenses 

This proposal would establish a fee for grain standardization and a licensing fee to cover

the costs of administering the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act relating to

meat packing and stockyards activities. 

❍ 

 -19 

Total, User Fee Related Proposed Legislation -$576 

2000 Other Proposed Budget-Related Legislation

(Dollars in Millions)

Agency and Program Budget 

Authority 

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Commodity Credit Corporation: 

The Administration will propose legislation to increase CCC funding for EQIP by $100

million in 2000 and by a total of $500 million for the period 2000 to 2004.

❍ 

$100 

Legislation is proposed to increase the CCC limit on 35 limit on computer expenditures

by $105 million over 2000 through 2002. This would provide a total cap of $293

million over 1997 through 2002. 

❍ 35

The budget includes proposed legislation for a reducedExport Enhancement Program

(EEP) level for 2000 to 2004. Under this proposal, total funding of about $1.9 billion

will be available for EEP during the 2000 to 2004 period, with a $494 million

limitation for EEP in 2000. 

❍ -85 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (82 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
The budget proposes to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program as

a mandatory program in CCC. Previously, it was funded as a discretionary program

from FAS Salaries and Expenses. This will ensure a stable source of funding for the

program. 

❍ 28 

The budget includes a new Quality Samples Program which will be used to apprise

potential buyers overseas of the high quality of U.S. agricultural products. Mandatory

funding for this program is proposed from CCC. 

❍ 2 

The budget proposes to offset funding for Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and

Farmland Protection Program by reduction in funds for the Conservation Farm Option

Program. 

❍ -38

Rural Development

Rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Grants 

This proposal provides mandatory funding for 10 years for Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities. Authority for a second round of EZ/EC was included in the Tax

Payer Relief Act of 1997. The 1999 Appropriations Act provided $15 million in

discretionary funding for the first year grants. 

❍ 

 $15 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural Electrification Loans 

This proposal would add a new Treasury rate electric loan program, in the amount of $400

million. Borrowers would apply for direct (Treasury rate) loans at an interest rate that is

tied to the Government's cost of money. This type of loan is similar to the successful

telecommunication Treasury rate loan program. 

❍ 

 a/ Less than $500 thousand. 

 a/ 

Rural Housing Service: 

Section 538 Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing Loans 

This proposal would eliminate the statutory requirement that 20 percent of the loans

guaranteed must receive interest assistance. 

❍ 

 0 

Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

Food and Nutrition Service: 

Food Stamp Program 

The Administration is proposing to restore benefits to qualified legal immigrants with

lawful permanent resident status on August 22, 1996, who subsequently reach the age of 65

made ineligible by restrictions in the Welfare Reform legislation passed in 1996. 

❍ 

 $10 

Child Nutrition Programs 

The Administration is proposing legislation to count the value of bonus commodities

towards the statutory requirement that at least 12 percent of Federal school lunch support be

in the form of commodities. 

❍ 

 -57 

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service: 

Payments to States 

The budget proposes legislation to stabilize Forest Service Payments to States which have

declined since the late 1980's. The proposal would stabilize the payments by providing a

guaranteed amount to the States rather than a percentage of the receipts. 

❍ 

 27 

Knutsen-Vandenburg (K-V) Trust Fund -34 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (83 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
The budget proposes that indirect (administrative) costs for the K-V trust fund are to be

assumed by discretion appropriations. This proposal includes language that allows the use

of carryover funds to cover the indirect costs previously paid for by the K-V trust fund. 

❍ 

Timber Salvage Sales 

The budget proposes that indirect (administrative) costs for Timber Salvage Sales are to be

assumed by discretionary appropriations. This proposal includes language that allows the

use of carryover funds to cover the indirect costs associated with Timber Salvage Sales. 

❍ 

 -18 

Brush Disposal 

The budget proposes that indirect (administrative) costs for Brush Disposal are to be

assumed by discretion appropriations. This proposal includes language that allows the use

of carryover funds to cover the indirect costs associated with the Brush Disposal account. 

❍ 

 -7 

Timber Fair Market Value 

The budget proposes that timber bids are to be available only through sealed bid auction

procedures, rather than open bid as is now the case in some places. It is the intention of the

proposal to increase timber receipts and better assure the government's collection of fair

market value for the timber asset sold. 

❍ 

 -14 

Concession Reform 

Concession reform legislation will alter current authorities and policies that make it

difficult to dispose of excess government facilities and for the private sector to enter into a

business relationship to reconstruct or construct recreational facilities, resulting in improved

facilities, reduced facilities maintenance backlog, reduced excess government facilities,

increased revenues from fee collections, and improved customer service. Use of revenue

from fees will begin on October 1, 2000. 

❍ 

 -11 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Debt for Nature 

This proposal would provide technical and financial assistance to USDA borrowers with

serious cash flow problems who also have lands that require conservation treatment. In

order to help borrowers who face foreclosure as a result of the declining farm economy,

these funds will be directed to provide expanded technical and cost-share assistance. 

❍ 

 5 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 

This proposal would authorize an additional funds to continue the program. The 1996 Farm

Bill authorized $50 million the program and these funds will be fully exhausted in 1999. 

❍ 

 10 

Farmland Protection Program 

This proposal would authorize new funding for 2000. The current funding authorization

was reached in 1998. 

❍ 

 28 

Research, Education, and Economics

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 

Mandatory funding of $120 million per year is authorized for this program beginning in

2000. The 1999 appropriations bill blocked the use of these funds in 1999. Legislation is

proposed to restore the $120 million authorized for 1999 in $30 million annual increments

beginning in 2001. 

❍ 

 0 

Fund for Rural America

Fund for Rural America 

 0 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (84 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
Mandatory funding of $60 million per year is authorized for the Fund for Rural America for

FY 1999 through 2003. The 1999 Appropriations Act blocked the use of these funds in

1999. Legislation is proposed to restore the $60 million authorized for 1999 in $15 million

increments beginning in 2001. 

❍ 

USDA 2000 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2000/text.html (85 of 85) [10/5/1999 3:08:52 PM]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

1999 BUDGET SUMMARY

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

FUNDING OVERVIEW

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES

EXPLANATION OF MAJOR CHANGES BY AGENCY:

 FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES:

 Farm Service Agency

 Risk Management Agency

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

 Rural Development

 Rural Utilities Service

 Rural Housing Service

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (1 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES:

 Food and Nutrition Service

 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT:

 Natural Resources Conservation Service

 Forest Service

 FOOD SAFETY:

 Food Safety and Inspection Service

 RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS:

 Agricultural Research Service

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

 Economic Research Service

 National Agricultural Statistics Service

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS:

 Agricultural Marketing Service

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

APPENDIX:

 Secretary's Civil Rights Initiative

 Integrated Pest Management and Related Programs

 Budget Authority by Agency, 1997-1999

 Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency, 1998-1999

 Outlays by Agency, 1997-1999

 Discretionary Budget Outlays by Agency, 1998-1999

 Staff Years by Agency, 1997-1999

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (2 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 1999 User Fee Proposals

 1999 Other Proposed Legislation

INTRODUCTION

The Budget Summary describes the fiscal year 1999 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). All references to years refer to fiscal year,

except where specifically noted. Throughout the booklet, the acronym, 1996 Farm Bill, is used to refer to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996.

The Summary is organized into five sections: Funding Overview, Program Highlights, Presidential Initiatives, Agency Programs, and Appendix Tables.

Basic budget terminology:

Program Level represents the gross value of all financial assistance USDA provides to the public. This assistance may be in the form of grants,

guaranteed or direct loans, cost-sharing, professional services such as research or technical assistance activities, or in-kind benefits such as

commodities.

● 

Budget Authority is the authority to commit funds of the Federal Treasury. Congress provides this authority through annual appropriations acts

and substantive legislation which authorizes direct spending. The President's budget requests the Congress to appropriate or otherwise provide an

amount of budget authority sufficient to carry out recommended government programs.

● 

Obligations are specific commitments of government funds. In order for USDA to make a valid obligation, it must have a sufficient amount of

budget authority to cover the obligation.

● 

● Outlays are cash disbursements from the Federal Treasury to satisfy a valid obligation.

Program level measures are used in most instances. However, there are some cases when other measures are used and the reader should take care to note

which measure is being used. Also, the reader should understand that many 1999 estimates are very tentative especially where programs are sensitive to

weather or economic conditions.

Return to Table of Contents

FUNDING OVERVIEW

1999 Funding Overview

USDA outlays have declined from $63.1 billion in 1993 to an estimated $54.3 billion in 1999 -- a 14 percent reduction. These savings have been possible

due to the strengthening economy, program reforms enacted by the Congress, and USDA's aggressive streamlining effort, which reduced the size of its

workforce by almost 20,000 staff years through 1997 and will result in a further cut of about 2,000 by 1999. For 1999, USDA expects outlays to decrease

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (3 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
to $54.3 billion from $55 billion in 1998, due to favorable economic conditions, higher levels of prior year loan repayments, savings through further

reductions in employment, implementation of welfare reform legislation, selected program reductions and the shift of certain programs from Federal

funding to user fees. Total USDA program level is projected to increase to $86.5 billion in 1999 from an estimated $83.3 billion in 1998.

USDA's 1999 discretionary program outlays, about $15.4 billion, or almost thirty percent of total USDA outlays, include the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); rural development; research and technical assistance; soil and water conservation;

management of the National Forests and Grasslands; State and Private Forestry programs; and domestic and international marketing assistance.

Mandatory programs account for the remaining seventy percent of USDA outlays, about $39 billion in 1999. These programs provide services as required

by law and include the majority of the food assistance programs, commodity programs, and a number of conservation programs.

The budget will strengthen the safety net for farmers and low income populations, provide economic opportunities for rural Americans, protect our

natural resources and further improve the safety of the food supply. Funding is included within a number of agencies to support programs proposed as

segments of multi-agency Presidential initiatives. More detailed information is provided under the relevant sections of this document.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(Dollars in Millions)

 

 Program Level Outlays

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (4 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Agency/Program 1998 Change 1998 Change

 Current 1999 1998 to Current 1999 1998 to

 Estimate Budget 1999 Estimate Budget 1999

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 

Farm Service Agency:

 Farm Loan and Grant Programs $2,979 $2,995 $16 $338 $345 $7

 Conservation Reserve Program 1,836 1,718 -118 1,861 1,718 -143

 Other Conservation Programs 0 0 0 150 16 -134

 Commodity Programs 13,315 14,113 798 6,249 5,941 -308

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs (21,027) (21,482) (455) (8,566) (8,420) (-146)

 Salaries and Expenses 963 976 13 601 719 118 

 Total, Farm Service Agency 19,093 19,802 709 9,199 8,739 -460

Risk Management Agency:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses 64 66 2 57 65 8

 Crop Insurance Fund 2,597 2,591 -6 1,340 1,756 416

 Total, Risk Management Agency 2,661 2,657 -4 1,397 1,821 424

Foreign Agricultural Service:

 Export Credit Guarantees 5,000 4,615 -385 383 308 -75

 Market Access Program 90 90 0 91 90 -1

 Export Enhancement Program 150 320 170 150 320 170

 Dairy Export Incentive Program 99 82 -17 111 92 -19

 P.L. 480 1,112 979 -133 1,139 1,006 -133

 Food for Progress Program 104 109 5 101 106 5

 Salaries and Expenses 194 190 -4 152 153 1

 Total, Foreign Agricultural Service 6,749 6,385 -364 2,127 2,075 -52

 Total, Farm and Foreign 

 Agricultural Svcs. 28,503 28,844 341 12,723 12,635 -88

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural Utilities Service:

 Loans and Grants 3,034 3,157 123 715 695 -20

 Salaries and Expenses 66 68 2 66 68 2

 Total, Rural Utilities Service 3,100 3,225 125 781 763 -18

Rural Housing Service:

 Rural Housing Loan and Grant Programs 4,835 5,104 269 833 809 -24

 Rural Community Loan and Grant Programs 368 418 50 23 23 0

 Salaries and Expenses 414 429 15 418 465 47

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (5 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, Rural Housing Service 5,617 5,951 334 1,274 1,297 23

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

 Loans and Grants 1,163 1,157 -6 87 67 -20

 Salaries and Expenses 29 30 1 36 36 0

 Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Svc. 1,192 1,187 -5 123 103 -20

Alternative Agricultural Research

 Commercialization Corporation 7 10 3 8 7 -1

Rural Community Advancement Program (2,733) (2,850) (117) (653) (650) (-3)

 Total, Rural Development 9,916 10,373 457 2,186 2,170 -16

FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA (34) 100 100 17 66 49

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Food and Nutrition Service:

 Food Stamp Program 22,381 24,192 1,811 22,316 23,933 1,617

 Child Nutrition Programs 9,197 9,636 439 9,196 9,473 277

 Women, Infants and Children (WIC) 4,012 4,161 4,149 3,937 4,051 114

 Commodity Assistance Program 395 417 22 402 415 13

 Salaries and Expenses 108 112 4 107 112 5

 Total, Food and Nutrition Service 36,093 38,518 2,425 35,958 37,984 2,026

 Section 32 Funds 330 300 -30 63 0 -63

 Total, Food, Nutrition, and 

 Consumer Svcs. 36,423 38,818 2,395 36,021 37,984 1,963

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

 Conservation Operations 694 752 58 725 729 4

 Watershed & Flood Prevention Operations 51 49 -2 264 68 -196

 Other Conservation Cost-Share Programs 40 34 -6 110 91 -19

 Programs financed by CCC:

 Environmental Quality Incentives

 Program 200 300 100 157 167 10

 Wetlands Reserve Program 219 124 -95 122 167 45

 Other 63 45 -18 18 25 7

 Total, Natural Resources Conservation

 Service 1,267 1,304 37 1,396 1,247 -149

Forest Service 3,462 3,298 -164 3,526 3,378 -148

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (6 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, Natural Resources and Environment 4,729 4,602 -127 4,922 4,625 -297

FOOD SAFETY

Food Safety and Inspection Service 675 709 34 594 156 -438

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Agricultural Research Service 760 792 32 757 785 28

Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 896 853 -43 837 844 7

Economic Research Service 72 56 -16 72 59 -13

National Agricultural Statistics Service 118 107 -11 115 108 -7

 Subtotal, Research, Education, and

 Economics 1,846 1,808 -38 1,781 1,796 15

Construction:

 Agricultural Research Service 79 36 -43 65 70 5

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 0 0 0 55 40 -15

 Total, Research, Education, 

 & Economics 1,925 1,844 -81 1,901 1,906 5

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Agricultural Marketing Service 238 249 11 172 187 15

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 516 483 -33 430 477 47

Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Admin. 67 72 5 24 14 -10

 Total, Marketing and Regulatory Programs 821 804 -17 626 678 52

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Departmental Offices 320 390 70 348 392 44

Pre-credit Reform Loan Repayments 0 0 0 -3,472 -5,452 -1,980

Receipts 0 0 0 -843 -868 -25

 USDA, TOTAL $83,312 $86,484 $3,172 $55,015 $54,291 -$724

Return to Table of Contents

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (7 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

Government Performance and Results Act

On September 30, 1997, the Department delivered to Congress its Strategic Plan for the next five years, as required by the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). The Department's Strategic Plan is premised on the achievement of three strategic goals, and one overall management initiative of

the Department. These are as follows:

Goal 1: Expand economic and trade opportunities for agricultural producers and other rural residents.

Goal 2: Ensure food for the hungry, and a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply.

Goal 3: Promote sensible management of our natural resources.

Management Initiative: Provide effective customer service and efficient program delivery.

Following are highlights of the Department's budget proposals that will begin to fulfill the achievement of these goals.

GOAL 1: EXPAND ECONOMIC AND TRADE OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AND OTHER RURAL

RESIDENTS.

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

The Department's commodity and income support, farm credit, risk management and related programs provide a safety net to help ensure the long-term

economic vitality of American farmers and ranchers. International trade and export programs promote economic opportunity by developing and

protecting expanded export markets. Income support payments help ensure the economic vitality of producers, but they are no longer adjusted to

compensate for changes in market prices. The economic viability of a farm sector which is heavily dependent on unstable international markets and

unpredictable weather is influenced significantly by the Department's risk management and export programs. The Department also provides farm credit

assistance as a lender of last resort, paying particular attention to small, limited resource and minority farmers.

Risk Management. The 1999 budget for the Risk Management Agency provides for full funding of the crop insurance program including the expansion

of crop revenue coverage which offers protection from lower prices and production losses and is now available on almost 90 percent of the corn, wheat,

cotton, soybeans, and grain sorghum grown in the United States. RMA anticipates that approximately 63 percent of insurable farmland will be covered by

crop insurance in 1999 with over 1.3 million policies in force. In accordance with current law, indemnity payments are expected to exceed the premium

level by a ratio of 1.075. USDA will propose legislation to shift sales commissions from discretionary to mandatory spending to assure the availability of

funding for program operations. This shift requires PAYGO offsets which will be achieved through programmatic changes within the crop insurance

program and other USDA programs. (See page 30.)

Farm Loans. To improve the opportunities for borrowers to obtain credit, the 1999 budget provides funding for direct farm ownership and direct

operating loans at the levels recommended by the Department's Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) and the National Commission on Small Farms.

Funding for direct farm ownership loans is almost double the 1998 levels and will support loans to over 1,000 farmers in 1999. At least 18 percent of

these funds will be targeted to socially disadvantaged farmers. Funding for direct operating loans reflects a modest increase over 1998 and is expected to

support loans to 11,580 farmers. At least 12 percent of these funds will be targeted to socially disadvantaged farmers. The 1999 budget also includes

proposed legislation to modify the 1996 Farm Bill prohibition on loans to borrowers who received debt forgiveness, giving them a second chance to

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (8 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
obtain affordable credit after restoring their credit-worthiness. (See page 21.)

International Programs. The budget provides a total program level of nearly $6.4 billion for the Department's international programs and activities in

1999. This includes a program level of $4.6 billion for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) export credit guarantee programs. The 1999 budget

adopts a new approach for presenting the program levels and budget estimates for the guarantee programs; these estimates will now reflect the actual level

of sales expected to be registered under the programs for which CCC guarantees will be issued rather than the authorized level. This change will result in

more realistic estimates of the costs of the guarantee programs, and the accuracy of the CCC budget estimates will improve. (See page 32.)

For the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), the budget provides a program level of up to $320 million in 1999. USDA will propose legislation to

authorize a flexible, multi-year program level authorization for EEP, which will provide total funding of just under $1.2 billion for the 1999 to 2003

period. The proposal will provide discretion to the Department to determine the annual level of funding for EEP, subject to the $320 million limitation in

1999, and funding not used one year will remain available for use in subsequent years. However, annual program levels will continue to be subject to the

export subsidy reduction commitments established in conjunction with the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. (See page 34.)

The budget continues funding for the Market Access Program unchanged from the current level of $90 million. The budget provides a total program level

of $979 million for P.L. 480 foreign food assistance programs, which is expected to provide approximately 2.8 million metric tons of commodity

assistance in 1999. (See page 37.)

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Spending. Legislative changes over the last decade in commodity, disaster, and conservation programs have

dramatically modified the level, mix, and variability of CCC outlays. Total CCC outlays have declined from almost $26 billion in 1986 to $8.6 billion in

1998, and are projected to decline to $8.4 billion in 1999 and to $7 billion in 2003. The Department will propose legislation to limit cotton user marketing

certificates to no more than $140 million in 1999 for savings of about $110 million in 1999. Commodity program spending will continue to decline as

annual fixed production flexibility contract payments are reduced. Spending for ad hoc disaster programs has been virtually eliminated, and CCC

spending for conservation programs has increased from negligible amounts prior to the 1996 Farm Bill to over $2 billion in 1999. Commodity program

outlays in 1999 account for about two- thirds of total CCC outlays, and production flexibility contract payments account for nearly all of the commodity

program outlays. Conservation program outlays for the CRP, WRP, EQIP, and several additional cost-share programs administered by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service account for most of the remaining CCC expenditures. (See page 27.)

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The Rural Development (RD) mission area improves the quality of life for rural Americans and helps rural businesses and cooperatives compete in the

global marketplace. The Administration remains strongly committed to providing economic opportunities to support sound development of rural

communities. RD provides financial and technical assistance to help individuals, local communities and rural businesses, concentrating on those with the

greatest need. These opportunities include decent, safe, affordable housing, establishment of rural businesses and community facilities, development of

modern and affordable water and waste services, and installation of electric and telecommunications services.

The budget provides about $10.4 billion for direct loans, loan guarantees, grants and technical assistance -- over $450 million more than the 1998 level.

(See page 40.)

The 1999 budget will support a number of Administration initiatives, including Water 2000 which is targeted to the estimated 2.5 million rural Americans

who have some of the Nation's most serious drinking water problems and the National Homeownership Initiative, which has helped the Nation reach its

highest-ever homeownership rate of 66 percent. The 1999 budget also will support Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC), and the

Information Superhighway Initiative.

The Department proposes to target assistance to rural Americans and communities most in need, based on income, persistent poverty, and other factors.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (9 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The budget also provides a substantial amount of assistance, particularly in terms of loan guarantees, for those who can afford to obtain financing from

the private sector but may not find it readily available to them.

The major provisions of the Rural Development budget include:

Improving the quality of life for residents of rural communities by providing $1 billion in direct loans and $3.1 billion in guaranteed loans for

decent, safe, affordable single family housing. These levels support the President's National Homeownership initiative by making more

homeownership opportunities available in rural America. Further, the Administration will also propose legislation to make guaranteed loans

available for refinancing existing direct loans -- $100 million is included in the $3.1 billion overall funding level for this purpose. These loans

would provide a Federal guarantee to allow borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for conventional private sector financing to obtain private

sector credit.

● 

Improving the quality of life in rural America by providing $500 million in grants and $839 million in loans for technical assistance and financing

modern, affordable water and waste services in rural communities. The combined total of loans and grants represents an increase of $66 million

over the 1998 level. Continuation of the program at these levels is consistent with the President's Water 2000 initiative which is designed to ensure

that all rural households have access to clean running water by the year 2000.

● 

Improving the quality of life in rural America by encouraging the establishment and growth of rural businesses and cooperatives by providing $1

billion in guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans for business and industry, the same level as the 1998 current estimate. These levels

reflect the emphasis that this Administration is giving to ensuring that there are more job opportunities in rural America. It is estimated that $1

billion in guaranteed loans produces over 38,000 jobs. In prior years, the program was limited to as little as $100 million in loans.

● 

In addition, the Administration will propose legislation to provide $100 million in grants, over five years, for five new rural Empowerment Zones.

Authority for a second round of designees was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1996. This funding would be in addition to funding targeted to

EZ/EC's under Rural Development's ongoing programs.

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The mission of the Marketing and Regulatory agencies is to facilitate the domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and to ensure

the health and care of animals and plants while improving market competitiveness and the economy for the overall benefit of both consumers and

American agriculture.

Pest and Disease Programs. The 1999 budget proposes a program level of $471 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Salaries and

Expenses account, a decrease of $10 million below the 1998 estimate. This includes $175 million for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) activities,

with increases in both AQI-appropriated funds and in AQI activities funded through user fees. APHIS will contribute substantially to the Department's

goal of doubling agricultural exports by placing more emphasis on developing information and analysis for international agreements and sanitary and

phytosanitary issues. The agency will strengthen the Nation's pest detection and control activities and enhance its animal health monitoring and

surveillance activities. (See page 92.)

Packer Concentration. The budget proposes $2 million to continue implementation of recommendations made by the Secretary's Advisory Committee

on Agricultural Concentration. These recommendations include measures such as increased monitoring and enforcement of antitrust and regulatory policy

intended to promote competition, improve market performance, and restore confidence in the red meat and poultry markets. Funding for electronic data

submission is proposed to assist businesses to expeditiously supply financial information to the agency. The 1999 budget also re-proposes legislation to

authorize the collection of license fees to administer the Packers and Stockyards Act.

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Total funding for the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area is about $1.8 billion for 1999. The activities under the mission area

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (10 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
continue to support high priority goals of the Administration to promote food safety and nutrition, to facilitate the adoption of environmentally

responsible production practices, to enhance the economic opportunities of U.S. farmers and ranchers, and to protect the competitiveness of U.S.

agricultural and forestry products in the global economy. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) research budget is $32 million above the 1998

appropriation. A total of $36 million is included for construction and modernization projects at selected ARS facilities. The 1999 budget request for the

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is $9 million less than the 1998 appropriation. Within this total, there are

proposals for additional funding for competitively awarded research projects, including pest management, food safety, and selected education and

extension activities to strengthen the capacity of minority-serving institutions of higher education. Offsetting reductions are proposed in lower priority

work and selected formula grant programs.

REE programs support the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry through the development of new farming systems that will reduce production costs,

new crops, new uses for crops and animal products, and value-added processing methods which expand economic opportunities available to farmers and

ranchers. In addition, economic and statistical data and analyses developed by REE agencies provide information on a wide range of agriculture, trade and

rural issues. This information contributes to sound policy-making, management, and marketing decisions.

A key program in support of this goal is the Food Genome Initiative. A total of $40 million is proposed for 1999 to support this Initiative, which is

designed to identify genes that control economically desirable traits in plants, animals, and microbes that are essential to the enhancement of agricultural

production and crop biodiversity. The Department will be collaborating with the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the

Department of Energy on this effort. (See page 79.)

GOAL 2: ENSURE FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY, AND A SAFE, AFFORDABLE, NUTRITIOUS AND ACCESSIBLE FOOD SUPPLY.

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

The Department's 1999 budget requests over $38.8 billion for food and nutrition assistance programs for needy Americans. The budget request fully

funds the expected needs of the Food Stamp, Child Nutrition, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

programs. The requested funding level will ensure that all needy Americans, especially children, have access to food and nutrition assistance.

Food Stamps. The 1999 budget funds the Food Stamp Program at a program level of $24.2 billion. This is an increase of $1.8 billion over the 1998

funding level. This program level will support 22.3 million participants, including 730 thousand due to a legislative proposal to restore food stamp

eligibility to otherwise eligible legal immigrant families with either children, elderly or disabled persons. The budget will allow the Department to

continue its efforts in aggressively fighting error and fraud and implementing the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system. Also funded in this request is

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico, Nutrition Assistance to American Samoa, and the

Community Food Projects. Further, the budget requests resources for a $1 billion contingency reserve for the Food Stamp Program. (See page 51.)

Child Nutrition Programs. The budget request for the Child Nutrition Programs is $9.6 billion. This level provides for increases in participation and

food inflation costs and will allow the Department to continue to improve program integrity. The budget also provides funding for strengthened education

efforts on food safety in school meals as part of the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative. (See page 51.)

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The request reflects an increase of $149 million for the WIC

program for a total program level of $4.2 billion. This amount will enable FNS to continue to fulfill the Administration's commitment to fully fund this

program. This amount will ensure that an estimated 7.5 million low income women, infants and children are provided nutrition assistance in 1999. In

addition, in order to ensure that unexpected food cost increases do not interfere with current participation levels, a $20 million contingency reserve is

requested to be used only in urgent situations. (See page 52.)

WIC Farmers' Markets. The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides WIC participants access to fresh fruits and vegetables and expands the

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (11 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
awareness and use of farmers' markets by consumers. In past years, funds for the program have been included within the WIC appropriation, to the extent

that the funds were not required to support existing caseload. In order to ensure availability of funds, the 1999 budget proposes $15 million within the

Commodity Assistance Program account. This is a $3 million increase over the 1998 level. (See page 53.)

Gleaning and Food Recovery Initiative. The American agricultural system is one of the most productive and efficient in the world. Nonetheless, 37

million people were living below the official poverty level in 1996, while 27 percent, or 96 billion pounds, of the 356 billion pounds of edible food

available for human consumption in the United States were lost to human use. The budget includes $20 million for a new community based grant program

and other initiatives to help Americans recover some of the abundance before it is lost and use it to help alleviate hunger. The goal is to increase food

recovery by 33 percent, or 500 million pounds. This would provide approximately 500 thousand needy individuals with three pounds of food per day.

FOOD SAFETY

On January 25, 1997, the President announced the Interagency Food Safety Initiative. The Initiative encourages collaboration between industry,

government, and consumers to ensure safety of food from the farm to the table. The Initiative includes seven components for improving the Federal food

inspection system from farm-to-table. For 1999, the budget includes $46 million in additional funding to build upon the framework developed during

1998. As part of this initiative, the 1999 budget includes $11 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to expand consumer education, develop

voluntary measures to reduce the risk of pathogenic contamination of animals on the farm, and facilitate the transformation of State programs to Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point systems. (See page 70.)

An additional $26 million is included within the REE mission area to support this Initiative. An increase of $14 million above the 1998 appropriation is

provided for ARS pre- and post- harvest food safety research to design effective control programs for pathogens and toxins that can infect meat and

poultry products and fruits and vegetables. An increase of $3 million is provided in CSREES for competitively awarded research grants to study the food

handling practices of vulnerable population groups, such as the elderly, and to develop methods to prevent or eliminate food contamination. An additional

$5 million is proposed for various education programs to promote safe food handling practices among consumers. Of the total increase requested for the

NRI, $3 million will be targeted to support food safety research. The Initiative also includes a nearly $1 million increase for ERS for the improvement of

risk assessment modeling techniques. (See page 18.)

For the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Initiative includes an increase of $6.3 million to broaden the scope of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to

include microbiological testing of fruits and vegetable to assess the food safety risk posed by pathogens on fruits and vegetables and target resources to

the highest risk areas.

As part of the Initiative's food safety education component, the Food and Nutrition Service budget includes an increase of $2 million to provide food

safety training to local food service professionals engaged in preparing food for our Nation's 26 million schoolchildren.

The 1999 budget request proposes legislation to recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg products inspection. Requiring the

payment of user fees for Federal inspection services would ensure that sufficient resources are available to provide the mandatory inspection services

needed to meet increasing industry demand and would result in savings to the taxpayer. The overall impact on prices as a result of these fees has been

estimated to be less than one cent per pound of meat, poultry, and egg products. Appropriated funds are requested to convert the Federal program to user

fees and for maintaining State inspection programs. (See page 115.)

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Pesticide Data Program (PDP). Funding for PDP was provided within AMS in 1998 after being funded through the Environmental Protection Agency

for 1997. For 1999, program increases are requested to initiate a rapid response capability necessary to support EPA's data requirements under the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA will use the residue data to conduct dietary risk assessment reviews required by FQPA. In addition, as part

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (12 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
of the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative, an increase of $6.3 million is requested to broaden the scope of the Pesticide Data Program to

include microbiological testing of fruits and vegetables. This testing will provide a baseline of microbiological data needed to assess the risks of

contamination in the U.S. food supply. (See page 89.)

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

REE agencies work with other USDA and other Federal agencies to help protect the food and fiber system from threats of disease and pests. Through

research, analysis, and education, the REE programs foster the production and supply of safe, nutritious, high quality agricultural products. Highlights of

proposed increases in the 1999 budget include:

An increase of $10.5 million in support of the Presidential Initiative on Human Nutrition initially funded in 1998. In 1999, activities will focus on

gaining a better understanding of the nutritional needs of selected population subgroups. (See page 76.)

● 

An increase of $6 million as part of the President's Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative for research efforts to reduce the incidence of emerging

diseases and exotic pests that threaten the safety of the U.S. food supply. Funds will be used to enhance the development of diagnostic tests and

vaccines that will prevent the outbreaks and spread of zoonotic diseases such as tuberculosis, salmonella, and E. coli, and exotic diseases afflicting

animals. The remainder will be used for research to prevent the introduction and spread of plant diseases and pests, including wheat scab, potato

blight, and sorghum ergot that afflict the production of agricultural commodities. (See pages 75-76.)

● 

GOAL 3: PROMOTE SENSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency. The Program provides landowners annual payments and

half the cost of establishing a conserving cover in exchange for retiring environmentally sensitive land from production for 10 to 15 years. The Food

Security Act of 1985, as amended authorized the program through 2002 and set maximum enrollment in the program at 36.4 million acres. At the end of

calendar year 1997, enrollment was about 28 million acres. The budget assumes acreage enrolled under the 15th and 16th signups, in combination with

acreage accepted in the continuous signup, will bring CRP enrollment to about 32 million acres in 1998, to 34 million acres in 1999, and to an eventual

enrollment of 36.4 million acres by 2001. (See page 24.)

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Conservation Technical and Financial Assistance. The total program level for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1999 is about

$1.3 billion, an increase of $37 million over 1998. The Administration will continue to support locally-led conservation with a focus on increasing the

State and local role in the conservation effort and on strengthening the unique working partnership that NRCS has developed with conservation districts,

farmers and other private landowners. Funding for the America's Private Land Conservation (formerly Conservation Technical Assistance) program is

$579 million, which includes $20 million to encourage additional contributions from the States. This bonus fund will act as an incentive payment to

reward those States that either increase the non-Federal contributions and/or achieve a minimum level of contributions toward conservation efforts. The

point is to elicit both greater contributions and to harmonize the contributions for all. The NRCS budget includes $23 million to support implementation

of the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative with competitive partnership grants to locally-based institutions such as conservation districts or

watershed councils to strengthen their leadership capabilities. Funds will be targeted to the watersheds where water quality is deemed to be at the highest

risk of impairment from agricultural activities. Funds will also support additional monitoring and evaluation to help target resources and document

baseline conditions. The budget includes a $300 million funding level for EQIP which is an increase of $100 million over 1998 that will also support the

Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative. At the same time, the entire $300 million program will be managed so as to address recommendations

made in the Civil Rights Action Plan to increase program participation by minority and low income farmers and by other under-served clientele. (See

pages 56, 59, and 103.)

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (13 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Forest Service. The primary mission of the Forest Service is "to sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of the land to meet the needs of present and

future generations." In keeping with this mission, the proposed fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget emphasizes watershed protection and restoration,

an environmentally responsible road policy, and other program activities related to GPRA strategic plan goals. A total program level of $3.3 billion is

proposed, which is $164 million below the Forest Service's 1998 level. The 1998 level includes a one-time transfer of $167 million from the Department

of the Interior for the purchase of the New World Mine and other land acquisition activities. When continuing programs are compared, the 1999 budget is

$3 million above 1998. In terms of discretionary funding, the budget proposes $2.6 billion for ongoing programs, which is an increase of $48 million over

the 1998 level, excluding the $167 million one-time transfer from the Department of the Interior. Within this total, $127 million is included to carry out

proposed Presidential Initiatives in the following areas: Clean Water and Watershed Restoration, Law Enforcement, Climate Change Technology, and

Land, Water, and Facility Restoration. The National Forest System (NFS) is funded at $1.4 billion, including $199 million for Timber Sales Management

to support a timber sales program of 3.4 billion board feet. Also included in NFS funding is are proposed increases of $21 million for Recreation Use, $15

million for Wildlife Management, $21 million for Rangeland Management, and $13 million for Soil, Water and Air Management. Forest and Rangeland

Research is funded at $198 million which is an increase of $10 million over 1998. (See pages 61, 63.)

RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS

Programs supported by REE funds encourage collaboration between USDA, State and local governments, industry, and the land-grant community to

promote the competitiveness of agriculture while preserving the natural resource base. Policy makers, program managers, producers and consumers use

data and analysis resulting from REE activities to enhance biodiversity, water quality and pest and disease resistance; improve land and waste

management; and increase understanding of ecosystems and impacts of climate change and weather.

The two high priority 1999 natural resources initiatives in REE focus on pest management and climate change technology. Research under the Climate

Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) will be aimed at investigating mitigation tactics to minimize the adverse effects of agricultural production practices

on climate change, developing agricultural practices for carbon sequestration, and increasing the production of biomass from agricultural crops, including

feedstocks for alcohol fuels and electric power. The ARS budget includes $7 million and the Forest Service research proposal includes $3 million to

support this Initiative. (See page 19.)

Integrated Pest Management. $34 million in funds are proposed to continue the implementation of the Department's Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Initiative, a cooperative effort to achieve the adoption of IPM practices and technologies on 75 percent of U.S. crop acres by the year 2000. (See page

106.)

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE: PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND EFFICIENT PROGRAM DELIVERY.

Although few support programs have high visibility, they are, nevertheless, vital to USDA's success in providing effective customer service and efficient

program delivery. An overarching principle of USDA operations is good management of our human, capital, information, and other infrastructure

resources. The 1999 budget request supports the Department's Strategic Plan Management Initiative.

Civil Rights. The budget includes a number of priority funding increases to carry out the recommendations contained in the CRAT report. The

recommendations included in the CRAT report were the result of a detailed review of the Department's existing civil rights activities, past reports and

listening sessions held across the country for USDA customers and employees which identified a number of longstanding weaknesses within USDA.

Since the CRAT report was issued in February 1997, significant steps have been taken to implement the recommendations. These steps include:

enhancement of efforts to resolve the backlog of both equal employment and program discrimination complaints, including establishment of

inhouse investigation capabilities;

● 

● articulation of a zero-tolerance policy for reprisals against employees who file civil rights complaints;

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (14 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
creation of a Departmental Office of Outreach to provide leadership and coordination for all USDA outreach activities to assure that all eligible

customers have access to USDA programs and services;

● 

establishment of the National Commission on Small Farms to develop a national strategy to make small farms a permanent force in agriculture's

future; and

● 

implementation of a new foreclosure policy -- when a civil rights complaint is lodged, the foreclosure proceedings are frozen until an independent

review occurs.

● 

To meet civil rights responsibilities and carry out the recommendations to solve the persistent problems within USDA, this budget includes about $250

million in funding, an increase of over $150 million above the 1998 level. (See page 103.)

Create a Unified System of Information Technology Management. The appropriate application of information technology is critical to USDA's ability

to deliver programs and services to the public. Over the last year, a strong foundation has been created within USDA to insure that information can be

more readily shared across organizational lines and investment decisions are based on sound business principles. Building on this foundation, the Office

of the Chief Information Officer has developed a plan to strengthen

USDA's management of information technology structured around five critical objectives:

● Assure that mission-critical information systems are Year 2000 compliant;

Implement a single information technology infrastructure and supporting organization for the Farm Service Agency, and the Rural Development

agencies and the Natural Resources Conservation Service;

● 

● Improve the Departmentwide management of telecommunications;

Institute an information technology capital planning, review and evaluation strategy, refine the enterprise-wide architecture, and develop a

workforce planning capacity; and

● 

Build a strong information technology management team and develop strategies for improving the corporate management of the USDA information

technology infrastructure.

● 

Improve Financial Management and Reporting. The two primary goals are the implementation of a single, integrated financial information system,

and the preparation of financial statements that warrant an unqualified audit opinion. In addition, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is coordinating

the development of cost accounting standards and systems, modernized methods of payment and collection, Departmentwide implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, improved management of assets and receivables, and

improved processes for administering grants and agreements with non-Federal organizations. These initiatives will provide improved information for

decisionmaking and strengthen management accountability.

Streamlining and Restructuring the County Offices. The Department is making major changes in the county-based field agencies in order to efficiently

use declining resources and to improve customer service. USDA is implementing a field office streamlining plan which collocates the county-based

agencies (FSA, NRCS, and RD) in one-stop USDA Service Centers. This collocation effort will result in streamlining the total number of field office

locations from over 3,700 to about 2,550. By the end of 1998 the Department will have completed the installation of the Local Area Network and Wide

Area Network which provide connectivity within and between USDA Service Centers and other support offices. All USDA Service Center agency offices

throughout the country will have a common telecommunications platform allowing efficient e-mail, file transfer, and voice communications.

However, to effectively serve the needs of farmers and others in Rural America, the plan goes beyond collocation to create a team approach to program

delivery in which the partner agencies share resources in order to maximize customer service and administrative efficiency. The initiatives listed below

provide a brief summary of these inter-related projects:

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (15 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Administrative Convergence. Currently, three separate administrative structures provide support to the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS), the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, and the Rural Development (RD) mission areas -- down from nine such organizations in 1993.

Further actions are underway to continue the streamlining process by combining these three structures into one unit, and by delegating the authority to

conduct most administrative functions to the State level, closer to the customer. Headquarters and State level consolidation is expected to be completed by

the end of calendar year 1998. A consolidated structure will:

● Deliver better services to local customers and employees;

● Provide a new consistency in administrative policy;

● Make better use of limited administrative resources; and

● Help preserve limited budget resources for program delivery.

Independent Study on County Based Agencies. The Department has entered into a contract with an outside consulting firm to conduct a study of the

farm and rural program delivery system of the county based agencies, FSA, NRCS, and RD, to be completed by September 1, 1998. The study will

clearly identify the purposes agency operations are intended to achieve, provide an independent assessment of agency workload estimates, consider the

prospective impact of administrative convergence on county office operations, identify criteria for determining the highest value use of office staff,

evaluate office operations efficiencies gained so far, and assemble a profile of the USDA customer base as defined by eligibility for program benefits.

Finally, the study will identify alternative decision systems or organizational structures for matching USDA resources with customer needs and

preferences.

Common Computing Environment (CCE). One of the keys to success of improved customer service, while streamlining the field structure, is the

replacement of the aging business and technology systems of the field service agencies. A collective reengineering of business processes for

administrative services and program delivery is underway, along with testing information technology alternatives. Common information shared by the

partner agencies will reduce the redundant requests made of program participants, as well as customer office visits and paperwork burden, and ease

workload for internal staff. The CCE will enable USDA to: optimize the data, equipment, and staff sharing opportunities at the service centers; overcome

the extreme limitations of the current legacy systems; and enhance customer service into the 21st Century.

With the funds included in the 1999 budget, the service center agencies will continue efforts begun in 1998, factor in the results of the independent study

and administrative convergence, and begin to invest in the first phase of CCE hardware and software. The plan is to achieve complete migration from

legacy systems to the CCE by 2002.

Return to Table of Contents

PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1999 5-Year 

 Initiative Budget Total

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (16 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Interagency Food Safety:

 Food Safety and Inspection Service $11.3 $31.1

 Food and Nutrition Service 2.0 2.0

 Agricultural Research Service 14.0 70.0

 Coop., State Research, Educ. & Ext. Svc. 11.0 55.0

 Economic Research Service 0.9 4.5

 Agricultural Marketing Service 6.3 31.5

 Office of the Chief Economist 0.1 0.5

 Total 45.6 194.6

Gleaning and Food Recovery:

 Food and Nutrition Service 20.0 100.0

Clean Water and Watershed Restoration:

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 23.0 115.0

 Forest Service 60.0 300.0

 Agricultural Research Service 2.0 10.0

 Total 85.0 425.0

Law Enforcement:

 Office of the Inspector General 21.7 108.5

 Forest Service 1.3 6.5

 Total 23.0 115.0

Climate Change Technology:

 Agricultural Research Service 7.0 62.0

 Forest Service 3.0 24.0

 Total 10.0 86.0

Land, Water, Facility Restoration Funds:

 Forest Service 63.0 642.0

 Total $246.6 $1,562.6

INTERAGENCY FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

On January 25, 1997, the President announced the Interagency Food Safety Initiative. The initiative included seven components for improving the Federal

food inspection system from farm-to-table. Key components include expansion of the Federal food safety surveillance system, improved coordination

between Federal, State, and local health authorities, improved risk assessment capabilities, increased inspection, expanded research, consumer education,

and strategic planning. Of the increases totalling $9.2 million requested in the 1998 President's budget for USDA, Congress provided $6.6 million.

Funding requested for food safety education extension activities was not provided. In 1999, the focus of the initiative is on enhancing the safety of

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (17 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
imported and domestic fruits and vegetables, targeted food safety education, transformation of inspection systems to HACCP, and development of

scientific information and tools to control a greater range of food safety hazards. A total increase of $46 million is proposed for USDA programs in the

Initiative.

GLEANING AND FOOD RECOVERY INITIATIVE

The American agricultural system is one of the most productive and efficient in the world. Nonetheless, 37 million people were living below the official

poverty level in 1996, while 27 percent, or 96 billion pounds, of the 356 billion pounds of edible food available for human consumption in the United

States were lost to human use. The budget includes $20 million for a new community based grant program to help Americans recover some of that

abundance before it is lost and use it to help alleviate hunger and distress. The goal is to increase food recovery by 33 percent, or 500 million pounds.

This would provide approximately 500 thousand needy individuals with three pounds of food per day.

CLEAN WATER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE

One of the three challenges cited by the Vice President in marking the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act was the need to help communities ensure

that water quality is protected in a comprehensive way and on a watershed basis. To address this challenge, the budget includes $85 million in funding for

three USDA agencies, the Forest Service ($60 million), the Natural Resources Conservation Service ($23 million) and the Agricultural Research Service

($2 million). The activities under the interagency Environment Fund for America will focus on making further progress in solving water quality and other

environmental problems on agricultural and forest lands. Funds are requested for several new and ongoing activities including 1) partnership grants for

State and local organizations to hire non-federal watershed coordinators; 2) additional monitoring to help target resources and document baseline

conditions and performance; and 3) newly focused efforts to restore and improve riparian areas, grazing lands, and forest health in high priority areas.

LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

The Department estimates that over $50 million a year in food stamps go illegally to convicted felons and prison inmates, and that a sizable number of

retailers who accept food stamps make money from them illegally. This special law enforcement initiative is to provide funding for OIG to crack down on

fraud and abuse in the food stamp and other nutrition programs, additional USDA programs such as rural development, and disaster and health and safety

programs requiring immediate response.

Health and safety of food from production to the consumer is of special concern because of such highly visible emergencies as contaminated strawberries

in the School Lunch Program and the tainted meat in the food distribution chain resulting in the recall of 25 million pounds of ground beef from public

consumption. Also, OIG's recent pilot effort, Operation Talon, in 24 metropolitan areas around the country has been extremely successful, resulting in the

arrest of over 2,200 fugitive felons, their removal from the food stamp rolls, and the savings of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. This initiative is

to allow the agency to expand these efforts nationwide.

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Increases are proposed in the budget to support the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) as part of the Research Fund for America.

The Department is requesting $10 million to support the initiative in 1999, for a total of $86 million over the next 5 years. Within the total increase, $6

million will be devoted to research on biomass feedstocks, in cooperation with the Department of Energy. Research will be conducted to develop more

efficient, cost-effective systems for biomass production, processing and conversion to energy, including alternative uses of cereal grains and modification

of oils to develop substitute products for industrial products. Additional research on using improved herbaceous and woody crops for electricity

generation and increasing the competitiveness of ethanol fuels will also be conducted. Research will be aimed at investigating mitigation tactics to

minimize the adverse effects of agricultural production practices on climate change, including production practices which sequester greenhouse gases.

Information will also be gathered to understand the sources and rates of emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

The Forest Service will provide $1 million for increased research on forest and rangeland carbon cycles, which will serve as the information base for

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (18 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
analyzing the carbon maintenance criterion for sustainable forest management. In total, the ARS budget includes $7 million and the Forest Service

research proposal includes $3 million to support this Initiative.

LAND, WATER, AND FACILITY RESTORATION INITIATIVE

The Forest Service faces growing demands to invest more to restore lands and to rehabilitate an aging infrastructure of public facilities. The budget

proposes $63 million for increased rehabilitation, maintenance, and land acquisition. These needed investments will protect wildlife habitat, maintain

recreation sites and preserve our national forests as a treasured legacy for future generations.

Return to Table of Contents

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

MISSION

The mission of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) area is to ensure the well-being of U.S. agriculture through delivery of commodity,

credit, conservation, insurance, and export programs. The FFAS agencies include the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency

(RMA), and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the source of funding for most of the conservation and

commodity programs administered by FSA and the CCC export programs administered by FAS.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Farm Loan and Grant Programs $2,376 $2,979 $2,995

Conservation Programs 1,814 1,836 1,718

Commodity Programs and Other 11,554 13,315 14,113

Salaries and Expenses 974 963 976

 Total, FSA $16,718 $19,093 $19,802

 Farm Service Agency

 Farm Loan and Grant Programs

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (19 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Farm Operating Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized $829 $9 $1,700 $20 $1,700 $20

 Guaranteed Subsidized 216 20 231 22 200 17

 Direct 516 65 490 32 500 34

 Total, Operating Loans 1,561 94 2,421 74 2,400 71

Farm Ownership Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized 530 20 400 16 425 7

 Direct 84 18 a/ 46 6 85 13

 Total, Ownership Loans 614 38 446 22 510 20

Emergency Loans 145 44 63 16 25 6

Indian Land Acquisition Loans b/ b/ 1 b/ 1 b/

Credit Sales of Acquired Property 14 2 25 3 25 3

Boll Weevil Eradication 40 b/ 21 b/ 30 b/

State Mediation Grants 2 2 2 2 4 4

 Total, Farm Credit Programs $2,376 $180 $2,979 $117 $2,995 $104

RECAP:

Appropriated Funding $2,366 $178 $2,979 $117 $2,995 $104

Transfer-Fund for Rural America 10 2 0 0 0 0

 Total, Farm Credit Programs $2,376 $180 $2,979 $117 $2,995 $104

a/ Includes $2 million in budget authority and $10 million in

program level transferred from USDA's Fund for Rural America.

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

The 1999 budget provides additional funding for farm ownership loans. Program levels would be increased to $85 million in direct loans and $425

million in loan guarantees, compared to 1998 levels of $46 million in direct and $400 million in guarantees. In terms of people served, this means that

3,458 beginning and small farmers will be given an opportunity to either acquire their own farm or to save an existing one, 616 more than last year. Of

those served, about 1,000 will receive direct loans and the rest will receive guarantees. This reflects Secretary Glickman's commitment to improve the

opportunities for beginning and small farmers and, in particular, members of socially disadvantaged groups.

The budget also provides for $2.4 billion in direct and guaranteed farm operating loans, nearly the same funding level as 1998, and will serve an

estimated 28,000 beginning and small farmers, about 12,000 of whom will receive direct loans. The share of direct loans made at the reduced interest rate

for limited resource borrowers would be continued at current levels, about 61 percent for farm ownership loans and about 40 percent for farm operating

loans. The budget also provides funding for the emergency loan, Indian acquisition, credit sales, and boll weevil eradication programs.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (20 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The Administration will also be proposing emergency legislation to modify the 1996 Farm Bill prohibition on loans to borrowers who received debt

forgiveness. This is consistent with one of the recommendations made by USDA's Civil Rights Action Team, and will provide a second chance to

borrowers who would otherwise be denied credit because of losses that may have occurred years ago.

In addition, the budget doubles funding for state mediation grants from $2 million in 1998 to $4 million in 1999. Mediation benefits family farmers,

including many low income and socially disadvantaged farmers, who, because of mediation, are often able to resolve credit and other issues and remain

on the farm. This program also supports the Vice President's National Performance Review initiative to achieve savings through the use of alternative

dispute resolution. The increased funding will be used to support mediation programs in the 21 States currently certified in 1998, as well as any additional

states which gain certification by 1999. Several states have expressed interest in establishing new programs or expanding their existing programs to

include the mediation of other agricultural issues in addition to credit disputes.

 Farm Service Agency

 Conservation Programs

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Conservation Reserve Program $1,719 $1,836 $1,718

Emergency Conservation Program 95 0 0

Total, Conservation Programs $1,814 $1,836 $1,718

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is administered by FSA and financed by CCC. The Program offers producers annual rental payments

for a 10- to 15-year period to remove highly erodible cropland and other environmentally sensitive land from production. Participants also receive

cost-share help to establish long-term resource-conserving cover. Currently, about 28 million acres are enrolled in the program.

The 1996 Farm Bill authorized funding for CRP from the CCC and provided for new signups through 2002 to maintain enrollment of up to 36.4 million

acres. The 15th signup, conducted in March 1997, was the first major signup under the 1996 Act and the largest CRP signup ever. USDA accepted about

17 million acres of the 23 million acres offered for enrollment. About 55 percent of those CRP acres that were scheduled to expire in 1997 were

re-enrolled.

In the 16th signup, conducted in October and November 1997, over 9 million acres were offered for enrollment. As in past signups, acreage offered for

enrollment was ranked using an environmental benefits index, although for the 16th signup the index was modified to address certain concerns arising

from the 15th signup and to better protect the Nation's natural resource base. In addition to these scheduled signups, a continuous, non-competitive signup

has been underway to enroll land in filter strips, riparian buffers, and similar conservation practices. Acreage enrolled under the continuous signup

includes enrollment under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the National Conservation Buffer Initiative, programs which are designed

to target program benefits to achieve specific local and regional conservation goals.

The 1999 budget assumes acreage enrolled under the 15th and 16th signups, in combination with the continuous signup, will bring CRP enrollment to

about 32 million acres in 1998, to 34 million acres in 1999, and to an eventual enrollment of 36.4 million acres by 2001.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (21 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). Under this program, the Department shares the cost of carrying out practices to assist and encourage farmers

to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters. In particular, it addresses those problems which if left untreated would: 1) impair or endanger the

land; 2) materially affect the productive capacity of the land; 3) be so costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance would be required to return the land to

productive agricultural use; and 4) represent damage that is unusual in character and not the type which would recur frequently in the same area.

Supplemental appropriations provided a total of $95 million for the ECP program in 1997. No funds have been appropriated to date for the program in

1998, and the budget proposes no funding for the program in 1999.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Program Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Commodity:

 Feed Grains $2,988 $3,088 $2,991

 Wheat 1,332 1,556 1,468

 Rice 459 519 471

 Upland Cotton 561 859 768

 Tobacco -156 -183 -160

 Dairy 67 191 116

 Soybeans 5 10 22

 Peanuts 6 0 -1

 Honey -2 0 0

 Sugar -34 -38 -39

 Other Crops 31 26 26

 Subtotal 5,257 6,028 5,662

Disaster Assistance 130 15 4

Working Capital -74 250 250

Other a/ -61 -44 25

Total, Commodity Programs $5,252 $6,249 $5,941

a/ Includes interest and operating expenses, reimbursable agreements,

equipment, and an adjustment for Food for Progress commodity purchases.

Commodity price and income support programs are administered by FSA and financed through the CCC. These commodity programs were changed

dramatically by provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. In the past, deficiency payments for producers of feed grains, wheat, upland cotton and rice (contract

commodities) were tied to market prices and decreased when market prices were high and increased when market prices were low. The 1996 Farm Bill

replaced deficiency payments with fixed production flexibility contract payments. The production flexibility contract payments, based on historical

program acreage and yields, are set by law for each of the seven years, from 1996-2002, and do not vary with market prices or current plantings. About 98

percent of the eligible crop acreage base has been enrolled in production flexibility contracts.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (22 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
While the nonrecourse loan programs for contract commodities and oilseeds have been retained and continue to provide producers with some protection

against sharp declines in market prices, the changes in the income support programs have diminished the traditional role of the farm programs as a buffer

against fluctuations in production and commodity prices. These changes underscore the importance of crop insurance programs that help farmers manage

production risk. For producers of crops for which crop insurance is unavailable, the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP), administered by FSA and

funded through the CCC, provides coverage against catastrophic losses where area-wide crop losses exceed 35 percent of normal yields.

The 1996 Farm Bill also modified price support provisions for dairy, sugar, and peanuts. Dairy price supports are phased out and marketing orders are to

be reformed and consolidated. With respect to sugar, the imposition of loan forfeiture fees effectively reduced sugar loan rates, marketing assessments

were increased, and marketing allotments were suspended. The peanut program was made no-net-cost (program costs may not exceed program receipts),

the minimum national peanut poundage quota was eliminated, and the quota loan rate was reduced.

The Administration continues to place a high priority in helping farmers to manage risk. Legislation will be proposed with the 1999 budget to maintain a

strong crop insurance program by financing delivery expenses through mandatory rather than discretionary funding sources. Included in the budget

offsets required for the proposal is a reduction in cotton user marketing certificates, also known as Step-2 payments. These payments, similar to the bonus

payments under the Export Enhancement Program, are issued to domestic users and exporters and are designed to keep U.S. cotton competitive in world

markets. The proposed legislation would cap Step-2 payments at $140 million in 1999, $110 million less than under current law.

Salaries and Expenses. The FSA's salaries and expenses account funds all management related activities for FSA programs. FSA also provides

administrative support to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and to the Risk Management Agency (RMA) under a reimbursable agreement.

The 1999 budget proposes a program level of $976 million estimated to support a ceiling of 5,646 Federal staff years and 9,980 non-Federal county staff

years. The total program level includes appropriated funds, user fees, and carryover funds from prior year appropriations. Of the total program level, $30

million is earmarked for expenditures relating to implementation of the Common Computing Environment (CCE) for the field service centers. The CCE

will replace the aging and different business and technology systems of the partner agencies: FSA, NRCS and the RD mission area, with a common

technology. When combined with streamlined business practices, this common technology will result in improved program delivery and customer service.

The 1999 program level net of the CCE earmark totals $946 million. This is $17 million less than the 1998 program level of $963 million and reflects the

continued impact of the 1996 Farm Bill, which shifts farm policy away from production-oriented programs to support farm income, such as deficiency

payments, to fixed production flexibility contract payments. This change means fewer staff are needed to service these programs, particularly at the field

office level. The budget assumes increased collection of user fees from sharing program data with other agencies and private sector interests.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Credit Corporation

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Program Levels Net Outlays

 Program FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 1998 FY 1999 

Commodity Programs:

 Price Support Loans $6,408 $7,451 -$88 -$119

 Production Flexibility Contracts 5,719 5,512 5,719 5,512

 Cotton User Marketing Payments 204 140 204 140

 Noninsured Assistance Payments 69 80 69 80

 Disaster Assistance 15 4 15 4

 Purchases and Sales 588 526 58 -2

 Interest Expenditures 168 221 -56 -28

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (23 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Other 144 179 328 354

 Total, Commodity Programs 13,315 14,113 6,249 5,941

Conservation Programs:

 Conservation Reserve Program 1,798 1,694 1,798 1,694

 Wetlands Reserve Program 219 124 122 167

 Environmental Quality Incentives 200 300 157 167

 Other 32 25 18 25

 Total, Conservation Programs 2,249 2,143 2,095 2,053

Export Programs:

 Export Credit Guarantees 5,000 4,615 383 308

 Market Access Program 90 90 91 90

 Export Enhancement Program 150 320 150 320

 Dairy Export Incentive Program 99 82 111 92

 Food For Progress Program 104 109 101 106

 Other 20 10 23 15

 Total, Export Programs 5,463 5,226 859 931

Pre-credit Reform Loan

 Repayments 0 0 -637 -505

Total, CCC $21,027 $21,482 $8,566 $8,420

CCC is the source of funding for commodity programs administered by the Farm Service Agency, conservation programs administered by the Farm

Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and export programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service. The CCC

borrows funds needed to finance these programs from the

U.S. Treasury and repays the borrowings, with interest, from receipts and from appropriations provided by Congress.

Changes over the last decade in commodity, disaster, and conservation programs have dramatically changed the level, mix, and variability of CCC

outlays. Commodity program spending has declined, spending for ad hoc crop disaster programs has been virtually eliminated from multi-billion dollar

programs in past years, and spending for conservation programs has increased from pre-1996 levels. Commodity program outlays account for about two

thirds of total CCC outlays in 1999, and production flexibility contract payments account for nearly all of the commodity program outlays.

Conservation program outlays represent the second largest major category of CCC expenditures. The 1996 Farm Bill authorized CCC funding for the

CRP administered by FSA and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and several new conservation programs administered by NRCS. The Agricultural

Conservation Program, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Great Plains Conservation

Program were replaced by the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP and the Conservation Farm Option (CFO) give producers

incentives to create long-term comprehensive farm plans. The Farmland Protection Program provides for the purchase of easements limiting

nonagricultural uses on prime and unique farmland. The budget proposes to broaden minority access to conservation program benefits and help meet

critical water quality goals by increasing CCC spending for EQIP by $100 million in 1999.

Finally, the provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act limit CCC expenditures for computer equipment and cap at the 1995 level total

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (24 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
allotments and transfers to State and Federal agencies under Section 11 of the Act for administrative support services. These provisions impose significant

restrictions on the availability of CCC funds for transfers and reimbursable agreements used to fund conservation technical assistance and other support

services for the conservation, commodity, and export programs.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Credit Corporation

 Reimbursable Agreements and ADP Expenditures

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

Reimbursable Agreements:

 Annual Cap $46.2 $46.2 $46.2

 Reimbursable Agreements 39.3 44.9 46.1

 Balance $6.9 $1.3 $0.1

ADP Expenditures:

 Cumulative Cap $275.0 $275.0 $275.0

 Cumulative ADP Expend. 36.1 142.7 219.1

 Balance $238.9 $132.3 $55.9

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY (RMA)

 Crop Insurance Program

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Mandatory Program Level:

 Delivery Expenses $450 $275 $480

 Other Federal Expense 3 11 11

 Dairy Options Pilot Program 0 10 10

 Indemnities 1,072 2,112 2,090

 Total, Mandatory Program Level 1,525 2,408 2,591

Discretionary Program Level:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses 64 64 66

 Delivery Expenses 0 189 0

 Total, Discretionary Program Level 64 253 66

Subtotal, Program Level 1,589 2,661 2,657

Less: Producer Premium -842 -982 -1,008

Underwriting Gains 340 136 136

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (25 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Total Government Costs $1,087 $1,815 $1,785

Loss Ratio 0.76 1.10 1.075

Allocation of Government Cost to:

 Companies a/ $790 $600 $616

 Producers b/ 230 1,130 1,082

 Federal Expense c/ 67 85 87

Percentage of Cost to:

 Companies 72.7% 33.1% 34.5%

 Producers 21.1% 62.2% 60.6%

 Federal Expense 6.2% 4.7% 4.9%

a/ Includes funds for delivery expenses (administrative reimbursements

mandated by law) and underwriting gains to the reinsured companies.

b/ Includes payment of indemnities to producers for losses or

damage to insured crops less premiums paid by producers.

c/ Includes administrative and operating expenses as well as

research and development costs.

RMA's primary responsibility is to administer the crop insurance program on behalf of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which offers

farmers protection against income losses due to production failures and, in some cases, market price declines. The 1999 budget provides for full funding

of the crop insurance program, but proposes legislative changes to accommodate a shift in sales commissions for agents from discretionary to mandatory

spending. This shift would consolidate all spending for the program other than salary related and operating costs into a single account and eliminate the

possibility of the program being restricted by a limited appropriation of discretionary funds for sales commissions.

Since the 1994 reform, the program has been successful in alleviating the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Roughly 63 percent of the insurable acreage

nationwide is covered by the program, about 22 percent at the catastrophic risk protection (CAT) level of coverage (50 percent of the approved yield

indemnified at 60 percent of expected market price), with the government subsidizing 100 percent of the premium. About 41 percent of insurable acreage

is covered at higher levels of coverage for which producers pay a premium, a portion of which is also subsidized by the government. Producers may

buy-up coverage to 75 percent of the approved yield indemnified at 100 percent of expected price, or purchase a new product, Crop Revenue Coverage

(CRC), which allows producers to protect themselves against changes in the market price during the crop year even though they may not have sustained a

production loss. CRC already accounts for about 16 percent of the business.

While the reform allowed for a dual delivery system, with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) providing CAT coverage and private insurance companies

providing both CAT and buy-up coverage, Secretary Glickman made a determination in May 1997 that enough private insurance agents were available so

that FSA involvement would not be required. Accordingly, the delivery system is essentially privatized. There are about 17 private insurance companies

of various sizes participating in the program. Sales agents work for these companies, mostly on a commission basis, while loss adjusters are usually

independent contractors under contract with the companies. Companies sell policies which the Government reinsures. However, the companies are

required to retain some risk of loss on the polices they sell, for which they may earn underwriting gains or incur underwriting losses.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (26 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The 1999 budget for RMA includes a proposal to shift the payment for sales commissions from discretionary to mandatory funding. The proposal results

in an increase of $185 million in mandatory outlays, associated with $205 million in budget authority for sales commissions. Since the shift will require

mandatory or "PAYGO" offsets, the Administration will also propose various program changes, including a reduction in the loss ratio, a limit on CAT

liability to $100,000 and other changes. These changes are expected to take effect in the year 2000 because other program offsets, including reduced

cotton marketing payments and savings from the Export Enhancement Program, are available for 1999.

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (FAS)

 International Programs and Activities

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

CCC Export Credit Guarantees:

 Short-term Guarantees (GSM-102) $2,809 $4,740 $4,315

 Intermediate-term Guarantees

 (GSM-103) 63 150 100

 Supplier Credit Guarantees 4 100 150

 Facilities Financing Guarantees 0 10 50

 Total, Export Credit Guarantees 2,876 5,000 4,615

Market Access Program 90 90 90

Export Enhancement Program 0 150 320

Dairy Export Incentive Program 121 99 82

P.L. 480 Food Assistance 1,054 1,112 979

Food for Progress Program a/ 91 104 109

FAS Salaries and Expenses 191 194 190

 Total, International Programs $4,423 $6,749 $6,385

a/ Includes that portion of Food for Progress programming supported

by CCC funds.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers a variety of export promotion, food assistance, and foreign market development programs. These

activities are instrumental for achieving a primary objective of the Department's strategic plan -- the expansion of global market opportunities for U.S.

agricultural producers. Changes in Federal farm policy have made U.S. farmers and ranchers more dependent upon exports to maintain and expand their

income, and more vulnerable to shifting conditions in international markets. By helping to maximize export sales opportunities, the export programs help

to stabilize prices and incomes and thereby contribute to a greater safety net for U.S. producers.

CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs. Under these programs, CCC provides payment guarantees for the commercial financing of U.S. agricultural

exports. These programs facilitate exports to buyers in countries where credit is necessary to maintain or increase U.S. sales, but where financing may not

be available without CCC guarantees.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (27 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The 1999 budget adopts a new approach for presenting the program levels, budget authority, and outlays for the export credit guarantee programs. These

estimates will now reflect the actual level of sales expected to be registered under the programs for which CCC guarantees will be issued rather than the

authorized level. As a result of this change, the budget will present more realistic estimates of the costs of the guarantee programs, which have tended to

be overstated in the past, and the accuracy of the CCC budget estimates will improve. The actual level of guarantees to be issued during the course of the

year will not be limited by the budget estimates; instead, the annual level of programming will be determined by program demand, market conditions, and

other relevant factors, similar to other CCC-funded programs. The Congressional Budget Office already presents its budget estimates for the guarantee

programs on this basis.

Consistent with this new approach, the budget includes a projected overall program level of $5.0 billion for export credit guarantees in 1998 and $4.6

billion for 1999. These levels are substantially higher than the level of guarantee programming in recent years as they reflect the sizeable increase in

programming in Southeast Asia and the Republic of Korea this year. A similar level of programming in these markets is expected during 1999.

Of the total program level for export credit guarantees expected to be issued by CCC in 1999, $4.3 billion will be made available under the GSM-102

program, which provides guarantees on commercial export credit extended with short-term repayment terms (up to 3 years), and $100 million will be

made available under the GSM-103 program, which provides intermediate-term credit guarantees (3 to 10 year repayment terms).

For supplier credit guarantees, the budget includes an estimated program level of $150 million for 1999. Under this credit activity, CCC guarantees

payments due from importers under short-term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters extend directly to the importers for the purchase of U.S.

agricultural products. This credit activity was implemented in 1996, and is particularly useful in facilitating sales of high value agricultural products.

The budget also includes an estimated program level of $50 million for facility financing guarantees in 1999. Under this recently implemented activity,

CCC provides guarantees to facilitate the financing of manufactured goods and services exported from the United States to improve or establish

agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets. By supporting such facilities, these guarantees enhance sales of U.S. agricultural products to countries

where demand may be constricted due to inadequate storage, processing, or handling capabilities.

Market Access Program (MAP). The purpose of MAP is to support the development, maintenance, and expansion of commercial export markets for

U.S. agricultural commodities and products. Under the program, CCC funds are used to partially reimburse participating organizations for the costs of

carrying out foreign market development activities in designated countries. Participating organizations include nonprofit agricultural trade organizations,

State regional trade groups, and private companies. With respect to for-profit companies, provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill changed the eligibility criteria

for MAP to prohibit the provision of direct assistance to foreign firms for the promotion of foreign-produced products and to any firm that is not

recognized as a small business concern under the Small Business Act. The budget provides a program level of $90 million for MAP in 1999, the

maximum annual program level established by the 1996 Farm Bill and unchanged from 1998.

Export Subsidy Programs. The Department currently has two export subsidy programs: the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and Dairy Export

Incentive Program (DEIP). Under these programs, bonus payments are made available to exporters of U.S. agricultural commodities to enable them to be

price competitive and thereby make sales in targeted overseas markets where competitor countries are making subsidized sales.

There has been limited activity under EEP during the past two years due to world supply and demand conditions. However, the program remains in place

and the awarding of export bonuses can be resumed should global market conditions warrant. The budget provides a program level of up to $320 million

for EEP in 1999, an increase of $170 million above the 1998 program level which is limited to $150 million by a provision of the 1998 Agriculture

Appropriations Act.

The budget will propose a flexible, multi-year program level authorization for EEP for 1999 and subsequent years. Under this proposal, a total funding

level of just under $1.2 billion will be available for EEP during the 1999 to 2003 period. The proposal will provide administrative discretion to the

Department to determine the annual level of funding for EEP (subject to the $320 million limitation in 1999), and any funding that is not used in one year

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (28 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
will remain available for use in a subsequent year. However, annual program levels will continue to be subject to the export subsidy reduction

commitments established in conjunction with the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. This proposal will generate approximately $1.4 billion in

savings during this period, which will help to offset increased funding proposed in the budget for other mandatory spending proposals.

For DEIP, the budget assumes a somewhat lower level of program activity in 1999 due primarily to a projected tighter domestic market situation.

However, the actual level of DEIP programming will be determined by market conditions in 1999, subject to the Uruguay Round Agreement subsidy

reduction commitments.

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 Public Law 480 Food Assistance Programs

 Program and Tonnage Levels

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Title I Credit Sales:

 Dollars in Millions $202 $245 $112

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 0.9 1.2 0.5

Title II Donations:

 Dollars in Millions 813 837 837

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 1.9 2.2 2.2

Title III Grants:

 Dollars in Millions 39 30 30

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 0.2 0.1 0.1

Total, P.L. 480 Programs:

 Dollars in Millions $1,054 $1,112 $979

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 3.0 3.5 2.8

Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). Also referred to as Food for Peace, P.L. 480 is the primary means by which the United States provides foreign food

assistance. This assistance is provided through three separate program authorities.

Title I of P.L. 480 provides for sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities through concessional financing. In

allocating assistance to be provided under the Title I program, priority is given to agreements which provide for the export of U.S. agricultural

commodities to those developing countries which have demonstrated the potential to become commercial markets, are undertaking measures to improve

their food security and agricultural development, and demonstrate the greatest need for food. The Title I program is administered by FAS.

Title II provides for donations of humanitarian food assistance to needy people in foreign countries in response to malnutrition, famine, and other

extraordinary relief requirements. The assistance is provided primarily through private voluntary organizations, cooperatives, or international

organizations, including the World Food Program of the United Nations. In the case of donations made in response to emergency needs, Title II assistance

can also be provided through government-to-government agreements. The Title II program is administered by the Agency for International Development

(AID).

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (29 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Title III provides food assistance on a grant basis to least developed countries through government-to-government agreements. The donated commodities

may be sold on the domestic market of the recipient countries, and the revenue generated from the sale is used to support programs of economic

development. The Title III program is also administered by AID.

For 1999, the budget includes a total program level for P.L. 480 food assistance of $979 million. This is expected to provide approximately 2.8 million

metric tons of commodity assistance, a reduction of approximately 700,000 metric tons from the current estimate for 1998. While the Title I program

level is reduced, the budget continues funding for Title II donations and Title III grants unchanged from 1998 levels. This will ensure that adequate

resources are available to meet the most serious food assistance needs, including emergencies.

Food for Progress. Under this program, U.S. agricultural commodities are provided to developing countries and emerging democracies which have made

commitments to introduce and expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies. Food for Progress agreements can be entered into with foreign

governments, private voluntary agencies, nonprofit agricultural organizations, cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations. Agreements may provide

for the commodities to be supplied on either long-term credit or grant terms.

P.L. 480 Title I funds can be used for the procurement and transportation costs of the commodities. Alternatively, CCC-owned commodities can be made

available under the authority of section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 or CCC may purchase commodities if not in its inventory, with

transportation and other non-commodity expenses paid with CCC funds.

The authorizing statute for Food for Progress limits annual programming to not more than 500,000 metric tons and limits CCC funding for the

non-commodity costs (e.g., transportation) of programming to $30 million per year. The budget assumes that approximately $109 million of CCC funds

will be used to support Food for Progress programming in 1999. This includes $79 million for the purchase of commodities by CCC and $30 million for

transportation and related costs. Additional Food for Progress programming is expected to be carried out with funding made available under P.L. 480

Title I.

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 Salaries and Expenses

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Market Access $22 $23 $25

Market Development, Promotion, and

 Outreach 63 64 61

Market Intelligence 22 23 26

Financial Marketing Assistance 17 17 19

Long-term Market and

 Infrastructure Development 12 13 15

 Total, Appropriated Programs 136 140 146

CCC Computer Facility and Other IRM

 Costs Funded by CCC 11 10 a/

Emerging Markets Program Funded

 by CCC 10 10 10

Development Assistance Programs

 Funded by AID and Other Organizations 31 32 32

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (30 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Other Reimbursable Agreements 3 2 2

 Total Reimbursable Program Activity 55 54 44

 Total, FAS Program Level $191 $194 $190

a/ In 1999, these costs will be funded through FAS appropriations.

The FAS mission, as established in the agency's strategic plan, is to serve U.S. agriculture's international interests by expanding export opportunities for

U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest products and promoting world food security. FAS carries out its mission on a worldwide basis through the following

program activities:

Market Access -- international trade policy formulation, negotiation and monitoring activities designed to reduce foreign trade barriers and

increase market access for U.S. agricultural products.

● 

Market Development, Promotion, and Outreach -- activities designed to increase domestic awareness of export opportunities, facilitate export

readiness, and link export-ready and new-to-export firms to market entry opportunities; and activities designed to create demand for U.S.

agricultural products in foreign markets, including the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program and food and agricultural trade shows.

● 

Market Intelligence -- market intelligence and reporting activities which provide U.S. producers, exporters, and government officials with

information and analysis of world agricultural production and trade.

● 

Financial Marketing Assistance--administration of the Department's major commercial export programs, including the CCC export credit

guarantee and export subsidy programs.

● 

Long-Term Market and Infrastructure Development -- administration of foreign food assistance programs and international cooperation and

development activities, including scientific and technical exchanges, cooperative research, liaison with international food and agricultural

organizations, and agricultural technical assistance and training, including the Cochran Fellowship Program.

● 

The 1999 budget includes appropriated funding for FAS of $146 million, an increase of $6 million above the 1998 level. The budget includes a requested

increase of $2 million to establish a buying power maintenance fund to assist FAS in managing unanticipated changes in the costs of its overseas

operations, which can result from exchange rate losses or gains and overseas inflation. Under the proposal, a revolving fund will be established which can

be drawn upon to meet higher costs resulting from exchange rate losses. Alternatively, any exchange rate gains will be credited to the account and will

remain available to help meet future exchange rate losses.

The 1999 FAS budget includes $4 million for overseas administrative services provided by the Department of State in support of the International

Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) program. In 1998, $4.4 million was transferred from the Department of State for this purpose.

The budget also provides $500,000 for FAS to re-engineer its program performance measurement and evaluation tools, which are a critical element in

meeting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. Under this initiative, FAS will develop a cross-agency performance tracking and

evaluation system to determine success rates in implementing the goals and objectives established in the FAS strategic plan. In addition, FAS will

evaluate and re-engineer its crop and market intelligence gathering, evaluation, and dissemination processes to increase their efficiency and

responsiveness to internal and external customer needs.

The budget also proposes to shift funding for the operating costs of the CCC Computer Facility, which serves as the Department's collection point for

international production intelligence and crop estimates, and other related FAS Information Resources Management (IRM) costs to the FAS

appropriation. Funding for these costs is currently provided through a reimbursable agreement with CCC. As a result of this change, these costs will shift

from mandatory to discretionary spending, and they will no longer be subject to the annual limitation in Section 11 of the CCC Charter Act with respect

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (31 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
to CCC reimbursable agreements established by provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill.

The IRM costs to be shifted to FAS appropriated funding are estimated at $12 million in 1999. FAS will meet these costs through staff year and

associated administrative cost reductions and through increased cost-share contributions to the Foreign Market Development Program.

Finally, the FAS budget includes an estimated $44 million in funding to be made available through reimbursable agreements. The largest component of

this is funding for technical assistance, training, and research activities which FAS carries out overseas on behalf of the Agency for International

Development, foreign governments, and international organizations. It also includes funding made available by CCC for the Emerging Markets Program.

This program supports technical assistance and related activities which further U.S. market development objectives in promising overseas growth

markets.

Return to Table of Contents

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

MISSION

The Rural Development mission area strives to improve the quality of life in rural America by providing financial assistance and working with rural

communities through partnerships, empowerment and technical assistance. Outreach and targeting are used to ensure that rural communities that have

been under-served in the past have an opportunity to receive their fair share of Federal assistance.

Three agencies comprise the Rural Development mission area: the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) which also houses the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation (AARCC). Under the

Department's streamlining and reorganization effort, the field office delivery system for the three agencies was consolidated and is now co-located within

USDA Service Centers.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Rural Utilities Service $2,789 $683 $3,100 $696 $3,225 $753

Rural Housing Service 4,192 1,211 5,617 1,282 5,951 1,324

Rural Business-Cooperative

 Service 965 98 1,192 103 1,187 108

Alternative Agricultural Research

 and Commercialization Corporation 8 7 7 7 10 10

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (32 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, Rural Development $7,954 $1,999 $9,916 $2,088 $10,373 $2,195

The 1999 budget includes almost $2.2 billion in budget authority for Rural Development, which is intended to support about $10.4 billion in program

level. This is an increase of over $450 million in program activity over 1998 and reflects the Administration's strong support for ensuring that rural

Americans have the same opportunities for economic growth that exist in urban areas.

The major provisions of the Rural Development budget include:

$1 billion in direct loans and $3.1 billion in guaranteed loans for single family housing. These levels support the President's National

Homeownership initiative by making more homeownership opportunities available in rural America. Direct loans will continue to be available only

to low income families who receive an interest subsidy, low-income meaning less than 80 percent of area median income. Guaranteed loans will

remain available to families up to 115 percent of median area income. Further, the Administration will propose legislation to make guaranteed

loans available for refinancing existing direct loans -- $100 million is included in the $3.1 billion overall funding level for this purpose. These loans

will be made when graduation to conventional credit cannot be accomplished because borrowers have insufficient equity in their homes. The 1999

program levels will allow the agency to provide 26,000 home ownership opportunities in rural America and improve 39,000 existing homes.

● 

$100 million for direct loans and $150 million in guaranteed loans for multi-family housing. These levels represent a reduction of about $30

million in direct loans from the amount available for 1998, but a significant increase in guaranteed loans, which were first introduced in 1997. The

guaranteed loan program has operated on a pilot basis to date but has shown great potential, particularly where it can be used to leverage other

Federal, State and local or private financing. This program fills a need in the low-to-moderate income range in rural America that is currently

unmet.

● 

$583 million for rental assistance, which is provided to multi-family and farm labor housing project owners. Rental assistance makes up the

difference between what the low-income tenant pays and the rent required for the project owner to meet debt servicing requirements. This funding

level provides $544 million for renewal of contracts on existing units. The remainder will be used for rental assistance for an expanded farm labor

housing program as part of the Secretary's Civil Rights Initiative, and other needs, such as new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation

servicing.

● 

$500 million in grants and $839 million in loans (including $75 million in guarantees) for water and waste disposal projects. The combined totals

of loans and grants represent an increase of $66 million over the 1998 level. Continuation of the program at these levels is consistent with the

President's Water 2000 Initiative which was designed to help ensure that all rural households have access to clean running water by the year 2000.

● 

$1 billion in guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans for business and industry. Further, the Department will use the authority to transfer

funds authorized in the 1998 appropriation to support $1 billion in guaranteed loans in 1998. These levels reflect the emphasis this Administration

is giving to ensuring that there are more job opportunities in rural America. It is estimated that $1 billion in guaranteed loans produces about 38,000

jobs. In prior years, the program was limited to as little as $100 million in loans.

● 

$1.65 billion in direct loans for rural electric and telephone systems, including a proposal which would provide $400 million for Treasury rate

electric loans.

● 

$165 million in loans and grants for Distance Learning & Telemedicine (DLT) facilities. These levels are about the same as available for 1998 for

DLT.

● 

In addition, the Administration will propose legislation to provide $100 million in grants, over five years, for five rural communities to be

designated as Empowerment Zones. Authority for a second round of designers was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1996. The

Administration's proposal would provide funding as mandatory spending. This funding would be in addition to funding targeted to EZ/EC's under

Rural Development's on-going programs, which in 1998 is estimated at $129 million.

● 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (33 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The budget reflects the funding flexibility under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) that was enacted as part of the 1996 Farm

Bill. RCAP allows funds to be transferred among programs to ensure better coordination in meeting local priorities and the 1999 budget assumes

the full transfer flexibility authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill. The table below indicates the programs and funding levels included in RCAP.

● 

 Rural Community Advancement Program 

 Sources of Funding 

 (Dollars in Millions) 

 1999 1999

 Program Budget

 Program Level Authority

Water and Waste Disposal Loans:

 Direct $764 $126

 Guarantees 75 0

Water and Waste Disposal Grants 500 500

Solid Waste Management Grants 3 3

Community Facility Loans:

 Direct 200 28

 Guarantees 210 0

Community Facility Grants 8 8

Business and Industry Loans:

 Direct 50 0

 Guarantees 1,000 10

Rural Business Enterprise Grants 40 40

 Total, Loans and Grants. $2,850 $715

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Loan Programs:

 Electric Loans:

 Direct 5% $69 $4 $125 $9 $55 $7

 Direct, Treasury (Proposed Leg) 0 0 0 0 400 1

 Municipal 455 28 500 21 250 22

 FFB Guaranteed 300 3 300 3 300 0

 Total, Electric Loans 824 35 925 33 1,005 30

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (34 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Telecommunications Loans:

 Direct 5% 75 1 75 3 50 5

 Treasury Rate 170 a/ 300 a/ 300 1

 FFB Guaranteed 36 0 120 0 120 0

 Total, Telecom. Loans 281 1 495 3 470 6

 Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) 100 1 175 4 175 5

 Total, Elec., Tele. and RTB 1,205 37 1,595 40 1,650 41

 Distance Learning and Telemedicine

 Treasury Rate Loans 150 a/ 150 a/ 150 a/

 Water and Waste Disposal Loans

 Direct b/ 833 72 691 67 764 126

 Guaranteed b/ 3 0 75 0 75 0

 Total, Wtr & Wst Dis Loans 836 72 766 67 839 126

Grant Programs:

 Distance Learning & Telemed. 9 9 13 13 15 15

 Water and Waste Disposal b/ 519 496 507 507 500 500

 Solid Waste Management b/ 2 2 3 3 3 3

 Emergency Community Water 1 0 0 0 0 0

 Total, Grants 531 507 523 523 518 518

Total, RUS Loans & Grants 2,722 616 3,034 630 3,157 685

Salaries and Expenses 67 67 66 66 68 68

 Total, RUS $2,789 $683 $3,100 $696 $3,225 $753

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

(See page 42.)

The electric and telecommunications programs administered by RUS provide loans to establish, expand, and modernize facilities to improve service to

rural residents. The 1999 budget signals a shift in these programs from the highly subsidized direct 5 percent and municipal rate loans to greater reliance

on FFB-insured and direct Treasury rate loans. To facilitate this shift the Administration will propose legislation authorizing $400 million in direct

Treasury rate electric loans. This authority will be similar to the direct Treasury rate authority currently used by the telecommunications program.

Overall, the 1999 program level for electric loans will increase by $80 million over 1998. This level of funding is expected to create 20,000 jobs in rural

areas and provide improved electric service to 1.6 million rural residents.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (35 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Further, direct 5 percent telecommunications loans will decrease about $25 million from 1998, while other telecommunications programs will remain at

their 1998 levels. The total level of telecommunications assistance will result in the creation of about 13,000 construction-related jobs in rural areas, about

206,000 new residents and businesses will receive telecommunications service, and 1.1 million rural customers will access improved telecommunications

service. This is a decrease from the 1998 level when almost 215,000 new residents and businesses received services and 1.2 million customers received

improved services.

The water and waste disposal program provides grant and direct and guaranteed loan assistance to communities with populations not in excess of 10,000.

Communities must be denied access to commercial credit to be eligible for assistance. Loan and grant funds are provided to communities to establish,

expand, and modernize water treatment and waste disposal facilities. Through the Administration's Water 2000 initiative, the Department targets a portion

of its water and waste disposal resources to the estimated 2.5 million rural residents who have some of the Nation's most serious drinking water

availability, dependability, and quality problems. At the 1999 budget levels, the program is expected to create 30,000 rural jobs, provide new water

services to 500,000 rural residents and improved water services to almost 900,000 rural residents. The 1999 level will also provide new or improved

waste disposal facilities serving an estimated 410,000 rural residents.

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) program provides assistance for facilities and equipment to provide telecommunications linkages among

education and health care facilities. Grant funding is available for those areas experiencing high poverty levels while loans or a combination loans and

grants are available for areas with higher income levels. The program continues to experience a demand for grant funds far in excess of the amount of

funding that has been available. In 1997, nearly 60 percent of successful DLT applicants met the poverty requirements necessary to qualify for grant only

assistance. The budget provides $15 million in grants and $150 million in loans for distance learning and telemedicine. This would increase grant funding

by about $2.5 million over 1998, while maintaining loans at their previous level. The additional grant funding is expected to provide assistance for about

11 additional grant only (high-poverty) projects or about 26 additional loan and grant (lower-poverty) projects.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Rural Housing Loans:

 Single-Family:

 Direct $706 $83 $1,000 $128 $1,000 $118

 Guarantees 2,000 5 3,000 7 3,000 3

 Guarantee Unsub Refinancing 0 0 0 0 100 0

 Multi Family Housing:

 Direct (Sec 515) 152 78 129 69 100 48

 Guarantees (Sec 538) 28 1 20 1 150 3

 Very Low-Income Repair 30 11 30 10 25 9

 Farm Labor Housing 15 7 15 7 32 17

 Self-Help Housing a/ a/ a/ a/ 5 a/

 Housing Site Development 1 0 1 0 5 a/

 Credit Sales 24 4 25 4 30 5 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (36 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, Housing Loans 2,956 189 4,220 226 4,447 203

 Community Facility Loans:

 Direct b/ 137 12 206 17 200 28

 Guarantees b/ 83 b/ 153 1 210 0

 Total, Community Facility Loans 220 12 359 18 410 28

Grants and Payments:

 Community Facility 6 6 9 9 8 8

 Very Low-Income Repair 18 16 25 25 25 25

 Farm Labor Housing 9 6 10 10 13 13

 Mutual and Self-Help 26 26 26 26 26 26

 Supervisory and Technical Asst. 1 0 0 0 0 0

 Compensation for Const. Defects a/ 0 0 0 1 0

 Rural Housing Preservation 8 8 11 11 9 9

 Rental Assistance Payments 520 520 541 541 583 583

 Fire Protection Grants 1 1 2 2 c/ c/

 Total, Grants 589 583 624 624 665 664

Total, Loans and Grants 3,765 784 5,203 868 5,522 895

Salaries and Expenses 427 427 414 414 429 429

 Total, RHS $4,192 $1,211 $5,617 $1,282 $5,951 $1,324

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program

(See page 42.)

c/ Funding is requested in the Forest Service budget.

The 1999 budget for RHS supports a program level of about $6 billion, an increase of over $300 million from 1998. Of the total program level, over $4.8

billion is in the form of loans.

The single family housing direct loan program provides subsidized loans for the purchase of modest housing in rural areas. Loans are made at a graduated

interest rate level from 1 percent to the Treasury rate, which is currently 6.5 percent, depending on family income, to families who have income under 80

percent of the area median. Nationally, the average annual income of a direct loan borrower is about $17,000, which is about 55 percent of area median

income. Loan guarantees primarily serve families with moderate incomes, with the interest rate negotiable between the lender and borrower.

The Section 515 program would be reduced to $100 million in 1999. This program provides direct loans to construct and maintain multifamily rental

projects that serve low and very low income families. Projects receive payment assistance to make rents affordable. The average annual income of a

Section 515 tenant is $7,300. The 1999 request will provide for the construction of 1,667 new units and the rehabilitation of 4,146 existing units.

The Section 538 multifamily loan guarantee program guarantees loans that are made by private lenders. It differs from the Section 515 direct loan

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (37 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
program in that the projects it finances serve tenants with incomes up to 115 percent of the area median, rather then those below 80 percent of the area

median. Because it serves higher income tenants, less subsidy is required, and the program costs only about $2 for every $100 guaranteed. The 1999

request of $150 million would provide for the construction of 4,087 units.

The 1999 budget provides $583.4 million for the rental assistance program, an increase of $42 million from the 1998 level. Rental assistance is provided

to project owners in the form of 5-year contracts. These contracts are tied to the income of tenants in low-income units, who pay no more than 30 percent

of their income in rent. Rental assistance makes up the difference between what the low-income tenant pays and the rent required for the project owner to

meet debt servicing requirements. When the 5-year contracts expire, they must be renewed to keep the unit available for low income families and the

project viable for the sponsor.

As part of the Civil Rights Action Team recommendations, the 1999 budget recommends $32 million for farm labor housing loans and $13 million for

farm labor housing grants, an increase of $17 million in loans and $3 million in grants from last year's levels. This would provide for the construction of

658 new units and rehabilitation of 199 existing units of housing for farm workers.

The community facilities program provides direct loans, guarantees and grants to finance essential community facilities, with priority given to health and

safety facilities. There are three interest rates available on direct loans, with the lowest, 4.5 percent, offered to communities where the median income is

below the poverty level and for projects to meet health and safety standards. The 1999 budget provides $200 million in direct loans, $210 million in

guarantees, and $8 million in grants.

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Loans:

 Business and Industry:

 Guarantees a/ $815 $8 $1,001 $10 $1,000 $10

 Direct a/ 12 b/ 50 0 50 0

 Intermediary Relending Prog. 37 17 35 17 35 18

 Rural Economic Development 12 3 25 6 15 4

 Total, Loans 877 28 1,111 33 1,100 32

Grants:

 Rural Business Enterprise a/ 48 41 38 38 40 40

 Rural Cooperative Development 2 2 2 2 2 2

 Appropriate Technology Transfer

 for Rural Areas 1 1 1 1 2 2

 Rural Economic Development 11 c/ 11 c/ 11 c/

 Federal/State Research on

 Cooperatives 0 0 0 0 2 2

 Total, Grants 62 44 52 41 57 46

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (38 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Total, Loans and Grants 939 72 1,163 74 1,157 78

Salaries and Expenses 26 26 29 29 30 30

 Total, RBS $965 $98 $1,192 $103 $1,187 $108

a/ These are included in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

(See page 42.)

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

c/ Earnings generated by the interest differential on voluntary

cushion of credit payments made by RUS borrowers provide the subsidy to

support these loans and grants.

RBS administers the Department's rural business assistance programs, including technical assistance, development, and research on agricultural

cooperatives. The agency delivers a wide variety of services to its clients. Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantees, for example, provide protection

against loss so that private lenders are willing to extend credit to establish, expand, or modernize rural businesses. Other programs, including the

intermediary relending program and the rural economic development loan and grant programs allow local sponsors to borrow from the agency in order to

make loans to businesses and other organizations for developmental purposes. Special efforts are being made to help rural communities diversify,

particularly into value-added processing, by directing B&I funds to cooperatives.

The budget provides $1 billion in guaranteed loans and $50 million in direct loans under the business and industry loan program. Direct loans will be

targeted to those areas which have traditionally been under-served by commercial lenders. Loan guarantees help expand investment in rural areas by

protecting commercial lenders against loss. In addition, loan guarantees may be used to provide financing to farmers for the purchase of start-up capital

stock in a cooperative which will process the commodity being produced by the farmer. This level of assistance is consistent with the Administration's

strong commitment to expanding the rural economy and is expected to create or save over 38,000 jobs in rural America.

The budget provides $35 million for the intermediary relending program. The intermediary relending program provides loans at 1 percent interest to local

intermediaries who relend those funds to local businesses and other organizations to expand or improve the local economic base. This level of funding is

expected to create or save about 24,000 jobs in rural America.

In addition, the 1999 budget includes $2 million for research on cooperatives. This funding will be used to establish cooperative agreements, primarily

with State universities and colleges, for research on rural cooperatives.

Rural cooperatives are growing not just in numbers but also in terms of non-traditional forms and uses. Cooperatives are forming strategic alliances with

privately held corporations, engaging in value-added processing, and entering the retail and export markets. However, research on cooperatives has not

kept pace with this growth, particularly with respect to non-traditional cooperative activity. For example, wheat producers in North Dakota formed a

cooperative to process and market gourmet pasta to compete with import brands, and residents of Smith Island, Maryland, formed a cooperative to shell

and clean crabs for sale to area restaurants and packing facilities, helping to save a way of life which has existed for generations. Through the cooperative

form of business, rural residents are finding ways to save their way of life, add value to their product, and bring more income home to the farm gate and

family plate.

ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION (AARCC)

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (39 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Actual Estimate Budget

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Investments $8 $7 $7 $7 $10 $10

Operating essentially as an autonomous organization, the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation (AARCC) makes equity

investments in rural businesses to assist in the technological development and commercialization of industrial (non-food, non-feed) uses for agricultural

and forestry materials and animal by-products. These equity investments allow start-up businesses an opportunity to become successful prior to

undertaking repayment, thereby offering greater flexibility towards repayment than can be accommodated under conventional loan terms which require

immediate repayment.

The budget provides $10 million for AARCC, including, about $1.5 million for administrative expenses, which is the maximum allowed by law. This

level of funding is expected to help bring 6 new products to market and create about 1,500 new jobs in rural America. This level of funding compares to

about $7 million in 1998, of which about $1 million is expected to be used for administrative expenses.

Return to Table of Contents

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers America's domestic nutrition programs. The mission of FNS is to provide children and needy families

better access to food and a more healthful diet through its nutrition assistance programs and comprehensive nutrition education efforts. FNS fulfills its

mission principally via food stamps, the cornerstone of our National commitment to protect the nutrition, health, and well-being of low-income families;

the Child Nutrition Programs; the Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC). These programs support the Administration's goals of encouraging work, family and responsibility, as well as fighting hunger where it

exists.

 Food and Nutrition Service

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Food Stamp Program a/ $21,767 $21,177 $22,956 b/

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico 1,174 1,204 1,236

 Total, Food Stamp Program 22,941 22,381 24,192

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (40 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Child Nutrition Programs 8,965 9,197 9,636

Special Supp. Nutrition Program (WIC) 4,039 4,012 4,161 c/

Commodity Assistance Program:

 Commodity Supp. Food Program 93 96 96

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly 146 142 141

 Soup Kitchens, Food Banks and The

 Emergency Food Assistance

 Program (TEFAP) 172 145 145

 Gleaning Initiative 0 0 20

 WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program 7 12 15

 Total, CAP 418 395 417

Food Program Administration 106 108 112

Total, FNS $36,469 $36,093 $38,518

a/ Amount includes funding for Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (FDPIR).

b/ In addition, the 1999 budget includes a $1 billion contingency

reserve for the Food Stamp Program.

c/ In addition, the 1999 budget includes a $20 million contingency

reserve for the WIC program.

The Department's 1999 budget funds the anticipated current needs of the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs and includes a legislative proposal to

provide food stamp eligibility to otherwise eligible legal immigrants, with certain exceptions. A $149 million increase in the program level for WIC and a

$20 million contingency for unexpected increases in food costs, is also requested. Central to their mission as nutrition programs, these programs provide

nutrition education to empower participants with the skills and knowledge to make food choices for a healthy diet. Additional funds are also requested to

promote gleaning and ensure the safety of school meals. Finally, the budget continues the emphasis on strengthening program integrity in the Food

Stamp, Child Nutrition, and WIC Programs. The details of the nutrition programs follow.

Food Stamps. The 1999 budget funds anticipated growth in participation of about 572 thousand over 1998 estimates, projected food inflation, and

provides $1 billion for a contingency reserve. In addition, legislation is proposed to restore food stamp eligibility to otherwise eligible legal immigrant

families with either children, elderly or disabled persons. This change would increase participation by about 730 thousand. The legislation would also

address the allocation of administrative costs between the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Medicaid, and the Food Stamp

Program.

FNS continues to aggressively fight food stamp trafficking fraud and the sale of non-food products for food stamps by coordinating with the Office of the

Inspector General (OIG) to conduct "sweeps" to identify and eliminate ineligible stores from the program. Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

implementation will continue under this request. Substituting electronic debit cards for food coupons provides benefits more conveniently to recipients,

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (41 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
and in most cases retailer and program administrative costs can be reduced. EBT simplifies benefit delivery and provides USDA with new and powerful

sources of data useful in detecting retailer and recipient trafficking and fraud. Funding for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico is requested at $1.2 billion,

the same as the authorized level.

Child Nutrition Programs. Increasing the public understanding of proper nutrition is also a major Departmental objective that is promoted through the

nutrition assistance programs. A priority continues to be increasing children's understanding of nutrition and improving their diets through the School

Meals Initiative for Healthy Children in the Child Nutrition Programs. The National School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, Special

Milk, and Child and Adult Care Food Programs (CACFP) also play a significant role in achieving this goal by assisting State and local governments in

serving healthful, nutritious meals to children in various settings, with greatest emphasis on helping low income children. These programs assist

pre-school and school-aged children by subsidizing the provision of nutritious meals and helping to assure that children are in school ready to learn and

that they learn by example about proper nutrition. Special subsidies are also provided under these programs so that low-income children receive meals

free or at a greatly reduced price. Under the current Child Nutrition Programs, especially CACFP, USDA helps support child care that helps the Nation's

working people as well as work-able welfare recipients gain training and gain and maintain employment. USDA plans to request reauthorization of these

programs in 1998.

For 1999, the Child Nutrition Programs are funded at the current services level, providing for increases in participation and food costs. The Department

continues to work with the States to improve the appeal and nutritional quality of school meals, and to help schools bring their meals into compliance

with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Department is also placing increased emphasis on food safety education and in improving program

integrity by enhancing the management of school meal service. These improved National nutrition standards, consistent National eligibility standards and

the guarantee of free meals to children from low income households, are the central features of the school programs.

USDA supports States and the schools in improving program offerings and participant nutritional intake through technical assistance, through Team

Nutrition, an integrated network of public-private partnerships; through the Nutrition Education and Training Program, and through having the meal

providers set a good nutritional example every day at meal time. Team Nutrition will support a number of improvements, including training for staff from

States and local School Food Authorities to help food service workers improve meals, and nutrition education to give children the skills and motivation

necessary to make food choices for a healthy diet.

WIC. The WIC program helps improve the health of low-income pregnant, breast-feeding and postpartum women, infants and children up to their fifth

birthday. WIC supplements households' food resources with coupons which they may redeem for specified foods such as milk, eggs, cheese, fruit juices,

cereal and infant formula. In addition to these food supplements, WIC provides nutrition education and linkages to other important health and social

services. Approximately 46 percent of all infants born in the United States are WIC beneficiaries. The program is also credited with contributing to better

birth outcomes and reductions in childhood anemia, key indicators of the health of America's children.

Part of the WIC program's focus is on improving integrity and increasing efficiency. USDA is committed to improving program management by refining

fund allocation procedures in order to be more responsive to States' needs and more efficient in recovering and reallocating funds from States that do not

need them to States that do. USDA will also implement policy which takes into careful consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of

Sciences, Institute of Medicine regarding State nutrition risk assessment and targeting practices. This effort was undertaken in conjunction with the

National Association of WIC Directors and will ensure that States use consistent and sound criteria to determine the nutritional risk status of applicants.

This policy will ensure that only low-income persons at nutritional risk will be enrolled in WIC. USDA is also taking action to strengthen income

documentation so that benefits are targeted only to those meeting income guidelines. Finally, WIC will look at ways to keep program costs low, building

on the program's performance in keeping unit food costs essentially flat for the past 10 years.

Commodity Assistance Programs. The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP) provide commodities distributed through several programs. The

Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides administrative funding and certain commodities to the network of food banks and other

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (42 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
programs which assist households in need of immediate, short-term food assistance. TEFAP providers also typically distribute significant quantities of

commodities donated by the private sector, thereby leveraging the Federal investment. Commodities are also made available to soup kitchens and food

banks, primarily to benefit the homeless. In twenty States, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) also provides commodities to low-income

elderly and women, infants and children not on WIC. In coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), FNS also administers

the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) which provides subsidized meals to persons aged 60 or older at low-income elderly centers or through the

"meals on wheels" program.

The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides WIC participants access to fresh fruits and vegetables and expands the awareness and use of

farmers' markets by consumers. In past years, funds for the program have been included within the WIC appropriation, to the extent that the funds were

not required to support existing WIC caseload. In order to ensure availability of funds, the 1999 budget proposes $15 million within the Commodity

Assistance Program account. This is a $3 million increase over the 1998 level.

The CSFP budget request will fund current participation levels. Funding for TEFAP includes both discretionary funding of $45 million usable for

program administration or food, at the election of State officials, and $100 million available under the Food Stamp Program appropriation to be used for

purchasing commodities for distribution to the States.

Gleaning and Food Recovery Initiative. The American agricultural system is one of the most productive and efficient in the world. Nonetheless, 37

million people were living below the official poverty level in 1996, while 27 percent, or 96 billion pounds, of the 356 billion pounds of edible food

available for human consumption in the United States were lost to human use. The budget includes $20 million for a new community based grant program

and other initiatives to help Americans recover some of that abundance before it is lost and use it to help alleviate hunger and distress. Recovered food

helps needy families through temporary hard times, supplementing food stamps for some; and for others providing necessary sustenance on an occasional

basis.

Food Program Administration. Funding of $112 million is requested to maintain stable program operation, pursue both program and financial integrity

initiatives, and increase the emphasis on improved nutrition among participants in the domestic nutrition assistance programs. Although FNS is on

schedule with Year 2000 changes to maintain and improve the efficiency of administration for America's nutrition programs, FNS' antiquated software

and hardware must be replaced to ensure increased program and financial integrity of America's nutrition assistance programs. Funds are included to

provide for development and implementation of improvements relating to both program and financial integrity weaknesses.

In further support of the Department's healthy meals initiative, and recognizing the proven link between good nutrition and good health (and lower health

care costs), the budget recognizes the role of nutrition education for all nutrition assistance programs with a request for $2.5 million for the Center for

Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). In addition to helping USDA coordinate the policies and regulations of its nutrition assistance programs with

other Federal agencies, the CNPP will coordinate and increase the effectiveness of the funds spent within USDA on developing and promoting the

message of good nutrition.

 Food and Nutrition Service

 Key Indicators

 1997 1998 1999

 Actual Estimate Estimate

Average Participation, millions:

 Food Stamps 22.9 21.1 22.3 a/ 

 Free School Lunch 13.0 13.4 13.6

 School Lunch, Total 26.5 26.8 27.2

 Free Breakfast 5.5 6.0 6.3

 Total Breakfast 7.1 7.5 7.8

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (43 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 WIC 7.4 7.5 7.5

 Commodity Supp. Food Program (CSFP):

 WIC-type 0.13 0.13 0.13

 Elderly 0.24 0.27 0.27

 Food Distribution Program on Indian

 Reservations (FDPIR) 0.12 0.13 0.13 

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly

 (NPE), annual meals 247.3 250.6 250.6

Unemployment Rate 5.1% 4.9% 5.1%

Average/person/month food benefit in $:

 Food Stamps $71.34 $73.80 $76.41

 WIC 31.68 32.17 32.92

 CSFP: WIC-type (FNS Funded) 18.59 17.96 19.70

 CSFP: Elderly (FNS Funded) 15.27 14.66 16.24

 FDPIR (FNS Funded) 33.72 34.13 36.97

Per meal subsidies including commodities:

 Free School Lunch $1.99 $2.05 $2.09

 Reduced Price School Lunch 1.59 1.65 1.70

 Paid School Lunch 0.32 0.33 0.33

 Free Breakfast 1.02 1.05 1.07

 Paid Breakfast 0.20 0.20 0.20

 NPE per meal subsidy (cents) 58.57 56.07 55.86

a/ Includes 730 thousand participants under proposed legislation

to restore eligibility to legal immigrants.

Return to Table of Contents

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

MISSION

The mission of the Natural Resources and Environment area is to promote the conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources on the Nation's State

and private lands and to sustain production of all the goods and services that the public demands of the National Forests and Grasslands. Two agencies,

the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service, are primarily responsible for achieving this mission.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (44 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Conservation Operations:

 America's Private Land Conservation $529 $542 $579

 New User Fees 0 0 10

 Soil Surveys 76 76 78

 Snow Surveys 6 6 6

 Plant Materials Centers 9 9 8

 Water Resources Assistance 116 61 71

 Total, Conservation Operations 736 694 752

Watershed and Flood Prevention 227 51 49

Forestry Incentives Program 6 6 0

Resource Conservation and Development 29 34 34

Programs Funded by CCC:

 Environmental Quality Incentives

 Program 196 200 300

 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 0 30 20

 Farmland Protection Program 2 18 0

 Conservation Farm Option 0 15 25

 Wetlands Reserve Program 99 219 124

 Total, NRCS $1,295 $1,267 $1,304

Recap:

 NRCS Appropriations $998 $785 $825

 Funded from CCC 297 482 469

 New User Fees 0 0 10

The NRCS directs its financial and technical assistance programs to land users through the USDA service centers and through local conservation districts,

which are units of State government organized for the purpose of developing and carrying out local conservation programs. USDA has entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding with each conservation district and these formal agreements provide a basis for the Department's working relationship

with the district. With the successful implementation of the Department's streamlining plan, the proportion of NRCS staff at the district or field office

level was increased in order to give more direct support to farmers. In so doing, NRCS has reduced headquarters staff by over 50 percent, reduced State

office staff by almost one-third, and consolidated administrative functions.

Within the proposed level of 1999 funding for NRCS conservation programs of about $1.3 billion, the Department will maintain its focus on supporting

the locally-led conservation assistance initiative. Under this initiative, the conservation districts, farmers and ranchers and other private landowners and

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (45 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
users work with NRCS to identify the most critical local natural resource needs and concerns. This information is then used to help target USDA and

other federal and state environment and conservation programs in the most cost-effective manner possible. It has also played an important role in enabling

the agency to meet its Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic planning objectives which include the development of an annual

performance plan and specific multi-year performance goals.

The agency's annual performance goals rely on measures of actual conservation achieved on the land with direct technical and financial assistance from

NRCS and its partners in the district offices. The two long-term goals that NRCS will focus on over the next several years will include 1) working directly

with farmers and landowners to promote the conservation ethic and to encourage more effective stewardship of the natural resources on their property;

and 2) enhancing the health and productivity of the nation's cropland in order to sustain food and fiber production and healthy watersheds and natural

systems.

In order to meet these ambitious goals, NRCS will rely more heavily on many of the new conservation programs provided in the 1996 Farm Bill including

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program. The 1999 budget will continue to devote significant resources to the acquisition of easements under the Wetlands Reserve Program

in support of the Administration's goals for protecting and restoring wetlands. In addition, USDA will continue to place emphasis on working in

partnership with the conservation districts and state conservation agencies to provide assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners and users to

conserve and protect the country's natural resources on private lands.

Under this budget, the Department will also support the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative primarily through partnership grants to districts

and additional financial assistance provided through EQIP. In the watershed construction area, the Department will continue its efforts to direct funds to

only those projects that meet established environmental criteria and where local sponsor support is strong. The Department will also make available

subsidized water resource development loans to help sponsors meet watershed project funding needs.

Conservation Operations. The 1999 budget proposes $752 million for conservation operations which includes $579 million for America's Private Land

Conservation activities, formerly Conservation Technical Assistance. This will fund the agency's activities that support locally led, voluntary conservation

through the unique partnership that has been developed over the years with each conservation district. In order to further strengthen this partnership and to

achieve greater leverage from limited Federal resources, the request includes an increase of $20 million for incentive payments to those States that are

successful in increasing the level of non-Federal contributions to the conservation effort. Special consideration will be given to those States that expand

their usage of geographic information systems and purchase additional digital orthophotography.

Beginning in 1999, NRCS will begin a process of charging fees, on a limited basis, for certain products and activities that up until now the agency has

been providing free to private and public users. The budget projects that NRCS will collect a total of $10 million in fees and will focus these collections

on those financial or technical services that provide only a limited public benefit or on those that are already readily available through the private sector.

The proposed user fee activities, including the appropriate fee structure and application, will be developed by NRCS in consultation with other Federal

agencies and those groups or individuals that will be most directly impacted.

The 1999 budget for America's Private Land Conservation activities also includes an increase of $23 million to support the Vice President's Clean Water

Initiative. The goal of this initiative is to improve water quality where it is impaired by agricultural and forestry activities in selected watersheds that are

now highly vulnerable and show significant signs of degradation. NRCS will direct $20 million to Competitive Partnership Grants which will be used to

strengthen the leadership of locally-based institutions such as conservation districts, watershed councils, RC&D councils, etc., primarily through the

hiring of non-federal watershed coordinators. The remaining increase of $3 million will be used for additional monitoring to help target resources and

document baseline conditions and performance. Finally, the 1999 budget includes increases of $7 million for additional watershed planning and $1

million for educational assistance to make watershed sponsors more aware of the need to examine and possibly repair older watershed structures.

Many of the activities funded out of Conservation Operations will support implementation of the agency's GPRA performance goals. Some of the

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (46 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
performance indicators that will be used to measure success in this area include the number of acres of cropland protected against excessive erosion, the

number of miles of riparian areas protected, and the number of acres of cropland and grazing land on which conservation management systems are

completed.

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO). The 1999 budget proposes a funding level of $49 million for this activity which will be

devoted almost entirely to project implementation costs. Technical support for this program, beginning in 1999, will come from the Conservation

Operations account. The Department will continue to make significant changes in its watershed operations program in order to implement a new

watershed approach that focuses project implementation funds on the most cost effective and environmentally beneficial projects and emphasizes

nonstructural management systems. NRCS will also continue its effort to reduce the backlog of unfunded work by continuing to examine approved

watershed plans in order to deactivate or revise those that have become infeasible or where local sponsor interest is no longer strong.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D). The purpose of the RC&D program is to encourage and improve the capability of State and local

units of government and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs for resource conservation and development.

NRCS also helps coordinate available Federal, State, and local programs. The 1999 budget will support the 290 RC&D areas now authorized as well as

any new area authorizations that may be made in 1998.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). WHIP is a voluntary program that will provide cost-sharing for landowners to apply a wide array of

wildlife practices to develop habitat that will support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fisheries, and other types of

wildlife. A total of $50 million was authorized for the program which will be initiated in 1998 at a level of $30 million. The 1999 budget reflects the use

of the remaining $20 million.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP combines into a single program the functions of four previous incentive-based programs:

the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin

Salinity Control Program. The purpose of the program is to provide flexible technical and financial assistance to landowners that face serious natural

resource challenges that impact soil, water and related natural resources, including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat management. In addition,

it was designed to help producers make beneficial and cost-effective changes to cropping and grazing systems, and in manure, nutrient and pest

management, that conserve and improve soil, water, and related natural resources. In 1999, EQIP funding will be increased by $100 million under

proposed legislation. The enhanced $300 million program will be used to address the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative and to implement

recommendations made in the USDA Civil Rights Action Team report.

Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The FPP program is designed to forge new and enhance existing partnerships between Federal, State and local

Governments in sharing the costs of acquiring conservation easements. FPP provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to State and local

programs that acquire conservation easements on eligible lands to address wetlands, wildlife habitat, soil, water and related natural resource concerns.

The purpose of the program is to achieve solutions to local community issues related to the non-agricultural use of farms, ranches and rural lands. In

1998, the funding levels authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill will be reached.

Conservation Farm Option (CFO). The CFO is a pilot program that gives producers an option of a 10-year contract as a single annual payment

equivalent to the amount they would have received under CRP, WRP, and EQIP. The CFO is intended to address the conservation of soil, water and

related resources, water quality, wetlands protection, wildlife habitat, and similar conservation purposes. The CFO provides a voluntary approach to

implementing full farm conservation plans to include the use of multiple conservation practices. The 1999 budget will fund the program at the authorized

level of $25 million.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). WRP is a voluntary program in which landowners are paid to retire cropland from agricultural production if those

lands are restored to wetlands and protected, in most cases, with a long-term or permanent easement. Landowners receive fair market value for the land

and are provided with cost-share assistance to cover the restoration expenses. The 1996 Farm Bill changed WRP to give producers the option of

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (47 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
long-term or permanent easements, or restoration cost-share agreements under which landowners will agree to restore wetlands without payment for the

land, receiving only cost-share assistance. For 1999, the budget proposes to enroll an additional 164,000 acres into the program which would bring total

cumulative enrollment to more than 825,000 acres by the end of 1999. The Administration's goal for WRP remains one of enrolling a total of 975,000

acres which NRCS should reach by the end of calendar year 2000.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency and is described on page 24.

FOREST SERVICE (FS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Discretionary Accounts:

 Management of the

 National Forest System:

 Land Mgmt. Planning/Inventory $130 $128 $119

 Recreation Use 211 218 239

 Wildlife/Fisheries Mgmt. 86 97 112

 Rangeland Management 38 45 66

 Timber Sales Management 196 209 199

 Soil, Water/Air Mgmt. 42 51 64

 Landowner Management 57 62 59

 Infrastructure Management 104 109 137

 General Administration 259 263 259

 Other 195 166 164

 Subtotal, NFS 1,318 1,348 1,418

Reconstruction and Construction 208 165 161

Wildland Fire Management:

 Presuppression 319 319 319

 Suppression 211 265 235

Land Acquisition Accounts 42 54 57

Other Accounts 3 4 3

 Total 2,101 2,155 2,193

Forest and Rangeland Research 180 188 198

State and Private Forestry:

 Forest Health/Fire Protection 66 74 77

 Cooperative Forestry:

 Forest Stewardship 23 24 28

 Stewardship Incentives 4 6 8

 Urban/Community Forestry 26 27 30

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (48 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Other 36 30 20

 Total, Cooperative Forestry 89 87 86

 Subtotal, S&PF 155 161 163

 Total, Discretionary Accounts 2,436 2,506 2,554

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Mandatory Accounts:

 Permanent Working Funds 246 260 239

 Payments to States, National Forests 234 261 248 a/ 

 Payment Funds, Grasslands/Minn 5 6 7

 Trust Funds 237 262 250

 Total, Mandatory Accounts 722 789 744

Total, Ongoing Programs 3,158 3,295 3,298

One-time Transfer from

 Interior for Land Acquisition 0 167 0

Total, Program Level 3,158 3,462 3,298

Fire Emergency Accounts:

 Fire Suppression 300 0 0

 Available Fire Supp. Conting. (Carryover) 0 (250) 0

 Available Fire Supp. Conting. (Proposed) 0 0 (102)

 Total, Emergency Accounts 300 (250) (102)

 Total, FS $3,458 $3,462 $3,298

a/ Displays current receipts estimates. Legislation will be proposed

to de-link payments to States with receipts so as to stabilize amounts

to be paid.

The Forest Service, with an employment ceiling of more than 36,000 staff years in 1998, is the largest employer in USDA. The 1999 ceiling is 35,526,

which assumes a continuation of the streamlining efforts begun in 1993 to comply with the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. The FS operates in

three major program areas:

Management of the National Forests and Grasslands. The Forest Service manages approximately 191 million acres of public land -- about 110

percent of the area of the State of Texas -- located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These lands, known collectively as the National

Forest System, are managed for multiple use on a sustained-yield basis using sound ecological principles to meet the needs of people today while

maintaining or improving the productivity, health, resilience and vigor of forest resources for future generations. The National forests produce

● 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (49 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
diverse benefits for the American people ranging from outdoor recreation, wildlife and fish and watershed protection, to timber, forage, and

minerals.

Forest and Rangeland Research. The Forest Service maintains the world's largest forest research organization. While it has a very broad mission

to develop the knowledge and technology needed to enhance the economic and environmental values of all the Nation's forests and related

industries, it also must support the specific research needs that arise from the FS's prime responsibility of managing the National Forest System.

● 

State and Private Forestry. The Forest Service makes grants and provides technical assistance to State forestry agencies for protecting forest

resources and improving forest management on nonindustrial private forest lands. Funding is provided for forest pest suppression on all Federal

lands and cost-share assistance is made available for pest suppression on private lands. A cooperative fire protection program provides technical

and limited financial support for State wildfire fighting organizations. The Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentives Programs provide

technical and financial assistance to nonindustrial private landowners for a variety of stewardship practices including tree planting. In addition,

there are several small programs which provide technical and financial assistance to natural resources dependent rural communities.

● 

The GPRA strategic plan for the Forest Service sets out three broad goals. Most budget line items which fund specific programs such as wildlife or timber

sales contribute to the achievement of more than one goal, and many contribute to all three. Thus, it is not possible to link the current Forest Service

budget structure to the GPRA goals without the use of extensive crosscut tables. For the total 1999 Forest Service budget, funding proportions for the

three GPRA objectives are: Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems - 43 percent, Provide Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems - 38

percent, and Ensure Organizational Effectiveness - 19 percent.

The 1998 appropriations for the Forest Service included a one-time increase in land acquisition funding of $167 million, which includes $65 million

associated with the purchase of mineral interests in the New World Mine necessary to safeguard Yellowstone National Park. When continuing

discretionary programs are compared, the 1999 budget of $2.6 billion is $48 million greater than the amount appropriated for 1998, a 2 percent increase.

Within the totals, increases above that overall percentage are included for individual program initiatives.

 Forest Service

 Programs Related to Watershed Protection and Restoration

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Watershed Improvements $20.0 $25.6 $38.2

Range Vegetation Management 15.5 17.8 37.8

Forestland Management 251.8 274.8 257.3

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat 85.8 96.8 111.7

Road Maintenance 81.0 85.0 107.0

Hazardous Fuels Reduction 29.1 50.0 65.0

Forest Stewardship 23.4 23.9 27.3

Stewardship Incentives Program 4.5 6.5 8.5

Forest Legacy 2.0 4.0 6.0

Land Acquisition 42.0 54.0 a/ 57.0

Total $555.1 $638.4 $715.8

a/ Does not include $167 million made available in 1998 as a

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (50 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
one-time increase.

Watershed Protection and Restoration. The above table displays a number of Forest Service programs which play an important role in protecting and

restoring degraded watersheds. The aggregate funding proposed for these programs is $77.4 million above the 1998 level, a 12 percent increase. These

activities provide support for the President's Land, Water and Facility Restoration Initiative, Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative, and all

three USDA GPRA goals. In addition, the Forest Service is participating in these special emphasis activities:

Interdepartmental Mine Land Cleanup Initiative. This is an effort to coordinate the work of public land managers and private land owners to

efficiently and comprehensively address problems associated with abandoned mines in priority watersheds within States, rather than spot treating

scattered individual sites on an ad hoc basis.

● 

National Riparian Coordination. This involves the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Department of the Interior's

Bureau of Land Management in a partnership to focus on key riparian, wetland, and estuary resources. The work includes assessment, research and

technology development, technology transfer to public land managers and to private land owners and restoration monitoring.

● 

Natural Resources Agenda. On October 7, Secretary Glickman directed the Chief of the Forest Service to develop a comprehensive natural

resources agenda to guide the agency. One immediate priority is maintaining and restoring the health of the land, with the first emphasis area being

watershed health and restoration and the second being sustainable forest management.

● 

 Forest Service

 Road Related Programs

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Road Maintenance $81.0 $85.0 $107.0

Road Construction and Reconstruction:

 Recreation and General Purpose 34.0 40.7 58.7

 Timber Access 59.0 47.4 37.4

Purchaser Credit Roads (50.0) (50.0) 0.0

Total, Discretionary Programs $174.0 $173.1 $203.1

Permanent Appropriation for Timber Roads

 Constructed for Small Purchasers 5.9 4.2 2.1

Permanent Appropriation for

 Roads and Trails 24.8 a/ 25.3 28.2

Total, Permanent Appropriations $30.7 $29.5 $30.3

a/ The 1997 level is carried over into 1998. Funds will be used

for environmental road and trail work in high priority watersheds. Mileage estimates are not

yet available and no mileage is included in the Performance Indicators

below.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (51 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Performance Indicators:

Miles of New Road Constructed by FS 8.0 11.1 7.5

Miles of New Road Constructed by

 Timber Purchasers 391.6 503.7 403.1

Miles of Existing Road Reconstructed by FS 384.6 291.7 583.9

Miles of Existing Road Reconstructed by

 Timber Purchasers 3,209.6 3,129.5 2,957.1

Miles of Existing Road Obliterated 1,786.9 1,500.0 3,500.0

Bridges Reconstructed by FS 33 12 26

Bridges Reconstructed by Timber Purchasers 11 68 55

Percent of Roads Maintained to Standard 38 38 45

Roads. The table above displays Forest Service road related activities. They contribute to the achievement of all three Forest Service GPRA strategic plan

goals. The unroaded areas in our National Forests have outstanding ecological, aesthetic, and social values. They are often the refuge of last resort for rare

species and the source areas of municipal water supplies. The Forest Service is working to meet public access needs in an ecologically sensitive manner.

At the same time, the extensive Forest Service road system is rapidly eroding, risking public safety and contributing to environmental damage in some

National forests. The budget proposes $203.1 million, a 17 percent increase over 1998 for investments in road maintenance, reconstruction and

construction, road closures, and road obliteration. This will target areas that are critically important for a broad array of resource management goals. The

layout and design of roads to be constructed by timber purchasers and the construction of new roads by the Forest Service will be accomplished in a

manner that ensures that new roads are as environmentally benign as possible. The budget also proposes to eliminate the timber purchaser road credit

program. The 1999 proposal continues the trend of recent years of increasing the proportion of the program devoted to recreation and general purpose

roads while decreasing the proportion supporting timber access. In fact, direct Forest Service funding for oversight of timber road operations is proposed

to be reduced by $10 million in 1999.

 Forest Service

 Recreation Related Programs

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Recreation and Trails:

 Recreation Operations and Maint. $164.3 $170.3 $190.3

 Wilderness Management 33.3 34.1 35.8

 Heritage Resources 13.6 13.9 13.3

 Facilities Construction 48.0 30.8 25.7

 Trail Construction 22.0 27.3 13.2

 Total, Recreation and Trails 281.2 276.4 278.3

Wildlife:

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (52 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Wildlife Habitat 28.3 31.3 35.5

 Inland Fisheries Habitat 14.8 17.8 23.5

 Total, Wildlife Related to Rec. 43.1 49.1 59.0

Land Acquisition a/ 41.9 54.3 57.3

 Total $366.2 $379.8 $394.6

a/ Land Acquisition is also included in the Watershed Protection

and Restoration breakout.

Recreation Related Programs. The National Forests are the leading provider of total outdoor recreation use. The recreation programs contribute to the

GPRA strategic plan goal of Providing Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems. The public uses the National Forests for a

broad array of outdoor recreational experiences, including camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, bird watching

and participating in archaeological excavations. Funding in support of recreation includes the operation and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities,

wildlife and fish habitat work which supports game species as well as the wildlife resource generally, and land acquisition which gives a high priority to

ensuring the protection of national recreation areas, designated wilderness, and wild and scenic river corridors. Legislation will be proposed to

permanently authorize the expenditure of all recreation receipts to support maintaining the high quality recreation experience.

Payments to States. Under existing law, 25 percent of most Forest Service receipts are paid to the States for distribution to the counties in which the

forests are located for financing roads and schools. About 800 counties across the Nation receive such payments. Historically, the largest source of

receipts is from the sale of timber on the National Forests. Timber receipts have declined in recent years due to the need to manage forests on an

ecosystem basis which takes into account the needs of a broad range of resources such as wildlife, water quality, and outdoor recreation. In addition, the

program emphasis has shifted from timber production and sales as a strictly commodity activity to forestland management. A significant portion of the

program now consists of the sale of dead and dying trees to achieve forest health objectives. Such material commands much lower prices than the large

volumes of old-growth timber sold in the past.

In recognition that the payments generated by the forests affected by the northern spotted owl litigation had dropped precipitously, the President's Forest

Plan included an economic package that supported legislation enacted as part of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which established

payments for those forests at an annually declining percentage of the 1986-1990 average payment. For 1997, the percentage was 76 percent and it would

decline to 70 percent in 1999, under the current legislation. In recent years, payments to the States in other regions have declined significantly. In order to

provide all county governments with a predictable and equitable level of payments for the national forests, the Administration will propose legislation

later this year to stabilize the payments. The 1999 estimate of $270 million is based on providing each county with the guarantee currently extended to the

owl forests of 76 percent of the 1986-1990 average payment. For those counties where the 1997 payment was greater than that amount, the payment is

frozen at the 1997 level. The program will continue to be funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation. This ensures that payments will not decline in

future years.

Timber Program. The timber program contributes to the achievement of the Forest Service GPRA strategic plan goal of Providing Multiple Benefits for

People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems as well as the goal of Ensuring Sustainable Ecosystems. In 1997, the volume of national forest timber sold

was 3.7 Billion Board Feet (BBF). The current estimate is that 3.4 BBF will be offered for sale in 1999 compared to an estimated 3.8 BBF for 1998.

Forest and Rangeland Research. The GPRA strategic plan objective of Ensuring Organizational Effectiveness commits the Forest Service to striving

for better resource management decisions based on the best available scientific information and knowledge. For 1999, the Forest Research budget

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (53 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
proposes $198 million, a $10 million and 5 percent increase over FY 1998. The increase includes $3.0 million for the Climate Technology Initiative, $6.0

million for improved environmental monitoring and research, and $1.0 million for work on the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem.

State and Private Forestry. State and Private Forestry programs contribute to all three GPRA strategic plan goals. Total funding is proposed at $163

million for 1999. Protection of forest resources of all ownerships, including Federal lands, from damage due to pests is funded at $53 million, the same as

1998. Assistance to State wildfire fighting agencies is funded at $22 million. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program, formerly funded through the Rural

Housing Service, is now funded directly to the Forest Service, with $2 million provided for the program in 1999. The cooperative forestry programs

provide grants and assistance to state forestry agencies for a variety of purposes ranging from assisting nonindustrial private landowners with stewardship

planning to acquiring interests in woodlands threatened with conversion to other uses. These programs are proposed to decline by $1.4 million from the

1998 level, a reduction of 2 percent.

Wildland Fire Management. This program funds both preparedness costs such as the pay and training of permanent fire crews and aircraft availability,

as well as the cost of operations to suppress fires. These activities contribute to the achievement of the GPRA strategic plan goal of Ensuring Sustainable

Ecosystems. The cost of fire suppression has varied dramatically since 1981, and has been inherently unpredictable.

The 1994 and 1996 fire seasons were two of the most severe and expensive firefighting seasons on record. $678 million was spent on fire suppression in

1994, and $513 million was spent in 1996. The 1997 fire season was the lowest in four years with a cost of $148 million. The 10 year average

(1987-1996) is $337 million. However, this average has been exceeded four times in the last 10 years. Only three times in the last 10 years have the

firefighting costs been below $200 million. Firefighting has become more expensive because of the growth of urban areas into what were previously

wildlands. This has meant that fire must be fought vigorously to protect human life and property rather than making decisions based solely on natural

resource values. In addition, drought, insect infestations and continual suppression in some areas have caused a significant buildup of fuels.

The 1999 budget provides the 10-year average of $337 million for fire suppression which includes funding for fuels management. Included in this total is

$102 million in contingency funds. In addition, $250 million of 1997 emergency firefighting funds remain in contingency. For preparedness activities, the

Wildland Fire Management request includes $319 million.

Return to Table of Contents

FOOD SAFETY

MISSION

The Food Safety mission area oversees the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which ensures that the Nation's meat, poultry, and processed egg product

supply is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (54 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Federal Food Inspection $478 $493 $515

Import/Export Inspection 11 11 12

Laboratory Services 35 35 37

Field Automation & Information Mgmt 9 9 9

Grants to States 41 41 42

Special Assistance to State Programs 0 0 8

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds 85 86 86

 Total, FSIS Program Level 659 675 709

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds -85 -86 -86

New User Fees 0 0 -573

Start-up Costs 0 0 100

 Total, FSIS Appropriations $574 $589 $150

FSIS provides in-plant inspection to all domestic establishments preparing meat, poultry, and processed egg products for sale or distribution into

commerce, and also reviews foreign inspection systems and plants exporting these products to the United States. FSIS provides technical and cost-sharing

assistance to States that maintain inspection programs equal to the Federal inspection program. To accomplish these functions, FSIS employees are

stationed in approximately 6,000 establishments, including approximately 150 import stations. District field offices, the Technical Services Center and

FSIS laboratories provide administrative, technical, and analytical assistance to in-plant personnel. Headquarters personnel are responsible for overseeing

administration of the program and ensuring that the latest scientific and technological developments are incorporated into inspection procedures. FSIS

coordinates the development of its policies with other USDA agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as international organizations, to ensure an integrated farm-to-table approach to food safety.

On July 25, 1996, FSIS published the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems that is

expected to reduce foodborne illness by 25 percent by the year 2000. The first components of the rule were implemented on January 27, 1997. Since this

date all meat and poultry establishments have been required to maintain written Standard Operating Procedures for Sanitation to reduce the likelihood that

harmful bacteria will contaminate finished product. In addition, slaughter plants also have been required to test for generic E. coli. On January 26, 1998,

approximately 300 of the largest meat and poultry slaughter and processing establishments, producing 92 percent of all Federally inspected product,

implemented HACCP programs designed to target and reduce harmful bacteria on their products. Small establishments will have until January 1999 to

implement HACCP programs and the very smallest establishments will have until January 2000.

For 1999, the budget proposes a program level of $709 million, a net increase of $34 million over the 1998 current estimate. In 1999, FSIS will continue

the process of transforming the inspection process without an increase in staffing levels. The budget includes increases for pay costs and decreases due to

streamlining. In fiscal year 1999, the budget includes programmatic increases to build on the investments begun with the implementation of the Pathogen

Reduction and HACCP systems rule and the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative. Continued investment in food safety activities will enhance

public health by minimizing foodborne illness from meat, poultry, and egg products. Approximately $3 million is requested to address food safety risks

from farm-to-table, including the following:

● Development of voluntary measures that producers can utilize to reduce pathogenic contamination on the farm;

● HACCP training for egg processing inspectors;

● Tools that will improve an inspector's ability to evaluate product;

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (55 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
● Redeployment of inspectors to strengthen compliance efforts; and,

● Development and evaluation of consumer education messages.

The 1999 budget also includes $8 million for special assistance to State programs to facilitate their transformation to HACCP. Federal funding would be

made available for up to 75 percent of the costs for automation and laboratory testing equipment necessary to operate in a HACCP environment and for

the development and delivery of HACCP training to State inspectors. The 1999 budget also reflects the transfer of the Florida State inspection program to

the Federal government.

New User Fees. The 1999 budget request proposes legislation to recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg products inspection.

Requiring the payment of user fees for Federal inspection services would not only result in savings to the taxpayer, but would also ensure that sufficient

resources are available to provide the mandatory inspection services needed to meet increasing industry demand. The overall impact on prices as a result

of these fees has been estimated to be less than one cent per pound of meat, poultry, and egg products production. The implementation of the user fee

authority would be designed to be fair and equitable, promote accountability and efficiency, and minimize the impact on the competitive balance among

affected industries. Appropriated funds are requested to convert the Federal program to user fees and for maintaining State inspection programs.

Federal Food Inspection. FSIS inspects all carcasses in slaughter plants for disease and other abnormalities, and samples for the presence of chemical

residues. Other responsibilities ensure that establishments develop and implement sanitation standard operating procedures, and humane methods of

slaughter. Meat and poultry processing operations are inspected by FSIS on a daily basis. Typical processing operations include cutting, boning, curing,

and canning. Inspector activities include review of plant operations for sanitation and cleanliness, labeling, and packing functions. FSIS provides

mandatory continuous in-plant inspection to egg product processing plants. The inspector checks the acceptability of eggs, the sanitation of plant and

equipment, and determines if the egg products have been properly processed. FSIS reviews inspection systems in countries exporting meat, poultry and

egg products to the U.S. and inspects imported products at ports-of-entry.

Laboratory Services. FSIS operates three laboratories and has agreements with two other private laboratories to perform the scientific testing in support

of inspection operations. Samples sent to the laboratories are analyzed for food chemistry and to identify the presence of pathogens, residues, additives,

disease, and foreign matter.

Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM). FAIM provides improved telecommunications capability among the widely dispersed field

inspection workforce.

Grants to States. FSIS has authority to approve State meat and poultry inspection programs for products travelling in intrastate commerce. FSIS reviews

State inspection programs to assure that standards, at least equal to Federal standards, are applied to meat and poultry plants under State jurisdiction. For

State inspection programs, USDA contributes, through the Grants to States Program, up to 50 percent of each State's costs. Currently, 25 States

participate in the program.

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds. Currently, user fees are collected to recover the cost of inspection provided beyond regularly scheduled operations

and on holidays. Establishments requesting voluntary inspection services, which are not mandated by law are also charged a user fee to recover the full

cost of the inspection.

Return to Table of Contents

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (56 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

MISSION

The Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission area is assigned Federal leadership responsibility for the discovery and dissemination of

knowledge spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences related to agricultural research, economic analysis, statistics, extension, and higher

education. REE responsibilities are carried out by four agencies:

● The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house physical and biological science research agency in USDA.

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is the Federal partner in the USDA-supported system of extramural

scientific research, higher education, and extension in the United States.

● 

● The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural social science research agency in USDA.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provides the official current statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the

economic and environmental welfare of the farm sector. In 1996, NASS assumed responsibility for conducting the Census of Agriculture,

previously conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce.

● 

The REE mission is accomplished through programs and initiatives proposed in the 1999 budget that create and disseminate knowledge and provide

education to achieve the five Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals of the REE mission area. The desired outcomes are:

● an agricultural production system that is highly competitive in the global economy;

● a safe and secure food and fiber system;

● a healthy, well-nourished population;

● an agricultural system which protects natural resources and the environment; and

● enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

Funding for ARS, ERS and the research and education activities of CSREES is included within the Research Fund for America in the President's Budget.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (ARS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Information:

 Soil and Water Conservation $89 $86 $86

 Plant Science 244 256 265

 Animal Science 115 119 127

 Commodity Conversion and Delivery 142 147 151

 Human Nutrition 61 71 82

 Integration of Agricultural Systems 27 28 27

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (57 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Information and Library Services 20 18 20

 Repair and Maintenance 18 18 18

 Contingency Research Fund 1 1 1

 Total, Research and Information 717 745 777

Trust Funds 14 15 15

Buildings and Facilities 69 79 36

 Total, ARS $800 $839 $828

ARS provides access to agricultural information and develops new knowledge and technology needed to solve technical agricultural problems of broad

scope and high national priority. ARS is responsible for the National Agricultural Library (NAL), the Nation's major information resource in the food,

agricultural and natural resources sciences. ARS has 103 locations throughout the U.S. and abroad. Beltsville, Maryland is the site of the world's largest

multi-disciplinary agricultural research facility.

The 1999 budget includes a $32 million net increase for ARS research programs. Within the total, the agency will be redirecting $35 million from a

number of ongoing research projects to fund higher priority work.

Soil and Water Conservation. Development of a sound scientific basis to provide advanced technical assistance and education to producers to manage

and conserve soil and water resources is the primary focus of this research area. Federal research in ARS supports high priority programs in climate

change, soil and water quality, and economically and environmentally sustainable production systems. Increased funding will also support the President's

Environmental Initiative. The budget includes $2 million for research on management practices to minimize loss of nutrients and pathogens to the

environment and reduce the risk of adverse impacts from excessive nutrient levels in water, a suspected cause of the Pfiesteria outbreaks in the

Chesapeake Bay tributaries. An additional $3 million is proposed in support of the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative to develop strategies

and technologies to mitigate greenhouse emissions resulting from agricultural practices. ARS is also seeking $750,000 to fund high priority research in

support of the President's South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative.

Plant Science. Ongoing ARS research addresses a wide range of crop production issues, including pest and disease resistance, maintenance and

improvement of plant germplasm and understanding basic plant development and function. A $2 million increase is proposed to undertake additional

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and biocontrol research. ARS will continue to collaborate with CSREES and other public and private entities to

demonstrate, through pilot tests and the development of decision support systems, the economic and environmental benefits of species-specific pest

management technologies. ARS houses the Department's newly established Office of Pest Management Policy, which was created on September 8, 1997

to serve as the USDA office for coordination of pesticide regulatory issues, including strengthening the existing network of grower organizations and crop

specialists at land grant institutions. An increase of $1.5 million is included in the budget for these activities. Also included in the budget is $2 million for

extramural research on alternatives to methyl bromide. Research would be funded based on a priority-setting awards process which encourages grower

input.

An increase of $3 million is targeted for work to support the Food Genome Initiative, focused on agriculturally-important crops and livestock, and their

associated microbes. This work will contribute to increased food production, a cleaner environment, and more renewable energy resources. It will also

ensure the availability of genetically diverse collections of plant, animal and microbial germplasm. All activities will be coordinated with CSREES, the

National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy.

As part of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) interagency Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative, the budget includes an increase of

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (58 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
$2.3 million to develop methods to reduce the risk to U.S. crop production from infection by exotic foreign and new domestic plant diseases. Research

funding will be primarily devoted to wheat scab, potato blight, and sorghum ergot.

Animal Science. Research in this program is directed toward solving major issues faced by producers and consumers of meat and poultry products. Areas

of ARS emphasis include disease prevention, genetics and genome mapping, reproduction, and production-related nutrition and food quality and safety

concerns. An increase of $8 million will be used to develop new technologies for detection and control of pathogens at the producer level. This will

support the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative to ensure a safe and wholesome meat and poultry supply. Research will include the

development of detection methods, knowledge of how pathogens are transmitted to animals, and identification of production practices which contribute to

the incidence of contaminated food products. ARS animal science research will be coordinated with post-harvest research described below and with

funding being proposed in the CSREES, FSIS, ERS, OCE, and FNS budgets as part of the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative.

A $3.7 million program to support research on emerging exotic diseases of livestock is proposed in the 1999 budget as part of the NSTC Emerging

Infectious Diseases Initiative. Research will address the need to control the spread of non-native animal diseases through the development of diagnostic

methods and the determination of the transmission mode in live animals. Research will address the need to increase resistance of host animals and the

prevention of zoonotic diseases, which threaten the health of livestock and humans. An additional increase of $2 million will be used to support integrated

livestock production systems research to reduce odors attributed to these activities and to improve the efficiency of animal production.

Commodity Conversion and Delivery. This research within ARS focuses on post-harvest food safety and quality concerns, development of new food

and industrial uses for agricultural commodities and elimination of barriers to the export of commodities. An increase of $6 million as a component of the

President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative is proposed in 1999 to allow scientists to explore post-harvest means to control pathogens. Projects

proposed during 1999 include research to develop new handling systems and pathogen decontamination procedures for fresh fruits and vegetables;

development of methods to assure safety of noncooked products and assay methods to verify product safety; development of product safety sensors for

industry and consumers; and the development of chemical and physical agents needed to control food-borne pathogens.

An increase of $4 million is proposed for biomass research under the Climate Change Technology Initiative. Research will seek to improve the

production efficiency and utilization of biomass feedstocks, the use of herbaceous and woody crops to generate electricity, and increase the

competitiveness of ethanol fuel.

Human Nutrition. ARS supports six research centers dedicated to developing a better understanding of nutrition needs of diverse populations, including

children, the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and healthy adults. Results of this work identify the impact of food components in reducing chronic

disease risk and define health outcomes. ARS research activities in this area are closely coordinated with nutrition programs in USDA and medical

research programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requires the Secretary of

Agriculture to provide the Environmental Protection Agency information on food consumption patterns of a statistically valid sample of infants and

children. The data will be used by the EPA in conducting pesticide tolerance assessments that meet FQPA regulatory standards. Funds provided in 1997

and 1998 will support additional sampling under the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) to gather statistically valid food intake data

on infants and children. An increase of $1.5 million is requested in 1999 to expand the CSFII to increase the sample size to include population groups that

will require special attention as pesticide registration decisions are made under new guidelines established under the FQPA. An additional $9 million is

requested to update the National Nutrient Databank; study the relationship of diet to immunity from disease and infection; and research the changing

nutrient requirements throughout the life cycle.

Integration of Agricultural Systems. Research in this category includes projects to integrate the results of specific programs into production systems

which are sustainable, environmentally-benign and profitable for farmers and ranchers. Projects include the development of models and decision support

systems for education and technical assistance programs designed to assist producers in making production decisions and managing natural resources.

Information and Library Services. As part of ARS, NAL will continue to provide access to agricultural information through its online database and

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (59 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
CD-Roms. NAL is striving to provide agricultural information electronically and has initiated efforts to catalog, manage, and disseminate agricultural

related data through the Internet. This will increase USDA employee, researcher, and the general public's access to many of the library's resources.

Buildings and Facilities. Innovative research depends upon the availability of modern facilities. Many of the major ARS facilities were constructed prior

to 1960, are functionally obsolete and need major modernization to bring them up to current health and safety code requirements. A total of $35.9 million

is proposed in 1999 at eight locations:

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ($4 million). Construction of a quarantine facility for the study of biological agents to control the spread of Melaleuca in

South Florida. This research facility directly supports the Administration's initiative to restore the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem.

● 

Manhattan, Kansas ($1.4 million). Balance of funding needed for the first two phases of a four-phase modernization of the Grain Marketing and

Production Research Center.

● 

Peoria, Illinois ($8.4 million). Completion of the first phase of construction -- a bioprocessing pilot plant -- of the planned renovation of the North

Wing of the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research.

● 

● Ames, Iowa ($5.6 million). Modernization of the National Animal Disease Center.

Beltsville, Maryland ($3.7 million). Continued funding for modernization of the agricultural research center and NAL, consistent with facility

plans.

● 

Plum Island, New York ($3.5 million). Continued modernization of the foreign animal disease facility, including an upgrade of a pathological

incinerator and environmental remediation.

● 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ($3.3 million). Modernization of the chemical wing laboratory, phase five of a nine-phase plan to modernize this

regional research facility.

● 

New Orleans, Louisiana ($6 million). Continued modernization of the regional research facility, phase one construction in the modernization of the

Industrial Wing.

● 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Education $421 $430 $422

Extension Activities 426 424 419

Integrated Res., Educ. & Ext. Program

 (Small Farms Initiative) 0 0 4

Native American Endowment Fund 5 5 5

 Subtotal, Programs 852 859 850

FNS Community Food Projects 3 3 3

Fund for Rural America 2 34 0

Buildings and Facilities 62 0 0

Total, CSREES $919 $896 $853

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (60 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
CSREES provides funding for agricultural research, education, and extension conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,

State Cooperative Extension Systems, and other institutions. Federal funds are distributed to university and other partners by statutory formula,

competitive awards, and other means. CSREES serves as a leader and coordinator of the various planning and oversight processes through which

priorities are set and programs are administered. CSREES is also responsible for administering the competitive grant program for research, education and

extension projects funded under the Fund for Rural America. These grants provided under the Fund target applied, adaptive, and developmental research,

technology transfer and outreach activities to address high priority research needs. The total budget recommended for cooperative research and education

programs is $853 million. Within this total there are proposals for additional funding for competitively awarded research, pest management, food safety,

and several programs to strengthen minority-serving institutions of higher education. Offsetting reductions are proposed for selected formula programs

and special grants.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Formula Grants:

 Smith-Lever 3(b&c) Formula $268 $268 $258

 Hatch Act 169 169 154

 1890 Research and Extension 53 53 53

 Cooperative Forestry 20 20 20

 Low Income Nutrition Educ. (EFNEP) 59 59 56

 Other Formula Funding 8 8 8

 Total, Formula Grants 577 577 548

National Research Initiative (NRI) 94 97 130

Food Genome Initiative 0 0 10

Pest Research and Extension Programs:

 Improved Pest Control Research 10 14 23

 Pesticide Applicator Training 0 0 2

 Pest Management 11 11 15

 Pesticide Impact Assessment 5 5 5

 Total, Pest Res. and Ext. 26 30 45

Sustainable Agriculture Res. and Ext. 11 11 13

Food Safety Research and Extension 2 4 12

Higher Education Programs 19 19 19

Programs Supporting Civil Rights Initiative:

 Indian Reservation Extension Agents 2 2 5

 1890 Facilities 8 8 12

 Extension Services at 1994 Institutions 2 2 4

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (61 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Hispanic Serving Insts. Education Grants 2 3 3

 Small Farms Initiative 0 0 4

 Total, Programs in CR Initiative 14 15 28

Native American Inst. Endow. Fund 5 5 5

FNS Community Food Projects 3 3 3

Fund for Rural America 2 34 0

Other Research Grants 55 54 11

Other Extension Programs 28 26 20

Federal Administration 22 22 9

Buildings and Facilities 62 0 0

 Total, CSREES $919 $896 $853

RECAP:

 CSREES Appropriations $914 $859 $850

 Appropriations from FNS 3 3 3

 Fund for Rural America 2 34 0

 Total, CSREES $919 $896 $853

Formula Programs. Formula distributions to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES), 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University

(1890's) and other research institutions provide funds to conduct broad programs of agricultural and forestry research. On a nationwide basis, Hatch Act

formula funds represent about 8 percent of the research funding at SAES, while formula funds provide nearly all of the research funding at the 1890's. In

1999, the Hatch and Cooperative Forestry formulas are slated for a 9 and 3 percent reduction, respectively. The Smith-Lever 3(b&c) formula and the

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program would be reduced by 4 percent. States may choose to increase spending to offset these reductions in

Federal funds. Current law gives states broad authority to determine research and extension program priorities. The budget includes proposed legislation,

which will provide additional authority for states to use up to 10 percent of Hatch and Smith-Lever 3(b&c) formula funding interchangeably for research

or extension activities.

National Research Initiative. A wide range of environmental, health, and nutrition concerns have added complexity to production management

decisions faced by agricultural producers. At a national level, there is interest in assuring the safety of the food supply, providing systems for sustainable

food and fiber production, improving nutritional status, enhancing international competitiveness and improving economic opportunities for rural

residents. The 1999 research budget proposes an increase of $33 million for the National Research Initiative (NRI) to attract the Nation's top scientists to

address these issues. The NRI supports both fundamental and mission-linked research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process that is open to all of

the Nation's scientists. In 1999, $16 million of the total NRI funding is proposed to be used to support the new Food Genome Initiative aimed at

enhancing agricultural production of selected varieties. This is in addition to $10 million for a new CSREES program for the Food Genome Initiative

included in proposed legislation. A total of $3 million of increased funding for the NRI will support the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative.

Food Genome Initiative. The initiative is part of the Food Genome Strategy aiming to fill gaps in existing knowledge necessary for developing

technologies for attaining a sustainable and globally competitive agriculture. Coordinated with the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of

Health and the Department of Energy, the Initiative proposes to identify and develop a functional understanding of genes responsible for economically

important traits in plant, animals, and microbes that are important for agricultural production and crop biodiversity.

Pest Research and Extension Programs. In 1999, a total of $45 million is proposed for research and extension grants in support of the Department's

multi-year Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Initiative and to address the Department's responsibilities under the Food Quality Protection Act. Funding

is requested to support the following activities:

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (62 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Improved Pest Control Research:

Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control Research. This grant provides funding for research to develop alternative pest

management tactics for pest problems identified by farmers, researchers, and other members of IPM State and regional implementation teams.

Research projects that emphasize biological control, cultural control, and the study of the movement and dispersal of pests and beneficial

organisms, are given funding priority. Such practices implemented on an area-wide basis have been proven effective in controlling a number of

pests, including boll weevil, codling moth, and silverleaf whitefly.

● 

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4). Total funding of $10.7 million is proposed to assure that data are available to meet EPA's new regulatory

health standards for minor-use pesticides. This grant will support research necessary to obtain initial EPA registration of safer pesticides for minor

crops, including most fruits and vegetables and ornamental nursery crops. Emphasis will also be placed on biocontrol registrations.

● 

Pest Management Alternatives Program. Competitive research grants will be awarded to develop replacement technologies for pesticides

currently under consideration by EPA as a result of the new FQPA safety standards. USDA and EPA will work together to set priorities for

alternative pesticides to replace those that may be lost through regulatory action or that have become ineffective due to natural resistance.

● 

Pesticide Applicator Training. The budget provides $1.5 million for training in IPM practices to growers, commercial applicators, and homeowners in

using pesticides properly. The EPA is requesting a similar amount.

Extension Pest Management. Increased funding of $4 million is proposed to encourage farmers and handlers of agricultural products to adopt integrated

pest management techniques. Technology transfer projects are conducted at regional, State and local levels and coordinated with research in support of

the Administration's goal of extending the use of IPM practices to 75 percent of the U.S. crop acres by the year 2000.

National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP). Funding supports university scientists serving on assessment teams to

determine the economic benefits and consequences of various pest control alternatives for use in EPA re-registration activities.

Sustainable Agriculture. Environmental and profitability concerns have led many producers to examine alternative management systems which require

fewer off-farm inputs. Research and extension grants support the development and improvement of sustainable management practices for adoption in a

wide variety of climate, soil, and crop settings. In 1999, additional emphasis will be placed on environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional

farming practices on small and medium-sized farms.

Food Safety. An $8 million increase is proposed as part of the President's Food Safety Initiative for research and extension grants to study and provide

information on the food handling and storage practices of vulnerable population groups, such as the elderly, and develop methods to prevent or eliminate

food contamination. Additional educational programs will be developed to address ongoing critical issues faced by consumers. Key programs will include

quality assurance, compliance education, and State certification for food handlers. An additional $3 million is included in the increased funding under the

NRI.

Higher Education. Funding for higher education activities is proposed to support the Institution Challenge Grants Program and the Graduate Fellowship

Grants Program at the 1998 appropriated level. Funds are provided to continue ongoing programs which support graduate and undergraduate education

and which improve instructional capabilities in the food and agricultural sciences. Funding is held constant for the 1890 Capacity Building Grants

Program which supports partnerships between the 1890's and USDA agencies to improve the research and instruction programs at these schools.

Continued funding is also proposed for Native American Institutions.

Civil Rights Initiative. An increase of $13 million is proposed for CSREES programs that address recommendations of the CRAT report.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (63 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Extension Indian Reservation Program (EIRP). An increase of over $3 million is requested to support additional extension agents in the States.

EIRP grants are awarded on a competitive basis to enhance collaboration between the Tribal Councils and the State Cooperative Extension System.

● 

 1890 Facilities Projects. An increase of about $4.5 million above the 1998 appropriated level is provided for the renovation of existing buildings

and construction of new facilities to enable the 1890 institutions to fully benefit from the partnership between the Department and Historically

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

● 

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions. An increase of $1.5 million is proposed to expand the extension capacity at 29 Native American

Institutions, targeting education programs in agriculture, forestry, nutrition, and health economic development.

● 

Hispanic Serving Institution Education Grants. Continued funding of $2.5 million is proposed to enhance the capacity to deliver science-based

education in food and agricultural related disciplines.

● 

Small Farms Initiative. Included is $4 million to initiate an integrated small farm research and education program to address the resource

constraints experienced by small farm producers and those of diverse ethnic and racial origin. The new program is designed to help these producers

to operate their farms more efficiently and in an environmentally sound manner.

● 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE (ERS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Economic Analysis and Research $53 $72 $56

Trust Funds a/ a/ a/

Total, ERS $53 $72 $56

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

ERS provides economic analysis on efficiency, efficacy, and equity issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural development to

improve public and private decision making. Activities to support this mission include research and development of economic and statistical indicators on

a broad range of topics. Funding for ERS is proposed as part of the Research Fund for America which emphasizes the Administration's commitment to

provide funding for investments in the Nation's key research programs. Increased funding is included to support economic research and analysis on three

high priority issues:

Food Safety ($906,000). This initiative would result in more accurate assessments of the costs of foodborne illness and support more informed

decisions about policies related to food safety. ERS would utilize the Sentinel Site Survey Data, and work with the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention to more accurately assess the costs of foodborne illness and the economic consequences of efforts to improve food safety. ERS would

also collaborate on the development of risk assessment models to identify where pathogens enter the food chain and where control efforts would be

most cost-effective.

● 

Information for Small Farmers ($350,000). Funding is included for an assessment of the Department's role in meeting the information needs of

small farmers. ERS will assess how information needs vary by the type of operation, how well USDA and private information services meet the

needs of small farmers, and what reforms and modifications in the Department's current market information programs are needed in order to better

serve small farmers.

● 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (64 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Electric Utility Deregulation ($200,000). This increase would support research on electric utility deregulation in order to assess the potential

impacts of deregulation on the Department's rural utility loan programs, the competitiveness of rural businesses and communities, and rural

households.

● 

In addition, the budget reflects the Administration's proposal to fund food program studies, which were included in the ERS appropriation in 1998, in the

Food and Nutrition Service.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE (NASS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Agricultural Estimates $79 $79 $80

Statistical Research and Service 4 3 3

Census of Agriculture 17 36 24

Trust Funds a/ a/ a/

 Total, NASS $100 $118 $107

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

NASS statistics provide the basic information necessary to keep agricultural markets stable and efficient and help maintain a "level playing field" for all

users of agricultural statistics. The mission of NASS is to meet the basic agricultural and rural data needs of the people of the United States, those

working in agriculture, and those living in rural communities by providing important, objective, usable, and accurate statistical information and services

for informed decision making. With the 1999 proposed budget for NASS, 98 percent of total national agricultural production will be included in the

NASS annual estimates program. This is an increase of 5 percent above 1998. For the NASS Agricultural Estimates program, an increase is proposed to

expand the current pesticide use surveys to include the fast growing nursery and greenhouse industries. In addition to providing pesticide use data for an

important sector of agriculture, this initiative supports the CRAT recommendation to address the needs of farmworkers.Overall, the budget reflects a net

decrease of $11 million largely due to the cyclical funding needs of the Census. Within this amount, increases are proposed for two special studies which

follow the 1997 Census of Agriculture:

The Agriculture Economics Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) ($100,000) has historically been conducted every ten years following the

Census of Agriculture since the 1950's. This survey provides the only comprehensive source of data on agricultural land ownership, financing and

inputs by farm operators and landlords for each State. Funding in 1999 would enable NASS to meet with major users of AELOS data to receive

input into the scope and content of the program, to determine the final AELOS questionnaire, and conduct limited field content tests.

● 

A National census of the fast growing aquaculture industry ($500,000) for which very little data is currently available. This census of all farms

participating in the 1997 Census of Agriculture that produced and sold $1,000 or more of aquaculture or aquaculture products would provide, for

the first time, National and State level detailed data about aquaculture production.

● 

● Return to Table of Contents

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (65 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

MISSION

The mission of Marketing and Regulatory Programs is to facilitate the domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and to

ensure the health and care of animals and plants while improving market competitiveness and the economy for the overall benefit of both

consumers and American agriculture.

The Marketing and Regulatory Programs are administered by three agencies: the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Marketing Services:

 Market News $22 $23 $24

 Shell Egg Surveillance and

 Standards Development 6 6 6

 Market Protection and Promotion:

 Pesticide Data Program a/ 8 18

 Organic Certification b/ b/ 1

 Other 4 5 4

 Wholesale Market Development 2 2 2

 Transportation Services 3 3 3

 Total, Marketing Services 37 47 58

Payments to States 1 1 1

Section 32 Funds:

 Marketing Agreements and Orders (MA&O) 10 11 11

 Commodity Purchase Services 6 6 6

 Total, Section 32 Funds 16 17 17

User Fees:

 Perishable Agricultural Commodities

 Act 9 9 7

 Commodity Grading Services 155 165 166

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (66 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, User Fee Funded Programs 164 174 173

 Total, AMS Program Level 218 238 249

User Fees -164 -174 -173

Section 32 Funds -16 -17 -17

 Total, AMS Appropriations $38 $48 $59

a/ Program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency

 in 1997 at a program level of $10.6 million.

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

AMS facilitates the marketing of agricultural products in domestic and international markets, while ensuring fair trading practices. AMS programs

promote a competitive and efficient marketplace, which benefits consumers and producers. A majority of AMS programs are voluntary and funded

by the users of the program. AMS has cooperative agreements with the States to administer in whole or in part several AMS programs. Under these

agreements, State employees carry out the program. AMS is organized along commodity lines that reflect major segments of the agricultural

industry. Headquarters staff are responsible for overseeing the administration of programs. AMS field employees are located in processing plants,

at shipping points, produce terminals, auction houses, and warehouses. Field offices, established for supervision and administrative purposes, are

located in key production areas.

For 1999, the AMS budget proposes a program level of $249 million of which $173 million (70 percent) will be funded by user fees and $76

million (30 percent) by appropriations and section 32 funds.

Marketing Services. AMS administers a variety of programs that enhance the marketing and distribution of agricultural products. Activities

include the dissemination of market information, surveillance of shell egg handling operations, development of grade standards, protection of

producers from unfair marketing practices, random testing of commodities for pesticide residues, development of organic standards, research and

technical assistance aimed at improving efficiency of food marketing and distribution, and pesticide recordkeeping.

The 1999 budget requests programmatic increases of $10.5 million for the Pesticide Data Program (PDP). This includes funding for the following

activities:

❍ $2.5 million to maintain statistically reliable sampling and analysis in all 10 participating States.

$1.7 million to initiate a rapid response capability necessary to support EPA data requirements under Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

(FQPA). The FQPA requires EPA to complete risk assessment evaluations for pesticides affecting multiple commodities. More than 9,000

tolerances will need to be reviewed in the next 10 years. PDP data will play a crucial role in EPA's evaluations, because it provides

information concerning the actual presence of pesticides in foods. Without PDP data, EPA would need to rely on assumptions that may

overstate the risk of important pest controls.

❍ 

$6.3 million to broaden the scope of PDP to include microbiological testing of fruits and vegetables as part of the President's Food Safety

Initiative. Scientifically-sound estimates of pathogenic contamination will be used to assess the food safety risk posed by microbiological

pathogens on fruits and vegetables and target resources to the highest risk areas. Program costs will be minimized by utilizing PDP's existing

sampling infrastructure, state laboratories, and data reporting capabilities.

❍ 

The budget also includes an increase of $1.3 million to improve the marketing of agricultural products by expanding foreign market news reports to

include South and Central America; increasing the reporting of livestock and poultry markets in accordance with the recommendations set forth by

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (67 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration, and implementing the Organic Certification Program.

Payments to States. Under this program, AMS provides matching funds to State Departments of Agriculture for projects aimed at improving

marketing efficiency, reducing marketing costs for producers, and lowering food costs for consumers. This program is funded at the 1998 level.

Section 32 Funds. Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 authorizes the appropriation for each fiscal year of an amount equal to 30 percent of

the gross receipts from duties collected under custom laws of the United States during the preceding calendar year. Unused amounts which do not

exceed $300 million are available for use in the following fiscal year. These funds are used to: encourage exports of agricultural commodities;

encourage domestic consumption of such commodities; and to reestablish farmers purchasing power. At this time these funds are used to strengthen

markets by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities for distribution through feeding programs; administer marketing agreements

and orders at the national level; and for public hearings and producer referenda. Marketing agreements and orders help stabilize market prices and

the supply of milk, fruit, vegetables, and certain specialty crops. The orders are administered locally by marketing order committees and market

administrators. Local activities are funded through assessments on regulated producers and handlers.

Section 32 funds are also used to finance the administrative costs associated with the purchase of commodities that support domestic food

assistance programs, such as the National School Lunch Program. In addition, AMS is responsible for developing the specifications used for food

procurement throughout the Federal government.

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. This Act provides protection to producers, shippers, distributors, and retailers from unfair and

fraudulent practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities. Full and prompt payment for such products is a key objective of the

program. The program is funded through an annual licensing fee paid by those subject to the Act.

Commodity Grading Services. AMS provides voluntary commodity grading and classing services for dairy products, fresh and processed fruits

and vegetables, meat and meat products, poultry, eggs, tobacco, and cotton. AMS recovers the cost of these services through user fees.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Pest and Disease Exclusion:

 Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) $158 $168 $175

 Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection 21 21 22

 International Programs 7 8 8

 Screwworm 32 32 31

 All Other 16 16 16

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring:

 Animal Health Monitoring and Survey 60 61 66

 Animal and Plant Health Regulatory

 Enforcement 6 6 6

 Pest Detection 4 6 7

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (68 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Pest and Disease Management:

 Boll Weevil 17 16 4

 Brucellosis Eradication 22 20 12

 Wildlife Services Operations 27 28 26

 All Other 32 31 31

Animal Care 10 10 10

Scientific and Technical Services 53 53 53

Contingency Fund 6 5 4

 Total, APHIS Salaries and Expenses 471 481 471

Emergency Programs funded from CCC 31 24 0

Trust Funds 8 7 7

Buildings and Facilities 9 4 5

 Total, APHIS Program Level $519 $516 $483

Recap:

 APHIS Appropriations $349 $343 $323

 AQI User Fees 131 141 143

 Emergency Programs 31 24 0

 Trust Funds 8 7 7

 New User Fees 0 0 10

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for protecting U.S. animal and plant resources from diseases and pests, addressing

conflicts with wildlife, and responding to issues of animal well-being. The major areas of activity are as follows:

❍ Providing inspection and quarantine services at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of foreign or exotic diseases or pests;

Surveying and monitoring the spread of plant pests and animal diseases for Federal, State, local, and private action and to document U.S.

agricultural health status for trading partners;

❍ 

❍ Administering control and eradication programs to combat outbreaks of plant pests and animal diseases;

Providing scientific and technical assistance to mitigate damage caused by wildlife to agricultural, industrial, natural resources, or human

health;

❍ 

❍ Inspecting for humane care and handling of animals used in research, exhibition or the wholesale pet trade; and

❍ Providing scientific and technical assistance for biotechnology, disease diagnostics, and pest control methods development.

APHIS conducts agricultural pest and disease inspection services at all major international airports, shipping ports, and land borders. The agency's

field activities are managed through 13 Regional offices and 407 field offices. Much of the agency's work is conducted in cooperation with State

and local agencies, private groups, and foreign governments.

The 1999 budget proposes a program level of $471 million for Salaries and Expenses, a $10 million decrease below the 1998 current estimate. This

funding level reflects significant redirection of Agency activities due to the program successes in many pest and disease management programs

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (69 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
such as brucellosis eradication, increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries for Wildlife Services Operations, and transferring more responsibilities of

eradicating boll weevil to cotton producers now that additional loan programs are operational. This funding level also includes increases for Fruit

Fly Exclusion and Detection and International Program activities to increase protection of American agriculture from pests and diseases.

Additionally, the 1999 budget proposes user fees to recover some of the costs for administering animal welfare, biotechnology, veterinary biologic,

pink bollworm, and Swine Health Protection Act programs.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI). The AQI program is the Nation's frontline defense against the introduction of dangerous agricultural

pests and diseases from other countries. User fees are charged for inspection of international passengers, aircraft, ships, railcars and trucks. The

1999 budget proposes $175 million for AQI activities. Increased traffic of Asian and European agricultural products into the United States through

Canada has created the need for increased inspections to reduce the risk of introducing exotic agricultural pests into the U.S. APHIS will likely

inspect upwards of 85 million passengers potentially carrying banned agricultural products into the United States.

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection. The 1999 budget provides a program increase of $0.7 million to strengthen fruit fly detection and control

activities. The agency will carry out Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to minimize the use of Malathion by enhancing exclusion

and detection activities. APHIS will strengthen domestic fruit fly detection and control by increasing detection surveys in expanding urban areas

where introduction is most likely. The increased funding will assure US trading partners of our commitment to fruit fly control and ease entry of

US produce into foreign countries.

International Programs. The 1999 budget also requests an additional $0.6 million for international activities. APHIS would open new offices in

Southeast Asia and Brazil to direct APHIS Sanitary/Phytosanitary (SPS) activities. The Agency has taken on greater responsibility for resolving

SPS conflicts since the signing of the World Trade Organization agreement. Further, funds would be used to resolve SPS standard requirements for

U.S. agricultural trade. Such funding would help meet the Secretary's goal to double agricultural exports over the next several years.

Screwworm. The 1999 budget proposes a $1.4 million reduction below the 1998 current estimate. The Screwworm Eradication program protects

the U.S. livestock industry by eradicating screwworm from Mexico and Central American countries thereby minimizing the risk of spread to the

domestic industry. Active eradication efforts will focus on Costa Rica and Panama where the total land mass is less than in Nicaragua and

eradication costs can be reduced. The agency will begin sterile fly releases into Panama, the last country before the barrier is established in the

Isthmus of Panama. The Nicaragua program will maintain prevention and surveillance activities through the rest of 1998 and serve as a principal

dispersal center for the Costa Rican program.

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHMS). The 1999 budget requests $66 million, $4.5 million above 1998. APHIS intends to

expand the National Animal Health Monitoring System to routinely identify diseases and death loss trends in sentinel feedlot and dairy cattle and

swine. The Agency would enhance its emergency preparedness, and response capabilities by upgrading its Foreign Animal Disease Reporting and

Networking System and developing and training on biological terrorism and other emerging disease issues. The remaining increase would be used

to work cooperatively with State and Federal wildlife agencies to investigate, study and evaluate disease conditions in wildlife.

Brucellosis. The Department cooperates with State governments, industry organizations, and individual herd owners to eradicate brucellosis. The

1999 budget proposes an $8 million reduction in brucellosis eradication expenditures. APHIS has 9 States in the final stages of eradication and

anticipates that all 50 States will be in Class "Free" Status by the end of 1999. As of August 31,1997, there were 18 herds under quarantine,

compared to 45 herds at the end of August 1996.

Boll Weevil. The 1999 budget proposes a reduction of $12 million below the 1998 current estimate. The Agency is gradually transferring full

operational responsibility for program activities where the boll weevil no longer exists to grower organizations. APHIS would continue to oversee

and provide technical support to boll weevil detection and control activities in eradicated and non-infested areas. Growers can pay a greater share

of program costs due to loans made available from USDA's Farm Service Agency.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (70 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Wildlife Services (WS). The 1999 budget proposes a reduction of $2.5 million in the Federal share of the WS operating expenses, in order to

reduce the disparity of the cost sharing assistance among individual States. Currently, most States pay at least half of the total cost of WS

operations. APHIS will reduce its direct control and assistance programs, while pursuing increased or new cost sharing initiatives. The budget

moves in the direction of reducing the level of Federal assistance for each State so that the Federal share does not exceed 50 percent of the total

program level. Achieving the reduced cooperative level is expected over a 2 and 3-year period, except for States with very small needs for technical

assistance.

Buildings and Facilities. An appropriation of $5.2 million is proposed for general maintenance and to support continued modernization of the

Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) facilities in 1999. Of this amount, $3.2 million would be provided, in addition to a $3.5 million

proposal included in the Agricultural Research Service budget for PIADC. General repairs and maintenance of other APHIS buildings would be

funded with the remaining $2 million.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION (GIPSA)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Salaries and Expenses:

 Grain Inspection Activities $11 $11 $11

 Packers and Stockyards Activities 12 13 18 a/

Existing User Fees 34 43 43

 Total, GIPSA Program Level 57 67 72

Existing User Fees -34 -43 -43

New User Fees:

 Grain Standardization 0 0 -3

 Methods Development 0 0 -3

 Capitalization and Startup Costs 0 0 4

 Packers and Stockyards Activities 0 0 -15

 Total, GIPSA Appropriations $23 $24 $12

a/ Includes a one-time restructuring cost of $3 million.

GIPSA establishes the official U.S. standards for grain, conducts official weighing and grain inspection activities, and grades rice, dry beans and

peas, processed grain products, and hops. The agency also provides assurance for the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets.

The agency monitors competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat

and poultry prices.

GIPSA supervises 8 state and 57 designated private agencies for grain inspection and weighing services at domestic locations; provides supervision

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (71 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
and other services from 24 field offices; and handles appeals of grain inspection services in Kansas City, Missouri. Packers and Stockyards (P&S)

Programs currently operates out of 11 field offices. For 1999, GIPSA requests $3 million in one-time costs to restructure its P&S Programs. The

restructuring will: (1) consolidate the two current program divisions and six branches into a single policy/litigation support office with 3 branches;

(2) consolidate 11 regions into 3; and (3) transfer at least 20 percent of the headquarters positions to the field.

For 1999, the budget proposes a program level for Salaries and Expenses of $29 million with $11 million being devoted to grain inspection

activities for standardization, compliance, and methods development. The methods development activities include new and improved tests and

procedures for determining grain quality, the economic analysis of consequences from changing such procedures, and also determining the criteria

and recommending specifications for grain inspection instrumentation. The 1999 budget proposes legislation to authorize the collection of $6

million in additional user fees to cover costs of developing, reviewing, and maintaining official U.S. grain standards used by the entire grain

industry and for methods development that produce new or improved techniques for measuring grain quality. GIPSA expects this level of funding

to be sufficient to support 260 million metric tons of official grain inspection activities.

The 1999 budget proposes $18 million for Packers and Stockyards Programs, which includes the following changes:

an increase of $0.2 million to enable electronic submission of industry data as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which will

result in a savings to businesses;

❍ 

an increase of $0.8 million to expand poultry compliance activities. GIPSA would increase the number and scope of poultry compliance

investigations;

❍ 

an increase of $0.8 million for monitoring and analyzing packer competitive practices and the implications of structural changes and

behavioral practices in the meat packing industry;

❍ 

❍ an increase of $3 million to reorganize the Packers and Stockyards field structure to better target resources; and

❍ an increase of $0.2 million to implement a dealer trust.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration addressed the issue of concentration in agriculture. The Department reviewed

the recommendations and has taken steps to implement some of them. For example, USDA has broadened the coverage of market reports in

livestock to include the volume of slaughter cattle contracted for sale and expanded reporting to include value-based pricing indicators (premiums

and discounts). Other initiatives being considered or under development include several intended to continue improvement of market information

and producers' understanding of market forces such as providing information on slaughter by grade and yield on a regional basis. Also, the Packers

and Stockyards Program of GIPSA is conducting additional analyses of the effects of concentration on prices using data collected for the Packer

Concentration study. GIPSA expects this level of funding is needed to conduct 1,950 investigations in 1999, 150 more than in 1998.

The 1999 budget again proposes legislation to authorize a dealer trust similar to that of the packer trust. Dealers would be required to maintain trust

assets covering the value of livestock inventories and accounts receivable due from the sale of livestock until the livestock is paid for. This

legislation is intended to mitigate the effects of dealer financial failures which represent a significant amount of unrecovered losses in the livestock

marketing chain.

The 1999 budget also reproposes legislation to authorize the collection of license fees to administer the Packers and Stockyards Act (the Act).

License fees would be applied to those subject to the Act (i.e., packers, livestock and poultry dealers, and meat buyers) to protect them from unfair

and fraudulent marketing practices. The budget includes $4 million to capitalize a reserve fund and to finance start-up costs.

Return to Table of Contents

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (72 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES AND CENTRALIZED ACTIVITIES

The Departmental offices provide leadership, coordination and support for all administrative and policy functions of the Department. These offices

assist program agencies throughout the Department in their efforts to provide efficient and effective service to all USDA customers. The

Department also has a number of centralized activities which have separate appropriations. These centrally managed operations provide efficient,

economical services through economies of scale and management attention for the benefit of all participating agencies. These activities are

managed by the Departmental staff offices or coordinated at the Departmental level.

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Departmental Offices:

 Office of the Secretary $11 $11 $12

 Departmental Administration

 Staff Offices 23 25 32

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged

 Farmers 6 3 10

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 5 6 7

 Office of the General Counsel 28 29 30

 Office of the Inspector General 63 63 88

 Office of Communications 8 8 8

Executive Operations:

 Office of the Chief Economist 4 5 6

 National Appeals Division 12 12 13

 Office of Budget and Program

 Analysis 6 6 6

 Total, Executive Operations 22 23 25

Centrally Financed Activities:

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities

 and Rental Payments 144 131 156

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16 16

 Trust Funds 1 1 1

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (73 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Total, Centralized Activities 161 148 173

 Total, Departmental Offices

 and Centralized Activities $331 $320 $390

Following are some highlights of the budget proposals for the above offices and activities.

The Departmental Administration (DA) Staff Offices provide staff support to policy officials and overall direction and coordination for the

management of human resources, civil rights, outreach, property, procurement, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings

conducted by the Administrative Law Judges, Judicial Officer, and Board of Contract Appeals.

The request includes additional resources for DA staff offices of $6.3 million, which will be used to meet the Department's Strategic Goal of

ensuring that all employees and customers are treated fairly and equitably with dignity and respect. The funds will support the following activities:

Additional staffing in the Office of Human Resources Management to improve personnel services and technical advice to USDA agencies;

support improved USDA workforce planning; ethics awareness and compliance; and develop, maintain and evaluate civil rights training for

all USDA employees.

❍ 

Additional staffing to improve outreach to USDA customers including support for the new USDA Office of Outreach, more oversight of

USDA agencies' contracts and agreements, increase efforts to transfer excess Federal Personal Property to 1890, 1994 and Hispanic-Serving

Institutions, and conduct additional conferences for small businesses to improve USDA contracting practices and expand the list of eligible

small and disadvantaged businesses for USDA agency use.

❍ 

Additional staffing to enhance management-employee relations and support early resolution of employee grievances and conflicts within

USDA.

❍ 

In 1997 and 1998, the Congress has increased funding specifically for civil rights activities within DA. These activities will continue and the

additional resources will be used to build on these improvements.

The newly established Office of Outreach within DA assumed responsibility in 1998 for providing Departmentwide leadership and coordination to

assure that all eligible customers have access to USDA programs and services and for administering the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach

Program. Authorized by Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the program is designed to assist socially

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to participate in USDA programs and be successful in their operations by providing outreach and technical

assistance. The proposal for 1999 includes an increase of $7 million bringing the total appropriated for this activity to $10 million.

To facilitate the processing and adjudicating of civil rights complaints, increased funding is also included to expand the Civil Rights Division in the

Office of the General Counsel.

The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) provides policy guidance, leadership, and coordination to USDA's information management

and technology investment activities. The proposed increase for 1999 includes $1.5 million for further development of the Department's

Information Technology Capital Planning and Investment Control programs and the USDA Information Architecture.

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides overall direction and leadership in the development of modern financial systems in

the Department. The proposed increase of $279 thousand for 1999 includes funds to strengthen the Department's capability to provide cost of

service information, particularly with regard to implementing the Government Performance and Results Act.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (74 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Department, reviews and makes recommendations on existing and proposed legislation and regulations, and recommends policies and activities to

promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud and mismanagement in USDA operations. The increase of about $25 million

includes pay costs and law enforcement retirement benefits and about $22 million to support a special Presidential Law Enforcement Initiative.

Included in the Law Enforcement Initiative is funding for OIG to expand activities to crack down on fraud and abuse in the food stamp and other

nutrition programs. In this area, OIG estimates that over $50 million a year in food stamps goes illegally to convicted felons and prison inmates,

and that a sizable number of retailers who accept food stamps make money from them illegally. OIG's recent pilot effort, Operation Talon, has been

extremely successful. In the 24 metropolitan areas around the country included in the pilot, Operation Talon resulted in the arrest of over 2,200

fugitive felons and the savings of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. This initiative will allow OIG to expand these efforts nationwide.

In addition to food stamp fraud, the initiative funds will also enable OIG to dedicate more resources to rural rental housing programs, and disaster

and health and safety programs requiring immediate response. Health and safety of food from production to the consumer is of special concern

because of such highly visible emergencies as contaminated strawberries in the School Lunch Program and the tainted meat in the food distribution

chain resulting in the recall of 25 million pounds of ground beef from public consumption.

The Chief Economist advises the Secretary on policies and programs related to U.S. agriculture and rural areas, provides objective analysis on the

impacts of policy options on the agricultural and rural economy, and participates in planning and development programs to improve the

Department's forecasts, projections, and policy analysis capabilities. The proposed increase would continue USDA's initiative to provide enhanced

weather and climate data for agricultural areas. This initiative includes modernization of USDA's weather and climate data acquisition equipment to

allow USDA to continue to provide data to and receive data from the National Weather Service, and implementation of the second phase of the

National Agricultural Weather Observing Network which will manage the collection, quality control, and dissemination of the weather and climate

data in agricultural areas. In addition, the Budget includes an increase for the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis in support of

the President's Interagency Food Safety Initiative, and an increase to fund the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture as mandated by

the 1996 Farm Bill. The Commission is conducting a comprehensive review and assessment of the future of production agriculture in the U.S. and

the appropriate role of the Federal Government in support of production agriculture.

The Department's Strategic Space Plan for buildings and facilities is based on projected staffing level at the Washington headquarters. In 1999,

the Department is requesting $155.7 million for its facilities programs covered under the Agriculture Buildings and Facilities Appropriation. The

request includes $108 million for rental payments to the General Services Administration (GSA); $24 million for the operation and maintenance of

the headquarters complex including the new Beltsville facility, and $23.5 million for the continued renovation of the South Building to correct

health and safety hazards and provide modern facilities. The Beltsville facility will be ready for occupancy in early 1998. The design for the first

phase of the South Building renovation was completed in 1997 and award of a construction contract is scheduled for February 1998. The design for

phase 2 of the modernization in Wing 4 is now underway and scheduled to be completed during 1998. The 1999 request includes funds for the

construction of phase 2.

Return to Table of Contents

SECRETARY'S CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (75 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Current 1999

 Program Estimate Budget

Fund Civil Rights Activities in DA $12.8 $17.8

Improve Outreach to USDA Customers and Socially

 Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 3.0 10.0

Civil Rights Division Within OGC 0.2 0.9

Fund Small Farms Initiative 0.0 4.0

Address Disparities in Funding of Institutes of

 Higher Education:

 1890 Facilities 8.0 12.0

 Extension Services at 1994 Institutions 2.0 3.5

 Hispanic Serving Institutions Educ. Grants 2.5 2.5

Increase Extension Indian Reservation Program 1.7 5.0

Farm Ownership and Farm Operating Loans:

 Farm Ownership at $85 Million Level in 1999 6.0 13.0

 Farm Operating Loans at 

 $500 Million Level in 1999 32.0 34.0

Farm Labor Housing Program:

 Subsidy for $32 million in Loans in 1999 7.3 17.0

 Farm Labor Housing Grant Level 10.0 13.0

 Rural Rental Assistance Payments 5.0 10.0

Address the Needs of Farmworkers:

 Fund NASS Pesticide Use Survey 5.7 7.1

Provide Increased EQIP Funds to Low-Income

 Farmers and to Address Environmental Needs 0.0 100.0

 Total, Civil Rights $96.2 $249.8

The Secretary appointed a Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) to investigate longstanding civil rights issues facing the Department in both program

delivery and employment. The CRAT issued a report in February 1997, which contained findings and made a number of recommendations. The

Secretary directed quick implementation of those recommendations that could be immediately put in place and directed the development of an

implementation plan for other recommendations.

Full implementation of the CRAT recommendations was estimated to have a 5-year cost of about $1.2 billion. The 1999 budget includes almost

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (76 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
$250 million for CRAT related activities. These include:

Administration. Additional staffing for civil rights activities to improve civil rights related personnel services and technical assistance to

agencies, increase outreach and assistance efforts to under represented customers and groups, enhance management-employee relations and

support early resolution of complaints. An increase is proposed for the newly established Office of Outreach within DA to assure that all

eligible customers have access to USDA programs and services and for the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach Program, which is

authorized by Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. An increase is also proposed to facilitate the

processing and adjudicating of civil rights complaints by expanding the civil rights division in OGC.

❍ 

Research, Education, Extension and Statistics. Funds are requested to support an integrated research, extension, and education

competitive grants program through CSREES for new technology adoption and transfer to small farms. This initiative is intended to foster

greater diversity in small farm enterprises as well as enhance current small farms production capabilities.

Additional funds are requested to address disparities in funding and enhance the Department's cooperative efforts with institutions of higher

education that are primarily devoted to the needs of minority students. Funds will also be targeted to improve outreach to socially

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in cooperation with these institutions to help stem the reduction of minority small farmers. The

Extension Indian Reservation program will be expanded to meet the need for greater outreach by Extension Agents. Increased funding will

support NASS's collection of data on pesticide usage in nursery and greenhouse crops, where the potential for farmworker exposure is high.

❍ 

Farm Credit. Funds are proposed to support farm ownership and operating loans at the levels recommended by the CRAT report. Direct

farm ownership loans would be increased from $46 million in 1998 to $85 million in 1999. This funding increase will allow over 1,000

family farmers to either acquire their own farm or to save an existing one -- nearly 500 more than in 1998. Roughly 60 percent of these loans

are provided to limited resource borrowers.

❍ 

Farm Labor Housing. Funds are provided to support a total of $55 million in loans and grants to construct housing for some of the Nation's

neediest families. This is over an 80 percent increase from the 1998 level.

❍ 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program. An increase of $100 million is requested to address CRAT recommendations and Clean

Water Initiative goals.

❍ 

Return to Table of Contents

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT AND RELATED PROGRAMS

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

IPM Initiative -- Research and Extension to Address Producer-Identified

Needs

 CSREES:RE IPM Research Grant Program $3 $3 $8

 CSREES:RE Pest Management Alternatives 2 2 4

 CSREES:RE Expert IPM Decision Support

 System a/ a/ a/

 CSREES:Ext. IPM Application 11 11 15

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (77 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 ARS Areawide IPM Research 6 6 6

 ERS IPM Research 1 1 1

 Total, IPM Initiative 23 23 34

Pesticide Use Data Collection and Analysis

 ARS Food Intake Surveys 1 5 2

 NASS Pesticide Use Surveys 6 6 7

 ERS Pesticide Use Analysis 2 2 2

 AMS Pesticide Data Program a/ 8 12

 AMS Pesticide Recordkeeping 2 3 3

 Total, Data Collection and Analysis 11 24 26

Pesticide Registration, Clearance, Assessment, Training

 ARS-Minor Use Clearance (IR-4) 2 2 2

 CSREES:RE Minor Crop Pest Mgmt (IR-4) 6 9 11

 ARS/CSREES/ERS/FS NAPIAP 6 6 8

 CSREES:Ext. Pesticide Applicator Training 0 0 2

 Total, Pesticide Registration 14 17 23

Contributing Research and Application Programs -- IPM and Biocontrol

 CSREES:RE NRI, Formulas, Other b/ 35 36 34

 ARS Research 66 77 76

 FS-IPM Research 9 9 9

 ERS Research a/ a/ a/

 Total, Ongoing Research 110 122 119

 APHIS Application 51 50 40

 NRCS/FSA IPM Application 7 10 10

 FS-IPM Application 14 15 15

 Total, Application 72 75 65

 Total, IPM and Related Programs $230 $261 $267

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ The actual for 1997 includes 1996 NRI grants awarded in 1997,

 as well as 1997 awards.

In 1993 USDA, EPA, and FDA responded to concerns about the public health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides with a

commitment to encourage the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on 75 percent of U.S. crop acreage by the year 2000, to promote the

use of safer pesticides with reform of the registration program under current legislation, and to work with Congress on legislation to make major

reforms in pesticide registration. Significant progress has been made, but work remains to be done.

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (78 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in late 1996. FQPA establishes an entirely new registration system that features legislative

deadlines for reregistration of all pesticides within 10 years, with intermediate deadlines for those pesticides of the greatest concern. FQPA also

provides a special level of protection for foods consumed by children. While EPA has the primary responsibility for implementing FQPA, USDA

has important supporting responsibilities to gather data on food consumption and pesticide use, to develop new pest control techniques and

strategies, and to encourage the widespread adoption of safer pest control practices.

Beginning with the budget for fiscal year 1996, USDA has sought additional funding for:

A multi-faceted initiative built around producer-identified needs for applied research and education projects using pest control

technologies that are ready for large-area trials and adoption. The budget proposes increases of $9 million for combined IPM research and

extension grants for Phase II implementation of 19 projects that were planned in 1995 and 1996 under Phase I planning grants. Congress has

provided partial support for the Pest Management Alternatives Program that supports work on alternatives to pesticides under EPA review.

The 1999 budget proposes to more than double funding for this research program. Congress has also supported requests for several areawide

projects in ARS and the budget proposes to expand these promising projects in 1999.

❍ 

Various pesticide use data and analysis programs. In 1998 Congress provided funding for additional sampling of children in the

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals. The 1999 budget recommends additional sampling of other population groups that may

have special risk characteristics. Congress also returned funding of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to the Agricultural Marketing Service

in 1998 and the 1999 recommendation is for additional funding to provide a quick response to FQPA-related needs. In addition to funds

supporting FQPA needs, $6.3 million is proposed for PDP to establish a microbiological baseline in support of the President's Interagency

Food Safety Initiative. The budget calls for an additional pesticide use survey by NASS to be sure there is a good understanding of current

practices for labor-intensive crops where worker exposure is a special concern.

❍ 

Programs that support the pesticide registration process. Congress provided an increase in the Inter-Regional Research Program (IR-4)

for minor crop registration in 1998. The 1999 proposal is for additional funding for IR-4 to make sure that pesticides that are safe, but which

have only a small market, are not removed from use merely because registrants cannot afford the costs of tests required by EPA as it

implements FQPA. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) is a coordinated, multi-agency program to

gather data on current pesticide uses and management practices. NAPIAP assessments help decision-makers understand the implications of

registration decisions for individual producers and for the agricultural sector. Additional funds of $1.5 million for NAPIAP in ARS will

support the Office of Pest Management policy (OPMP) established in August 1997 to improve coordination and communication with grower

groups, USDA agencies, and EPA. The OPMP will work to ensure that timely and accurate data and analyses are provided to EPA; identify

high priority pest management needs; and ensure programs are in place to provide alternative pest management tools.

The Pesticide Applicator Training program provides training on the proper handling and application of restricted use pesticides. The number

of restricted use pesticides classified as such is expected to increase under FQPA. It is important to support training programs that afford

protection for those who would be harmed by misuse and which allow the continued use of pesticides that may otherwise pose health hazards

and thus be cancelled or banned by EPA.

❍ 

Contributing research and application programs. The Department devotes substantial sums on fundamental research or research on

specific aspects of pest control problem. Findings under these programs are the building blocks for more comprehensive, larger scale pest

management systems. Biocontrol is one of the basic technologies supported and the budget seeks additional work on biocontrol in ARS. The

Department is a major user of IPM technology. APHIS uses IPM in programs to control fruit flies, boll weevils, and the silverleaf whitefly.

The FS uses IPM in the gypsy moth program.

❍ 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (79 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Return to Table of Contents

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $132 $93 $103

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 8,685 8,943 8,700

 Risk Management Agency 1,849 952 1,775

 Foreign Agricultural Service 138 141 142

 P.L. 480 509 460 446

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service 11 -521 -98

 Rural Housing Service 1,147 520 113

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 74 58 64

 Rural Community Advancement Program 662 652 715

 Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise 0 0 20

FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA 80 0 100

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service 40,496 37,328 38,803

 Section 32 Funds 423 513 450

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 999 785 825

 Forest Service 3,458 3,495 3,308

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 578 594 155

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 800 839 828

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 914 859 850

 Economic Research Service 53 72 56

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 100 118 107

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 152 163 172

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 464 479 474

 Grain Inspection, Packers & 

 Stockyards Administration 23 24 12

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (80 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Office of the Secretary 9 9 10

 Executive Operations 22 23 26

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 0 6 7

 Departmental Administration 30 25 32

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 1 3 10

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16 16

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 144 131 156

 Office of Communications 8 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 63 88

 Office of the General Counsel 28 29 30

 Gifts and Bequests 1 1 1

 Subtotal 62,073 56,702 58,303

 Offsetting Receipts -1,197 -843 -868

 TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $60,876 $55,859 $57,435

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Programs - Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 Current 1999

 Program Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $1,038 $1,066

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 4 4

 Risk Management Agency 252 66

 Foreign Agricultural Service 140 141

 P.L. 480 1,064 967

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service 113 120

 Rural Housing Service 1,255 1,288

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 62 68

 Rural Community Advancement Program 652 715

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service 4,325 4,536

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 785 825

 Forest Service 2,672 2,554

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 589 150

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (81 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Agricultural Research Service 824 813

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 859 850

 Economic Research Service 72 56

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 118 107

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 48 59

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 431 423

 Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration 24 12

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 9 10

 Executive Operations 23 26

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 6 7

 Departmental Administration 25 32

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantage Farmers 3 10

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 131 156

 Office of Communications 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 88

 Office of the General Counsel 29 30

 Subtotal 15,644 15,208

 Offsetting Receipts -11 -15

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $15,633 $15,193

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998

 1997 Current 1999

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $158 $20 -$66

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 7,256 8,566 8,420

 Risk Management Agency 1,025 1,397 1,821

 Foreign Agricultural Service 123 130 139

 P.L. 480 334 535 467

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service -586 -172 -1,971

 Rural Housing Service 1,196 517 176

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 66 88 76

 Rural Community Advancement Program 633 653 650

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (82 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA 41 17 66

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service 35,812 35,958 37,984

 Section 32 Funds 133 63 0

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 974 1,099 888

 Forest Service 3,209 3,526 3,378

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 574 594 156

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 770 822 855

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 871 892 884

 Economic Research Service 48 72 59

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 90 115 108

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 178 172 187

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 507 430 477

 Grain Inspection, Packers &

 Stockyards Administration 23 24 14

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 7 14 12

 Executive Operations 21 23 26

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 5 4

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 0 6 7

 Departmental Administration 37 23 32

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 2 5 10

 Hazardous Waste Management 14 16 16

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 157 150 159

 Office of Communications 7 7 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 63 86

 Office of the General Counsel 27 27 30

 Working Capital Fund -31 0 0

 Gifts and Bequests 1 1 1

 Subtotal 53,744 55,858 55,159

 Offsetting Receipts -1,197 -843 -868

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $52,547 $55,015 $54,291

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Programs - Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (83 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 1998

 Current 1999

 Program Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $1,088 $1,079

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 4 4

 Risk Management Agency 227 84

 Foreign Agricultural Service 129 138

 P.L. 480 1,139 1,006

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service 187 163

 Rural Housing Service 1,251 1,274

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 80 75

 Rural Community Advancement Program 653 650

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Nutrition Service 4,357 4,504

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1,048 847

 Forest Service 2,725 2,624

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 589 151

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 808 841

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 892 884

 Economic Research Service 72 59

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 115 108

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 43 57

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 383 427

 Grain Inspection, Packers & 

 Stockyards Administration 24 14

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 14 12

 Executive Operations 23 26

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 5 4

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 6 7

 Departmental Administration 23 32

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 5 10

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 150 159

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (84 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
 Office of Communications 7 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 86

 Office of the General Counsel 27 30

 Subtotal 16,153 15,379

 Offsetting Receipts -11 -15

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $16,142 $15,364

United States Department of Agriculture

Staff Years

 1993 Change 1993 - 1999 Chang

- 1999

 Ceiling 1997 1998 1999 Amount Percent Amoun

Percent

Farm Service Agency 7,628 5,870 5,909 5,646 -1,982 -26% 

-263 -4%

Risk Management Agency 664 526 550 550 -114 -17% 

0 0%

Foreign Agricultural Service 923 881 881 819 -104 -11% 

-62 -7%

Rural Utilities Service 890 745 764 715 -175 -20% 

-49 -6%

Rural Housing Service 8,222 6,227 6,188 6,108 -2,114 -26% 

-80 -1%

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 428 320 328 304 -124 -29% 

-24 -7%

Alternative Agricultural Research &

 Commerc. 7 6 11 11 4 57% 

0 0%

Food and Nutrition Service 2,009 1,711 1,725 1,782 -227 -11% 

57 3%

Natural Resources Conservation 

 Service 13,784 11,888 11,944 11,412 -2,372 -17% 

-532 -4%

Forest Service 43,025 36,330 36,311 35,526 -7,480 -17% 

-785 -2%

Food Safety and Inspection Service 9,950 9,697 9,702 9,702 -248 -2% 

0 0%

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (85 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Agricultural Research Service 8,426 7,521 7,556 7,562 -861 -10% 

6 0%

Coop. State Research, Education & 

 Extension Service 408 394 405 405 -3 -1% 

0 0%

Economic Research Service 788 570 554 551 -237 -30% 

-3 -1%

National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service 1,487 1,097 1,290 1,107 -380 -26% 

-183 -14%

Agricultural Marketing Service 4,027 3,524 3,524 3,524 -503 -12% 

0 0%

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

 Service 6,552 6,295 6,287 6,133 -419 -6% 

-154 -2%

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

 Stockyards Administration 936 788 824 824 -112 -12% 

0 0%

Office of the Secretary 83 61 82 82 -1 -1% 

0 0%

Office of the Chief Economist 45 40 50 57 12 27% 

7 14%

National Appeals Division 152 133 133 133 -19 -13% 

0 0%

Office of Budget and Program Analysis 76 73 70 69 -7 -9% 

-1 -1%

Office of the General Counsel 420 351 374 378 -42 -10% 

4 1%

Office of the Inspector General 850 742 750 925 75 9% 

175 23%

Office of the Chief Information 

 Officer 297 246 268 271 -26 -9% 

3 1%

Office of the Chief Financial 

 Officer 1,221 1,239 1,277 1,131 -90 -7% 

-146 -11%

Departmental Administration 727 618 648 701 -26 -4% 

53 8%

Office of Communications 150 119 119 120 -30 -20% 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (86 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
1 1%

Subtotal, USDA 114,175 98,012 98,524 96,548 -17,627 -15% 

-1,976 -2%

Thrift Savings Plan 367 445 490 502 135 37% 

12 2%

Total, USDA, Federal 114,542 98,457 99,014 97,050 -17,492 -15% 

-1,964 -2%

FSA, Non-Federal County 14,953 11,399 10,835 9,980 -4,973 -33% 

-855 -8%

Total, USDA 129,495 109,856 109,849 107,030 -22,465 -17% 

-2,819 -3%

1999 User Fee Proposals

(Dollars in Millions)

Agency and Program Budget 

Authority 

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency: 

 Salaries and Expenses -$10 

This proposal would charge fees to cover the costs of collecting and processing information provided to

private individuals and companies. Information products developed would be priced at the full cost of

processing and dissemination. The fees collected would be available for salaries and expenses. 

❍ 

Natural Resources and Environment

Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

 Conservation Operations -10 

This proposal would establish user fees focused on those financial or technical services that provide only a

limited public benefit or on those that are already available through the private sector. 

❍ 

Forest Service: 

 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program 0 

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (87 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
This proposal would permanently extend the Recreation Fee Program beyond 2000 and would authorize the

direct expenditure of all recreation fees collected by the Forest Service. The current 1999 estimate for this

program is $20 million.

❍ 

Food Safety 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: 

 Salaries and Expenses -$573 

This proposal would charge fees for the full cost of providing Federal inspection of meat, poultry, and egg

products. 

❍ 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and Expenses -10 

This proposal would establish user fees for costs for animal welfare inspections; issuance of biotechnology

certificates; veterinary biologics licensing, inspection and testing activities; activities associated with control

and eradication of pink bollworm; and inspections of facilities to comply with the garbage cooking

requirements of the Swine Health Protection Act. 

❍ 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and Expenses -21 

This proposal would establish a fee for the grain standardization and methods development activities; a

licensing fee to cover the costs of administering the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act relating to

meat packing and stockyards activities and a statutory dealers trust. 

❍ 

Total, User Fee Related Proposed Legislation -$624

1999 Other Proposed Legislation

(Dollars in Millions) 

Agency and Program Budget 

Authority

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Commodity Credit Corporation: 

The Administration will propose legislation to increase CCC funding for EQIP by $100 million in 1999 and

by a total of $350 million for the period 1999 to 2003. 

❍ $100 

❍ Legislation is proposed for upland cotton user marketing -110 certificates, step-2 payments, that would reduce

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (88 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
outlays by an estimated $110 million in 1999 and $48 million in 2000 by capping payments at $140 million in

1999 and to no more than $333 million during the period 1999 through 2002. Existing law caps step-2

payments at $701 million during fiscal years 1996 through 2002. 

The budget includes proposed legislation for a reduced, flexible, multi-year program level authorization for

the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) for 1999 to 2003. Under this proposal, total funding of about $1.2

billion will be available for EEP during the 1999 to 2003 period, with a $320 million limitation for EEP in

1999. 

❍ 

-230 

Risk Management Agency: 

 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund 205 

This proposal is a key part of the Administration's proposal to reinforce the farm income "safety net."

Legislation to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act would allow the shift of funding for administrative

expense reimbursement from discretionary spending to the mandatory Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Fund. The budget includes legislation to make changes within crop insurance to achieve the necessary offsets.

These changes include a reduction in the loss ratio, a limit on CAT coverage to $100,000 and other changes,

all of which are expected to take effect in 2000. 

❍ 

Rural Development

Rural Empowerment Zone Grants $20 

The goal of this initiative is to revitalize rural communities in a manner that attracts private sector investment

and thereby provides self-sustaining community and economic development. Legislation will be proposed to

provide funding to allow five new rural empowerment zones, as authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of

1997, to create economic opportunity in the most distressed rural communities. The budget provides $20

million per year for the next ten years for grants to these empowerment zones. 

❍ 

Rural Utilities Service: 

 Rural Electrification Loans 1 

This proposal would add a new Treasury rate electric loan program to the telecommunications program, in the

amount of $400 million. Borrowers would apply for direct (Treasury rate) loans at an interest rate that is tied

to the Government's cost of money. This type of loan represents a new tool for the Rural Utilities Service to

meet the demand for electric program loans. 

❍ 

 Rural Housing Service: 

 Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans 0 

This proposal would provide for the refinancing of direct single family home loans to facilitate the graduation

of direct loan borrowers into the private sector. These loans will be provided only to borrowers who do not

qualify for conventional private sector financing without the Federal guarantee. 

❍ 

Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (89 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Food and Nutrition Service: 

 Food Stamp Program $355 

The Administration is proposing to restore benefits to certain legal immigrants (+$535 million) made

ineligible by restrictions in the Welfare Reform legislation passed in 1996. The Administration is also

proposing reforms that would save $180 million in Federal payments for the Food Stamp Program

administrative costs. 

❍ 

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service: 

 Payments to States 22 

The budget proposes legislation to stabilize Forest Service Payments to States which have declined since the

late 1980's. The 1999 estimate of $270 million is based on providing each county the greater of its 1997

payment or the guarantee currently available to the spotted owl forests which is 76 percent of the 1986 to

1990 average payment. 

❍ 

Research, Education, and Economics

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

 Small Farms Initiative $4 

A new authority for an Integrated Research, Extension, and Education Competitive Grants Program is

proposed to be included in the reauthorization of the research title of the 1996 Farm Bill. Multi-functional

research, extension and education programs would address national and regional issues. A 100 percent

non-Federal match would be required for commodity- or location-specific activities. In 1999, a Small Farms

Initiative, to be implemented through the Department's Land-Grant partners, is proposed in support of the

Secretary's Civil Rights initiative to strengthen USDA's research and educational assistance to the socially

disadvantaged. 

❍ 

Food Genome Initiative 10 

A new authority for a competitive grants program to support the Food Genome Initiative is proposed to

improve understanding of plant and animal and associated microbial genes. Accelerated research projects will

help aid the identification, mapping, and understanding of the function and control of genes responsible for

economically important traits in the major agriculturally important species of plants, animals, and microbes.

Through this research investment, new genetic technologies will be developed to improve yield, composition,

and quality of agricultural output. 

❍ 

Return to Table of Contents

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (90 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Return to OBPA Home Page

USDA 1999 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1999/text.html (91 of 91) [10/5/1999 3:10:17 PM]
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

PROGRAM LEVEL AND OUTLAYS

HIGHLIGHTS

REORGANIZATION/STREAMLINING

Explanation of Major Changes by Agency

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES:

Farm Service Agency

Foreign Agricultural Service

RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Rural Utilities Service

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Alternate Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES:

Food and Consumer Service

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT:

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forest Service

FOOD SAFETY:

Food Safety and Inspection Service

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS:

Agricultural Research Service

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Economic Research Service

National Agricultural Statistics Service

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS:

Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Appendix

Fund For Rural America

Integrated Pest Management and Related Programs

Programs to Support 1890 Institutions and Other Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Budget Authority by Agency, 1996-1998

Outlays by Agency, 1996-1998

Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency, 1997-1998

Discretionary Budget Outlays by Agency, 1997-1998

Staff Years by Agency, 1993-2002

1997 Supplementals, Budget Authority

1997 Rescissions, Budget Authority

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (1 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
1998 Budget-Related Proposed Legislation, Budget Authority and Outlays

INTRODUCTION

This booklet describes the fiscal year 1998 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). All references to years refer to fiscal year,

except where specifically noted. Throughout the booklet, acronyms are used to refer to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA of

1993), the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill), and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform).

The booklet is divided into the following sections:

Highlights. This section is a brief summary of the most significant 1998 budget proposals for the Department of Agriculture.

Agency Programs. This section provides agency by agency detail of the 1998 budget proposals.

Appendix Tables.

Knowledge of the following basic budget terminology will assist the reader in understanding the budget proposals:

"Program Level" represents the gross value of financial assistance provided to the public by USDA. This assistance may be in the form of grants,

guaranteed or direct loans, cost-sharing, professional services such as research or technical assistance activities, or in-kind benefits such as

commodities.

"Budget Authority" is the authority to commit funds of the Treasury. This authority is normally provided by the Congress through appropriations

acts. The President's budget requests the Congress to appropriate or otherwise provide an amount of budget authority sufficient to carry out

recommended Government programs.

"Obligations" are specific commitments of Government funds. In order to make a valid obligation, a sufficient amount of unused budget authority

must be available to cover the obligation.

"Outlays" are cash disbursements from the Treasury to satisfy a valid obligation. Since the primary purpose of this booklet is to describe the

programmatic effect of the 1998 budget, the program level concept has been used in most instances. However, there are some cases where other

measures are used and the reader should take care to note which measure is being used in any particular subject area. The reader should also

understand that many 1998 estimates are tentative especially for programs that are sensitive to changes in weather or economic conditions.

Questions may be directed to the Office of Budget and Program Analysis via e-mail at bca@obpa.usda.gov.

 Return to Table of Contents.

PROGRAM LEVEL AND OUTLAYS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(Dollars in Millions)

 Program Level Outlays 

 

 Agency/Program 1997 Change 1997 

Change

 Current 1998 1997 to Current 1998 

1997 to

 Estimate Budget 1998 Estimate Budget 

1998

 

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 

Farm Service Agency:

 Farm Credit Programs $3,213 $2,836 -$377 $372 $324 

-$48

 Conservation Reserve Program 1,857 1,926 69 1,858 1,930 

72

 Other Conservation Programs. 35 0 -35 169 37 

-132

 Commodity Programs . 12,397 14,887 2,490 5,253 6,594 

1,341

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs (20,387) (23,691) (3,304) (7,766) (9,900) 

(2,134)

 Salaries and Expenses . . 956 954 -2 772 743 

-29

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (2 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Total, Farm Service Agency. 18,458 20,603 2,145 8,424 9,628 

1,204

Risk Management Agency:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses 64 68 4 60 68 

8

 Crop Insurance Fund. 2,583 2,575 -8 1,729 1,758 

29

 Total, Risk Management Agency 2,647 2,643 -4 1,789 1,826 

37

Foreign Agricultural Service:

 Export Credit Guarantees. 5,500 5,700 200 431 512 

81

 Market Access Program . . 90 90 0 95 90 

-5

 Export Enhancement Program . 100 500 400 100 500 

400

 Dairy Export Incentive Program 56 89 33 56 89 

33

 P.L. 480 1,047 990 -57 1,256 998 

-258

 Food for Progress Program 113 103 -10 108 110 

2

 Salaries and Expenses 178 183 5 133 152 

19

 Total, Foreign Agricultural Service 7,084 7,655 571 2,179 2,451 

272

 Total, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Svcs. 28,189 30,901 2,712 12,392 13,905 

1,513

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural Utilities Service:

 Loans and Grants . . 2,968 2,977 9 734 693 

-41

 Salaries and Expenses . . 67 70 3 67 70 

3

 Total, Rural Utilities Service. 3,035 3,047 12 801 763 

-38

Rural Housing Service:

 Rural Housing Loan and Grant Programs 4,108 4,988 880 858 877 

19

 Rural Community Loan and Grant Programs 218 429 211 24 28 

4

 Salaries and Expenses . . 427 414 -13 427 414 

-13

 Total, Rural Housing Service 4,753 5,831 1,078 1,309 1,319 

10

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

 Loans and Grants 861 779 -82 97 82 

-15

 Salaries and Expenses 26 31 5 26 31 

5

 Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Svc. 887 810 -77 123 113 

-10

Alternative Agricultural Research &

 Commercialization Corporation 7 10 3 8 8 

0

Rural Community Advancement Program (2,315) (2,480) (165) (673) (680) 

(7)

 Total, Rural Development 8,682 9,698 1,016 2,241 2,203 

-38

FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA 100 100 0 25 65 

40

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Food and Consumer Service:

 Food Stamp Program 24,912 25,841 929 24,762 25,740 

978

 Child Nutrition Programs 8,713 8,926 213 8,664 8,900 

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (3 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
236

 Women, Infants and Children (WIC). 3,975 4,108 133 3,860 3,997 

137

 Commodity Assistance Program 422 372 -50 436 376 

-60

 Salaries and Expenses . . 106 108 2 106 108 

2

 Total, Food and Consumer Service 38,128 39,355 1,227 37,828 39,121 

1,293

 Section 32 Funds 306 300 -6 67 16 

-51

 Total, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Svcs. 38,434 39,655 1,221 37,895 39,137 

1,242

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

 Conservation Operations 707 722 15 701 721 

20

 Watershed & Flood Prevention Operations 90 40 -50 243 70 

-173

 Other Conservation Cost-Share Programs 36 59 23 169 104 

-65

 Programs financed by CCC:

 Environmental Quality Incentives

 Program 200 200 0 60 109 

49

 Wetlands Reserve Program 119 164 45 65 129 

64

 Other 24 63 39 17 26 

9

 Total, Natural Resources Conservation 

 Service 1,176 1,248 72 1,255 1,159 

-96

Forest Service 3,464 3,136 -328 3,508 3,220 

-288

 Total, Natural Resources and Environment 4,640 4,384 -256 4,763 4,379 

-384

FOOD SAFETY

Food Safety and Inspection Service 663 685 22 577 206 

-371

 

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS 

Agricultural Research Service 731 741 10 728 738 

10

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

 Extension Service. 850 842 -8 844 841 

-3

Economic Research Service. 53 54 1 53 54 

1

National Agricultural Statistics Service 100 120 20 97 118 

21

 Subtotal, Research, Education, and 

 Economics 1,734 1,757 23 1,722 1,751 

29

Construction:

 Agricultural Research Service 69 59 -10 52 53 

1

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 62 0 -62 60 61 

1

 Total, Research, Education, & Economics 1,865 1,816 -49 1,834 1,865 

31

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS 

Agricultural Marketing Service 228 240 12 150 155 

5

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 525 480 -45 466 481 

15

Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Admin. 66 69 3 23 10 

-13

 Total, Marketing and Regulatory Programs 819 789 -30 639 646 

7

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (4 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES 

Departmental Offices 167 174 7 167 176 

9

Centrally Financed Activities 161 157 -4 156 173 

17

 Total, Departmental Activities 328 331 3 323 349 

26

 Subtotal, USDA 83,720 88,359 4,639 60,689 62,786 

2,106

Pre-credit Reform Loan Repayments 0 0 0 -2,874 -3,131 

-257

Receipts 0 0 0 -861 -876 

-15

 USDA, TOTAL $83,720 $88,359 $4,639 $56,954 $58,779 

$1,825

* Net outlays attributable to these activities are included in CCC totals.

** Funding from CCC and Section 32.

 Return to Table of Contents.

HIGHLIGHTS

1998 Funding Overview

Total USDA program level is projected to increase to $88.4 billion from an estimated $83.7 billion in 1997. Outlays increase from $57 billion to

$58.8 billion over the same period. Lower projected interest rates permit growth in the program level with relatively less growth in the level of

outlays. The USDA budget is part of an Administration plan to balance the Federal budget by 2002, while still protecting Administration priority

programs. The budget includes proposals to strengthen the safety net for farmers and low income populations, provide economic opportunities for

rural Americans, protect our natural resources and ensure a safe food supply. At the same time, savings are achieved through continued reductions

in employment as a result of Departmental streamlining, implementation of welfare reform legislation, selected program reductions and the shift of

certain programs from Federal funding to user fees.

Discretionary program outlays, about $15.2 billion in 1998, or one-fourth of the USDA outlay level, include the Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); rural development; meat, poultry and egg products inspection; research and technical assistance;

soil and water conservation; management of the National Forests; and domestic and international marketing assistance.

Mandatory programs account for the remaining three-fourths of USDA outlays, $43.6 billion in 1998. These programs provide services as required

by law and include the majority of the food assistance programs, commodity programs, and a number of conservation programs.

Reorganization/Streamlining

Congress authorized the reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in October 1994. As a result, the Department has established seven

mission areas, consolidated 43 agencies into 30 along mission lines and restructured the headquarters staff offices. In addition to the changes in

headquarters, USDA is also proceeding with the restructuring of field office locations and services.

As part of the reorganization and streamlining efforts, the Department will reduce its Federal employment by almost 16,400 staff years and projects

cumulative savings of $8 billion by 2002. Actual progress in achieving this plan is ahead of schedule and the savings that result from lower

employment levels and other streamlining efforts are reflected in the Department's budget. (See page 13).

The following pages provide highlights of the 1998 budget by mission area. More detailed information is provided under the relevant

sections of this document.

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Recent changes in Federal farm programs, the ever-changing financial climate facing producers and farmers, and continued weather-related

stresses make providing a viable safety net to farmers more critical now than ever. The Department's 1998 budget includes a proposal to improve

the safety net for farmers by expanding the revenue insurance program nationwide and generally improving the efficiency of its risk management

programs. The proposal would also make some changes to USDA farm credit programs, provide farmers the ability to extend the amount of time

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (5 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
they can keep commodities under loan if adverse market conditions exist and continue the Administration's commitment to provide export

opportunities to enhance farm income for U.S. producers. The budget also reflects the Administration's goal to enroll 36.4 million acres into the

Conservation Reserve Program by 2002, the maximum level set by the 1996 Farm Bill.

Risk Management Agency. In 1998, the Department proposes nationwide expansion of the revenue insurance program, which was authorized as a

pilot program in the 1996 Farm Bill. Revenue insurance protects producers from fluctuations in price and yield by guaranteeing an estimated

harvest price at an average yield. Managing price risk has become a high priority for farmers given the 1996 Farm Bill's phase-out of many of

USDA's traditional price and income support programs. The 1998 budget also contains several legislative proposals to improve the administration

of the crop insurance program including proposals for more flexibility in establishing pilot programs, establishing processing fees for review of

products submitted by private insurance companies and providing authority to strengthen certain compliance measures.

The Department will also be playing a critical role in educating farmers about the risk management tools available to them in addition to educating

them about other market products using the Internet, and other outreach mechanisms through the private sector. High priority will be given to

educating beginning farmers, who are the most vulnerable to unfavorable market and weather conditions, as well as improving their access to farm

programs. (See page 25.)

International Programs. The 1998 budget continues the Administration's commitment to export promotion and growth by providing a total program

level of nearly $7.7 billion for the Department's international programs and activities. For the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) export credit

guarantee programs, the budget includes a total program level of $5.7 billion, an increase of $200 million above 1997 for CCC export credit

guarantees to be made available to emerging markets. The budget provides $90 million for the Market Access Program, unchanged from 1997. For

the Export Enhancement Program, the budget provides a program level of $500 million, an increase of $400 million above 1997 and the maximum

level permitted by the 1996 Farm Bill. A higher program level is also provided for the Dairy Export Incentive Program based on a projected

increase in export sales activity. A total program level of $990 million is provided for P.L. 480 foreign food assistance; this is expected to continue

commodity shipments at the current estimate for 1997 of 3.2 million metric tons. For the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the budget requests a

total program level of $183 million, including appropriated funding of $151 million. (See page 27.)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP makes annual rental payments to producers to retire environmentally sensitive lands from production,

usually for a period of ten years. The 1996 Farm Bill made several changes in the CRP to extend, simplify and refocus the program. Contracts on

about 21 million acres will expire in 1997 when USDA will hold a general signup to begin to replace these acres using the new program rules

developed to implement the Farm Bill changes. A continuous signup is now underway to enroll acreage in high priority practices such as filter

strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways and shelter belts. The Administration's goal is ultimately to reach and then maintain the 36.4 million

acre level permitted by Congress in the 1996 Farm Bill. (See page 18.)

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Spending. CCC outlays last year were the lowest since 1981. They have steadily declined from a high of

almost $26 billion in 1986 to less than $5 billion in 1996. Including conservation programs for which CCC funding was newly authorized in the

1996 Farm Bill, total CCC outlays are projected to total $7.8 billion in 1997 and $9.9 billion in 1998. The higher level in 1998 reflects increased

lending activity and interest expenses and higher levels for conservation and export programs. Further, the net amount of income support payments

increases from $5.2 billion in 1997 to $5.7 billion in 1998. The increase is consistent with the pattern of expenditures set by the Farm Bill, and

reflects refunds in 1997 of $1.1 billion in unearned deficiency payments on the 1995 crop. (See page 19.)

Rural Development

Program Funding. The budget provides an estimated $9.2 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, grants and technical assistance -- about $1 billion

more than the 1997 Appropriation Act. Notwithstanding tight budget resources, the Administration remains strongly committed to ensuring that

rural Americans have the ability to take advantage of the same opportunities for economic growth that exist in urban areas.

The 1998 budget will support a number of Administration initiatives, including Water 2000 which is targeted to the estimated 2.5 million rural

Americans who have some of the nation's most serious drinking water problems, the National Homeownership Initiative, Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC), and the Information Superhighway Initiative.

The Department proposes to target assistance toward those rural Americans and communities most in need based on income, persistent poverty and

other factors. The budget also provides a substantial amount of assistance, particularly in terms of loan guarantees, for those who can afford to

obtain financing from the private sector but may not find it available to them. (See page 36.)

Fund for Rural America. The 1996 Farm Bill established the Fund for Rural America to provide support to rural communities across the United

States. It provided that $100 million be made available on January 1, 1997 for use by the Fund. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to

allocate the available funding between rural development and research activities with the specification that at least one-third of the funds be

allocated to rural development activities and one-third to research activities. The 1998 budget includes a proposal to make available in 1998 the

$100 million provided in 2000 by the 1996 Farm Bill.

In 1997, the Secretary plans to use $47 million of the available funding to support rural development activities including Water 2000, Section 502

Single Family Housing Loans, the Distance Learning/Medical Link programs and other rural development loans and grants. Another $46 million

will be used to provide research, extension, and education grants. Of the $46 million, $33.3 million will be allocated to projects designed to: 1)

increase international competitiveness, profitability and efficiency; 2) enhance the economic standing of rural communities; and 3) improve

environmental stewardship. An additional $10 million will be allocated to research activities which focus specifically on the development of

methods to counter increasing concentration within the livestock and poultry industries. The remaining $3 million will be for a new research

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (6 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
initiative that will investigate the special needs and uses of cutting-edge technologies for rural and agricultural based information. Finally, $7

million will be used to fund additional loans under the Beginning Farmer Loan program and additional grants for Outreach for Socially

Disadvantaged Producers. (See page 97.)

Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). This program combines funding for a number of the Department's rural development programs

as authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill and patterned on the Administration's earlier Performance Partnership Proposal. RCAP authorizes Rural

Development State Directors to transfer up to 25 percent of the funding available for the fiscal year among three program areas: community facility

assistance, rural utilities (primarily, water and waste disposal loans and grants), and rural business assistance. RCAP also provides 5 percent of

funds to the States as block grants with another 5 percent for grants on a matching basis. (See page 38.)

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

The Department's 1998 budget includes a program level of $39.7 billion for food and nutrition assistance programs for needy Americans. These

funds are vital to protecting the nutritional safety net which helps to ensure that all needy Americans, especially children, receive food and nutrition

assistance. The 1998 budget reflects changes made by the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation and includes a new legislative proposal to moderate

some of the harshest impacts of Welfare Reform. (See page 49.)

Food Stamps. The 1998 budget includes $25.8 billion for the Food Stamp Program. This program level will support an estimated 23.4 million

participants, and will permit the Department to aggressively fight fraud and continue implementation of the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

system. Also funded in this request is the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico, Nutrition

Assistance to American Samoa, and the Community Food Projects. A contingency reserve of $2.5 billion is also proposed to allow for unexpected

increases in food costs.

Child Nutrition Programs. The request reflects an increase of $213 million for Child Nutrition Programs for a total of $8.9 billion. This increase

includes funding for food cost inflation and participation increases in free meals and entitlement commodities. The budget will also allow the

Department to implement measures to ensure program integrity and continue Team Nutrition for healthy children. Team Nutrition is a nationwide

initiative designed to help implement the Dietary Guidelines for Americans as mandated by Public Law 103-448.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The budget request for the WIC program for 1998 is $4.1

billion, an increase of $133 million above the level provided in 1997 with the proposed $100 million supplemental. This will continue the

Administration's commitment to full funding for this program, enabling it to continue growing to an estimated average participation of 7.45 million

in 1998 and to 7.5 million participants by the end of 1998. In order to ensure that unexpected food cost increases do not interfere with this goal, a

$100 million contingency reserve is proposed for unforeseen food price increases or changes in economic conditions.

Natural Resources and Environment

Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Administration's budget will enable it to carry out the most progressive conservation program in

history. Total funding requested in 1998 for the Natural Resources Conservation Service will amount to over $1.2 billion, an increase over 1997 of

$72 million. The Administration continues to place a high priority on the protection and restoration of wetlands and the 1998 budget supports these

goals with a $164 million request to enable NRCS to enroll 212,000 acres of wetlands into the Wetlands Reserve Program. This would be in

addition to the nearly 443,000 acres that are estimated to be enrolled in the program by the end of fiscal year 1997. The overall enrollment level for

the program, as permitted by current law, is 975,000 acres by the end of calendar year 2002. (See page 53.)

Forest Service. The total program level for the FS is projected to decline by $328 million in 1998, largely due to lower estimated spending for fire

suppression. Any fire suppression needs for the FS beyond the proposed appropriation would be accommodated from a proposed Governmentwide

emergency contingency account. In terms of discretionary funding for the FS, which includes funding for the President's Northwest Forest Plan, the

budget proposes $2.4 billion which is an increase of $7 million over the 1997 level. The National Forest System (NFS) is funded at $1.3 billion,

including $208 million for Timber Sales Management to support a timber sales program of 3.8 billion board feet. Funding for Wildland Fire

Management is $514 million which includes $211 million for fire suppression activities and $303 million for presuppression. Subsequent fire

suppression needs are to be funded through a proposed Governmentwide emergency contingency account. Funding decreases of $35 million for

mandatory programs reflect the anticipated reduction in Knutson-Vandenberg trust fund receipts due to reduced timber sales. (See page 58.)

Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan identifies and protects key watersheds, old-growth forests, and numerous wildlife species within

the range of the northern spotted owl. Logging will be permitted in areas outside the reserves and in Adaptive Management Areas, where resource

managers and local communities are encouraged to develop innovative approaches to achieving conservation objectives. Before timber sales can be

offered in most areas, watershed assessments must be completed, and there will be an extensive monitoring program to ensure that the Plan's

standards and guidelines are being met. The Plan also provides technical and economic assistance to communities and individuals who have been

dependent on Federal timber supplies.

Governmentwide Emergency Contingency Fund. The 1998 budget proposes a Governmentwide emergency contingency fund. The FS may use this

account for fire suppression needs once all appropriated funds have been obligated. This fund may also be used by FSA and NRCS to respond to

cropland and watershed damage from floods and other disasters.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (7 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Food Safety

Since 1993, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has improved the safety of meat and poultry products by requiring instructional cooking

and handling labels on raw meat and poultry products and initiating a nationwide E. coli sampling program in federally inspected plants and retail

stores that process raw ground beef. Most importantly, FSIS has begun implementing modernized inspection that is science based and founded on

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems, with an emphasis on process control and testing for bacteria in plants that slaughter

and process meat and poultry. HACCP systems will replace a command and control, "sight and smell" system that has not changed significantly

over the last 100 years. For 1998, the budget proposes a total program level of $685 million, a $22 million increase over the 1997 current estimate.

USDA will continue its emphasis on ensuring Americans have the safest food supply in the world. Communicating with the public on safe

handling of raw product will also continue to be a priority as well as identifying pathogens and determining where they enter into the production

and slaughtering of animals.

Since FSIS is required to accommodate an ever growing demand for inspection services while investing more in resources in designing and

implementing alternative inspection systems within a limited pool of Federal funding, it is appropriate that industry be asked to bear a greater share

of the cost of providing inspection services. Therefore, the budget is proposing that the industry be required to pay for the cost of salaries and

benefits for in-plant inspection necessary to meet the demand for such services without being subject to annual budget pressures. Such a system

will ensure that inspection services will be available to meet industry needs.

This proposal would generate an estimated $390 million in new revenues. FSIS would continue to seek approximately $200 million in appropriated

funding for administering the program, including critical food safety initiatives, such as microbiological testing, technology development, and

epidemiology and emergency response functions. The Federal Government would also continue to reimburse those States administering their own

inspection programs for up to 50 percent of the cost of administering those programs. (See page 63.)

Research, Education, and Economics

Total funding for the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area agencies is $1.8 billion for 1998. The programs of the REE mission

area continue to support the high priority goals of the Administration to promote responsible natural resource management practices, improve the

safety of food available to consumers, enhance the economic opportunities for U.S. agriculture, and to protect the competitiveness of U.S.

agricultural and forestry products in the global economy. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) budget includes a net increase for research of

$10 million above the 1997 level. A total of $59 million is included in the budget for construction work at nine priority ARS facilities. The 1998

budget for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) includes a $36 million increase for the National Research

Initiative competitive grants program, for a total program of $130 million. Basic support for university research and extension through formula

grants is maintained, but there are proposed reductions in selected programs in order to support several high priority research and extension

initiatives of the Administration. (See page 66.)

Food Safety. The Administration's food safety initiative encourages widespread involvement of industry, government, and consumers to ensure

safety of food from the farm to the table. It provides funds to support research on technology for the HACCP inspection system being implemented

by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Research which addresses chemical, biological, and physical factors will be supported by a CSREES

competitive food safety research and extension grants program. The initiative will receive a total of $8 million of REE funds. In addition, $1.1

million is proposed in FSIS funding for increased data collection on food-borne illness and HACCP training.

Nutrition. The budget proposes an increase of $12 million for the Department's Human Nutrition initiative, with increases each year until the

Initiative reaches $53 million in 2002. Funding at this level will make full use of the capacity of the system of human nutrition laboratories in ARS.

The 1998 increase will be used to gain a better understanding of the link between diet and cognitive development in children, and the impact of

prenatal and early childhood nutrition on physical and intellectual health in later life. The proposed research will also provide knowledge of

nutritional needs of at-risk Americans, and the role of beneficial food compounds in preventing human disease. Additional funds will also support a

survey of dietary intakes of infants and children in order to determine the risk of exposure to pesticides in the diet.

Integrated Pest Management. The budget includes funds for USDA to continue implementation of the Department's Integrated Pest Management

Initiative, a cooperative effort to develop IPM strategies and implement IPM methods on 75 percent of crop acres by the year 2000. The ARS

budget includes $4 million for area-wide IPM pilot testing and research on host-plant resistance and biological control. The budget for CSREES

includes increases for competitive research and extension grants to develop and implement reduced chemical and biological controls of pests. For

the Economic Research Service, the budget includes an increase to support analyses of the relationships among adoption of conserving farm

practices, economic incentives, and environmental protection. (See page 99.)

Emerging Infectious Diseases. As part of the Administration's Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative, the budget includes an increase of $5

million to develop methods to reduce the losses to U.S. crops and commodities caused by disease. Resistant varieties and rapid detection methods

will be pursued to alleviate the threat from emerging domestic and exotic diseases of plants and livestock.

Census of Agriculture. The National Agricultural Statistics Service budget includes an increase of $18.5 million for a total of $36.3 million for the

Census of Agriculture, which has previously been conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce. Funding will support

final preparation for the Census as well as data collection and processing, which is to be conducted beginning in early 1998.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (8 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Marketing and Regulatory Programs

The 1998 budget proposes a program level of $789 million for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs, a reduction of $30 million from the 1997

level. Funding for important programs, including the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program, Pesticide Data Program, and monitoring of meat

packer competition is increased. (See page 81.)

Livestock Concentration. To ensure that family farmers get a fair price for their products, the Secretary created an advisory committee comprised

of producers, industry representatives, and academicians to investigate the effects of concentration and various pricing arrangements in the meat

packing industry on producers' prices. GIPSA is beginning to implement the committee's recommendations.

Pesticide Data Program (PDP). The budget proposes $10.2 million to collect and analyze data on pesticide residues through the PDP. PDP

develops comprehensive information on pesticide residues in fruits, vegetables and other food products for use in dietary risk assessments

conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies. In 1997, Congress provided funding for pesticide residue data

collection and analysis within EPA. The 1998 budget proposes to restore funding to AMS, where the program was operated in previous years, since

AMS is in a unique position to conduct the program in cooperation with State departments of agriculture. (See page 82.)

User and License Fees. Legislation will be proposed to recover the cost of providing services where there is a direct benefit to the industry or user

and to increase flexibility for user fee program managers to meet demands for such services. New fees are proposed for administering marketing

agreements and orders; inspecting facilities for compliance with animal welfare regulations; providing licensing, inspection and testing for animal

biologics; pink bollworm; Swine Health Protection Act programs; issuing permits for biotechnologically derived products; conducting grain

standardization activities; and providing financial protection under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The 1998 budget proposes a program level of $480 million. Within the total, a $5 million increase is

provided to enhance the agency's pest detection efforts to prevent infestations of exotic pests. A major portion of the increase would fund activities

to monitor wheat producing areas for the presence of Karnal bunt. Reductions in other areas reflect program successes in many pest and disease

management programs such as the brucellosis program, increased cost-sharing for ADC operations and transferring more responsibilities of

eradicating boll weevil to cotton producers.

Other Proposals

Office of the Chief Information Officer. In order to provide a Departmental focus for information resources management issues, the Secretary

established the Office of the Chief Information Officer for USDA. This Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements measures to

ensure that technology investments are economical and effective and implements standards to promote information exchange and technical interoperability. (See page 92.)

Agricultural Weather. The 1998 budget includes $0.9 million in additional funding for agricultural weather activities. This includes $0.4 million for

the national agricultural weather observing network. This network, to be operated in partnership with state agencies, universities and the private

sector, will provide the comprehensive data needed to serve the needs of farmers and land managers and to expedite decisions at the Federal level

affecting agricultural commodity trade and markets, fire weather management, and ecosystem conservation. (See page 93.)

21st Century Production Agriculture. The budget provides $1.1 million to fund the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture as

authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill. The Commission will conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of the 1996 Farm Bill and a review of the

future of production agriculture in the U.S. and the appropriate role of the Federal Government in support of production agriculture. (See page 94.)

Hazardous Waste. The 1998 budget proposes $25 million for Hazardous Waste Management, an increase of $9 million over 1997. These funds will

be directed to priority sites which have been identified based on risk to public health and the environment as well as assuring the Department's

compliance with applicable laws. (See page 96.)

 Return to Table of Contents.

REORGANIZATION/STREAMLINING

The reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was authorized by Congress in October 1994. As a result, the Department has established

seven mission areas, consolidated 43 agencies into 30 along mission lines and restructured the headquarters staff offices.

USDA's initial reorganization and streamlining have resulted in significant staff year reductions. By the end of 1996, USDA was ahead of schedule

and had reduced its staff years to 100,710, a reduction of over 7,000 staff years below the Reorganization Plan, more than 13,800 below the 1993

level of 114,542. Staff year reductions were primarily accomplished through normal attrition and the use of special personnel authorities such as

early outs and buyouts. Also, the Department reduced headquarters staff by 16.5 percent from 1993 to 1996.

In addition to the restructuring of headquarters, USDA committed to a restructuring of the county based field office locations and services and to

establish USDA Service Centers. While there will be fewer field offices, the end result will be more efficient service for farmers and other

customers at a lower cost to the taxpayer. To date, USDA has moved or closed about 1,300 county-based field locations since December 1994. In

addition, USDA will conduct further studies in 1997 to examine additional opportunities for greater efficiencies in these delivery systems, and will

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (9 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
undertake an initiative to significantly cut the paperwork burden on farmers. The number of field office "service centers" is now expected to be

2,000 by the end of 1999.

In addition to the Service Center initiative, several other USDA agencies with field structures are closing and consolidating offices and

laboratories. These agencies include the Agricultural Marketing Service; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Food Safety and Inspection

Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; Food and Consumer Service; Office of the General Counsel; and the

Agricultural Research Service.

 United States Department of Agriculture

 Staff Year Estimates 

 

 1993 

Change 1993 - 2002

 Base 1994 1995 1996 1997 

1998 2002 Amount Percent

Reorganization Plan:

 Federal Staffing. 114,542 110,065 108,894 108,053 105,968 

103,917 100,950 -13,592 -11.9%

 County Office Staffing 

 Non-Federal . . 14,953 14,176 13,765 13,765 13,765 

13,765 13,765 -1,188 -7.9%

 Total . . . . . . 129,495 124,241 122,659 121,818 119,733 

117,682 114,715 -14,780 -11.4%

Current Progress/Estimate:

 Federal Staffing. 114,542 110,065 103,955 100,710 101,656 

99,866 98,189 -16,353 -14.3%

 County Office Staffing

 Non-Federal . . 14,953 14,176 13,432 12,738 11,729 

9,879 4,879 -10,074 -67.4%

 Total . . . . . . 129,495 124,241 117,387 113,448 113,385 

109,745 103,068 -26,427 -20.4%

 Return to Table of Contents.

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

MISSION

The mission of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) area is to ensure the well-being of U.S. agriculture through delivery of farm

programs, strengthen crop insurance and other risk management programs, and improve trade opportunities to raise farm income. The FFAS

agencies include the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the source of funding for most of the conservation and commodity programs administered by FSA and

the CCC export programs administered by FAS.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (10 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Farm Credit Programs $2,688 $3,213 $2,836

Conservation Programs 1,832 1,892 1,926

Commodity Programs 12,327 12,397 14,887

Salaries and Expenses 993 956 954

 Total, FSA $17,840 $18,458 $20,603

Total, Commodity Credit Corporation $15,913 $20,387 $23,691

The FSA administers the domestic commodity price and income support programs; farm

ownership, operating, emergency, and disaster loan programs; and the Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP).

 Farm Service Agency

 Farm Credit Programs

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Actual Estimate Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Farm Operating Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized $1,125 $12 $1,746 $19 $1,700 $20

 Guaranteed Subsidized 191 17 203 19 200 20

 Direct 567 74 470 59 450 30

 Total, Operating Loans 1,883 103 2,419 97 2,350 70

Farm Ownership Loans:

 Guaranteed Unsubsidized 535 20 598 22 400 15

 Direct 89 14 28 6 31 4

 Total, Ownership Loans 624 34 626 28 431 19

Emergency Loans 178 81 117 a/ 6 25 6

Indian Land Acquisition Loans 1 b/ b/ b/ 1 b/

Credit Sales of Acquired Property 0 0 14 3 25 3

Boll Weevil Eradication 0 0 2 2 4 4

 Total, Farm Credit Programs $2,688 $220 $3,213 $136 $2,836 $102

a/ Includes supplemental funds.

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

Programs in this area provide direct loans and loan guarantees to family farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere. Certain statutory requirements

target a portion of the farm operating and farm ownership programs to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. There also are statutory

limitations on the size of these loans. Credit sales refer to Agency financing of sales of properties in inventory which had been acquired through

foreclosures and other actions.

Delinquent borrowers are entitled, under law, to certain servicing actions including loan write-offs and write-downs. Such actions, as well as

voluntary conveyances and debt settlements, have resulted in substantial losses. Most of these losses are attributable to loans that could not be

repaid because of the farm credit crisis that occurred in the mid- 1980's. Recent lending practices have been tightened to place more emphasis on

repayment ability in order to reduce the risk of future losses.

The 1998 budget continues the trend toward more reliance on guaranteed loans, while maintaining a limited amount of direct loan activity for

borrowers who cannot be served through the guaranteed programs. The budget also includes $25 million for credit sales. Funding for this program

will assist sales to beginning farmers, who have a priority, under law, for purchasing inventory property.

Program levels are estimates of the amount that can be supported with the budget authority provided, which reflects the subsidy cost. These

estimates are subject to change as interest rates and other factors change.

 Farm Service Agency

 Conservation Programs

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (11 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Conservation Reserve Program: 

 Appropriated Funds $1,725 $83 $23

 Commodity Credit Corporation a/ 2 1,774 1,903

 Subtotal 1,727 1,857 1,926

Other:

 Agricultural Conservation Program 75 0 0

 Emergency Conservation Program 30 25 0

 Flood Risk Reduction Program 0 10 0

 Total, Conservation Programs $1,832 $1,892 $1,926

a/ CRP program level in 1998 reflects estimated annual savings of $25 million from

 proposed legislation which would allow haying and grazing of CRP acreage at

 reduced rental rates.

FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The 1996 Farm Bill changed the funding for the CRP from annual appropriations to

the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and combined the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and several other cost-share conservation

programs into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Funding for EQIP and other conservation programs established in the 1996

Farm Bill and administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is also provided through the CCC. (See page 56.)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP offers producers annual rental payments for a 10- to 15-year period to remove highly erodible

cropland and other environmentally sensitive land from production. Participants also receive cost-share help to establish long-term

resource-conserving cover. Currently, about 33 million acres are enrolled in the program.

The 1996 Farm Bill made several changes to CRP in addition to authorizing funding from the CCC. First, new signups were authorized through

2002 to maintain enrollment of up to 36.4 million acres. Previously, budget and appropriations provisions limited signups to replacing acres which

had expired or been terminated early. Second, the legislation expanded authorized uses of conservation and environmental priority areas to target

conservation program funding. Third, legislation established unilateral early termination authority applicable to certain acreage under CRP

contract.

The 1998 budget, incorporating the new signup authority, voluntary early release, and other legislative provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill, projects a

36.4 million acre enrollment level by 2002. Signup 14, announced June 13, 1996, is a continuous signup for acreage to be placed in high priority

practices such as filter strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, and shelter belts. Signup 15, the 1997 signup, is expected to be held in late

winter after the final CRP rule implementing the long-term CRP policy is published in the Federal Register.

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). As noted earlier, the 1996 Farm Bill combines the ACP and three other cost-share programs (the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Agricultural Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Great Plains Conservation Program) into

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). Under this program, the Department shares the cost of carrying out practices to assist and encourage

farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters. In particular, it addresses those problems which if left untreated would 1) impair or

endanger the land; 2) materially affect the productive capacity of the land; 3) be so costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance would be required

to return the land to productive agricultural use; and 4) represent damage that is unusual in character and not the type which would recur frequently

in the same area. The ECP program was funded at $25 million in 1997.

Flood Risk Reduction Program. The 1996 Farm Bill provides authority for the Secretary to enter into a contract with a producer who has contract

acreage in the production flexibility program that is frequently flooded. Producers can receive in advance as much as 95 percent of the projected

production flexibility contract payments the producer would otherwise have received from the time of enrollment in the Flood Risk Reduction

Program through September 30, 2002. In return, producers must terminate their production flexibility contract with respect to the enrolled acreage,

comply with swampbuster and conservation compliance provisions, and forego future disaster payments, crop insurance payments, conservation

program payments, and loans for contract commodities, oilseeds, and extra long staple cotton. The program is funded at $10 million in 1997.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Program Outlays 

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 Program 1996 Current 1998

 Actual Estimate Budget

Commodity:

 Feed Grains $2,404 $3,062 $3,129

 Wheat 1,491 1,362 1,538

 Rice 499 534 494

 Upland Cotton 685 667 751

 Tobacco -496 -711 145

 Dairy -98 82 110

 Soybeans -57 47 36

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (12 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Peanuts 100 3 a/

 Honey -14 -2 0

 Wool and Mohair 55 0 0

 Other b/ -142 -80 -91

 Subtotal 4,427 4,964 6,112

Disaster Assistance 95 48 0

Working Capital 111 250 250

Interest, Operating and Other 288 -9 232

Total, Commodity Programs $4,921 $5,253 $6,594

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ Includes minor oilseeds, vegetable oil products, extra long staple cotton, and sugar.

Commodity price and income support programs are administered by FSA and financed through the CCC. These commodity programs were

changed dramatically by provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. In the past, commodity programs have functioned as shock absorbers to offset the

effects of fluctuations in commodity prices on farm income. Deficiency payments for producers of feed grains, wheat, cotton and rice were tied to

market prices and decreased when market prices were high and increased when market prices were low. The 1996 Farm Bill replaced deficiency

payments with fixed production flexibility contract payments.

The production flexibility contract payments, based on historical program acreage and yields, are set by law for each of the seven years, from

1996-2002, and do not vary with market prices or current plantings. Under previous law, the Secretary had the authority to require farmers to idle a

portion of their cropland to earn deficiency payments. Under the 1996 Farm Bill, the Secretary no longer has such authority. Further, under

flexibility provisions of the Farm Bill, farmers are free to plant any crop (with the exception of limitations on fruits and vegetables) on their

cropland without a reduction in contract payments, as long as the producer remains in compliance with highly erodible land and wetland

conservation requirements.

While the nonrecourse loan programs for contract crops have been retained and continue to provide producers with some protection against sharp

declines in market prices, the changes in the income support programs have diminished the traditional role of the farm programs as a buffer against

fluctuations in production and commodity prices. These changes underscore the importance of crop insurance programs that help farmers manage

production risk. For producers of crops for which crop insurance is unavailable, the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP), administered by FSA

and funded through the CCC, provides coverage against catastrophic losses where area-wide crop losses exceed 35 percent of normal yields.

This Administration has assigned a high priority to enactment of legislation that will build better programs to help farmers manage risk and thereby

improve the safety net for farmers. The budget proposes legislation which will provide discretionary authority to extend commodity loans for 6

months during periods of severe market disruptions, allow for managed haying and grazing of CRP, increase fruit and vegetable planting flexibility

for acreage enrolled in production flexibility contracts, and provide greater flexibility in the timing of production flexibility contract payments.

Legislation will also be proposed to expand revenue insurance coverage and improve farm credit services.

The 1996 Farm Bill also modified price support provisions for dairy, sugar, and peanuts. Dairy price supports are to be phased out and marketing

orders are to be reformed and consolidated. Loan forfeiture fees effectively reduced sugar loan rates, marketing assessments were increased, and

marketing allotments eliminated. The peanut program was made no-net-cost (program costs may not exceed program receipts), the minimum

national peanut poundage quota was eliminated, and the quota loan rate was reduced.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Credit Corporation

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Program Levels Net Outlays 

 Program FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998

Commodity Programs:

 Price Support Loans $6,174 $7,922 -$233 $234

 Production Flexibility Contracts 6,350 5,706 6,350 5,706

 Deficiency Payments -1,128 0 -1,128 0

 Noninsured Assistance Payments 63 60 63 60

 Disaster Assistance 48 0 48 0

 Purchases and Sales 600 567 -71 0

 Interest Expenditures 92 359 -157 140

 Other 198 273 381 454

 Subtotal 12,397 14,887 5,253 6,594

Conservation Programs:

 Conservation Reserve Program 1,774 1,903 1,774 1,903

 Wetlands Reserve Program 119 164 65 129

 Environmental Quality Incentives 200 200 60 109

 Other 28 55 27 26

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (13 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Subtotal 2,121 2,322 1,926 2,167

Export Programs:

 Export Credit 5,500 5,700 219 340

 Market Access Program 90 90 95 90

 Export Enhancement Program 100 500 100 500

 Food For Progress Program 113 103 108 110

 Other 66 89 65 99

 Subtotal 5,869 6,482 587 1,139

Total, CCC $20,387 $23,691 $7,766 $9,900

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the source of funding for commodity programs administered by the Farm Service Agency,

conservation programs administered by the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and export programs

administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service. The CCC borrows funds needed to finance these programs from the U.S. Treasury and repays the

borrowings, with interest, from receipts and from appropriations provided by Congress. Total CCC spending and the mix of programs funded by

the CCC have changed in recent years. Export program outlays have decreased somewhat from peak levels of the mid 1990s, and spending for ad

hoc disaster assistance has been eliminated. The share of CCC spending for commodity programs declined as CCC funding was authorized for

export, conservation, and other programs.

CCC outlays last year were the lowest since 1981. They have declined from a high of almost $26 billion in 1986 to less than $5 billion in 1996.

Including conservation programs and other programs for which CCC funding was newly authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, CCC outlays are

projected to total $7.8 billion in 1997 and $9.9 billion in 1998. The increase from 1997 to 1998 reflects an increase in income support payments, an

increase in outlays for lending activities and increased spending projected for the conservation and export programs.

The net amount of income support payments increases from $5.2 billion in 1997 to $5.7 billion in 1998. The increase is consistent with the pattern

of expenditures set by the 1996 Farm Bill, and reflects refunds in 1997 of $1.1 billion in unearned deficiency payments on the 1995 crop. Increased

outlays for the conservation programs reflect higher signup levels for CRP as well as increasing obligations under the new programs established by

the 1996 Farm Bill. Increases for the export programs reflect primarily a higher program level for the Export Enhancement Program.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (14 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Finally, provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill limited the use of CCC funds for purchase of data processing equipment and support services traditionally

funded by the Corporation. These provisions (1) limited CCC expenditures for automated data processing equipment to $275 million between 1997

and 2002, and (2) capped the use of CCC funds to reimburse agencies for costs associated with programs administered by CCC. The cap, which

limits reimbursable expenses to the levels allotted in 1995 on reimbursable expenses, restricts the level of CCC funding available to support

technical assistance by NRCS and other government agencies for CRP and other programs funded by CCC. Technical assistance for EQIP is not

subject to these restrictions.

 Farm Service Agency

 Commodity Credit Corporation

 Reimbursable Agreements and ADP Expenditures

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Program Levels Net Outlays 

 Program FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998

 Reimbursable Agreements $41 $36 $43 $46

 ADP Expenditures 109 104 109 104

 Total $150 $140 $152 $150

Salaries and Expenses. The FSA's salaries and expenses account funds all management related activities for FSA programs. FSA also provides

administrative support to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and to the Risk Management Agency (RMA) under a reimbursable agreement.

The 1998 budget proposes a program level of $954.1 million estimated to support a ceiling of 5,877 Federal staff years and 9,879 non-Federal

county staff years.

This program level, slightly lower than the 1997 program level of $956 million, reflects the continued impact of the 1996 Farm Bill, which shifts

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (15 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
farm policy away from production- oriented programs to support farm income, such as deficiency payments, to fixed production flexibility contract

payments. This change means fewer staff are needed to service these programs, particularly at the field office level.

USDA administers farm, rural development and conservation programs through county and other field offices. USDA will conduct a study in 1997

to determine opportunities for greater efficiencies in this delivery system.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY (RMA)

 Crop Insurance Program

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

 Administrative and Operating Expenses $63 $64 $68

 Delivery Expenses 487 490 417 

 Indemnities 1,834 2,088 2,147

 R & D Reform Costs 3 5 11

 Other Expenses 2 0 0

 Total, Program Level 2,389 2,647 2,643

 Less Producer Premium -641 -773 -815

 Total, Government Costs $1,748 $1,874 $1,828 

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 combined the crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment programs. It required producers of

insurable crops to obtain catastrophic insurance (CAT) which provided a basic level of protection, compensating participants for losses greater than

50 percent of the normal yield at 60 percent of the expected price. The premium for this type of coverage is subsidized by the Federal government

so that the only cost to farmers is an annual processing fee of $50 per crop per county up to $200 per county, not to exceed $600 regardless of the

number of counties or crops involved. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 required farmers to obtain catastrophic coverage in order to

participate in Federal farm programs. Under the 1996 Farm Bill, farmers may sign a waiver foregoing catastrophic insurance and still maintain

participation rights.

Higher levels of coverage are available through private insurance companies. Coverage up to 75 percent of yield and 100 percent of market price is

available. Producers must pay a portion of the cost for this coverage; the Government subsidizes a portion of the premium cost, and pays all

delivery costs.

About 70 percent of the Nation's producers participate in the crop insurance program. More than half of the insured acreage is covered at higher

levels than CAT, and it is anticipated that more producers will buy-up in the future as they become more familiar with the program. Currently, over

50 of the most economically significant crops are insurable.

The 1998 budget proposes new legislation to improve the safety net for farmers by expanding the revenue insurance program nationwide. Revenue

insurance seeks to provide income protection to producers by offering price and yield guarantees. Under the 1996 Farm Bill, revenue insurance was

authorized as a pilot program and, as such, has been restricted to only certain States and crops. Despite its limited availability, revenue insurance

has been widely accepted by farmers who have had the opportunity to obtain such coverage. Further, no additional premium subsidy has been

required, and the realized loss ratio has been within the statutory limits, and comparable to RMA's standard multi-peril risk coverage. Thus, the

only additional cost to the Government associated with increased revenue insurance has been a modest increase in delivery expenses and expected

underwriting gains by the private insurance companies.

The Department proposes to partially offset the additional delivery expenses associated with expanding revenue insurance by making several

changes including reducing the loss ratio target and the administrative reimbursement rate paid to private companies. The proposed reimbursement

rate is a reduction from current law and reflects extensive analysis by both RMA and the General Accounting Office. The proposal also includes

some administrative actions which would provide more flexibility for determining subsidy amounts and establishing pilot programs, require a

processing fee for the review of industry requests for RMA's product approval and make certain changes in program compliance requirements.

None of these administrative changes is expected to have a budgetary impact.

Finally, the Department will also play a key role in educating farmers about the risk management tools available to them, and will use outreach

mechanisms through the private sector and electronic technology such as the Internet to expose farmers to other market products.

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (FAS)

 International Programs and Activities 

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (16 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Program Actual Estimate Budget

CCC Export Credit:

 Short-term Guarantees (GSM-102) $3,079 $5,000 $5,300

 (Supplier Credit Guarantees) (0) (250) (350)

 (Facilities Financing Guarantees) (0) (100) (100)

 Intermediate-term Guarantees 

 (GSM-103) 151 500 400

 Total, CCC Export Credit 3,230 5,500 5,700 

Market Access Program 90 90 90

Export Enhancement Program 5 100 500

Dairy Export Incentive Program 20 56 89

P.L. 480 Food Assistance 1,207 1,047 990

Food for Progress Program a/ 84 113 103

FAS Salaries and Expenses 167 178 183

 Total, International Programs $4,803 $7,084 $7,655

a/ Includes that portion of Food for Progress programming supported by CCC funds.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers a variety of export promotion and food assistance programs which contribute to achieving the

Department's export expansion objectives by increasing sales of U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets and developing long-term trading

relationships with other countries. The export programs have recently assumed added significance as a result of changes in domestic farm programs

made by the 1996 Farm Bill. Those changes have made U.S. farmers and ranchers more dependent upon exports to maintain and expand their

income and more vulnerable to shifting conditions in international markets. By helping to maximize export sales opportunities, the export programs

help to stabilize prices and incomes and thereby contribute to a greater safety net for U.S. producers.

CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs. Under these programs, guarantees are provided by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended

to finance U.S. agricultural export sales. Generally, export credit is made available to developing and middle-income countries with foreign

exchange constraints, which would not be able to purchase U.S. agricultural commodities without commercial credit being made available. A total

program level of $5.7 billion has been established for the CCC export credit guarantee programs for 1998, an increase of $200 million above the

1997 level. The increase consists of credit guarantees which will be made available to emerging overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products.

Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill require that not less than $1.0 billion of CCC export credit guarantees be made available to emerging markets

over a 7-year period and that these guarantees be additional to the $5.5 billion minimum annual program level for CCC export credit guarantees

mandated in separate statutory provisions. The budget assumes that the emerging markets guarantees will be made available in equal annual

amounts of $200 million beginning in 1998.

Of the total program level for CCC export credit guarantees in 1998, $5.3 billion will be made available under the GSM-102 program, which

provides guarantees on export credit with short-term repayment terms (up to 3 years), and $400 million will be made available under the GSM-103

program, which provides intermediate-term credit guarantees (3 to 10 year repayment terms).

Included within the GSM-102 program level for 1998 are $350 million of supplier credit guarantees, an increase of $100 million above the 1997

level. Under this credit activity, which was implemented in 1996, CCC guarantees payment by foreign buyers of U.S. agricultural commodities and

products which are sold by U.S. suppliers on a deferred payment basis. This differs from other GSM-102 guarantees in that foreign banks and

foreign bank letters of credit are not involved in the transaction, but rather the foreign buyer alone bears ultimate responsibility for repayment of

the credit. The duration of the credit is relatively short, not to exceed 180 days. Supplier credit guarantees are expected to be particularly useful in

facilitating sales of high value products, a fast-growing component of U.S. agricultural exports.

The GSM-102 program level also includes a new facilities financing credit guarantee activity which is expected to implemented during 1997.

Under this activity, CCC will provide guarantees to encourage the sale of facilities and/or U.S. goods and services to address infrastructure barriers

to increasing sales of U.S. agricultural products. To be eligible for guarantee coverage, projects must improve the handling, marketing, storage, or

distribution of imported agricultural commodities and products.

A program level of $100 million has been established for facilities guarantees for 1998, unchanged from the 1997 level. Program regulations to

implement facilities financing guarantees are expected to be published later this year.

Market Access Program (MAP). The purpose of MAP (formerly the Market Promotion Program) is to support the development, maintenance, and

expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. Under the program, CCC funds are used to partially

reimburse participating organizations for the costs of carrying out foreign market development and export promotion activities in designated

countries. Participating organizations include nonprofit agricultural trade organizations, State regional trade groups, and private companies. With

respect to private companies, provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill have changed the eligibility criteria for MAP to prohibit the provision of direct

assistance to foreign firms for the promotion of foreign-produced products and to any firm that is not recognized as a small business concern under

the Small Business Act. The budget provides a program level of $90 million for MAP in 1998, the maximum annual program level established by

the 1996 Farm Bill and unchanged from 1997.

Export Subsidy Programs. The Department currently has two export subsidy programs: the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and Dairy Export

Incentive Program (DEIP). Under these programs, bonus payments are made available to exporters of U.S. agricultural commodities to enable them

to be price competitive and thereby make sales in targeted overseas markets where competitor countries are making subsidized sales.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (17 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Under the terms of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, the export subsidy practices of agricultural exporting countries are being

reduced; the Agreement establishes annual ceilings by commodity group with respect to both the quantity and budgetary expenditures for export

subsidies. Over a 6-year period, subsidized exports are to be reduced 21 percent in volume and 36 percent in budget outlays from 1986-1990 base

period levels. For the United States, the quantity reductions will be carried out on a July- June basis, which began July 1, 1995, while the

expenditure reductions will be carried out on an October-September basis, which began October 1, 1995.

Program activity under both the EEP and DEIP in 1996 was lower than in recent years due to world commodity supply and competitive conditions.

However, the budget provides higher program levels for both EEP and DEIP in 1997 and 1998 to allow for changed market conditions. For EEP,

the budget provides a program level of $500 million for 1998, the maximum program level established by the 1996 Farm Bill. This is an increase

of $400 million above the 1997 EEP program level, which has been limited to $100 million by a provision of the 1997 Agriculture Appropriations

Act. For DEIP, the budget assumes an increase in program activity in 1997 and again in 1998 due to expanded sales under the program.

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 Public Law 480 Food Assistance Programs

 Program and Tonnage Levels

 

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Title I Credit Sales:

 Dollars in Millions $290 $180 a/ $123

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 0.9 0.7 a/ 0.6

Title II Donations:

 Dollars in Millions 864 837 837

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 1.9 2.4 2.4

Title III Grants:

 Dollars in Millions 53 30 30

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 0.2 0.1 0.2

Total, P.L. 480 Programs:

 Dollars in Millions $1,207 $1,047 a/ $990

 Million Metric Tons Grain Equivalent 3.0 3.2 a/ 3.2

a/ Includes the effect of a proposed rescission of $50 million in budget authority and

 $60 million in program level for Title I.

Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). Also referred to as Food for Peace, P.L. 480 is the primary means by which the United States provides foreign food

assistance. This assistance is provided through three separate program authorities.

Title I of P.L. 480 provides for sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities through long-term concessional

financing. In allocating assistance to be provided under the Title I program, priority is given to agreements which provide for the export of U.S.

agricultural commodities to those developing countries which have demonstrated the potential to become commercial markets, are undertaking

measures to improve their food security and agricultural development, and demonstrate the greatest need for food. The Title I program is

administered by FAS.

Title II provides for donations of humanitarian food assistance to needy people in foreign countries in response to malnutrition, famine, and other

situations with extraordinary relief requirements. The assistance is provided primarily through private voluntary organizations, cooperatives, or

international organizations, including the World Food Program of the United Nations. In the case of donations made in response to emergency

needs, Title II assistance can also be provided through government-to-government agreements. The Title II program is administered by the Agency

for International Development (AID).

Title III provides food assistance on a grant basis to least developed countries through government-to-government agreements. The donated

commodities may be sold on the domestic market of the recipient countries, and the revenue generated from the sale is used to support programs of

economic development. The Title III program is also administered by AID.

The budget includes a proposed rescission of $50 million in budget authority for P.L. 480 Title I in 1997, which reduces the Title I program level

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (18 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
by $60 million and estimated commodity shipments by 200,000 metric tons. Allocations of Title I commodity assistance which have already been

announced for 1997 will not be affected by the rescission because the reduction in program funding will be taken from a reserve of unallocated

funds and from unobligated funds carried over from 1996. The rescission is being proposed as a partial offset for a supplemental appropriations

request for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).

For 1998, the budget includes a total program level for P.L. 480 food assistance of $990 million, a reduction of $57 million from the revised

estimate for 1997. The proposed 1998 level is expected to provide approximately 3.2 million metric tons of commodity assistance, unchanged from

the level currently anticipated for 1997. While reduced funding is proposed for Title I, the budget continues the Title II grant program unchanged

from the 1997 level. The 1998 Title III budget is slightly higher than the 1997 level. This will ensure that adequate resources are available to meet

the most serious food assistance needs, including emergencies.

The budget also includes a proposal to shift the budget and expenditures for P.L. 480 Title I from the international affairs function to the

agriculture function of the Federal budget. This reflects changes made in the Title I statutory authorities in recent years, which have placed far

greater emphasis on the program's market development objectives. Most recently, the 1996 Farm Bill amended Title I to authorize agreements with

private entities in addition to foreign governments.

With these changes, the importance and role of the Title I program in the Department's overall long-term market development strategy has

increased. Shifting Title I to the agriculture function will allow the program to be managed and budgeted as part of a consistent package of

agricultural export programs. All other USDA export programs are presently included in the agriculture function. In addition, funding for programs

included in the international affairs function has been severely constrained in recent years, which has contributed to reduced funding for Title I.

Moving the program to the agriculture function will enhance the Department's ability to support future budgetary resources for the program and

thereby ensure its continued viability.

Food for Progress. Under this program, U.S. agricultural commodities are provided to developing countries and emerging democracies which have

commitments to introduce and expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies.

Food for Progress agreements can be entered into with foreign governments, private voluntary agencies, nonprofit agricultural organizations,

cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations. Agreements may provide for the commodities to be provided on either long-term credit or grant

terms. Food for Progress commodities and program funding can be provided through three different sources: P.L. 480 Title I funds can be used for

the procurement and transportation costs of the commodities; CCC-owned commodities can be made available under the authority of section

416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 with transportation and other non-commodity expenses paid with CCC funds; or CCC funds can be used for

both the procurement and shipment of commodities when CCC does not have surplus commodities in inventory.

The authorizing statute for Food for Progress limits annual programming to not more than 500,000 metric tons and limits CCC funding for the

non-commodity costs (e.g., transportation) of programming to $30 million per year. The budget assumes that approximately $103 million of CCC

funds will be used to support Food for Progress programming in 1998. This includes $73 million for the purchase of commodities by CCC and $30

million for transportation and related costs. Additional Food for Progress programming is expected to be carried out with funding made available

under P.L. 480 Title I.

 Foreign Agricultural Service

 Salaries and Expenses

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Strategic Outreach and

 Market Intelligence $26 $28 $38

Market Development and Promotion 60 68 62

Market Access 14 15 15

Price/Credit and Risk Assistance 15 15 16

Long-term Market Development 10 10 20

 Total, Direct Programs 125 136 151

Reimbursable Programs Funded by AID 

 and Other Organizations 32 32 32

Emerging Markets Program Funded

 by CCC 10 10 -- a/

 Total, Salaries and Expenses $167 $178 $183

a/ Included in Long-term Market Development above.

The mission of FAS is to open, expand, and maintain overseas markets for U.S. food and agricultural products. To accomplish its mission, FAS

carries out a diverse array of trade promotion, market development, and international cooperation activities on a worldwide basis. Implementation

of these activities is guided by the Department's Long-term Agricultural Trade Strategy (LATS), which FAS prepares and updates on a periodic

basis.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (19 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
The LATS incorporates five policy objectives for accomplishing the agency's mission. For the 1998 budget, the FAS budget presentation and

activity structure have been revised to reflect these five policy objectives. These changes are intended to ensure that FAS budget development and

resource allocation processes are consistent with the agency's strategic plan and the performance-based management requirements of the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

The five new budget categories encompass the following agency activities:

Strategic Outreach and Market Intelligence -- activities designed to increase domestic awareness of export opportunities, facilitate export readiness,

and link export-ready and new-to-export firms to market entry opportunities; and market intelligence and reporting activities which provide U.S.

producers, exporters, and government officials with information and analysis of world agricultural production and trade.

Market Development and Promotion -- activities designed to create demand for U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets, introduce U.S. food

and agricultural products to potential foreign customers, and demonstrate the quality and use of U.S. products. Funding for the Foreign Market

Development (Cooperator) Program, food and agricultural trade shows, and FAS's 14 overseas Agricultural Trade Offices (ATOs) is included in

this category.

Market Access -- international trade policy formulation, negotiation and monitoring activities designed to reduce foreign trade barriers and increase

market access for U.S. agricultural products.

Price/Credit and Risk Assistance -- administration of the Department's major export programs, including the CCC export credit guarantee

programs, export subsidy programs, and foreign food assistance programs.

Long-term Market Development -- administration of international cooperation and development activities, including scientific and technical

exchanges, cooperative research, trade investment activities, liaison with international food and agricultural organizations, and agricultural

technical assistance and training. Funding for the Cochran Fellowship Program and Emerging Markets Program is included in this category.

The previous budget structure included funding for FAS's 62 overseas counselor and attaché posts in one activity category (Foreign Agricultural

Affairs). Under the revised structure, the operating costs of these overseas offices are now pro-rated among the five new activity categories due to

the fact these offices make a contribution to each of the agency's policy objectives. The distribution of these costs among the activity categories

was determined based on a survey of post activity and client demand.

The 1998 budget for FAS includes appropriated funding of $151 million, an increase of $15 million above the 1997 level. Of the total requested

increase, $14 million will be used to meet the costs of two FAS activities which are currently supported with CCC funds made available to FAS

through reimbursable agreements. The budget proposes to shift these costs from mandatory to discretionary spending and provide all future

funding for these activities through FAS appropriations. As a result of this change, future funding for these activities will no longer be subject to

the annual limitation on CCC reimbursable agreements established by provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill.

The first of these activities is the Emerging Markets Program authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990.

This program supports technical assistance and related activities which further U.S. market development objectives in promising overseas growth

markets. The program provides seed money to improve food and rural business systems in targeted emerging markets where there is potential to

increase U.S. exports significantly over the long term. Annual funding for the Emerging Markets Program will continue at $10 million and will be

included in the long- term market development activity category of the FAS budget.

Also proposed for shifting to the FAS appropriation are the operating costs of the CCC Computer Facility, which serves as the Department's

collection point for international production intelligence and crop estimates, and other, related FAS Information Resources Management (IRM)

costs which in the past have been funded through a reimbursable agreement with CCC. The total of these IRM costs, for which direct funding is

now proposed in the FAS strategic outreach and market intelligence budget category, is estimated at $9.7 million in 1998. The budget provides

increased funding of $4.0 million to partially meet these costs; the remaining $5.7 million will be met through a reduction in FAS market

development activities. This will be achieved through a reduction in marketing programs carried out through the ATOs and increased cost-share

contributions by participants in the Cooperator Program.

The budget provides an additional increase of $500,000 for FAS to implement a market access barrier identification project. Under this initiative,

FAS will implement a systematic process to review, identify, and catalog technical barriers to trade and other technical requirements that limit

export opportunities in the largest markets for U.S. agricultural products. The development of a systematic and comprehensive catalogue of these

barriers and requirements is an important step in preparing for the next round of multilateral trade negotiations. In addition, their identification will

assist U.S. exporters in their efforts to gain entry to new overseas markets.

The FAS budget also includes an advance appropriation of $3 million for 1999 to offset documentable wage and price increases and/or exchange

rate losses during 1998. Associated with the advance appropriation, the budget includes language that will allow funds appropriated to FAS to be

obligated over two years rather than one; this will allow savings that may be realized in the operation of FAS overseas posts and ATOs as a result

of exchange rate gains during the first year to carry over for use in the following year.

Finally, the FAS budget includes an estimated $32 million in funding to be made available through reimbursable agreements. This consists of

funding for technical assistance, training, and research activities which FAS carries out overseas on behalf of the Agency for International

Development, foreign governments, and international organizations.

 Return to Table of Contents.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (20 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MISSION

The mission of USDA Rural Development is to improve the quality of life for rural residents. To do this, USDA works closely with the private and

nonprofit sectors and with State, tribal and local governments to coordinate Federal assistance to rural areas, and to administer a broad range of

programs that provide loan, grant, and technical assistance to help rural Americans build strong economies. Some programs provide assistance to

individual rural residents, for example, low-interest loans and loan guarantees for the purchase and repair of modest housing units. Other programs

and grants help in the financing of facilities that provide services to rural residents. Examples include rural electrification and telecommunications

loans, water and waste disposal loans and grants, and community facility loans and grants. Still other programs, primarily those that provide

financial and other assistance to rural businesses, serve rural residents by saving and creating jobs for their economic livelihood.

There are three agencies in this mission area: the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

USDA administers farm, rural development and conservation programs through county and other field offices. USDA will conduct a study in 1997

to determine opportunities for greater efficiencies in this delivery system.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. 

B.A.

Rural Utilities Service $2,444 $700 $3,035 $681 $3,047 

$734

Rural Housing Service 4,241 1,332 4,753 1,217 5,831 

1,335

Rural Business-Cooperative

Service 765 104 887 97 810 

101

Alternative Agricultural Research

and Commercialization Corporation 8 7 7 7 10 

10

Total, Rural Development $7,458 $2,143 $8,682 $2,002 $9,698 

$2,180

For loan programs, the budget reflects both an estimated loan level, which is also the program level, and the budget authority necessary to cover the

interest subsidy and other costs over the lifetime of the loans.

Overall, the 1998 budget reflects the Administration's strong support for ensuring that rural Americans have the ability to take advantage of the

same opportunities for economic growth that exist in urban areas. It supports the Administration's Water 2000 initiative which targets resources to

the estimated 2.5 million rural residents who have some of the Nation's most serious drinking water availability, dependability and quality

problems. It provides direct loans and guarantees to meet the Administration's commitment to increased home ownership. It targets resources to

those rural residents and communities most in need of assistance, for example, under the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

(EZ/EC) initiative. And, it provides more flexibility for meeting State and local priorities by implementing the Rural Community Advancement

Program (RCAP).

Current estimates of the 1997 program levels for some loan programs are lower than the levels reflected in the Agriculture Appropriations Act for

1997. This is because interest rates are higher than the rates that were assumed in the 1997 budget, resulting in a decrease in the program levels that

could be supported with the budget authority that was provided in the Act. The 1998 budget for the mission area reflects an increase of $1 billion in

program level over the current estimate for 1997, and an increase of over $2 billion from 1996, when Congress provided about the same level of

budget authority as in the 1998 request. The program level increase in 1998 is attributable to both a projected decline in interest rates from 1997

and an additional $178 million in budget authority. The increased budget authority will be targeted to the highest priority programs including:

the single family housing direct loan program, for which the 1998 budget proposes about $45 million in additional budget authority in order

to support a $1 billion program level, which is about the same level as achieved in 1996 and substantially above the current estimate of $585

● 

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (21 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
million for 1997.

a $17 million increase in rental assistance payments which reflects additional renewals under USDA's on-going rural rental assistance

program. The language also includes a shift from HUD in the responsibility for and funding of Section 8 contracts in USDA financed

projects. For about 1,700 projects financed by RHS in the late 1970's and early 1980's, HUD provided 20-year Section 8 rental assistance

contracts. As these contracts expire, they will be replaced with less costly RHS rental assistance.

● 

an additional $53 million for essential rural utilities programs, primarily distance learning and medical link programs and block grants to the

States.

● 

Many of the Department's rural development programs would be delivered under provisions of the Rural Community Advancement Program

(RCAP) authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill.

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM (RCAP)

The 1996 Farm Bill authorized the Department to manage a portion of its current array of rural development programs through one integrated

initiative that:

● increases flexibility to ensure that investments more effectively meet local needs,

● reinvents program implementation and increases reliance on performance measures, and;

ensures participation in the development of State strategic plans from State and local officials, the non-profit and private sectors, the State

Rural Development Councils, and others involved in the rural development process.

● 

The 1996 Farm Bill provides for the transfer of up to 25 percent of the funding in each of three funding categories (community facilities, water and

waste disposal, and business assistance) between categories at the State level and up to 10 percent nationally.

The 1996 Farm Bill authorized up to 5 percent of regular program funds to be provided to the States in the form of grants as part of RCAP and an

additional 5 percent on a matching basis.

In 1997, Congress appropriated funds to 3 assistance programs, the Rural Housing Assistance Program (RHAP), the Rural Business-Cooperative

Assistance Program (RB- CAP), and the Rural Utilities Assistance Program (RUAP). Although State Directors were given flexibility for shifting

funds within categories to reflect local needs, no flexibility was provided for shifting funds between categories. No funds were provided for grants

to States.

The 1998 request would fully implement RCAP. The programs and the amounts of funding for these programs that would be included in the RCAP

for 1998 are as follows:

 Rural Community Advancement Program

 Sources of Funding

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1998 1998

 Program Budget

 Program Level Authority

Water and Waste Disposal Loans:

Direct $734 $72

Guarantees 75 0

Water and Waste Disposal Grants 484 484

Solid Waste Management Grants 3 3

Community Facility Loans:

Direct 209 18

Guarantees 209 1

Community Facility Grants 9 9

Business and Industry Loans:

Direct 50 0

Guarantees 611 6

Rural Business Enterprise Grants 40 40

State Non-Matching Grants 29 29

State Matching Grants 27 27

Total, Loans and Grants $2,480 $689

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS)

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998 a/

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (22 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Loan Programs:

Electric Loans:

Direct 5% $91 $21 $69 $4 $125 $9

Municipal 545 57 456 28 400 17

FFB Insured 187 1 300 3 300 3

Total, Electric Loans 823 79 825 35 825 29

Telecommunications Loans:

Direct 5% 71 14 75 1 40 1

Treasury Rate 217 b/ 300 b/ 300 b/

FFB Insured 78 - - 120 - - 120 - -

Total, Telecom. Loans 366 14 495 1 460 1

Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) 126 4 176 2 175 4

Total, Elec., Tele. and RTB 1,315 97 1,496 38 1,460 34

Distance Learning and Medical

Link Treasury Rate Loans - - - - 150 1 150 b/

 

Water and Waste Disposal Loans

Direct 603 136 739 67 734 72

Guaranteed 59 - - 75 - - 75 - -

Total, Wtr & Wst Dis Loans 662 136 814 67 809 72 

Grant Programs:

Distance Learning & Med. Link 8 8 7 7 21 21

Water and Waste Disposal 392 392 498 498 484 484

Solid Waste Management 2 2 3 3 3 3

State Non-Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 26 26

State Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 24 24

Total, Grants 402 402 508 508 558 558

Total, RUS Loans & Grants 2,379 635 2,968 614 2,977 664

Salaries and Expenses 65 65 67 67 70 70

Total, RUS $2,444 $700 $3,035 $681 $3,047 $734

a/ For 1998, the following are included in the Rural Community Advancement

Program - Water and Waste disposal direct and guaranteed loans and grants, solid

waste and State grants. (See page 38.)

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

The electric and telecommunications programs provide loans for upgrading and expanding facilities to improve service to rural residents. Most

borrowers are able to get a portion of their credit needs from private sources. However, direct loans allow borrowers to leverage private sources of

credit to meet their full credit requirements. These loans are made available at Treasury and municipal bond interest rates, as well as 5 percent

interest for hardship borrowers.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 endorses the concept of universal service so that rural areas, with low population density and limited

economic means, are not excluded from the benefits of modern telecommunications technology. The programs administered by the Rural Utilities

Service provide financing for rural America to gain equal access to these important technologies.

The Distance Learning and Medical Link Program provides assistance for facilities and equipment to provide telecommunications linkages among

education and health care facilities. The program has experienced a demand for funds far in excess of the amount of funding that has been

available. The budget provides for a substantial increase in the Distance Learning and Medical Link Program. The level of grants would nearly

triple the amount that was appropriated for 1997, and the loan program would be maintained at $150 million at the Treasury interest rate. This

increase in funding is necessary to ensure that rural America is properly linked to the Information Superhighway.

Further, the budget provides for a $56 million increase in the level of direct 5 percent interest electric loans. The level of FFB-insured electric loans

will be maintained at the same level as 1997. A $56 million decline in the level of direct municipal rate electric loans is proposed. The

telecommunication loan levels are essentially the same as provided for in the 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act, except that the level of direct 5

percent interest telecommunication loans would decline $35 million.

The Water and Waste Disposal Program provides assistance to communities with populations not in excess of 10,000. Communities must be

denied access to commercial credit in order to be eligible for assistance. The Needs Survey, conducted every two years by the Environmental

Protection Agency indicates that there are significant needs for such assistance in order to bring communities into conformance with Federal

drinking water and other health standards. Through the Water 2000 initiative, the Department is targeting resources to the estimated 2.5 million

rural Americans who have some of the Nation's most serious drinking water availability, dependability, and quality problems. This number

includes over 400,000 rural households, identified in the 1990 Census, who lack complete plumbing.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (23 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
The 1998 budget requests budget authority under RCAP of $609 million to support $809 million in loans and $537 million in grants, including $50

million in grants to the States, as required by the 1996 Farm Bill. In 1997, Congress appropriated $567 million in budget authority under the Rural

Utilities Assistance Program (RUAP) to support water and waste disposal loans and grants, and provided USDA with flexibility to use the budget

authority for either loans or grants. Using the flexibility provided by RUAP, the budget authority was converted into a program level of $814

million in loans and $501 million in grants. The increase in budget authority requested for 1998 would support the Administration's Water 2000

initiative, which would help to bring the basic amenity of clean and safe running water to rural America's poorest communities, particularly

households which lack complete plumbing.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE (RHS)

Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998 a/

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Rural Housing Loans:

Single-Family

Direct $1,016 $145 $585 $83 $1,000 $128

Guarantees 1,700 3 2,700 6 3,000 7

Guarantee Unsub Refinancing -- -- -- -- 100 b/

Rural Rental Housing 151 81 153 79 150 69

Multi Family Guarantees 13 1 13 1 -- --

Very Low-Income Repair 35 13 30 11 30 10

Farm Labor Housing 15 8 15 7 15 7

Self-Help Housing b/ b/ 1 b/ 1 b/

Housing Site Development 1 - - 1 - - 1 - -

Credit Sales - - - - 28 4 25 4

Total, Housing Loans 2,931 251 3,526 191 4,322 225

Community Facility Loans:

Direct 208 35 137 12 209 18

Guarantees 56 3 74 a/ 209 1

Total, Community Facility Loans 264 38 211 12 418 19

Grants and Payments:

Community Facility -- -- 7 7 9 9

Very Low-Income Repair 26 26 16 16 25 25

Farm Labor Housing 10 10 6 6 10 10

Mutual and Self-Help 13 13 26 26 26 26

Supervisory and Technical Asst. 3 -- 2 -- b/ --

Compensation for Const. Defects b/ b/ b/ -- b/ -- 

Rural Housing Preservation 11 11 7 7 10 10

Rental Assistance Payments 540 540 524 524 541 541

Section 8 HUD Transfer -- -- -- -- 52 52

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998 a/

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Grants and Payments (Cont.):

Fire Protection Grants $2 $2 $1 $1 $2 $2

State Non-Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 1 1

State Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 1 1

Total, Grants 605 602 589 587 677 677

Total, Loans and Grants 3,800 891 4,326 790 5,417 921

Salaries and Expenses 441 441 427 427 414 414

Total, RHS $4,241 $1,332 $4,753 $1,217 $5,831 $1,335

a/ In 1998, community facility loans and loan guarantees as well as grants are

included in the Rural Community Advancement Program (See

page 38.) 

b/ Less than $0.5 million. 

RHS administers the Department's rural housing programs, which provide direct loans, loan guarantees, rental assistance payments, and grants for

low-income families who reside in rural areas. The agency also administers the community facility loan and grant programs.

The 1998 budget for this agency supports an increase in program level of slightly more than $1.0 billion over 1997, bringing the 1998 level to $5.8

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (24 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
billion. Of this amount, $4.7 billion represents loans -- the largest components being $3.0 billion in unsubsidized single family housing loan

guarantees and $1.0 billion in direct single family housing loans.

Direct single family housing loans are made to very low- and low-income families. These loans may receive an interest rate credit subsidy that can

reduce the borrower's interest rate down to as low as 1 percent. In 1997, the budget for the direct loan program was reduced by nearly half, to $585

million. The program level that can be supported with the amount of budget authority that is appropriated depends on the program's subsidy rate,

which is greatly influenced by the Treasury's cost of borrowing. The 1997 budget for this program was based on a subsidy rate of 8.3 percent.

Congress appropriated $83 million to support a program level of $1 billion. However, when the budget was executed, Treasury rates had not fallen

to the level assumed in the budget, so the subsidy rate increased to 14.18 percent. As a result, the $83 million in budget authority could only

support a program level of $585 million. The 1998 budget proposes an increase of over $400 million, and would restore this program to its 1996

level. The Administration added $20 million in budget authority from the Fund for Rural America for direct single family housing loans in 1997.

This amount of budget authority will support an estimated $141 million in loans. Loan guarantees primarily serve families with moderate incomes;

the interest rate is negotiable between lender and borrower. The 1998 budget proposes an increase of $300 million in these loan guarantees and a

new $100 million program of unsubsidized refinancing guarantees.

The rural rental housing loan program would be maintained at $150 million in 1998. This program provides financing to construct and maintain

multifamily rental projects that serve low-income families. Loans made under this program are also eligible for interest credit assistance, based on

the incomes of the families that occupy units in the projects.

The budget request for this program reflects proposed legislation which would shorten the loan term from 50 to 30 years, while amortizing the loan

over 50 years. This would reduce the subsidy rate from 53.4 percent to 45.8 percent, resulting in a 17 percent higher program level with the same

amount of budget authority. In addition, about 60 percent of the units in most projects receive rental assistance payments, to bring the rent on such

units down to 30 percent of the income of the occupant. Rental assistance is needed in about 90 percent of the units in new projects. Rental

assistance contracts are usually made for 5 years, and require renewal in order to keep the unit available for low-income families and the project

viable for the sponsor. The budget includes $593 million for the rental assistance program, $69 million more than was appropriated for 1997. Part

of this will be used for renewals of existing contracts and part will be used to provide rental assistance to RHS-financed rural rental housing

projects currently receiving HUD Section 8 rental assistance. As the Section 8 contracts expire, they will be converted to less costly RHS rental

assistance. The budget of $593 million for rental assistance includes $52 million in budget authority for this purpose, reflecting the shift in

responsibilities from HUD.

The 1998 budget provides $25 million for credit sales. Such sales are used to finance sales of properties that the agency acquires through

foreclosure and other actions.

The agency's other housing programs serve specific needs, such as repair, self-help (whereby families work together in the construction of their

homes) and farm labor housing projects. Under the community facilities program, priority is given to the financing of health and safety facilities.

There are three interest rates available on direct loans, with the lowest, 4.5 percent, offered to communities where the median income is below the

poverty level and for projects to meet health and sanitary standards. The budget provides for increasing the direct loan program from the 1997 level

of $137 million to $209 million, and the guarantee program from $74 million to $209 million. The budget also requests an increase in community

facilities grants, from $7 million to $9 million.

The budget provides for a decrease in administrative expenses. This reduction reflects the efficiencies realized from implementing the agency's

Direct Loan Origination and Servicing (DLOS) system. DLOS will deliver modern services to rural single-family housing borrowers through a

centralized loan origination and servicing center, and is expected to save over $250 million during its first 5 years and $100 million in each

subsequent year.

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998 a/

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Loans:

Business and Industry:

Guarantees $638 $6 $688 $6 $611 $6

Direct -- -- 50 b/ 50 --

Intermediary Relending Prog. 38 22 37 17 35 17

Rural Economic Development 9 3 12 3 25 c/

Total, Loans 685 31 787 26 721 23

Grants:

Rural Business Enterprise 45 45 41 41 40 40

Rural Business Opportunity -- -- 1 1 -- --

Rural Cooperative Development 1 1 2 2 2 2

 Appropriate Technology Transfer

 for Rural Areas 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rural Economic Development 7 c/ 29 c/ 11 c/

State Non-Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 2 2

State Matching Grants -- -- -- -- 2 2

Total, Grants 54 47 74 45 58 47

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (25 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Total, Loans and Grants 739 78 861 71 779 70

Salaries and Expenses 26 26 26 26 31 31

Total, RBS $765 $104 $887 $97 $810 $101

a/ For 1998 Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans, the Rural Business 

Enterprise Grants and the State Grants are included in the Rural Community 

Advancement Program. (See page 38.)

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

c/ Section 313 of the Rural Electric Act provides the authority to make loans and

grants with earnings generated by the interest differential on voluntary cushion of

credit payments made by RUS borrowers. Therefore, necessary budget authority

is transferred from the cushion of credit account.

RBS administers the Department's rural business assistance programs, including technical assistance, development, and research for agricultural

cooperatives. The agency delivers a wide variety of services to its clients. Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantees, for example, provide

protection against loss so that private lenders will be willing to extend credit to the borrower-client. Other programs, including the intermediary

relending program and the rural economic development programs allow sponsors to borrow from the agency in order to make loans to businesses

and other organizations for development purposes.

The 1998 budget proposes to maintain the loan and grant programs of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service at essentially the same level of

budget authority as provided for by the 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act.

The Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program would be reduced from $688 million in 1997 to $611 million in 1998. The budget also

proposes a $50 million B&I direct loan program, the same level as in 1997. It is projected that this level of direct loan assistance can be provided at

no subsidy cost, therefore, no budget authority is requested. This funding will allow the agency to reach small businesses in rural areas where

private lender participation to make guaranteed loans is not readily available, as well as other small businesses, such as those with innovative

processes, that private lenders have been reluctant to serve.

ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION 

CORPORATION (AARC)

 Program Level (P.L.) and Budget Authority (B.A.)

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1996 1997 1998 

 Actual Cur. Est. Budget 

 Program P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A. P.L. B.A.

Investments $8 $7 $7 $7 $10 $10

The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization (AARC) Corporation makes equity investments in rural businesses to assist in the

technological development and commercialization of industrial (non-food, non-feed) uses for agricultural materials and animal by-products. These

investments become subject to repayment once the project becomes successful, thereby allowing greater flexibility towards repayment than can be

accommodated under conventional loan terms, which require immediate repayment.

The 1998 budget proposes an increase in funding for the AARC Corporation from $7 million in 1997 to $10 million in 1998.

 Return to Table of Contents.

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICE (FCS)

The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) administers America's domestic nutrition programs. The FCS mission is to provide children and needy

families access to a more healthful diet through its food assistance programs and comprehensive nutrition education efforts. FCS fulfills its mission

principally via food stamps, the cornerstone of our National commitment to protect the nutrition, health, and well-being of low- income families;

the Child Nutrition Programs; the Commodity Assistance Program (CAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC). These programs are administered to support the Administration's goals of supporting work, family and responsibility.

FCS programs are operated in a State/Federal partnership, in which the Federal government is generally responsible for food costs for the programs

and shares administrative costs with States. FCS is responsible for interpreting Federal statutes, issuing program regulations and instructions,

establishing nationwide standards, and ensuring program integrity. FCS regional offices monitor State agencies to ensure the adequacy of their

administration. States are responsible for determining the eligibility of needy persons to participate in nutrition assistance programs, as well as the

delivery of services. States are also generally responsible for coordinating USDA nutrition programs with other local welfare, health care, and

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (26 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
assistance programs.

Funding requirements for the food assistance programs are sensitive to economic factors, including the number of income eligible recipients and

the cost of food. Food cost inflation has been moderate recently.

The income eligibility threshold for benefits, such as food stamps and free school meals, limits participation to those with family incomes at or

below 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines ($20,280 for a family of four in 1997). The threshold for WIC and reduced-price meals is set

at 185 percent of poverty ($28,860 for a family of four in 1997).

 Food and Consumer Service

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

 Food Stamp Program $24,259 $23,673 $24,562 a/

 Food Distribution to Indians 65 65 75

 Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico 1,143 1,174 1,204

 Total, Food Stamp Program 25,467 24,912 25,841

 Child Nutrition Programs 8,469 8,713 b/ 8,926

 Special Supp. Nutrition Program (WIC) 3,715 3,975 c/ 4,108 d/

 Commodity Assistance Program:

 Commodity Supp. Food Program 87 92 86

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly 148 145 140

 Soup Kitchens, Food Banks and Emergency 

 Food Assistance 80 184 e/ 145 f/

 Pacific Island Assistance 1 1 1

 Total, CAP 316 422 372

 Food Program Administration 105 104 106

 Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 3 2 2

 

Total, FCS $38,075 $38,128 $39,355

a/ Excludes $2.5 billion requested for Food Stamp Program contingency reserve and 

 $40 million for not yet identified costs for technical changes associated with Welfare

 Reform.

b/ Includes $6.2 million supplemental requested for Nutrition Education and Training,

 offset by a $6.2 million reduction in TEFAP commodities available under the Food

 Stamp Program.

c/ Includes $100 million supplemental requested.

d/ Excludes $100 million requested in 1998 for WIC contingency reserve.

e/ Includes $93.8 million in TEFAP commodities available under the Food Stamp

Program.

f/ Includes $100 million available under the Food Stamp Program for mandatory

 commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program as required by

 the 1996 Farm Bill.

The Department's 1998 budget funds the mandatory Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs, including implementation of Welfare Reform

changes. In 1998, a $133 million increase in program level for WIC, a program scored in the discretionary category, is requested, plus $100 million

in supplemental funding for 1997. The budget also continues the emphasis on strengthening program integrity in the Food Stamp, Child Nutrition,

and WIC Programs. The details of the nutrition programs follow.

Food Stamps. The budget for the Food Stamp Program increases by about $1 billion over 1997 and incorporates changes due to enactment of

Welfare Reform. The Administration is also proposing legislative changes to moderate the harsher effects of Welfare Reform as they affect

families with children and individuals looking for, but unable to find work. The changes proposed for the Food Stamp Program include: increasing

and eventually removing the shelter deduction cap; reindexing the standard deduction; increasing and then reindexing the vehicle asset limitation;

delaying the Food Stamp ban for legal immigrants until the end of 1997; toughening work requirements for participants aged 18-50; and expanding

the number of work slots for, and wage supplementation to, this group. Additional emphasis will be placed on initiatives to reduce over and

underpayment errors and trafficking.

FCS continues to aggressively fight Food Stamp trafficking fraud and the sale of non- food products for food stamps by coordinating with the

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conduct "sweeps" to identify and eliminate ineligible stores from the program. Electronic Benefit Transfer

(EBT) implementation will continue under this request. By substituting electronic debit cards for food coupons, benefits are provided more

conveniently to recipients, and in most cases retailer and program administrative costs can be reduced. EBT is living up to its promise of

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (27 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
simplifying benefit delivery and providing USDA with new and powerful sources of data useful in detecting retailer and recipient trafficking and

fraud. Savings achieved will be directed at reducing program costs and the budget deficit. The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

(FDPIR) program level request will support current participation. The program will continue its emphasis on nutrition education by hiring and

training nutrition aides to provide nutrition education for FDPIR participants. Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico is requested at the authorized

level of $1.2 billion.

Child Nutrition Programs. Increasing public understanding of proper nutrition is also a major Departmental objective that is promoted through the

nutrition assistance programs. A priority continues to be increasing children's understanding of nutrition and improving their diets through Team

Nutrition in the Child Nutrition Programs. The National School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, Special Milk, and Child and

Adult Care Food Programs (CACFP) also play a significant role in achieving this goal by assisting State and local governments in serving

healthful, nutritious meals to children in various settings, with greatest emphasis on helping low income children. These programs assist pre-school

and school-aged children by subsidizing the provision of nutritious meals and helping to assure that children are in school ready to learn and that

they learn by example about proper nutrition. Special subsidies are also provided under these programs so that low-income children receive meals

free or at a greatly reduced price.

For 1998, funds are requested for the Child Nutrition Programs to provide for the increases in the number of free meals served. The Department

continues to make critical improvements in the nutritional quality of school meals and to help schools bring their meals into compliance with the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These improved National nutrition standards, consistent National eligibility standards and the guarantee of free

meals to low income children, are the key features of the school programs. The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-448)

mandated that school meals comply with the Dietary Guidelines by School Year 1996/1997. Schools are offered a choice of menu-planning

options, including a food- based menu system, to achieve nutritional goals.

To assist schools in serving nutritious meals that meet both the requirements of the Act and the critical demands of children for taste, the budget

requests $10 million for Team Nutrition and $10 million for the Nutrition Education and Training (NET) program. The mission of Team Nutrition

is to improve the health and education of children by promoting food choices for a healthful diet through the media, schools, families, and the

community. Team Nutrition in coordination with NET will support a number of improvements, including training for staff from States and local

School Food Authorities to help food service workers improve meals, and nutrition education to give children the skills and motivation necessary

to make food choices for a healthy diet. FCS is also focusing on integrity in the Child Nutrition Programs through various efforts including

ongoing efforts to resolve all suspension and debarment cases brought to its attention.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The WIC program helps improve the health of low-income

pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum women, infants and children up to their fifth birthday. WIC supplements households' food resources with

coupons which recipients may redeem for specified foods such as milk, eggs, cheese, fruit juices, cereal and infant formula. In addition to these

food supplements, WIC provides nutrition education and health care referrals. The program is credited with contributing to better birth outcomes

and reductions in childhood anemia, key indicators of the health of America's children.

The 1998 budget request fulfills the President's commitment to full participation in the WIC program by the end of fiscal year 1998. The budget

provides adequate resources to support average participation of 7.45 million participants and a year end level of 7.5 million. In addition, a

supplemental of $100 million is being requested to avoid large participation drops in 1997. The Department is working with States to ensure that

major fluctuations in participation can be prevented with a supplemental and that the program stays on a path to full participation. So that the funds

requested are directed to the areas of highest priority in the program, USDA is committed to improving program management by refining fund

allocation procedures to be more responsive to State needs. USDA will also implement recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences,

Institute of Medicine regarding State nutrition risk assessment and targeting practices. The Academy concluded that scientific evidence supports

the majority of the nutrition risk criteria used by the States. USDA will be working with States on nutrition risk and income eligibility procedures

to ensure that the criteria are applied appropriately. Finally, so that more individuals can be served via WIC at lower costs, actions are planned to

require that State infant formula rebate contracts be awarded on a lowest net wholesale cost basis. Further, to ensure that unexpected food cost

increases do not hamper WIC goals, $100 million in reserve budget authority has been requested to be used only in situations such as unexpected

increases in food package costs.

Commodity Assistance Program. The Commodity Assistance Program (CAP) assists households with commodities distributed through several

programs. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides administrative expense funding and certain commodities to the network of

food banks and other programs which assist households in need of immediate, short-term food assistance. TEFAP providers also typically

distribute significant quantities of commodities donated by the private sector, so program effects go much further than the budget. In addition to

food banks and soup kitchens, food rescue and food gleaning operations may also be supported with TEFAP administrative funds. Commodities

are also made available to soup kitchens and food banks, primarily to benefit the homeless. TEFAP funds for 1998 include both discretionary

funding of $45 million usable for program administration or food, at the election of State officials, and $100 million available under the Food

Stamp Program to be used for purchasing commodities for distribution to the States. In twenty States, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program

(CSFP) provides commodities to low- income elderly and women, infants and children not on WIC. CSFP will provide for current participation

levels, including provision for declines in WIC-type participation as eligibles shift more to the regular WIC program. In coordination with the

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), FCS also administers the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) which provides subsidized

meals to persons aged 60 or older at low-income elderly centers and the "meals on wheels" programs.

Food Program Administration. Funding of $106 million is requested, the amount required to maintain stable program operation, to partially fund

anticipated pay raises, pursue continuing program integrity operations, and continue the emphasis on improved nutrition in the domestic food

assistance programs.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (28 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Nutrition Policy, Support, and Promotion. In further support of the Department's healthy meals initiative, and recognizing the proven link between

good nutrition and good health (and lower health care costs), the budget recognizes the role of nutrition education for all Americans with a request

for $2.5 million, an increase of $29 thousand to partially fund pay costs for the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). CNPP staff

produce and promote the Food Guide Pyramid and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (with DHHS). CNPP staff also calculate the Thrifty Food

Plan, the basis for Food Stamp benefits, and the Moderate Cost Food Plan, the basis for military food cost allowances.

 Domestic Food Assistance Programs

 Key Indicators

 1996 1997 1998

 Actual Estimate Estimate

Average Participation, millions:

 Food Stamps 25.5 24.3 23.4 

 Free School Lunch 12.7 13.0 13.2

 School Lunch, Total 25.7 26.2 26.5

 Free Breakfast 5.4 5.6 5.9

 Total Breakfast 6.7 7.0 7.3

 WIC 7.2 7.4 a/ 7.45

 Commodity Supp. Food Program (CSFP):

 WIC-type 0.14 0.13 0.12

 Elderly 0.22 0.24 0.19

 Food Distribution Program on Indian

 Reservations (FDPIR) 0.12 0.11 0.12 

Nutrition Program for the Elderly

 (NPE), annual meals 246.4 248.3 248.3

Unemployment Rate 5.5% 5.3% 5.5%

Average/person/month food benefit in $:

 Food Stamps $73.28 $72.96 $77.27

 WIC 31.17 32.25 33.17

 CSFP: WIC-type 17.85 20.23 20.00

 CSFP: Elderly 15.29 17.77 17.47

 FDPIR 34.63 36.48 38.19

Per meal subsidies including commodities:

 Free School Lunch $1.95 $1.99 $2.05

 Reduced Price School Lunch 1.55 1.59 1.65

 Paid School Lunch 0.32 0.32 0.33

 Free Breakfast (Severe need) 1.19 1.22 1.25

 Paid Breakfast 0.20 0.20 0.20

 NPE per meal subsidy (cents) 58.64 58.57 56.36

a/ Assumes a $100 million 1997 supplemental.

 Return to Table of Contents.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

MISSION

The mission of the Natural Resources and Environment area is to promote the conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources on the Nation's

private lands and to sustain production of all the goods and services that the public demands of the National Forests. Two agencies, the Natural

Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service, are primarily responsible for achieving this mission.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (29 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Conservation Operations: 

 Technical Assistance $539 $529 $549

 Soil Surveys 76 76 82

 Snow Surveys 6 6 6

 Plant Materials Centers 9 9 9

 Water Resources Assistance 95 87 76

 Total, Conservation Operations 725 707 722

Watershed and Flood Prevention 99 90 40

Forestry Incentives Program 6 6 6

Resource Conservation and Development 29 29 48 

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 1 1 5

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program 3 0 0

Programs Funded by CCC: 

 Environmental Quality Incentives

 Program 130 200 200

 Farmland Protection Program 15 2 18

 Conservation Farm Option. . . . 0 2 15

 Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 0 20 30

 Wetlands Reserve Program 77 119 164

 Total, NRCS $1,085 $1,176 $1,248

With the exception of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and the Forest Protection and Stewardship Program of the Forest Service, NRCS

is now responsible for program and policy direction, financing, management, and delivery of most of the Department's conservation programs for

non-Federal lands. This consolidation was an integral part of the USDA reorganization and has helped the Department's efforts to reduce overhead

and make its program delivery capabilities more efficient.

The NRCS will channel most of its assistance to land users through the service centers and the local conservation districts which are units of State

government organized for the purpose of developing and carrying out local conservation programs. USDA has entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding with each conservation district which provides a basis for the Department's working relationship with the district. Most of NRCS'

nearly 12,000 employees are located at the district or field office level and this proportion has increased under the Department's streamlining plan

as headquarters and State level staff have been reduced.

USDA administers farm, rural development and conservation programs through county and other field offices. USDA will conduct a study in 1997

to determine opportunities for greater efficiencies in this delivery system.

Within the proposed level of 1998 funding for NRCS conservation programs of over $1.2 billion, the Department will undertake a major effort to

support its locally-led conservation assistance initiative. Under this initiative, the conservation districts, farmers and ranchers and other private

landowners and users work with NRCS to identify the most critical local natural resource needs and concerns, and then use this information to help

guide the implementation of USDA and other federal and state environment and conservation programs in the most effective manner possible. The

performance of the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and other

conservation programs will be improved by this effort. The 1998 budget includes a substantial increase in the acquisition of easements under the

Wetlands Reserve Program in support of the Administration's goals for protecting and restoring wetlands. In addition, USDA will continue to place

emphasis on working in partnership with the conservation districts and state conservation agencies to provide assistance to farmers, ranchers, and

other landowners and users to conserve and protect the country's natural resources on private lands. Under this budget, this conservation

partnership will also continue to provide farmers with needed technical assistance to develop and maintain conservation compliance plans. In the

watershed construction area, the Department will continue its efforts to direct funds to only those projects that meet established environmental

criteria and where local sponsor support is strong. The Department will also make available subsidized water resource development loans in

helping sponsors meet watershed project funding needs. NRCS assumed responsibility for the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach Program

in 1997. The proposal for 1998 would increase the appropriation to NRCS by $4 million bringing the total appropriated for this activity to $5

million.

Conservation Operations. The 1998 budget proposes $722 million for conservation operations which includes $549 million for conservation

technical assistance. This will support the agency's base program which are those NRCS activities that support locally led, voluntary conservation

through the partnership that has been developed over the years with each conservation district. The base program provides the foundation that

enables the Department to implement other critical programs including conservation compliance, the CRP and the new conservation initiatives

called for in the 1996 Farm Bill. Also included in the request is an increase of $4 million for training in rangeland conservation and improving the

skills of the non-Federal conservation district staff. In 1998, a $5 million increase for digitizing soil surveys will help farmers and ranchers select

suitable soil management practices. A $10 million increase is requested to accelerate the purchase and preparation of geographic information

systems (GIS) related technology which help to modernize USDA field office operations and support the development of USDA service centers.

Beginning in 1998, the salaries and expenses component of the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ($60 million), and the entire

Watershed Surveys and Investigations Program ($16 million) will be incorporated into the Conservation Operations account. This will reduce the

number of NRCS accounts, improve administrative efficiency and increase the opportunity to target resources to the highest priorities.

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO). The 1998 budget proposes a funding level of $40 million for this activity which will be

devoted entirely to project implementation costs. This is about $50 million less than the level of funding provided in 1997 due to the $63 million

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (30 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Disaster Supplemental Appropriation in 1997 for Emergency Watershed Operations. As indicated above, technical support for this program,

beginning in 1998, will come from the Conservation Operations account. The Department will continue to make significant changes in its

watershed operations program in order to implement a new watershed approach that focuses project implementation funds on the most cost

effective and environmentally beneficial projects and emphasizes nonstructural management systems. NRCS will also continue its effort to reduce

the backlog of unfunded work by continuing to examine approved watershed plans in order to deactivate or revise those that have become

infeasible or where local sponsor interest is no longer strong. The Department is proposing language for WFPO that will include a provision to

allow up to $15 million for the subsidy costs of municipal loans administered by the Rural Utilities Service in order to give project sponsors an

additional option in securing needed implementation funds.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D). The purpose of the RC&D program is to encourage and improve the capability of State and

local units of government and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs for resource conservation and

development. NRCS also helps coordinate available Federal, State, and local programs. The 1998 budget will support the 289 authorized RC&D

areas and includes an increase of $19 million to fund local, non-federal watershed coordinators to assist in watershed planning and rangeland

conservation.

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP). For the Forestry Incentives Program, the 1998 budget proposes to maintain funding at the 1997 appropriated

level of $6 million. This will provide cost-sharing for the highest environmental benefits through tree planting on 111,273 acres, and timberstand

improvement on over 25,000 acres, and forestry site preparation on an estimated 1,970 acres. This would be in addition to the tree planting effort

reflected in the $10 million request for the Forest Service's Stewardship Incentives Program.

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. The objective of this program is to enhance the ability of small and minority producers to operate

farming and ranching enterprises independently and produce income adequate to service debts, maintain farm operations, and provide a reasonable

standard of living. In addition to funds provided in the 1997 appropriation, $4.5 million of the Fund for Rural America is being used to support this

program in 1997.

The program is operated through cooperative agreements with 1890 Land Grant Institutions, Native American community colleges, Hispanic

serving institutions and community-based organizations. These entities provide intensive training and management assistance to small farmers or

ranchers, particularly minority farmers or ranchers in selected states. Each participant in the program is visited one to three times a month by a

farm management specialist with expertise in farm management and production. Assistance provided includes developing individualized custom

farm plans, improving production and marketing practices, and implementing farm accounting systems and recordkeeping.

Programs Funded by CCC. The 1996 Farm Bill authorized new conservation programs, continued those that have proven to be effective, and

eliminated others that were no longer necessary. New and reauthorized programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),

Farmland Protection Program (FPP), Conservation Farm Option (CFO), Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) and Wetlands Reserve

Program (WRP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) all of which will be carried out through funding made available by the Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC) (See page 21.)

EQIP combines into a single program the functions of four previous incentive-based programs: the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Great

Plains Conservation Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The purpose of the

program is to provide flexible technical and financial assistance to landowners that face serious natural resource challenges that impact soil, water

and related natural resources, including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat management. In addition, it was designed to help producers

make beneficial and cost-effective changes to cropping and grazing systems, and in manure, nutrient and pest management, that conserve and

improve soil, water, and related natural resources.

The FPP program is designed to forge new and enhance existing partnerships between Federal, State and local Governments in sharing the costs of

acquiring conservation easements. FPP will provide technical, educational, and financial assistance to State and local programs that acquire

conservation easements on eligible lands to address wetlands, wildlife habitat, soil, water and related natural resource concerns. The purpose of the

program is to achieve solutions to local community issues related to the non-agricultural use of farms, ranches and rural lands.

The CFO will be a pilot program that will give producers an option of a 10-year contract as a single annual payment equivalent to the amount they

would have received under CRP, WRP, and EQIP. The CFO is intended to address the conservation of soil, water and related resources, water

quality, wetlands protection, wildlife habitat, and similar conservation purposes. The CFO provides a voluntary approach to implementing full farm

conservation plans to include the use of multiple conservation practices.

WHIP is a voluntary program that will provide cost-sharing for landowners to apply a wide array of wildlife practices to develop habitat that will

support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fisheries, and other types of wildlife.

WRP is a voluntary program in which landowners are paid to retire cropland from agricultural production if those lands are restored to wetlands

and protected, in most cases, with a long-term or permanent easement. Landowners receive fair market value for the land and are provided with

cost-share assistance to cover the restoration expenses. The 1996 Farm Bill changed WRP to give producers the option of long-term or permanent

easements, or restoration cost-share agreements under which landowners will agree to restore wetlands without payment for the land, receiving

only cost-share assistance. For 1998, the budget proposes to enroll an additional 212,000 acres into the program which would bring total

cumulative enrollment to more than 655,000 by the end of 1998. The Administration's goal for WRP remains one of reaching total enrollment of

975,000 acres by the end of calendar year 2002.

The CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency and is described on page 18.

 FOREST SERVICE (FS)

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (31 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Discretionary Accounts:

 Management of the 

 National Forest System: 

 National Forest System $1,282 $1,275 $1,326

 Reconstruction and Construction 224 175 146

 Wildland Fire Management: 

 Presuppression 295 319 303

 Suppression 90 211 211

 Land Acquisition Accounts 41 42 42

 Other Accounts 4 4 4

 Total 1,936 2,026 2,032

 

 Forest and Rangeland Research 178 180 180

 State and Private Forestry 137 155 156

 Southeast Alaska Assist. Fund 110 0 0

 Total, Discretionary Accounts 2,361 2,361 2,368

 

Mandatory Accounts:

 Permanent Working Funds 226 238 230 

 Payments to States. 266 262 269

 Trust Funds 231 303 269

 Total, Mandatory Accounts 723 803 768

Total, Ongoing Programs 3,084 3,164 3,136

 

Emergency Accounts:

 Pest Suppression 17 0 0 

 Fire Suppression 100 300 a/

 Available Fire Supp. Contingency 0 (250) 0 

 Total, Emergency Accounts 117 300 0 

 

 Total, FS $3,201 $3,464 $3,136

a/ The 1998 budget proposes a Governmentwide emergency contingency fund.

The Forest Service, with an employment ceiling of over 37,000 staff years in 1997, is the largest employer in USDA. The 1998 ceiling is 36,800

which assumes a continuation of the streamlining efforts begun in 1993. The FS operates in three major program areas:

Management of the National Forests and Grasslands. The Forest Service manages approximately 191 million acres of public land -- about

110 percent of the area of the State of Texas -- located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These lands, known collectively as

the National Forest System, are managed for multiple use on a sustained-yield basis using sound ecological principles to meet the needs of

people today while maintaining or improving the productivity, health, resilience and vigor of forest resources for future generations. The

national forests produce diverse benefits for the American people ranging from outdoor recreation, wildlife and fish, to timber, forage, and

minerals.

● 

Forest and Rangeland Research. The Forest Service maintains the world's largest forest research organization. While it has a very broad

mission to develop the knowledge and technology needed to enhance the economic and environmental values of all the Nation's forests and

related industries, it also must support the specific research needs that arise from the FS's prime responsibility of managing the National

Forest System.

● 

State and Private Forestry. The Forest Service makes grants and provides technical assistance to State forestry agencies for protecting forest

resources and improving forest management on nonindustrial private forest lands. Funding is provided for forest pest suppression on all

Federal lands and cost-share assistance is made available for pest suppression on private lands. A cooperative fire protection program

provides technical and limited financial support for State wildfire fighting organizations. The Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentives

Programs provide technical and financial assistance to nonindustrial private landowners for a variety of stewardship practices including tree

planting. In addition, there are several small programs which provide technical and financial assistance to natural resources dependent rural

communities.

● 

Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan identifies and provides for the protection of key watersheds, old-growth forests, and numerous

wildlife species in Northern California, Western Oregon and Washington. The decadal timber harvest for the areas affected by the plan is expected

to be about one Billion Board Feet. Before timber sales can be offered in most areas, watershed assessments must be completed, and there will be

an extensive monitoring program to ensure that the Plan's standards and guidelines are being met, that the desired results are being achieved, and

that the Plan's assumptions are sound. In addition to land management, the Northwest Forest Plan provides for technical and economic assistance to

communities and individuals who have been dependent on Federal timber supplies. The Forest Service has allocated resources to carry out the

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (32 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Northwest Forest Plan as shown in the following table.

 Forest Service

 Northwest Forest Plan

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget 

Watershed Assessment $20 $21 $21

Sustainable Timber Sales Program 21 22 22

Adaptive Management Areas 8 8 8

Ecosystem Planning and Monitoring 12 20 20

Research 5 5 5

Ecosystem Restoration and Resource

 Projects 14 16 16

Rural Assistance 16 15 15

 Total $96 $107 $107

In addition to FS funding, the Northwest Forest Plan is supported by funding from other USDA agencies such as RBS, RUS, RHS; the

Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Labor; and from the Environmental Protection Agency. Total Federal funding for 1998 is $408

million, a 6 percent increase over the 1997 estimate.

Firefighting. The Firefighting program funds both presuppression costs such as the pay and training of permanent fire crews and aircraft

availability, as well as the cost of actually suppressing fires. The cost of fire suppression has varied dramatically since 1980, and has been

inherently unpredictable.

The 1994 and 1996 fire seasons were two of the most severe and expensive firefighting seasons on record. $678 million was spent on fire

suppression in 1994, and $513 million was spent in 1996. The new 10 year average, which includes 1996, is $324 million. This average has been

exceeded four times in the last 10 years. Only twice in the last 10 years have the firefighting costs been below $200 million. Firefighting has

become more expensive because of the growth of urban areas into what were previously wildlands. This has meant that fire must be fought

vigorously to protect human life and property rather than making decisions based solely on natural resource values. In addition, drought and insect

infestations in some areas have caused a significant buildup of fuels.

The 1998 budget provides $211 million for fire suppression which includes funding for fuels management. Through 1997, fuels management will

be funded through the fire presuppression account. However, this activity is an important component of fire suppression as it reduces the fuel

hazards that lead to costly fires. For this reason, the 1998 budget provides funding for fuels management in the fire suppression account. The

proposed budget would allow funding for fuels management at a level between $30 and $50 million. Depending on suitable weather conditions,

this funding level will allow treatment of between 850,000 and 1,300,000 acres in high priority areas where the risk of wildfire and long-term

damage to resources can be reduced through improved fuels management.

Any fire suppression needs beyond the proposed appropriation would be accommodated from a proposed Governmentwide emergency contingency

account. The 1998 budget requests $5.8 billion in contingency funding for this Governmentwide emergency account. Funds from this contingency

account would be available for fire suppression needs once all appropriated funds had been obligated, and a Presidential decision was made to

make additional funds available.

Timber Program. In 1996, the volume of national forest timber sold was 3.4 Billion Board Feet (BBF). The current estimate is that 3.8 BBF will be

offered for sale in 1998 compared to an estimated 4.2 BBF for 1997.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (33 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Recreation Related Programs. The National Forests are the leading Federal provider of total outdoor recreation use. The public uses the National

Forests for a broad array of outdoor recreational experiences, including camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and skiing, mountain biking, and

snowmobiling. The forests also afford opportunities for such diverse pursuits as bird watching and participating in archaeological excavations.

Funding in support of recreation includes the operation and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities, wildlife and fish habitat work which

supports game species as well as the wildlife resource generally, and land acquisition which gives a high priority to ensuring the protection of

national recreation areas, designated wilderness, and wild and scenic river corridors.

 Forest Service

 Recreation Related Programs

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

 

Recreation and Trails:

 Recreation Operations and Maint. $164 $164 $168

 Wilderness Management 33 33 34

 Heritage Resources 14 14 14

 Facilities Construction 36 48 22

 Trail Construction 20 22 28

 Total, Recreation and Trails 267 281 266

Wildlife:

 Wildlife Habitat 28 28 30

 Inland Fisheries Habitat 15 15 17

 Total, Wildlife Related to Rec. 43 43 47

Land Acquisition 41 42 42

 Total $351 $366 $355

Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance: The 1998 budget proposes the establishment of an ecosystem restoration fund to provide support

for a wide range of forest ecosystem health activities. Tied to this proposal is the limitation of the Timber Salvage Sale Fund to the sale of dead and

dying trees for commodity purposes. Expenditures from the Salvage Fund would be capped at $100 million. Any receipts generated by the salvage

fund above $100 million per year would be transferred to the Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance (FERM) fund. The fund would be

authorized to retain any receipts generated from FERM activities. In addition, receipts currently designated for road and trail construction (10

percent of total receipts) would be deposited into the fund. FERM would be available for funding forest health-related timber removal as well as

prescribed fire, pre-commercial thinning, brush removal, and watershed and habitat improvement.

Forest and Rangeland Research. For 1998, the budget proposes $180 million which is the same as the 1997 funding level. State and Private

Forestry. Total funding for State and Private Forestry is proposed at $156 million for 1998. Protection of forest resources of all ownerships,

including Federal lands, from damage due to pests is funded at $53 million, a 10 percent increase over 1997. Assistance to State wildfire fighting

agencies is funded at $18 million.

Return to Table of Contents.

FOOD SAFETY

MISSION

The Food Safety mission area oversees the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which ensures that the Nation's meat, poultry, and processed egg

product supply is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Federal Food Inspection $461 $480 $495

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (34 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Import/Export Inspection 13 13 13

Laboratory Services 23 31 32

Field Automation & Information Mgmt. 8 8 8

Grants to States 40 42 43

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds 85 89 94

 Total, FSIS Program Level 630 663 685

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds -85 -89 -94

New User Fees - - - - -390

 Total, FSIS Appropriations $545 $574 $201

FSIS provides in-plant inspection to all domestic establishments preparing meat, poultry, and processed egg products for sale or distribution into

commerce, and also reviews foreign inspection systems and plants exporting these products to the United States. FSIS provides technical and

cost-sharing assistance to States that maintain inspection programs equal to the Federal inspection program. To accomplish these functions, FSIS

employees are stationed in approximately 6,000 establishments, including 160 import stations. Regional and area offices and FSIS laboratories

provide administrative, technical, and analytical assistance to in-plant personnel. Headquarters personnel are responsible for overseeing

administration of the program and ensuring that the latest scientific and technological developments are incorporated into inspection procedures.

FSIS coordinates the development of its policies with other USDA agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as international organizations, to ensure an integrated farm-to-table approach to

food safety.

On July 26, 1996, the Secretary announced a comprehensive reorganization of FSIS, designed to prepare for implementation of the new food safety

system for meat and poultry that the President announced on July 6, 1996. The reorganization parallels the implementation of the final rule on

Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems that was published July 25, 1996. The rule replaces a

system based on sight and smell with more scientific methods which will, require establishments that slaughter and process meat and poultry to

target and reduce harmful bacteria on their products. The change in organizational structure is designed to make the best possible use of agency

resources so that FSIS can meet the food safety and consumer protection challenges of the future. Implementation of the reorganization began in

1996 and will be completed in 1999.

For 1998, the budget proposes a program level of $685 million, a net increase of $22 million over the 1997 current estimate. The increase reflects

funding for pay costs, inflation, and reductions due to streamlining. In support of the President's Inter-agency Food Safety Initiative the budget also

includes an increase of $1.1 million for new initiatives to: provide HACCP training to State and local food regulatory officers and support

expanded pathogen data analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, increases are also provided to manage the

growing Codex Alimentarius information workload and to acquire information systems to facilitate restructuring of a streamlined field workforce.

New User Fees. The 1998 budget request proposes legislation to provide FSIS the authority to recover $390 million in new user fees to pay for the

cost of salaries and benefits for in-plant inspectors. Because taxpayers and the industry are both beneficiaries of the safe food supply ensured by the

inspection system, both should share in the cost of operating the system. This user fee proposal would result in industry paying about 70 percent of

the total cost of the meat, poultry and egg products inspection system, while taxpayers would continue to finance approximately 30 percent of the

cost of the system. This cost-sharing proposal will allow FSIS to meet the growing demand for inspectors, and meet the need to invest limited

resources in new inspection system improvements designed to enhance safety and productivity. The overall impact on prices as a result of these

fees has been estimated to be less than one cent per pound of meat and poultry production.

Federal Food Inspection. FSIS inspects all carcasses in slaughter plants for disease and other abnormalities, and samples for the presence of

chemical residues. Other responsibilities include the application of uniform standards for sanitation, equipment, and facilities, and humane methods

of slaughter. Meat and poultry processing operations are inspected by FSIS on a daily basis. Typical processing operations include cutting, boning,

curing, and canning. Inspector activities include review of plant operations for sanitation and cleanliness, labeling, and packing functions. FSIS

provides mandatory continuous in-plant inspection to egg product processing plants. The inspector checks the acceptability of eggs, the sanitation

of plant and equipment, and determines if the egg products have been properly processed. FSIS reviews inspection systems in countries exporting

meat, poultry and egg products to the U.S. and inspects imported products at ports-of-entry.

Laboratory Services. FSIS operates three laboratories and has agreements with two other private laboratories to perform the scientific testing in

support of inspection operations. Samples sent to the laboratories are analyzed for food chemistry and to identify the presence of pathogens,

residues, additives, disease, and foreign matter.

Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM). FAIM provides improved telecommunications capability among the widely dispersed

field workforce.

Grants to States. FSIS has authority to approve State meat and poultry inspection programs for products travelling in intrastate commerce. FSIS

reviews State inspection programs to assure that standards, at least equal to Federal standards, are applied to meat and poultry plants under State

jurisdiction. For State inspection programs, USDA contributes, through the Grants to States Program, up to 50 percent of each State's costs.

Currently, 26 States participate in the program.

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds. Currently, user fees are collected to recover the cost of inspection provided beyond regularly scheduled

operations and on holidays. Establishments requesting voluntary inspection services, which are not mandated by law are also charged a user fee to

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (35 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
recover the full cost of the inspection.

 Return to Table of Contents.

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

MISSION

The Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission area is assigned Federal leadership responsibility for the discovery and dissemination of

knowledge spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences related to agricultural research, economic analysis, statistics, extension, and

higher education. REE responsibilities are carried out by four agencies:

● The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house physical and biological science research agency in USDA.

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is the Federal partner in the USDA- supported system of

extramural scientific research, higher education, and extension in the United States.

● 

● The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural social science research agency in USDA.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provides the official current statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the

economic and environmental welfare of the farm sector. Beginning in October 1996, NASS assumed responsibility for conducting the

Census of Agriculture, previously conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce.

● 

The REE mission is accomplished through programs and initiatives set forth in the 1998 budget that create and disseminate knowledge and provide

education to achieve the five general goals of the REE mission area. They are:

● an agricultural production system that is highly competitive in the global economy;

● a safe and secure food and fiber system; a healthy, well-nourished population;

● greater harmony between agriculture and the environment;

● and enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

The 1996 Farm Bill extended authorities for the research title through 1997. Legislation will be proposed this year to extend programs which are

expiring consistent with Administration priorities for research, extension and education programs.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (ARS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Information:

Soil and Water Conservation $84 $85 $82

Plant Science 239 243 246

Animal Science 112 115 116

Commodity Conversion and Delivery 141 143 141 

Human Nutrition 63 63 75

Integration of Agricultural Systems 31 30 29

Information and Library Services 19 18 18

Repair and Maintenance 18 18 18

Contingency Research Fund 1 1 1

Trust Funds 14 15 15

Total, Research and Information 723 731 741

Buildings and Facilities 30 69 59

Total, ARS $753 $800 $800

ARS provides access to agricultural information and develops new knowledge and technology needed to solve technical agricultural problems of

broad scope and high national priority. ARS is responsible for the National Agricultural Library (NAL), the Nation's major information resource in

the food, agricultural and natural resources sciences. ARS has 103 locations throughout the U.S. and abroad. Beltsville, Maryland is the site of the

world's largest multi-disciplinary agricultural research facility.

The 1998 budget includes a $10 million net increase for ARS research programs. Within the total, the agency will be redirecting $23 million from a

number of ongoing research projects to fund higher priority work.

Soil and Water Conservation. Development of a sound scientific basis to provide advanced technical assistance and education to producers to

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (36 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
manage and conserve soil and water resources is the primary focus of this research area. Federal research in ARS will continue high priority

programs in climate change, water quality and economically and environmentally sustainable production systems. An increase of $1 million is

proposed to develop more efficient and sustainable methods for managing pastures and grazing lands, including the development of new

technology needed to mitigate environmental impacts from intensive forage/livestock production operations.

Plant Science. Ongoing ARS research addresses a wide range of crop production issues, including pest and disease resistance, maintenance and

improvement of plant germplasm and understanding basic plant development and function. A $4 million increase is proposed to undertake

additional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) research. ARS will continue to collaborate with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service and other public and private entities to demonstrate, through pilot tests and the development of decision support systems, the

economic and environmental benefits of species-specific pest management technologies. Within the $4 million program, ARS will commit $3

million to support research on host-plant resistance and biological control of pests in corn, cotton, and vegetable crops. IPM practices must be

evaluated in a large area (ecosystem) setting. Research initiatives funded at $1 million will be undertaken to scale-up selected pilot IPM projects

consistent with the areawide IPM management approach. These efforts will support the Administration's goal of implementing IPM practices on 75

percent of crop acres by the year 2000.

An increase of $2 million is targeted for work to expand USDA's plant germplasm collections. With the increase, the genetic resources collection

will be expanded to fill gaps and preserve rare samples. In addition, research will be conducted to develop long-term preservation methods for

germplasm resources.

As part of the Administration's Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative, the budget includes an increase of $2.5 million to develop methods to

reduce the risk to U.S. crop production from infection with exotic foreign and new domestic plant diseases. Research funding will be devoted to

development of resistant varieties, rapid detection methods, and strategies for control and eradication of emerging plant diseases, including a

significant multifaceted effort on Karnal bunt disease of wheat, which was found for the first time in the United States in March 1996 and threatens

the U.S. wheat export industry.

ARS is also seeking $2 million to fund high priority research in support of the President's South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative.

Animal Science. Research in this program is directed toward solving major issues faced by producers and consumers of meat and poultry products.

Areas of ARS emphasis include disease prevention, genetics and genome mapping, reproduction, and production-related nutrition and food quality

and safety concerns. An increase of $1.6 million will be used to develop new technologies for detection and control of pathogens at the producer

level. This will support the Administration's Food Safety Initiative to ensure a safe and wholesome meat and poultry supply. Research will include

the development of detection methods, knowledge of how pathogens are transmitted to animals, and identification of production practices which

contribute to the incidence of contaminated food products. ARS animal science research will be coordinated with post-harvest research described

below and with funding being proposed in the CSREES budget as part of the Administration's Food Safety Initiative.

A $2.5 million program to support research on Emerging Exotic Diseases of Livestock is proposed in the 1998 budget as part of the

Administration's Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative. Research will address the need to control the spread of non-native animal diseases

through the development of diagnostic methods and the determination of the transmission mode in live animals. Research will address the need to

increase resistance of host animals and the prevention of zoonotic diseases, which threaten the health of livestock and humans.

Commodity Conversion and Delivery. This research within ARS focuses on post- harvest food safety and quality concerns, development of new

food and industrial uses for agricultural commodities and elimination of barriers to the export of commodities. An increase of $2.5 million as a

component of the Administration's Food Safety Initiative is proposed in 1998 to allow scientists to explore post-harvest means to control

pathogens. Research is proposed to develop intervention and control strategies to be used during production and processing that will support the

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach implemented by the Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Research is proposed to assist FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration in their regulatory roles to control contaminants of both plant- and

animal-derived foods.

Human Nutrition. ARS supports six research centers dedicated to developing a better understanding of nutrition needs of diverse populations,

including children, the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and healthy adults. Results of this work identify the impact of food components in

reducing chronic disease risk and define health outcomes. ARS research activities in this area are closely coordinated with nutrition programs in

USDA and medical research programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. The 1998 budget includes funding to begin a major

Departmental initiative to double the amount available for the human nutrition research centers by 2002 to $112 million. The Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to provide the Environmental Protection Agency information on food consumption

patterns of a statistically valid sample of infants and children. Included in the 1998 proposal is $6 million for a new survey to capture food intake

data of infants and children. An additional $6 million is included to fund research aimed at determining dietary requirements to promote health and

enhance quality of life at all stages of the human lifecycle. This initiative builds on the President's goal of providing more opportunities for children

to lead healthy and productive lives.

Integration of Agricultural Systems. Research in this category includes projects to integrate the results of specific programs into production

systems which are sustainable, environmentally-benign and profitable for farmers and ranchers. Projects include the development of models and

decision support systems for education and technical assistance programs designed to assist producers in making production decisions and

managing natural resources.

Information and Library Services. As part of ARS, NAL will continue to provide access to agricultural information through its online database and

CD-Roms. NAL is striving to provide agricultural information electronically and has initiated efforts to catalog, manage, and disseminate

agricultural related data through the Internet. This will increase USDA employees', researchers', and the general public's access to many of the

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (37 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
library's resources.

Buildings and Facilities. Innovative research depends upon the availability of modern facilities. Many of the major ARS facilities were constructed

prior to 1960, are functionally obsolete and need major modernization to bring them up to current health and safety code requirements. A total of

$59.3 million is proposed in 1998 for nine facilities.

Parlier, California ($23.4 million) -- construction of a replacement laboratory for horticultural crops and water use efficiency research now

conducted in Fresno, CA where urban development in the surrounding area and facility deficiencies pose serious problems. Work conducted

here focuses on the key problems and challenges of agricultural production in the most intensive and diverse growing area of California.

● 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ($4 million) -- construction of a quarantine facility for the study of biological agents to control the spread of

Melaleuca in South Florida. This research facility directly supports the Administration's initiative to restore the South Florida Everglades

Ecosystem and is being coordinated with the Administration's Everglades Task Force.

● 

Peoria, Illinois ($8 million) -- completion of the first phase of construction -- a bioprocessing pilot plant -- of the planned renovation of the

North Wing of the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research.

● 

Beltsville, Maryland ($3.2 million) -- continued funding for modernization of the agricultural research center, consistent with the overall

facility plan. The 1998 proposal includes construction of a replacement animal feed center, and installation of fiber optic cable to improve

information sharing within the complex.

● 

Beltsville, Maryland ($6 million) -- funding for modernization of the National Agricultural Library, including alteration of the first floor,

sprinkler installation, boiler replacement, and several smaller projects.

● 

● Plum Island, New York ($5 million) -- continued modernization of the foreign animal disease facility, including a replacement boiler plant.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ($5.2 million) -- construction to modernize the chemical wing laboratory, phase four of a nine phase plan to

modernize this regional research facility.

● 

New Orleans, LA ($1.1 million) -- continued modernization of the regional research facility. The design phase will begin for modernization

of the Industrial Wing.

● 

Montpellier, France ($3.4 million) -- construction of facilities for the European Biological Control Laboratory. This laboratory serves as the

focal point of ARS exploration in Eurasia, the Middle East, and North Africa for natural enemies of insect and weed pests that attack

domestic crops and animals.

● 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

(CSREES)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Research and Education $423 $424 $424

Extension Activities 428 426 418

Subtotal, Programs 851 850 842

Buildings and Facilities 58 62 0

Total, CSREES $909 $912 $842

USDA provides funding for agricultural research, education, and extension conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment

Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, and other institutions. Federal funds are distributed to university and other partners by statutory

formula, competitive awards, and other means. USDA serves as a leader and coordinator of the various planning and oversight processes through

which priorities are set and programs are administered. CSREES is also responsible for administering the Community Food Projects Grant

Program which is funded through the Food Stamp Program, as well as the competitive grant program for research, education and extension of the

Fund for Rural America. (See page 97 for more information on the Fund for Rural America.)

The budget for cooperative research and education activities reflects stable funding for the basic formula programs and increases for selected

programs that address broad national problems and/or represent specific components of national initiatives. Other special grants and construction

projects, which focus on local concerns, are slated for reductions. Similarly, the budget for cooperative extension programs reflects stable funding

for most programs, with increases for several high priority initiatives.

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

 Cooperative Research and Education Activities

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (38 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Hatch Act $169 $169 $169

1890 Universities 28 28 28

Cooperative Forestry 20 20 20

Animal Health and Disease Formula 5 5 5

National Research Initiative (NRI):

 Natural Resources and Environment 17 17 27

 Plants 36 36 47

 Animals 23 23 29

 Nutrition, Food Safety and Health 7 7 11

 Processes and New Products 7 7 9

 Markets, Trade, and Rural Development 4 4 7

 Total, NRI 94 94 130

Special Research Grants 50 50 10

Improved Pest Control 12 12 25

Sustainable Agriculture 8 8 8

Aquaculture Centers 4 4 4

Supplemental and Alternative Crops 1 1 1

Critical Agricultural Materials Act and

 Rangeland Research Grants 1 1 0

Federal Administration 10 10 3

Higher Education 9 10 10

Payments to 1994 Institutions 1 1 1

Native American Inst. Endow. Fund (5) (5) (5)

1890 Capacity Building Grants 9 9 9

Community Food Projects 1 2 2

 Total, Research and Education 423 424 424

Buildings and Facilities 58 62 0

 Total, Cooperative Research and

 Education Programs $481 $486 $424

Hatch, 1890's, Cooperative Forestry and Animal Health Formulas. Formula distributions to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES),

1890 Land- Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University (1890's) and other research institutions provide funds to conduct broad programs of

agricultural and forestry research. Evans-Allen formula funds support research activities at the 1890 historically Black land-grant schools. On a

nationwide basis, Hatch Act formula funds represent about 8 percent of the research funding at SAES, while formula funds provide nearly all of the

research funding at the 1890's.

National Research Initiative. The 1998 research budget proposes an increase of $36 million for the National Research Initiative (NRI). The NRI

supports both fundamental and mission-linked research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process that is open to all of the Nation's scientists. A

wide range of environmental, health, and nutrition concerns have added complexity to production management decisions faced by agricultural

producers. At a national level, there is interest in assuring the safety of the food supply, providing systems for sustainable food and fiber

production, improving nutritional status, enhancing international competitiveness and improving economic opportunities for rural residents.

Breakthroughs and new approaches to problem solving in the biological sciences have equipped researchers with powerful new tools to solve these

continuing and emerging challenges. In 1998, the increased funding will be used to expand research on pressing food safety and environmental

quality problems and to expand plant science research, especially the genetic enhancement of plants.

Special Research Grants. These grants fund research on designated problem areas at SAES and other institutions. Research grants targeting local

issues or concerns which benefit limited specific sectors are not included in the budget. Funds are proposed for the following national priority

special grant programs:

Food Safety -- A new competitive research grants program for food safety research is proposed at $2 million as a component of the

Administration's Food Safety Initiative. Research will focus on pre-harvest and post-harvest slaughter issues related to biological factors

including pathogen detection and control, and physical factors encompassing production, processing, and handling practices.

● 

Global Change ($1.6 million) -- Funding is proposed for the operation of the Ultraviolet-B (UV-B) monitoring network which will generate

data necessary for examining the impact of UV-B radiation on agriculture and the environment.

● 

Water Quality ($2.8 million) -- Funding is proposed at the 1997 appropriation level to conduct research at universities and other research

institutions to address water quality concerns in accordance with the overall USDA Research Plan for Water Quality.

● 

A total of $2.5 million, an increase of $0.5 million over the 1997 level, is included for the Binational Agricultural Research and

Development (BARD) program. These funds support competitively awarded research grants in a range of scientific disciplines through a

joint U.S.-Israel effort. Research projects will include agricultural economics, aquaculture, plant protection, and post-harvest food safety.

● 

A total of $1.2 million is proposed to continue the National Biological Impact Assessment Program, Minor Use Animal Drugs Program, and

Rural Development Centers at the 1997 levels.

● 

Improved Pest Control. In 1998, in support of the Department's multi-year Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Initiative, funds are proposed for

grants for high priority research to develop improved IPM systems and to conduct other programs related to the EPA's pesticide registration

program. Total proposed funding is for the following activities:

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (39 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control ($8.0 million) -- This grant provides funding for research proposals to enhance research

and technology transfer which would enable pest management practices to be carried out on an area-wide cooperative basis. IPM and

biological controls have been proven effective in controlling a number of pests and with further development, offer the potential to reduce

the reliance on chemical controls. Research will focus on developing alternative pest management tactics for pest problems identified by

farmers, researchers, and other members of IPM State and regional implementation teams.

● 

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4) ($10.7 million) -- Proposed funding level is to assure that data are available to meet EPA's registration

guidelines for pesticides used on minor crops. This grant will support research necessary to obtain initial EPA registration of safer pesticides

for minor crops, including most fruits and vegetables and ornamental nursery crops. Emphasis will also be placed on biocontrol registrations.

Tolerance reassessment, new deadlines, and other provisions of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act will require IR-4 to focus on

developing additional tolerance information to support existing minor use registrations and new registrations where new products are

needed.

● 

Pest Management Alternatives ($4.2 million) -- Total funding proposed for 1998 will support development of alternatives to existing

pesticides that can no longer be used due to regulatory actions and genetic pest resistance. Competitive research grants will be awarded to

develop replacement technologies for pesticides under consideration for regulatory action by EPA. In accordance with the August 1994

Memorandum of Understanding between USDA and EPA, the Department will identify, with grower input, a list of crop/pest control

combinations where current control options are limited. EPA will work with USDA to identify pesticides under review for possible actions

that might limit their availability for use in agriculture. This information will be housed in a database which will in turn be used by

policymakers as a decision- support tool. Research funding will provide the major support to address the priority needs identified through the

USDA/EPA review process.

● 

Pesticide Impact Assessment ($1.3 million) -- Funding supports university scientists serving on assessment teams to determine the economic

benefits and consequences of various pest control approaches for use in EPA re- registration activities.

● 

Sustainable Agriculture. Environmental and profitability concerns have led many producers to examine alternative management systems which

require the use of fewer off-farm inputs. Research will be conducted to develop and improve sustainable management practices for adoption in a

wide variety of climate, soil, and crop settings. Research grants are awarded competitively through four regional centers.

Higher Education. Increased funding for higher education is proposed to restore the Institution Challenge Grants Program to the 1996 appropriated

level. Funding will support curricula design and instruction delivery at the undergraduate level. Continued funding is proposed for Native

American Institutions. Funds are provided to continue successful ongoing programs which support graduate and undergraduate education and

which improve instructional capabilities in the food and agricultural sciences. Funding is held constant for the 1890 Capacity Building Grants

Program which supports partnerships between the 1890's and USDA agencies to improve the research and instruction programs at these schools.

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

 Extension Activities

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Smith-Lever 3(b&c) Formula $268 $268 $268

1890's 25 25 25

Renewable Resources Extension Act 3 3 0

National Interest Programs:

 Children, Youth and Families at Risk 10 10 12

 Food Safety 2 2 4

 Low Income Nutrition (EFNEP) 61 59 59

 Sustainable Agriculture 3 3 3

 Pest Management 11 11 15

 Pesticide Impact Assessment 3 3 3

 Water Quality 11 11 9

 Farm Safety 3 3 0

 Rural Development Centers 1 1 1

 Indian Reservation Extension Agents 2 2 2 

 Pesticide Applicator Training 0 0 2

Other Programs:

1890 Facilities 8 8 8

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions 0 2 2

Agricultural Telecommunications 1 1 0

Rural Health and Safety Education 3 3 0

Federal Administration 12 12 5

Total, Extension Activities $428 $426 $418

Smith-Lever 3(b&c), and 1890 Colleges. These formula programs provide non- designated support for education and technology transfer programs

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (40 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
conducted through the partners of the Cooperative Extension System, including the 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University. Federal funds provide

about one-third of Cooperative Extension funding nationwide.

National Interest Programs. Funds are proposed to continue a number of National high priority programs that support education and technology

transfer for farmers and local communities in the areas of agricultural production and food consumption. Funds are provided to State cooperative

extension services through formula distributions and merit-based selections to support specific projects. Selected programs in this area include:

Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) -- a national network of collaborators support programs that focus on children, youth and

families to promote positive, secure environments, improved child care, and reading and science literacy. The 1998 budget increases the

CYFAR funding by $2.1 million with appropriation language designating $1.7 million for the 1890's consistent with provisions of the 1996

Farm Bill making these institutions eligible to participate in programs funded under Smith-Lever 3(d) .

● 

Food Safety -- As part of the Administration's intergovernmental Food Safety Initiative, increased funding will provide $2 million to expand

existing food safety extension programs. Education and training programs to support implementation of the HACCP approach for meat and

poultry, and safe food handling practices for industry and consumers are included. Additional food safety education programs will be

developed to address ongoing critical issues faced by industry operators, agricultural producers, and consumers. Key programs will include

quality assurance, compliance education, and State certification for food handlers.

● 

EFNEP -- This program provides low- income families with information to increase nutrition knowledge and improve nutritional practices.

Funds are distributed to each State on a poverty level-based formula. Funds are used primarily to hire community-based nutrition aides who

meet regularly with EFNEP participants on a one-to-one basis or in small groups.

● 

Pest Management -- Increased funding of $4 million is proposed to encourage farmers and handlers of agricultural products to adopt

integrated pest management techniques. Technology transfer projects are conducted at regional, State and local levels and coordinated with

research in support of the Administration's goal of extending the use of IPM practices to 75 percent of crop acres by the year 2000.

● 

Pesticide Impact Assessment -- This program provides data collected at the State level to define and evaluate the economic benefits and risks

of selected pesticides having critical agricultural and forestry uses.

● 

Water Quality -- This program assimilates new technologies into ongoing programs and adapts them to site specific application. The

program supports education efforts that contribute to adoption of cost effective, environmentally sound production practices in areas with

currently impaired water resources. A reduction of $1.6 million from the $10.7 million level in 1997 is proposed.

● 

Pesticide Applicator Training -- For a collaborative program with the Environmental Protection Agency, the budget provides $1.5 million for

training in IPM practices to growers, commercial applicators, and homeowners. The EPA is requesting a similar amount.

● 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE (ERS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Economic Analysis and Research $53 $53 $54

Trust Funds a/ a/ a/

Total, ERS $53 $53 $54

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

ERS provides economic and other social science information and analysis on agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. Through the

agency's research and analysis program, ERS produces economic information related to domestic and international agricultural developments;

statistical indicators of food and consumer issues and concerns, including nutrition education and food assistance, food safety regulation,

determinants of consumer demand for quality and safety, and food marketing trends and developments; agricultural resource and environmental

issues; and the effect of public policies and private actions on national rural and agricultural conditions, including the transformation of the rural

economy, the financial performance of the farm sector, and the implications of changing farm credit and financial market structures. The

information produced by ERS is used both by private entities such as farmers and consumers and by public officials in developing, administering,

and evaluating agricultural and rural policies and programs.

The proposed increase for 1998 provides for an improved data collection effort to support the evaluation and economic analysis of the adoption of

resource conserving production practices. The information collected will allow ERS to more accurately assess the cost effectiveness of resource

conserving production practices. In addition, an increase is also included for ERS' role in support of the Governmentwide initiative to provide

statistical expertise for performance measurement to support implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.

ERS' special expertise will be in providing perspective and advice on bridging customer satisfaction measurement, with measuring success in

meeting basic program goals for Federal programs conducted by the Department.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE (NASS)

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (41 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Agricultural Estimates $77 $79 $80

Statistical Research and Service 4 4 4

Census of Agriculture a/ 18 36

Trust Funds b/ b/ b/

Total, NASS $81 $101 $120

a/ Funded in the Bureau of the Census Budget.

b/ Less than $0.5 million.

NASS administers the Department's program of collecting and publishing current national and State agricultural statistics. Statistical data provided

by NASS are used in policy, production, and marketing decisions in both the private and public sectors. The agency conducts its estimating

program through a network of 45 State Statistical Offices, which serve all 50 States. The majority of these offices are operated through cooperative

agreements with State Departments of Agriculture or universities and function as joint State-Federal offices. NASS collects, summarizes, analyzes,

and publishes agricultural production and marketing data for a wide range of items, including: number of farms and land in farms; acreage, yield,

production, and stocks of major crops and selected specialty crops; inventories and production of livestock, poultry, fish, and dairy products; prices

received by farmers for products, prices paid for commodities and services, and related indexes; cold storage supplies; agricultural chemical use;

and other related areas of the agricultural economy and rural America. NASS annually publishes over 400 national reports that cover more than

120 crop and 45 livestock items.

The Census of Agriculture provides comprehensive statistical information on the agricultural sector of the U.S. economy at the National, State,

county, and other geographic levels every five years. The Census also provides descriptive data on farm enterprises and data on selected

agricultural subjects for the years following the census at the National, State and regional levels, and data on irrigation at the National, State and

district levels.

The 1998 budget provides for a net increase of $19.7 million above the 1997 estimate, which includes:

$18.5 million for the Census of Agriculture which will be conducted in 1998, the fourth year of the 6-year funding cycle. The Census

questionnaires are prepared, labeled, and mailed; data are collected, entered into machine-readable format; edited, tabulated, and reviewed

for approximately 2.5 million report forms. By changing the way the data is processed, NASS plans to collect and process the data in 25

percent less time than previous agricultural censuses.

● 

An increase of $0.6 million to cover higher costs for the 3,200 survey interviewers in the field who are employed under a cooperative

agreement and whose salary increases are not covered by Federal pay cost increases.

● 

An increase of $0.5 million for NASS' role in support of the Governmentwide initiative to provide statistical expertise for performance

measurement to support implementation of the GPRA of 1993. NASS would develop and refine sampling models and develop customer

satisfaction questions for Federal services for valid performance measurement.

● 

 Return to Table of Contents.

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

MISSION

The mission of Marketing and Regulatory Programs is to facilitate the domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and to

ensure the health and care of animals and plants while improving market competitiveness and the economy for the overall benefit of both

consumers and American agriculture.

The Marketing and Regulatory Programs are administered by three agencies: the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (42 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Marketing Services:

 Market News $20 $22 $22

 Shell Egg Surveillance and 

 Standards Development 6 7 7

 Market Protection and Promotion:

 Pesticide Data Program 12 a/ 10

 Organic Certification a/ a/ 1

 Other 3 5 5

 Wholesale Market Development 2 2 3

 Transportation Services 3 3 2

 Total, Marketing Services 46 39 50

Payments to States 1 1 1

Section 32 Funds:

 Marketing Agreements and Orders (MA&O) 10 11 11 

 Commodity Purchase Services 6 6 6

 Total, Section 32 Funds 16 17 17

 

Existing User Fees:

 Perishable Agricultural Commodities

 Act 10 9 9

 Commodity Grading Services 148 162 163

 Total, User Fee Funded Programs 158 171 172

 Total, AMS Program Level 221 228 240

Existing User Fees and Trust Funds -158 -171 -172

New User Fees (MA&O) 0 0 -11

Section 32 Funds -16 -17 -6

 Total, AMS Appropriations $47 $40 $51

a/ Less than $1 million.

AMS facilitates the marketing of agricultural products in domestic and international markets, while ensuring fair trading practices. AMS programs

promote a competitive and efficient marketplace, which benefits consumers and producers. AMS is organized along commodity lines that reflect

major segments of the agricultural industry. Headquarters staff are responsible for overseeing the administration of programs. AMS field

employees are located in processing plants, at shipping points, produce terminals, auction houses, and warehouses. Field offices, established for

supervision and administrative purposes, are located in key production areas. AMS has cooperative agreements with the States to administer in

whole or in part several AMS programs. Under these agreements, State employees carry out the program under Federal supervision. A majority of

AMS programs are voluntary and funded by the users of the program. In 1996, AMS closed 9 field offices and anticipates closing one during 1998.

No closures are planned in 1997.

For 1998, the AMS budget proposes a program level of $240 million of which $183 million (76 percent) will be funded by user fees and $57

million (24 percent) by appropriations and section 32 funds. Changes from the 1997 current estimate include funding for higher pay costs and

reductions due to streamlining. The 1998 budget proposes to recover an additional $11 million through user fees. Specific AMS activities and any

programmatic changes include the following:

Marketing Services. AMS administers a variety of programs that enhance the marketing and distribution of agricultural products. Activities include

the dissemination of market information, surveillance of shell egg handling operations, development of grade standards, protection of producers

from unfair marketing practices, random testing of commodities for pesticide residues, development of organic standards, research and technical

assistance aimed at improving efficiency of food marketing and distribution, and pesticide recordkeeping.

The 1998 budget includes an increase of $320,000 to expand foreign market news reports to include South and Central America, and $500,000 to

expand reporting of livestock and poultry markets in accordance with the recommendations set forth by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on

Agricultural Concentration. A $9.8 million increase is requested to restore funding within AMS for the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) which was

established to provide pesticide residue data on food commodities that would enable the government to respond effectively to food safety issues. In

1997, Congress provided funding for pesticide residue data collection and analysis within EPA. However, AMS is viewed as a neutral

non-regulatory agency by the food industry and has received voluntary participation in the program by almost 900 sites in the ten participating

States. AMS will be working with the participating States that are responsible for collecting samples, testing residues, and reporting residue data to

AMS. PDP provides improved data collection of pesticide residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods, and increased sampling of

foods most likely consumed by infants and children. The 1998 budget also includes an increase of $0.5 million for a total of $1 million for the

Organic Certification Program. AMS plans to recover the full cost of this program through user fees.

Payments to States. Under this program, AMS provides matching funds to State Departments of Agriculture for projects aimed at improving

marketing efficiency, reducing marketing costs for producers, and lowering food costs for consumers. This program is funded at the 1997 level.

Section 32 Funds. Section 32 funds are equal to 30 percent of the gross customs receipts collected during each preceding calendar year and unused

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (43 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
balances of up to $300 million. These funds are used to offset expenses of the Child Nutrition Program; strengthen markets by purchasing surplus

perishable agricultural commodities for distribution through feeding programs; administer marketing agreements and orders at the national level;

and for public hearings and producer referenda. Marketing agreements and orders help stabilize market prices and the supply of milk, fruit,

vegetables, and certain specialty crops. The orders are administered locally by marketing order committees and market administrators. Local

activities are funded through assessments on regulated producers and handlers.

For 1998, legislation will be proposed to convert funding for the Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders from section 32 funds

to increased assessments on producers and handlers benefitting from marketing agreements and orders. This proposal is estimated to generate $11

million in new user fees.

Section 32 funds are also used to finance the administrative costs associated with the purchase of commodities that support domestic food

assistance programs, such as the National School Lunch Program. In addition, AMS is responsible for developing the specifications used for food

procurement throughout the Federal government.

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. This Act provides protection to producers, shippers, distributors, and retailers from unfair and fraudulent

practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities. Full and prompt payment for such products is a key objective of the program.

The program is funded through an annual licensing fee assessed against marketers of such products.

Commodity Grading Services. AMS provides voluntary commodity grading and classing services for dairy products, fresh and processed fruits and

vegetables, meat and meat products, poultry, eggs, tobacco, and cotton. AMS recovers the cost of these services through user fees.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Pest and Disease Exclusion:

 Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) $152 $162 $169

 Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection 16 21 21

 International Programs 6 7 7

 Screwworm 34 32 31

 All Other 16 15 15

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring: 

 Animal Health Monitoring and Survey 59 61 61

 Animal and Plant Health Regulatory

 Enforcement 6 6 6

 Pest Detection 4 4 9

Pest and Disease Management:

 Animal Damage Control Operations 27 27 24

 Boll Weevil 18 16 6

 Brucellosis Eradication 23 22 20

 All Other 31 31 30

Animal Care 10 10 10

Scientific and Technical Services 52 53 53

Contingency Fund 5 5 4

 Total, APHIS Salaries and Expenses 459 472 466

Emergency Programs funded from CCC 35 43 0

Trust Funds 7 7 7

Buildings and Facilities 9 3 7

 Total, APHIS Program Level $510 $525 $480

Recap:

 APHIS Appropriations $349 $340 $322

 AQI User Fees 119 135 141

 Emergency Programs 35 43 0

 Trust Funds 7 7 7

 New User Fees 0 0 10

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for protecting U.S. animal and plant resources from diseases and pests. The major

areas of activity are as follows:

● Providing inspection and quarantine services at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of foreign or exotic diseases or pests;

● Surveying and monitoring the spread of plant pests and animal diseases for State, local, and private action;

● Administering control and eradication programs to combat outbreaks of plant pests and animal diseases;

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (44 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
Providing scientific and technical assistance to mitigate damage caused by wildlife to agricultural, industrial, or natural resources; Inspecting

for humane care and handling of animals used in research, exhibition or the wholesale pet trade; and

● 

● Providing scientific and technical assistance for biotechnology, disease diagnostics, and pest control methods development.

APHIS conducts agricultural pest and disease inspection services at all major international airports, shipping ports, and land borders. The agency's

field activities are managed through 10 regional offices and 420 field offices. Much of the agency's work is conducted in cooperation with State

and local agencies, private groups, and foreign governments.

The 1998 budget proposes a program level of $466 million for Salaries and Expenses, a $6 million decrease below the 1997 current estimate. This

funding level reflects reductions for program successes in many pest and disease management programs such as the brucellosis program, increased

cost-sharing by beneficiaries for ADC Operations and transferring more responsibilities of eradicating boll weevil to cotton producers. The

decrease also includes a reduction for the one-time relocation costs of transferring employees from the Denver Wildlife Research Center to the new

research facilities of the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado in 1997. This funding level also includes increased funding

for Pest Detection such as the Karnal bunt activities. Additionally, the 1998 budget proposes user fees to recover some of the costs for

administering animal welfare, biotechnology, veterinary biologic, pink bollworm, and Swine Health Protection Act programs.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI). The AQI program is the Nation's frontline defense against the introduction of dangerous agricultural

pests and diseases from other countries. User fees are charged for inspection of international passengers, aircraft, ships, railcars and trucks. The

1998 budget proposes $169 million for AQI activities consisting of increases in AQI appropriated funds and in AQI user fees. Increased traffic of

untreated Asian and European agricultural products into the United States through Canada has created the need for increased inspections to reduce

the risk of introducing exotic agricultural pests into the U.S.

Animal Damage Control. The 1998 budget proposes a reduction of $3 million in the Federal share of ADC operating expenses, in order to reduce

the significant disparity among States in the level of support that they provide. Currently, most States pay less than half of the total cost for the

benefits that they receive. The budget would reduce the level of Federal assistance for each State so that it did not exceed 50 percent of the total

program level.

Pest Detection. The 1998 budget requests $9 million, as compared to $4 million in 1997 for pest detection activities. This program increase

provides for early detection of exotic plant pests to prevent sustained infestations and monitors the effectiveness of plant pest management

programs. This increase would be largely devoted to the Karnal bunt (KB) program enabling APHIS to provide assurance to all trade partners that

KB is not present in major wheat-producing areas of the United States. These activities would include implementing practices that enable the grain

and feed industries and State cooperators to participate in surveys of wheat production areas to show disease-free status. This is the third year of a

five-year nationwide survey program to detect KB. A portion of this increase will be devoted to cooperative research into the appropriate control of

future potential infestations.

Boll Weevil. The 1998 budget proposes a reduction of $10 million below the 1997 current estimate. APHIS intends to accelerate the

discontinuation of cost-sharing program activities where the boll weevil no longer exists and will reduce the customary 30 percent cost-share in

active or expanding program areas. The Agency is gradually transferring full operational responsibility for these activities to grower organizations

in areas such as south Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. APHIS would continue to help offset initial startup costs in new program areas and would

continue to oversee and provide technical support to boll weevil detection and control activities in eradicated and non-infested areas.

Brucellosis. The Department cooperates with State governments, industry organizations, and individual herd owners to eradicate brucellosis. The

1998 budget proposes $20 million for brucellosis eradication. The success of the eradication program is significant. Nationwide only 15 States

have not achieved Class "Free" status. As of August 31,1996, there were 45 herds under quarantine compared to 80 herds at the end of August

1995.

Screwworm. The 1998 budget proposes funding of $31 million, approximately the same as the 1997 current estimate. The Screwworm Eradication

program protects the U.S. livestock industry by eradicating screwworms from Mexico and Central American countries thereby minimizing the risk

of spread to the domestic industry. The program expects to start active eradication programs in the southern portions of Nicaragua, all of Costa

Rica and Panama. At the end of the first quarter of 1998, Nicaragua is expected to be free of screwworm. The technology behind the screwworm

program is dependent upon production of sterile insects. Mexico has expressed concern over biohazard risks associated with the present production

facility located in Chiapas, Mexico and has asked for the plant's closure. As a result, APHIS intends to fund architectural and engineering work for

a sterile screwworm facility, to be built in Panama, from carryover funds available from the screwworm budget line item. The facility is expected

to be ready when the screwworm barrier reaches the facility's location.

Buildings and Facilities. An appropriation of $7.2 million is proposed for maintenance and modernization of APHIS facilities in 1998. Of this

amount, $3.2 million would be provided, in addition to a $5 million proposal included in the Agricultural Research Service budget, to support

continued modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Plum Island, New York. General repairs and maintenance on existing

buildings would be funded with the remaining $4 million.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION (GIPSA)

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (45 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Salaries and Expenses:

 Grain Inspection Activities $11 $11 $11

 Packers and Stockyards Activities 12 12 15

Existing User Fees 34 43 43

 Total, GIPSA Program Level 57 66 69

Existing User Fees -34 -43 -43

New User Fees:

 Grain Standardization 0 0 -4

 Capitalization and Start-up Costs 0 0 3

 Packers and Stockyards Activities 0 0 -15

 Total, GIPSA Appropriations $23 $23 $10

GIPSA establishes the official U.S. standards for grain, conducts official weighing and grain inspection activities, and grades rice, dry beans and

peas, processed grain products, and hops. The agency also provides assurance for the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets.

The agency monitors competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat

and poultry prices.

GIPSA supervises 8 state and 57 designated private agencies for grain inspection and weighing services at domestic locations; provides supervision

and other services from 24 field offices; and handles appeals of grain inspection services in Kansas City, Missouri. Packers and Stockyards

Programs operate out of 11 field offices. For 1997 and 1998, GIPSA will continue to evaluate the field office structure to determine if additional

offices can be closed or consolidated to reduce costs and improve service delivery.

For 1998, the budget proposes a program level for Salaries and Expenses of $26 million with $11 million being devoted to grain inspection

activities for standardization, compliance, and methods development. The methods development activities include new and improved tests and

procedures for determining grain quality, the economic analysis of consequences from changing such procedures, and also determining the criteria

and recommending specifications for grain inspection instrumentation. The 1998 budget proposes legislation to authorize the collection of $4

million in additional user fees to cover costs of grain standardization activities such as developing, reviewing, and maintaining official U.S. grain

standards used by the entire grain industry.

The 1998 budget proposes $15 million for Packers and Stockyards Programs, which includes the following changes:

● an increase of $0.2 million to enable electronic submission of industry data;

● an increase of $0.8 million to expand poultry compliance activities;

an increase of $1.6 million for monitoring and analyzing packer market competition and implications of structural changes and behavioral

practices in the meat packing industry; and

● 

● an increase of $0.2 million to implement a dealer trust.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration recently made recommendations to address the issue of concentration in

agriculture. The Department has begun reviewing the recommendations and has taken steps to implement some of them. For example, USDA has

broadened the coverage of market reports to include the volume of slaughter cattle contracted for sale and expanded reporting to include

value-based pricing indicators (premiums and discounts). Other initiatives being considered or under development include several intended to

continue improvement of market information and producers' understanding of market forces such as providing information on slaughter by grade

and yield on a regional basis. Also, the Packers and Stockyards Program of GIPSA is planning to conduct additional analyses of the effects of

concentration on prices in 1997 using data collected for the Packer Concentration study. The 1998 budget proposes legislation to authorize a dealer

trust similar to that of the packer trust. Dealers would be required to establish a trust covering the value of livestock inventories and accounts

receivable due from the sale of livestock. Dealer financial failures represent a significant amount of unrecovered losses in the livestock marketing

chain.

The 1998 budget also proposes legislation to authorize the collection of license fees to administer the Packers and Stockyards Act (the Act).

License fees would be applied to those subject to the Act (i.e., packers, livestock and poultry dealers, and meat buyers) to protect them from unfair

and fraudulent marketing practices. The budget includes $3 million to capitalize a reserve fund and to finance start-up costs.

 Return to Table of Contents.

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

The Departmental offices provide leadership, coordination and support for all administrative and policy functions of the Department. These offices

assist program agencies throughout the Department in their efforts to provide efficient and effective service to all USDA customers.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (46 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Departmental Offices:

 Office of the Secretary $18 $11 $11

 Departmental Administration

 Staff Offices 23 25 25 

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 5 5 5

 Office of the General Counsel 28 28 29

 Office of the Inspector General 64 63 65

 Office of Communications 8 8 8

 Executive Operations:

 Office of the Chief Economist 4 4 6

 National Appeals Division 12 12 13

 Office of Budget and Program 

 Analysis 6 6 6

 Office of Small and Disadvantaged

 Business Utilization 1 1 1

 Total, Executive Operations 23 23 26

 Total, Departmental Offices $173 $167 $174

Programmatic increases are discussed below along with a description of the mission of each Departmental office.

Office of the Secretary (OSEC). This account funds the offices of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and the Under/Assistant Secretaries as they

direct and coordinate the work of the Department. These offices provide policy direction for all areas of the Department and maintain a liaison with

the Executive Office of the President and members of Congress on matters pertaining to USDA programs. In addition, $7.5 million for Service

Center Implementation was included in the 1996 appropriations to be available until expended. These activities are continuing.

Departmental Administration (DA) Staff Offices. This account funds activities that provide staff support to top policy officials and overall

direction and coordination to the work of the Department. These activities include Departmentwide programs for management of human resources,

occupational safety and health, real and personal property, procurement, contracting, supplies, civil rights and equal opportunity, emergency

preparedness, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges, Judicial Officer, and Board

of Contract Appeals.

Within DA, the Policy Analysis and Coordination Center--Civil Rights (PACC--CR) provides Departmentwide leadership, coordination and

direction for civil rights in employment and program delivery. In coordination with PACC--CR, the Office of Operations is responsible for civil

rights dispute resolution and complaints adjudication. These staffs are also responsible for conducting reviews and evaluations of Department

programs and employment practices to ensure civil rights compliance, and a range of activities to ensure the inclusion of minorities, women and

individuals with disabilities in the Department's employment and programs.

Beginning in 1996, Departmental Administration implemented a responsive and proactive civil rights program to reduce the complaints backlog

and improve the system to ensure the resolution of complaints in a timely manner. In 1997, the Congress increased funding for this area. This

activity will continue in 1998. In 1996, Departmental Administration reorganized to significantly alter its alignment of functions and activities. The

previous organizational structure divided the Departmental Administration function into specific program offices, such as personnel, operations,

and civil rights enforcement. The current organizational structure divides the functions into policy, program operations, and direct administrative

support for Departmental offices. The new organizational structure is intended to be more focused and responsive to customer needs.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). This office is responsible for direction and oversight of the development of financial management

structures and systems in USDA. OCFO provides leadership for all financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and performance

measurement activities within the Department, and is responsible for the management and operation of the National Finance Center and the

Department's Working Capital Fund. OCFO also provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to Departmental Administration and secretarial

offices, and is coordinating the Department's implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. An increase is included to

facilitate OCFO's implementation of the provisions of the CFO Act.

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). OCIO was established pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to provide policy guidance,

leadership, coordination and direction to USDA's information management and information technology investment activities in support of program

delivery.

Office of the General Counsel (OGC). OGC serves as the legal advisor and counsel for the Secretary and program agencies of the Department. The

Office provides legal services for the Department, which include but are not limited to: providing legal advice, representing the Department in

administrative proceedings, and assisting the Department of Justice in cases involving USDA. The 1998 proposal includes increases to maintain

staff which will enable OGC to efficiently handle the increasing legal issues confronting the Department, especially in the areas of Civil Rights,

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (47 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
international trade, National Forest management and personnel issues related to downsizing.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG). OIG conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the

Department, reviews and makes recommendations on existing and proposed legislation and regulations, and recommends policies and activities to

promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud and mismanagement in the operations of the Department. The agency also keeps

the Secretary and the Congress fully informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of the Department's programs. The

proposed increase of $2.2 million for 1998 provides: $1.3 million for pay costs and increased law enforcement retirement costs; and $0.9 million

for increased oversight of the USDA Service Center initiative, audits of financial statements, updated ADP software and hardware, audit training

and relocation expenses.

Office of Communications (OC). OC provides leadership, expertise, counsel, and coordination on matters related to communication strategies,

which are vital to the overall formulation, awareness, and acceptance of USDA programs and policies. OC also serves as the liaison between the

Department and the many associations and organizations representing America's food, fiber, and environmental interests. The budget includes a

small increase to fund a Departmentwide effort to bring information and services to underserved client populations such as Native Americans,

African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. This initiative will allow these groups to be more informed about specific USDA programs

and services and support more knowledgeable interaction with the Department.

Executive Operations. Executive Operations provides a support team for the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary. This team includes the Chief

Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office of Budget and Program Analysis and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization.

Office of the Chief Economist. The Chief Economist advises the Secretary on policies and programs related to U.S. agriculture and rural

areas, provides objective analysis on the impacts of policy options on the agricultural and rural economy, and participates in planning and

development programs to improve the Department's forecasts, projections, and policy analysis capabilities. Activities under the Office of the

Chief Economist include the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

(ORACBA), and coordination of sustainable development activities of the Department. The WAOB serves as the single focal point for the

Nation's economic intelligence related to domestic and international food and agriculture projections, and coordinates the clearance of all

commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department.

ORACBA coordinates and reviews all risk assessments and cost- benefit analyses prepared in the Department in support of major

regulations whose primary purpose is to regulate issues of human health, human safety, or the environment, and publishes these assessments

and analyses for the public. The Office of the Chief Economist coordinates the Department's sustainable development activities, which

include the social, economic, and environmental aspects of agriculture and rural development.

The 1998 budget provides an increase of $0.5 million for modernization of automated capability to allow for weather and climate data access

from the National Weather Service. The proposal also includes $0.4 million for the national agricultural weather observing network. This

network, to be operated in partnership with state agencies, universities and the private sector, will provide the comprehensive data needed to

serve the needs of farmers and land managers and to expedite decisions at the Federal level affecting agricultural commodity trade and

markets, fire weather management, and ecosystem conservation. The budget also provides $1.1 million to fund the Commission on 21st

Century Production Agriculture as authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill. The Commission will conduct a comprehensive review and assessment

of the 1996 Farm Bill and a review of the future of production agriculture in the U.S. and the appropriate role of the Federal Government in

support of production agriculture.

● 

National Appeals Division (NAD). NAD is responsible for making final determinations on all administrative appeals of program decisions

rendered by the Farm Service Agency, the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Rural Utilities Service, and

the Natural Resources Conservation Service. An increase of $1.5 million is requested for four initiatives: (1) NAD's current limited appeals

tracking system will be improved and expanded in order to accommodate the status of all NAD appeals, as well as provide other important

information about the appeal. (2) An automated precedent system will be developed to establish a mechanism which could be utilized by all

NAD hearing and review officers to ensure consistency in NAD determinations. (3) Employee development is needed to ensure efficient,

quality service to the appellants. Training of all hearing officers in the varied programs administered by NAD is also needed to ensure that

hearing officers keep up-to-date on all program elements. (4) The purchase of modern computer equipment is necessary to ensure NAD

employees are able to provide quality internal and external customer service in an efficient manner.

● 

Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA). OBPA provides direction and administration of the Department's budgetary functions;

reviews program and legislative proposals for program and budget related implications; analyzes program resource issues and alternatives;

and provides Departmentwide coordination for and participation in the presentation of budget related matters to the committees of the

Congress, the news media and the public. OBPA also provides Departmentwide coordination of the preparation and processing of the

legislative program, legislative reports and regulations.

● 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). OSDBU provides Departmentwide guidance for agency procurement to

assure maximum participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in the Department's contracts for goods and services; and directs and

monitors USDA agencies' compliance in promoting full and open competition in the Department's contracting process.

● 

CENTRALIZED ACTIVITIES

The Department has a number of centralized activities which have separate appropriations. These centrally managed operations provide efficient,

economical services through economies of scale and management attention for the benefit of all participating agencies. The following activities are

managed by the Departmental staff offices or coordinated at the Departmental level.

 Program Level

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (48 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

Centrally Financed Activities:

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities $135 $144 $131

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16 25 

 Advisory Committees 1 a/ a/ 

 Trust Funds 1 1 1

 Total, Centralized Activities $153 $161 $157

a/ The General Provisions of the 1997 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

 Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act permits agencies funded

 in the Act to finance advisory committees from their own funds, subject to a

 limitation on total obligations for these committees. The 1998 budget proposes

 deletion of the limitation on advisory committee spending.

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities. The Department's Strategic Space Plan for buildings and facilities is based on projected reductions in staff at

Washington headquarters over the next five years. In 1998, the Department is requesting $131 million for its facilities programs. The major

component is $99 million for rental payments to the General Services Administration (GSA). Another component of the request is $25 million for

the operation and maintenance of the headquarters complex including the new Beltsville facility and increased security measures for the

Headquarters complex.

The modernization plan, which is being implemented, will provide safe, dependable, cost-effective facilities for USDA Washington area staff into

the next century. This plan includes the Beltsville Office facility and the renovation of the South Building, which is over 60 years old and in need

of modernization to correct health and safety hazards and provide modern facilities. The Beltsville facility should be complete in December 1997

and occupied in January 1998. The first phase of the South Building renovation will begin in 1997. The 1998 request includes $5 million which

will be used to upgrade utility services for the building. This work is planned to include electrical, plumbing, telecommunications, chilled water,

and steam system improvements. The specific project(s) will be identified during 1997 and will be completed using the requested funds.

As a result of expiring leases in the Washington area, as many as six agencies will be relocating during 1998. Therefore, $2.7 million is included in

this central account to cover the necessary moving costs for those agencies.

Hazardous Waste Management. The budget proposes $25 million to continue funding for Hazardous Waste Management. Resources from the

central account are allotted to agencies according to priority needs. USDA agencies are responsible for hazardous waste clean-up activities and

agency funds, as well as funds from this appropriation, are used to cover the costs associated with these activities. The Department's hazardous

waste management program works to identify, assess, contain and clean up hazardous waste sites in areas covered by programs of the Department

or within Departmental jurisdiction. The program is designed to promote facility compliance under the requirements of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These Acts require Federal agencies

to meet the same standards for storage and disposition of hazardous waste as private businesses.

The funds will be directed to priority sites which have been identified based on risk to public health and the environment as well as assuring the

Department's compliance with applicable environmental laws.

 Return to Table of Contents.

APPENDIX

Fund for Rural America

The 1996 Farm Bill established the Fund for Rural America to provide support to rural communities across the United States and provided that

$100 million be made available on January 1, 1997 for the Fund. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to allocate the available funding

between rural development and research activities. The Act specifies that at least one-third of the funds be allocated to rural development activities

and one-third to research activities. No more than two-thirds of the available funds may be made available for rural development activities. The

Department's 1998 budget includes a proposal to make available in 1998 the $100 million originally provided in 2000 by the 1996 Farm Bill.

In 1997, $47 million of the available funding will be used to support rural development activities including Water and Waste Disposal loans and

grants. Section 502 Single Family Housing Loans, the Distance Learning/Medical Link programs and other rural development loans and grants.

Another $46 million will be used to provide research, extension, and education grants. Of this $46 million, $33.3 million will be allocated to

projects designed to: 1) increase international competitiveness, profitability and efficiency; 2) enhance the economic standing of rural

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (49 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
communities; and 3) improve environmental stewardship. An additional $10 million will be allocated to research activities which focus specifically

on the development of methods to counter increasing concentration within the livestock and poultry industries, improvement in the food safety

arena with specific emphasis on assisting small business establishments to achieve the new HAACP/Pathogen reductions, identification of the

disease prevention potential of various foods, and the promotion of gleaning and food recovery efforts. The remaining $3 million will be used to

fund a new research initiative to address barriers to the full implementation of cutting edge telecommunications technology in rural America.

Finally, $7 million will be used to fund additional loans under the Beginning Farmer Loan program and additional grants for Outreach for Socially

Disadvantaged farmers.

 FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA

 FY 1997

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Budget Program

 Program Authority Level 

Rural Development Activities: 

 Section 502 Housing Loans $20.0 $141.0

 Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans 0.8 8.4

 Rural Water and Waste Disposal Grants 8.4 8.4

 Distance Learning and Medical Link Grants 6.5 6.5

 Rural Business Enterprise Grants 6.5 6.5

 Farm Labor Housing Loans 1.0 2.0

 Farm Labor Housing Grants 1.0 1.0

 Alternative Agricultural Research 

 & Commercialization 0.5 0.5

 Cooperative Development Services 1.7 1.7

 EZ/EC Technical Assistance 1.0 1.0

 

 Total, Rural Development Activities 47.4 177.0

 

Research, Extension and Education Grants:

 Agricultural Research 43.3 43.3

 Telecommunications Infrastructure Research 2.8 2.8

 Total, Research, Extension and

 Education Grants 46.1 46.1

 

Other:

 Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 4.5 4.5

 Beginning Farmer Loan Programs 2.0 9.5

 Total, Other 6.5 14.0

TOTAL $100.0 $237.1

Note: The 1998 budget includes a proposal to shift the $100 million provided in 

 2000 to 1998.

Integrated Pest Management and Related Programs

The USDA Strategic Plan for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) calls for the implementation of IPM practices on 75 percent of U.S. crop acreage

by the year 2000. The IPM plan is an effort to coordinate the USDA research and extension programs with regional or State cooperators and

producers who will implement IPM production practices. The Plan features close collaboration among USDA agencies and land grant universities

and with producers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Priorities are established through a local/regional planning process with input

from producers. This strategic effort is supported by a USDA-EPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for critical pest control technologies.

Key components of the initiative follow:

Agricultural Research Service. Consistent with priorities established through the local/regional process outlined in the plan, ARS will establish

areawide pest management approaches in cooperation with other agencies and private entities. An increase of $1 million for areawide pest

management pilot studies would support projects such as codling moth on tree fruits, corn rootworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budmoth on

cotton, and potato insects.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. CSREES is responsible for organizing implementation teams that involve

growers, researchers, educators, and practitioners in identifying their most important problems and setting priorities for research and education

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (50 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
programs that will meet their field implementation needs. Phase I of the 2-phase strategy -- Planning -- has been completed by 23 multi-party

teams. These teams are now ready to move into Phase II -- Implementation. The budget requests $4.2 million for 19 Phase II grants. Phase II

projects will be supported at an average annual level of $500,000 for 3 to 6 years. Awards will be competitive based on a request for proposals

developed in close consultation with the land grant university system and the USDA IPM Program.

CSREES will continue to support IPM research through a regional system of competitive awards to develop improved pest management systems

which is proposed at $8 million, and will support IPM extension under the formula components of the 3(d) program.

CSREES also proposes an increase of $2.6 million for the Pest Management Alternatives Program competitive research grants to develop

alternative pest controls for crop-pest combinations where only a limited number of options are available. As appropriate, funds will be targeted to

cases where pesticides are under EPA review for possible actions to limit their availability. This program directly addresses the MOU committing

USDA and EPA to work proactively where regulatory action by EPA would reduce farmer competitiveness and limit producers' ability to adopt

practices such as IPM. The development of an Expert IPM Decision Support System, currently underway, will be used interactively with State

NAPIAP liaisons and IPM coordinators to identify crop-pest combinations for which there are no viable alternatives.

Economic Research Service. ERS will support the IPM initiative through project and overall program evaluation and analysis of National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) survey data on pesticide use and IPM implementation.

National Agricultural Statistics Service. NASS will continue to collect and analyze data on participation of farmers in IPM programs and to

expand pesticide use data collection sufficiently to accurately estimate total agricultural pesticide use on a national basis. These data will be used to

measure progress in IPM adoption and to provide total agricultural pesticide use on a national basis. The Agricultural Marketing Service will

continue to coordinate the program conducted with EPA to assist producers and applicators in meeting their recordkeeping responsibilities.

Finally, there are several programs conducted to facilitate the movement of high priority pest controls through the EPA pesticide registration

process. USDA agencies provide critical assistance in assuring the availability of adequate pest management tools for minor crops, which

include most fruits and vegetables, through the IR-4 pesticide clearance program by funding necessary field trials and laboratory analysis. The

proposed increase of $5 million will help eliminate a backlog of data needed for new registrations to replace materials that are no longer effective

or where registrations have been canceled through regulatory actions and to meet new deadlines and other provisions imposed by the Food Quality

Protection Act.

The Department also assists the re-registration process through the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), a

program of information gathering and analysis on the benefits of current uses of agricultural pest control materials and the economic consequences

of alternative materials and/or management practices.

In addition, CSREES is requesting funds for the Pesticide Applicator Training Program. An increase of $1.5 million will support a collaborative

program with EPA to provide education and training programs to educate restricted-use pesticide users on safe and environmentally sound methods

of pesticide application.

Application of IPM strategies on public and private lands is supported by a number of USDA programs. NRCS administers the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which incorporates the objectives of the Agricultural Conservation Program. Through EQIP, cost-share,

technical, and educational assistance is provided to producers to help them install conservation systems designed to address serious natural

resource problems that impact soil, water, and related resources, including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat management. The Forest

Service (FS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service utilize IPM strategies wherever possible for pest control on public and private

lands, and FS cooperates with States and private landowners in providing pest protection on forest land.

 Integrated Pest Management and Related Programs

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 

 

 

 1997 

 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget

 

IPM Initiative -- Research and Extension to address producer-identified needs

CSREES:RE IPM Research Grant Prog $3 $3 $8

CSREES:RE Pest Management Alternatives 2 2 4

CSREES:RE Expert IPM Decision Support

 System a/ a/ a/

CSREES:Ext. IPM application 11 11 15

ARS Areawide IPM Research 4 6 7

ERS IPM Research 1 1 1

 Total, IPM Initiative 20 22 35

Ongoing Research and Application Programs -- IPM and Biocontrol

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (51 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
CSREES:RE NRI, Formulas, other b/ 35 46 42

ARS Research 62 66 69

FS-IPM Research 9 9 9

ERS Research a/ a/ a/

 Total, Ongoing Research 107 122 120

APHIS Application 30 34 34

NRCS/FSA IPM Application 7 7 10

FS-IPM Application 20 7 19

 Total, Application 56 48 63

Pesticide Use Data Collection and Analysis

NASS Pesticide use surveys 4 6 6

ERS Pesticide use analysis 2 2 2

AMS-Pesticide recordkeeping 2 3 3

 Total, Data Collection and Analysis 7 10 10

Pesticide Registration, Clearance, Assessment,

 Training

ARS-Minor use clearance (IR-4) 2 2 2

CSREES:RE Minor crop pest mgmt (IR-4) 6 6 11

ARS/CSREES/ERS/FS NAPIAP 6 6 6

CSREES:Ext. Pesticide Applicator Training 0 0 2

 Total, Pesticide Registration 15 15 21

 Total, IPM and Related Programs $204 $216 $249

a/ Less than $0.5 million.

b/ The estimate for 1997 includes 1996 NRI grants funding to be awarded in 1997,

 as well as 1997 estimated awards.

Programs to Support 1890 Institutions and Other Historically Black Colleges and Universities

The Federal Government has had a longstanding policy of providing support to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). President

Clinton issued E.O. 12876 in November 1993 calling on departments and agencies to reach out to HBCUs. The Department of Agriculture

continues to give high priority to programs and activities carried out at the 1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University, the 17 Historically Black

land grant institutions in the Southern States and to other HBCUs. Formula grants for research and extension represent a significant part of the

USDA support for these institutions.

The 1890 Capacity Building Grants program, which is funded at the 1997 level, is the cornerstone of the Department's successful partnership with

the 1890 land grant universities. In the 7 years from 1990 through 1996, over $62 million has been awarded for 285 research and teaching projects,

each of which features an active, cooperative relationship with one or more USDA agencies.

The 1998 budget also includes a proposal to continue the program of construction grants for research, extension and teaching facilities.

USDA agencies have given high priority to establishing mutually beneficial partnerships with 1890 institutions to conduct a wide range of

programs and activities. These partnerships provide the basis for centers of excellence which are on-campus entities dedicated, in part, to

addressing specific USDA agency program needs. Eleven such centers have been established with funds available through 1997. In 1996, $4

million was provided in support of these centers.

Plans are underway for new centers to be initiated during 1997 and 1998, including food safety work at Tuskegee University, a center on

community development and disadvantaged communities at South Carolina State University, and an ARS center at Langston University for

research on grazing lands.

The 1996 Farm Bill specifies that the 1890 Institutions are eligible to apply for and receive directly new and increased funds made available after

September 30, 1995, to carry out programs or initiatives under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act. An increase of $2.46 million has been

requested in the 1998 CSREES budget for the Children, Families, and Youth at Risk program, of which $1.7 million will be targeted to the 1890

Institutions.

Programs to Support 1890 Institutions and Other Historically Black Colleges and Universities

 Program Level

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997 

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (52 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 1996 Current 1998

 Program Actual Estimate Budget 

 

 

Cooperative State Research, Education

 and Extension Service:

 

 Evans-Allen formula $28 $28 $28

 Extension formula 25 25 25

 Research and teaching 

 capacity building grants 9 9 9

 Facility grants 8 8 8

 Children, Youth, and Families at Risk 0 0 2

 Other cooperative research 

 and extension 5 4 3

 Total 75 74 75

Agricultural Research Service 2 2 3

Forest Service 3 3 3

Natural Resources Conservation

 Service 3 4 5

Rural Development 3 1 3

Farm Service Agency 1 1 1

Other Agencies 3 3 3

 Total $90 $88 $93

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Agency Actual Estimate Budget

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $1,869 -$84 -$125

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 5,274 8,793 9,799

 Risk Management Agency 1,650 1,849 1,828

 Foreign Agricultural Service 121 132 148

 P.L. 480 502 479 484

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service 667 30 -469

 Rural Housing Service 1,792 1,141 515

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 122 92 52

 Rural Community Advancement Program 0 0 689

 Alternative Ag Research & Commercialization 6 7 10

FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA 0 100 100

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Consumer Service 39,746 40,885 40,673

 Section 32 Funds 588 433 461

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 962 832 821

 Forest Service 3,254 3,368 3,167

FOOD SAFETY

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 549 579 206

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 751 801 801

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 913 915 845

 Economic Research Service 53 53 54

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 81 100 120

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 160 152 163

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 466 480 469

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration 23 23 10

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 16 9 9

 Executive Operations 22 22 27

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (53 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 5 5 5

 Departmental Administration 23 26 25

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 16 25

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 136 144 131

 Advisory Committees 1 0 0

 Office of Communications 8 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 64 63 65

 Office of the General Counsel 28 28 29

 Gifts and Bequests 1 1 1

 Subtotal 59,873 61,476 61,151

 Offsetting Receipts -1,139 -861 -876

TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $58,734 $60,615 $60,275 

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Programs - Budget Authority

 (Dollars in Millions)

 

 1997 1998 

 Agency Estimate Budget

 

 

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency:

 Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund $384 $318

 Grants 2 4

 Conservation Programs 25 0

 Salaries and Expenses 746 743

 Commodity Credit Corporation 4 -6

 Total, FSA 1,161 1,059

 Risk Management Agency 64 218

 Foreign Agricultural Service 131 147

 P.L. 480 1,019 967

 Total, FAS 1,214 1,332

 Total, FFAS 2,375 2,391

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service:

 Grants and Payments 510 21

 Program and Liquidating Accounts 139 66

 Salaries and Expenses 33 33

 Total, RUS 682 120

 Rural Housing Service:

 Grants and Payments 587 666

 Program Accounts 569 580

 Salaries and Expenses 61 59

 Total, RHS 1,217 1,305

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

 Grants and Payments 45 3

 Program Accounts 26 26

 Alternative Ag Research & Commercialization 7 10

 Salaries and Expenses 25 27

 Total, RBS 103 66

 Rural Community Advancement Program 0 689

 Total, RD 2,002 2,180

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Consumer Service:

 WIC 3,830 4,108

 Commodity Assistance Program 307 272

 Other 0 32

 Food Program Administration 106 106

 Total, FCS 4,243 4,518

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 832 821

 Forest Service 2,597 2,381

 Total, NRE 3,429 3,202

FOOD SAFETY

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (54 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Food Safety and Inspection Service 574 201

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 786 786

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 915 845

 Economic Research Service 53 54

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 100 120

 Total, REE 1,854 1,805

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 40 51

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 438 421

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration 23 10

 Total, MRP 501 482

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 9 9

 Office of the Chief Economist 4 6

 National Appeals Division 12 13

 Office of Budget and Program Analysis 6 6

 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

 Utilization 1 1

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 5 5

 Departmental Administration 26 25

 Office of Communications 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 65

 Office of the General Counsel 28 29

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 144 131

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 25

 Receipts -5 -5

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY $15,298 $15,103

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997

 1996 Current 1998

 Agency Actual Estimate Budget

 

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

 Farm Service Agency $1,932 $138 $57

 Commodity Credit Corporation Programs 4,646 7,766 9,900

 Risk Management Agency 1,769 1,789 1,826

 Foreign Agricultural Service 101 123 142

 P.L. 480 512 711 478

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service -571 59 -466

 Rural Housing Service 1,442 1,187 560

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service 59 118 55

 Alternative Agric. Res, & Comm. Corp 9 8 8

 Rural Community Advancement Program 0 0 680

FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA 0 25 65

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Consumer Service 37,383 37,428 38,761

 Section 32 Funds 450 467 406

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1,062 1,113 895

 Forest Service 3,416 3,508 3,220

FOOD SAFETY 

 Food Safety and Inspection Service 537 577 206

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 739 780 791

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

 Extension Service 851 907 905

 Economic Research Service 50 53 54

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 78 97 118

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 158 150 155

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 488 466 481

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration 26 23 10

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (55 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Office of the Secretary 7 12 11

 Executive Operations 19 22 27

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 5 5 5

 Departmental Administration 30 25 26

 Hazardous Waste Management 15 16 22

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 116 139 150

 Advisory Committees 1 0 0

 Office of Communications 10 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 62 63 65

 Office of the General Counsel 28 27 28

 Gifts and Bequests 1 1 1

 Working Capital Fund 48 0 0

 Subtotal 55,483 57,815 59,655

Offsetting Receipts -1,139 -861 -876

 TOTAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $54,344 $56,954 $58,779

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Discretionary Programs - Outlays

 (Dollars in Millions)

 1997 1998 

 Agency Estimate Budget 

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 

 Farm Service Agency:

 Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund $370 $321

 Grants 2 3

 Conservation Programs 158 36

 Salaries and Expenses 772 743

 Commodity Credit Corporation 4 -6

 Total, FSA 1,306 1,097

 Risk Management Agency 60 147

 Foreign Agricultural Service 122 141

 P.L. 480 Programs 1,256 998

 Total, FAS 1,378 1,139

 Total, FFAS 2,744 2,383

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Rural Utilities Service:

 Grants and Payments 482 -6

 Program Accounts 284 133

 Salaries and Expenses 32 29

 Total, RUS 798 156

 Rural Housing Service:

 Grants and Payments 78 77

 Program Accounts 1,181 1,163

 Salaries and Expenses 50 51

 Total, RHS 1,309 1,291

 Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

 Grants and Payments 48 3

 Program Accounts 47 31

 Alternative Ag Research & Commercialization 8 8

 Salaries and Expenses 28 28

 Total, RBS 131 70

 Rural Community Advancement Program 0 680

 Total, RD 2,238 2,197

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

 Food and Consumer Service:

 WIC 3,860 3,997

 Commodity Assistance Program 342 276

 Other 0 27

 Food Program Administration 106 106

 Total, FCS 4,308 4,406

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1,013 868

 Forest Service 2,682 2,440

 Total, NRE 3,695 3,308

FOOD SAFETY

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (56 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Food Safety and Inspection Service 572 201

 

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

 Agricultural Research Service 767 777

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

 Extension Service 907 905

 Economic Research Service 53 54

 National Agricultural Statistics Service 97 118

 Total, REE 1,824 1,854

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

 Agricultural Marketing Service 40 45

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 429 434

 Grain Inspection, Packers 

 & Stockyards Administration 23 10

 Total, MRP 492 489

 

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

 Office of the Secretary 12 11

 Office of the Chief Economist 4 6

 National Appeals Division 12 13

 Office of Budget and Program Analysis 6 6

 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

 Utilization 0 1

 Departmental Administration 25 26

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 4 5

 Office of the Chief Information Officer 5 5

 Office of Communications 8 8

 Office of the Inspector General 63 65

 Office of the General Counsel 27 28

 Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 139 150

 Hazardous Waste Management 16 22

 Receipts -5 -5

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY OUTLAYS $16,189 $15,180

 United States Department of Agriculture

 Staff Years

 

 1993 

Change 1993 - 2002

 Ceiling 1994 1995 1996 1997 

1998 2002 Amount Percent

Farm Service Agency . 7,490 7,009 6,505 6,281 6,146 

5,877 5,877 -1,613 -21.5%

Risk Management Agency 800 752 658 536 580 

623 623 -177 -22.1%

Foreign Agricultural Service 923 906 907 885 885 

885 793 -130 -14.1% 

Rural Utilities Service 890 891 850 765 785 

783 692 -198 -22.2%

Rural Housing Service 8,221 7,869 7,233 6,910 6,588 

6,232 5,508 -2,713 -33.0%

Rural Business - Cooperative Service 435 425 398 338 347 

345 305 -130 -29.9%

Food and Consumer Service 2,008 1,932 1,867 1,806 1,806 

1,800 1,800 -208 -10.4%

Natural Resources Conservation Service 13,790 13,317 12,163 11,839 12,200 

12,048 12,048 -1,742 -12.6%

Forest Service 43,006 40,574 38,330 37,205 37,184 

36,800 36,800 -6,206 -14.4%

Food Safety and Inspection Service 9,948 10,109 10,088 9,758 9,951 

9,900 9,900 -48 -0.5%

Agricultural Research Service 8,423 7,950 7,618 7,614 7,800 

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (57 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
7,614 7,535 -888 -10.5%

Coop. State Research, Education & Extension

 Service 408 424 386 380 399 

380 380 -28 -6.9%

Economic Research Service 788 717 625 591 591 

591 552 -236 -29.9%

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1,487 1,345 1,214 1,047 1,130 

1,300 1,056 -431 -29.0%

Agricultural Marketing Service 4,026 3,955 3,842 3,644 3,806 

3,580 3,538 -488 -12.1%

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 6,544 6,623 6,295 6,187 6,444 

6,095 5,890 -654 -10.0%

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

 Administration 936 867 812 808 873 

854 850 -86 -9.2%

Office of the Secretary 83 72 64 66 81 

83 74 -9 -10.8%

Office of the Chief Economist. 45 36 37 37 47 

56 54 9 20.0%

National Appeals Division 152 151 132 132 138 

138 134 -18 -11.8%

Office of Budget and Program Analysis 76 72 71 72 72 

70 68 -8 -10.5%

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Bus. Util. 10 9 10 10 10 

10 10 0 0.0%

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 1,219 1,287 1,242 1,230 1,210 

1,175 1,175 -44 -3.6%

Office of the Chief Information Officer 278 261 259 242 246 

240 240 -38 -13.7%

Departmental Administration 769 753 670 667 652 

643 643 -126 -16.4%

Office of the Inspector General 850 825 777 754 754 

762 699 -151 -17.8%

Office of the General Counsel 420 402 368 353 353 

370 333 -87 -20.7%

Office of Communications 150 135 127 123 123 

122 122 -28 -18.7%

Subtotal, USDA 114,175 109,668 103,547 100,280 101,201 

99,376 97,699 -16,476 -14.4%

Thrift Savings Plan 367 397 408 430 455 

490 490 123 33.5% 

Total, USDA, Federal 114,542 110,065 103,955 100,710 101,656 

99,866 98,189 -16,353 -14.3%

FSA, Non-Federal County 14,953 14,176 13,432 12,738 11,729 

9,879 4,879 -10,074 -67.4%

Total, USDA 129,495 124,241 117,387 113,448 113,385 

109,745 103,068 -26,427 -20.4%

 1997 Supplementals

 (Dollars in Millions)

 

 Budget

 Agency and Program Authority

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food and Consumer Service:

 Child Nutrition Programs:

 Nutrition, Education, and Training Program. $6

 This supplemental would provide $6.25 million for

 the Nutrition Education and Training Program for

 1997 and would reduce the limitation for the

 Emergency Food Assistance Program commodities

 authorized under section 27(a) of the Food Stamp

 Act from $100 million to $93.75 million.

 

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (58 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

 Infants and Children (WIC) 100

 This supplemental would provide additional funds to

 ensure that eligible program participants are not

 denied benefits. The 1997 funds are insufficient to

 support the current caseload. WIC program funding

 regulations require that first priority for funding go to

 provide all State agencies with stability funding,

 which is each State agency's prior year food grant

 plus inflation. As the funds needed to maintain

 participation in some States may be greater than the

 grants provided by 1997 appropriations, the

 Department will need flexibility in allocating the

 supplemental funding. This flexibility will ensure

 that the Secretary allocates funds with the goal of

 maintaining participation and removing the fewest

 number of people from the program.

 

Total, 1997 Supplementals $106

 1997 Rescission

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Budget

 Agency and Program Authority

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Foreign Agricultural Service:

 P.L. 480 Concessional Sales Title I -$50

 This proposal reduces subsidy budget authority

 contained in the direct credit account by $46.5

 million and budget authority for ocean freight

 differential payments by $3.5 million. This

 rescission partially offsets proposed 1997

 supplemental funding for WIC.

 1998 Budget Related Proposed Legislation

 (Dollars in Millions)

 Budget

 Agency and Program Authority

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency:

 Commodity Credit Corporation:

 Conservation Reserve Program -$25

 This proposal would amend current Conservation

 Reserve Program haying and grazing provisions to

 permit haying and grazing on CRP acreage once

 every three years in exchange for a 50 percent

 reduction in the contract rental payment. These

 savings are proposed to offset the Administration's

 proposal to strengthen the farm program safety net.

Risk Management Agency:

 Administrative and Operating Expenses -53

 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund 26

 This proposal would improve the safety net for

 farmers by expanding the revenue insurance

 program from its current pilot status to a

 nationwide program. Revenue insurance seeks to

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (59 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 provide income protection to producers by offering

 price and yield guarantees. This expansion would

 increase the crop insurance fund by $26 million but

 would also increase the delivery expenses paid by

 the Administrative and Operating Expenses

 account. To offset the additional delivery expenses

 associated with expanding revenue insurance and

 provide reimbursements to private insurance

 companies that are in keeping with recent analyses

 by RMA and GAO, it is proposed to limit

 reimbursements paid to private insurance

 companies. This proposal, combined with the

 proposal to reduce the loss ratio, would reduce

 delivery expenses by $53 million. The CRP haying

 and grazing proposal would offset the costs of an

 expanded insurance program.

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food and Consumer Service:

 Food Stamp Program 845

 This proposal would restore Food Stamps for those

 looking for, but who cannot find a job as well as

 providing States with new funding to support an

 expanded work program with rigorous requirements

 and tough sanctions. The proposal would also

 continue to provide legal immigrants with benefits

 until the period August 1 to September 30, 1997;

 increase and index the shelter deduction and vehicle

 asset limit; and index the standard deduction.

Fund for Rural America 100

 This proposal would authorize funding for the Fund

 in 1998. The 1996 Farm Bill authorized funding in

 1997, 1999, and 2000. The Budget proposes to

 shift the $100 million available in 2000 to 1998 in

 order to facilitate more consistent and efficient

 program delivery.

Food Safety

Food Safety and Inspection Service -390

 This proposal would allow fees to be charged for

 the salaries, benefits and related costs associated

 with in-plant inspection of meat, poultry, and egg

 products at all establishments inspected by the

 agency.

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service -16

 This proposal would authorize the Forest Service to

 charge user fees for the Recreation Fee

 Demonstration Project. This project has been

 implemented to test the collection, retention, and

 reinvestment of new recreation admission and user

 fees. This proposal would also permit the Forest

 Service to use the fees collected to offset the costs

 of maintaining recreation areas.

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Agricultural Marketing Service (-11)

 This proposal would convert funding for the Federal

 administration of marketing agreements and orders

 from Section 32 funds to increased assessments on

 producers and handlers benefitting from marketing

 agreements and orders.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service -10

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (60 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
 This proposal would establish user fees for costs

 for animal welfare inspections; for issuance of

 biotechnology certificates; for veterinary biologics

 licensing, inspection and testing activities; for

 activities associated with control and eradication of

 pink bollworm; and inspections of facilities to

 comply with the garbage cooking requirements of

 the Swine Health Protection Act.

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration -16

 This proposal would establish a fee for the

 standardization activities; a licensing fee to cover

 the costs of administering meat packing and

 stockyards activities; and a statutory dealers trust.

 

Total, 1998 Proposed Legislation $461

 Return to Table of Contents.

 Return to USDA Web Page.

1998 Budget Summary

http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/1998/text.html (61 of 61) [10/5/1999 3:11:03 PM]
This service is, provided by the United States Department of Agriculture - Office Information Profile

System and is intended to identify the location of offices which deliver USDA programs. This service will

provide the address of a USDA Service Center or Agency office in your area along with information on how

to contact them.

For more information

visit these

USDA sites:

Suggestions or Comments about this site? OIP Webmaster

Legal Information and EEO Statement: www.usda.gov/servicecenter/eeo.html

This is an Official United States Government System, which may be used only for authorized purposes.

Unauthorized modification of any information stored on this system may result in criminal prosecution. The

Government may monitor and audit usage of this system, and all persons are hereby notified that use of this

system constitutes consent to such monitoring and auditing.

USDA-OIP System

http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map [10/5/1999 3:11:38 PM]
 Headquarters Organization

Select a box for viewing below. Print version or wpg (wordperfect)

USDA Organization Chart

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/agchart.htm [10/5/1999 3:11:49 PM]
 Message from the Secretary

 Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman

Welcome ... to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's home page on the Internet's World Wide Web. One

of my early efforts as Secretary of Agriculture was to establish my own e-mail address. It is

AGSEC@USDA.GOV

I wanted my own mailbox for a couple of reasons. One, I am a firm believer in President Clinton's efforts

to help everyone "get connected" on the information superhighway. And second, having an e-mail

address will enable me to have a direct link with the people of USDA and the people USDA serves.

I must be honest with you. While I have used a computer for many years now, I only have just begun to

understand the true capabilities of things such as the Internet, e-mail, the World Wide Web, and other

aspects of the growing on-line world.

I may not know everything I should about baud rates, gigabytes, and file transfer protocol, but I do know

the value of direct communication. Without conscious efforts, it is easy to get isolated in a job like

Secretary of Agriculture. It is important to me to stay in touch with people inside and outside of USDA.

As a Congressman, I got my best advice and ideas by meeting with the people I represented. In this new

job, I intend to maintain a healthy perspective by listening to USDA's employees and customers.

My understanding, interest, and day-to-day use of these computer tools is growing. E-mail will provide

me with a direct link to all of you. I can't promise a response to every piece of e-mail I receive, but I can

promise I will use the mailbox to keep a handle on your thoughts, ideas, and interests.

Dan Glickman

Secretary of Agriculture

e-mail:

agsec@usda.gov

address:

200-A Whitten Bldg.

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

Welcome Message from the Sec'ty

http://www.usda.gov/message.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:11:53 PM]
Welcome Message from the Sec'ty

http://www.usda.gov/message.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:11:53 PM]
(click on poster)

History of American Agriculture/frontpage

http://www.usda.gov/history2/front.htm [10/5/1999 3:12:02 PM]
"The People's Department" A Poster About USDA

(click on the image section or use contents of layout below)

Contents of layout:

Lincoln's Legacy

Farm & Foreign Agricultural Services

Food, Nutrition, & Consumer Services

Natural Resources & Environment

Marketing & Regulatory Programs

 Rural Development

Food Safety

Research, Education, & Economics

To learn more:

YOUR USDA: Index page

http://www.usda.gov/yourusda/layout.htm [10/5/1999 3:12:21 PM]
 Biographical Information

updated August 1998 Former Secretaries of Agriculture

1. Secretary of Agriculture --Dan Glickman

2. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture --Richard Rominger

Under Secretaries:

1. For Natural Resources and Environment--Jim Lyons

2. For Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services --August Schumacher, Jr.

3. For Rural Development--Jill Long Thompson

4. For Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services -- Shirley R. Watkins

5. For Food Safety -- Catherine Woteki

6. For Research, Education, and Economics -- I. Miley Gonzalez

7. For Marketing and Regulatory Programs--Michael Dunn

Assistant Secretaries:

USDA Photo Gallery

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/gallery/gallery.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:39 PM]
 

1. For Congressional Relations--Vacant

2. For Administration (Acting)-- Sally Thompson

Office of the Deputy Secretary:

1. Chief Financial Officer -- Sally Thompson

2. Chief Information Officer -- Anne Reed

3. General Counsel -- Charles Rawls

4. Inspector General-- Roger C. Viadero

5. Chief Economist -- Keith Collins

6. Director of Communications -- Tom Amontree

USDA Photo Gallery

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/gallery/gallery.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:39 PM]
USDA Privacy Policy

Thank you for visiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and reviewing our privacy statement.

Our privacy policy is clear: We will collect no personal information about you when you visit our

website unless you choose to provide that information to us.

Here is how we handle information about your visit to our website:

Information Collected and Stored Automatically

If you do nothing during your visit but browse through the website, read pages, or download information,

we will gather and store certain information about your visit automatically. This information does not

identify you personally. We automatically collect and store only the following information about your

visit:

The Internet domain (for example, "xcompany.com" if you use a private Internet access account,

or "yourschool.edu" if you connect from a university's domain) and IP address (an IP address is a

number that is automatically assigned to your computer whenever you are surfing the Web) from

which you access our website;

1. 

2. The type of browser and operating system used to access our site;

3. The date and time you access our site;

4. The pages you visit; and

If you linked to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website from another website, the address of

that website.

5. 

We use this information to help us make our site more useful to visitors - to learn about the number of

visitors to our site and the types of technology our visitors are using. We do not track or record

information about individuals and their visits.

If You Send Us Personal Information

If you choose to provide us with personal information, as in an e-mail to the Secretary or someone else or

by filling out a form with your personal information and submitting it to us through our website, we use

that information to respond to your message and to help us locate for you the information you have

requested. We treat e-mails the same way that we regard letters sent to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. We are required to maintain many documents under the Presidential Records Act for

historical purposes, but we do not collect personal information for any purpose other than to respond to

you. We only share the information you give us with another government agency if your inquiry relates

to that agency, or as otherwise required by law. Moreover, we do not create individual profiles with the

information you provide or to give it to any private organizations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture

does not collect information for commercial marketing.

Links to Other Sites

Our website has links to many other federal agencies. In a few cases we link to private organizations,

with their permission. Once you access another site through a link that we provide you are subject to the

privacy policy of the new site.

USDA Privacy Policy

http://www.usda.gov/news/privacy.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:42 PM]
Website Security

Information presented on the USDA website is considered public information and may be distributed or

copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, this

government computer system employs software programs to monitor network traffic to identify

unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage.

1. 

Except for authorized law enforcement investigations, no other attempts are made to identify

individual users or their usage habits. Raw data logs are used for no other purposes and are

scheduled for regular destruction in accordance with National Archives and Records

Administration General Schedule 20.

2. 

Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this service are strictly

prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the

National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

3. 

Comments or Questions

If you have any comments or questions about the information presented here please forward them to

howard.baker@usda.gov

#

USDA Privacy Policy

http://www.usda.gov/news/privacy.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:42 PM]
September, 1997

Foreword

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has developed the following Strategic Plan covering Fiscal Years (FY)1997

through 2002. It was prepared in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (the Results Act) of 1993

but is a work in process.

USDA personnel are committed to using the Results Act as we fulfill our obligation to the American public. We solicit

your feedback and suggestions as we continue to refine and enhance our plans. You may provide comments on this USDA

Strategic Plan, by responding to this address: Internet: usda-spdc@cfo.usda.gov

Format

The plan is currently available here as a collection of PDF files. You will need Version 3.0 Adobe Acrobat Reader

Software to view and print PDF files. You can download Adobe Acrobat 3.0 for free. The following table describes the

PDF files that make up the USDA strategic plan. Click on a file name to download or view a file.

Note: If you see the error messages "There was an error processing a page. There was a problem reading this document

(9)." and "This file contains information not understood by the viewer. Suppress further errors?", close the viewer and

upgrade to Adobe Acrobat 3.0.

File Size Description

overview.pdf 394KB

Overview

includes message from Secretary Glickman, USDA mission statement, and strategic

goals

ffas.pdf 222KB Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Mission Area

Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, Risk Management Agency

fncs.pdf 178KB Food, Consumer, and Nutrition Services Mission Area

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Food and Consumer Service

fsis.pdf 70KB Food Safety Mission Area

Food Safety and Inspection Service

USDA Strategic Plan

http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:52 PM]
mrp.pdf 185KB Marketing and Regulatory Programs Mission Area

Agricultural Marketing Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration

nre.pdf 252KB Natural Resources and Environment Mission Area

Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service

ree.pdf 312KB

Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area

Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics

Service

rd.pdf 89KB Rural Development Mission Area

aarc.pdf 40KB Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization

Corporation

da.pdf 59KB Departmental Administration

do.pdf 342KB

Departmental Offices

National Appeals Division, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, Office of

Communications, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of the Chief Financial

Officer, USDA Financial Management Plan, Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General

USDA Strategic Plan

http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:12:52 PM]
United States Code

❍ TITLE 7 - AGRICULTURE

● 

US Code as of: 01/05/99

TITLE 7 - AGRICULTURE

● Chapter 1. Commodity Exchanges

● Chapter 2. Cotton Standards

● Chapter 3. Grain Standards

● Chapter 4. Naval Stores

● Chapter 5. Importation of Adulterated Seeds (Repealed)

● Chapter 6. Insecticides and Environmental Pesticide Control

● Chapter 6A. National Laboratory Accreditation

● Chapter 7. Insect Pests Generally

● Chapter 7A. Golden Nematode

● Chapter 7B. Plant Pests 150aa

● Chapter 8. Nursery Stock and Other Plants and Plant Products

● Chapter 8A. Rubber and Other Critical Agricultural Materials

● Chapter 9. Packers and Stockyards

● Chapter 10. Warehouses

● Chapter 11. Honeybees

● Chapter 12. Associations of Agricultural Products Producers

● Chapter 13. Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges

● Chapter 14. Agricultural Experiment Stations

● Chapter 15. Bureau of Animal Industry

● Chapter 16. Bureau of Dairy Industry

● Chapter 17. Miscellaneous Matters

● Chapter 18. Cooperative Marketing

● Chapter 19. Cotton Statistics and Estimates

Search this title:

● Notes

US Code : Title 7

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:13:12 PM]
● Chapter 20. Dumping or Destruction of Interstate Produce

● Chapter 20A. Perishable Agricultural Commodities 499a

● Chapter 21. Tobacco Statistics

● Chapter 21A. Tobacco Inspection

● Chapter 21B. Tobacco Control

● Chapter 22. Agricultural Marketing (Omitted or Transferred)

● Chapter 23. Foreign Agricultural Service (Repealed)

Chapter 24. Perishable Agricultural Commodities (Transferred

to Chapter 20A)

● 

● Chapter 25. Export Standards for Apples and Pears

● Chapter 25A. Export Standards for Grapes and Plums

● Chapter 26. Agricultural Adjustment

● Chapter 26A. Agricultural Marketing Agreements

● Chapter 27. Cotton Marketing (Repealed or Omitted)

● Chapter 28. Tobacco Industry (Repealed)

● Chapter 29. Potato Act of 1935 (Repealed)

● Chapter 30. Anti-Hog-Cholera Serum and Hog-Cholera Virus

● Chapter 31. Rural Electrification and Telephone Service

Chapter 31A. Telemedicine and Distance Learning Services in

Rural Areas 950aaa

● 

● Chapter 32. Peanut Statistics

● Chapter 33. Farm Tenancy

Chapter 34. Sugar Production and Control (Omitted or

Repealed)

● 

● Chapter 35. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938

● Chapter 35A. Price Support of Agricultural Commodities

● Chapter 36. Crop Insurance

● Chapter 37. Seeds

Chapter 38. Distribution and Marketing of Agricultural

Products

● 

● Chapter 39. Stabilization of International Wheat Market

● Chapter 40. Halogeton Glomeratus Control

● Chapter 41. Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance

● Chapter 42. Agricultural Commodity Set-Aside

● Chapter 43. Foreign Market Development

US Code : Title 7

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:13:12 PM]
● Chapter 44. Wool Program (Repealed)

● Chapter 45. Soil Bank Program

● Chapter 46. Surplus Disposal of Agricultural Commodities

Chapter 47. Interchange of Department of Agriculture and

State Employees (Repealed)

● 

● Chapter 48. Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter

● Chapter 49. Consultation on Agricultural Programs

● Chapter 50. Agricultural Credit

● Chapter 51. Food Stamp Program

● Chapter 52. Farm Labor Contractor Registration (Repealed)

● Chapter 53. Cotton Research and Promotion

Chapter 54. Transportation, Sale, and Handling of Certain

Animals

● 

● Chapter 55. Department of Agriculture

● Chapter 55A. Department of Agriculture Advisory Committees

Chapter 56. Unfair Trade Practices Affecting Producers of

Agricultural Products

● 

● Chapter 57. Plant Variety Protection

● Chapter 58. Potato Research and Promotion

Chapter 59. Rural Fire Protection, Development, and Small

Farm Research and Education

● 

● Chapter 60. Egg Research and Consumer Information

● Chapter 61. Noxious Weeds

● Chapter 62. Beef Research and Information

● Chapter 63. Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing

● Chapter 64. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching

Chapter 65. Wheat and Wheat Foods Research and Nutrition

Education

● 

● Chapter 66. Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure

● Chapter 67. Implementation of International Sugar Agreement,

● Chapter 68. Agricultural Subterminal Facilities

● Chapter 69. Swine Health Protection

● Chapter 70. Animal Cancer Research

● Chapter 71. Agricultural Trade Suspension Adjustment

● Chapter 72. National Agricultural Cost of Production

US Code : Title 7

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:13:12 PM]
Standards Review Board (Omitted)

● Chapter 73. Farmland Protection Policy

● Chapter 74. Floral Research and Consumer Information

● Chapter 75. International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs

● Chapter 76. Dairy Research and Promotion

Chapter 77. Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer

Information

● 

● Chapter 78. Agricultural Productivity Research (Repealed)

Chapter 79. Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer

Information

● 

● Chapter 80. Watermelon Research and Promotion

Chapter 81. National Commission on Agriculture and Rural

Development Policy (Omitted)

● 

● Chapter 82. State Agricultural Loan Mediation Programs

● Chapter 83. Agricultural Competitiveness and Trade

Chapter 84. National Nutrition Monitoring and Related

Research

● 

● Chapter 85. Administration of Environmental Programs

Chapter 86. Water Quality Research, Education, and

Coordination

● 

● Chapter 87. Export Promotion

● Chapter 88. Research

● Chapter 89. Pecan Promotion and Research

Chapter 90. Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer

Information

● 

Chapter 91. Lime Promotion, Research, and Consumer

Information

● 

Chapter 92. Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer

Information

● 

● Chapter 93. Processor-Funded Milk Promotion Program

● Chapter 94. Organic Certification

● Chapter 95. Rural Revitalization Through Forestry

● Chapter 96. Global Climate Change

Chapter 97. Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens

Promotion and Information

● 

● Chapter 98. Department of Agriculture Reorganization

US Code : Title 7

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:13:12 PM]
● Chapter 99. Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information

● Chapter 100. Agricultural Market Transition

● Chapter 101. Agricultural Promotion

● Chapter 102. Emergency Food Assistance

Chapter 103. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education

Reform

● 

● Rules, forms, appendices, and other additional material

US Code : Title 7

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:13:12 PM]
Select and search or browse available CFR Titles or volumes:

● All volumes for the selected Title(s) will be searched by default.

Individual volumes can be searched by clicking the corresponding checkbox. To prevent duplicate

search results, deselect the Title checkbox that the volume is in.

● 

Maximum Records Returned: Default is 40. Maximum is 200.

Search Terms:

 Title Volume Chapter Parts Regulatory Entity Online 

as of

Title 7

Agriculture

Revised January 1, 1997

Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Agriculture

1 0-26 Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of

Agriculture

2/24/97

Subtitle B--Regulations of the Department of Agriculture

2 I 27-52 Agricultural Marketing Service

(Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices)

3/20/97

3 53-209 4/4/97

4 II 210-299 Food and Consumer Service 4/7/97

5 III 300-399 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2/24/97

6 IV 400-499 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 2/28/97

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199707 (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:25 PM]
V 500-599 Agricultural Research Service

VI 600-699 Natural Resources Conservation Service

7 VII 700-799 Farm Service Agency 4/2/97

VIII 800-899 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration (Federal Grain Inspection

Service)

8 IX 900-999 Agricultural Marketing Service (Marketing

Agreements and Orders; Fruits, Vegetables,

Nuts)

2/26/97

9 X 1000-1199 Agricultural Marketing Service (Marketing

Agreements and Orders; Milk)

3/14/97

10 XI 1200-1299 Agricultural Marketing Service (Marketing

Agreements and Orders; Misc. Commodities)

3/14/97

XIV 1400-1499 Commodity Credit Corporation

11 XV 1500-1599 Foreign Agricultural Service 5/7/97

XVI 1600-1699 Rural Telephone Bank

XVII 1700-1799 Rural Utilities Service

XVIII 1800-1899 Rural Housing Service,

Rural Business-Cooperative Service,

Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service

12 1900-1939 3/19/97

13 1940-1949 3/14/97

14 1950-1999 4/15/97

15 2000-2099 4/9/97

XXVI 2600-2699 Office of Inspector General

XXVII 2700-2799 Office of Information Resources Management

XXVIII 2800--2899 Office of Operations

XXIX 2900--2999 Office of Energy

XXX 3000--3099 Office of Finance and Management

XXXI 3100--3199 Office of Environmental Quality

XXXII [Reserved]

XXXIII 3300--3399 Office of Transportation

XXXIV 3400-3499 Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service

XXXV 3500-3599) Rural Housing Service

XXXVI 3600-3699 National Agricultural Statistics Service

XXXVII 3700-3799 Economic Research Service

XXXVIII 3800-3899 World Agricultural Outlook Board

XLI [Reserved]

XLII 4200-4299 Rural Business-Cooperative Service and

Rural Utilities Service

Return to Search Terms

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199707 (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:25 PM]
This document is sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration on

the United States Government Printing Office web site.

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact the GPO Access User Support Team

by Internet e-mail at gpoaccess@gpo.gov; by telephone at (202) 512-1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; by fax at (202)

512-1262.

Page #nara/cfr/templates/titleall.html April 10, 1999

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199707 (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:25 PM]
Select and search or browse available CFR Titles or volumes:

● All volumes for the selected Title(s) will be searched by default.

Individual volumes can be searched by clicking the corresponding checkbox. To prevent duplicate

search results, deselect the Title checkbox that the volume is in.

● 

Maximum Records Returned: Default is 40. Maximum is 200.

Search Terms:

 Title Volume Chapter Parts Regulatory Entity Online 

as of

Title 9

Animals and

Animal Products

Revised January 1, 1997

1 I 1-199 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Department of Agriculture

4/4/97

2 II 200-299 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration

(Packers and Stockyards Programs),

Department of Agriculture

4/7/97

III 300-599 Food Safety and Inspection Service,

Meat and Poultry Inspection,

Department of Agriculture

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199709 (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:27 PM]
Return to Search Terms

This document is sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration on

the United States Government Printing Office web site.

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact the GPO Access User Support Team

by Internet e-mail at gpoaccess@gpo.gov; by telephone at (202) 512-1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; by fax at

(202) 512-1262.

Page #nara/cfr/templates/titleall.html April 10, 1999

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199709 (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:27 PM]
Select and search or browse available CFR Titles or volumes:

● All volumes for the selected Title(s) will be searched by default.

Individual volumes can be searched by clicking the corresponding checkbox. To prevent duplicate

search results, deselect the Title checkbox that the volume is in.

● 

Maximum Records Returned: Default is 40. Maximum is 200.

Search Terms:

 Title Volume Chapter Parts Regulatory Entity Online 

as of

Title 36

Parks, Forests, and

Public Property

Revised July 1, 1997

1 I 1-199 National Park Service,

Department of the Interior

10/23/97

2 II 200-299 Forest Service,

Department of Agriculture

12/12/97

3 III 300-399 Corps of Engineers,

Department of the Army

12/19/97

IV 400-499 American Battle Monuments Commission

V 500-599 Smithsonian Institution

VII 700-799 Library of Congress

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199736 (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:28 PM]
VIII 800-899 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

IX 900-999 Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation

XI 1100-1199 Architectural and Transportation Barriers

Compliance Board

XII 1200-1299 National Archives and Records Administration

XIV 1400-1499 Assassination Records Review Board

Return to Search Terms

This document is sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration on

the United States Government Printing Office web site.

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact the GPO Access User Support Team

by Internet e-mail at gpoaccess@gpo.gov; by telephone at (202) 512-1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; by fax at

(202) 512-1262.

Page #nara/cfr/templates/titleall.html April 10, 1999

The Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=199736 (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:28 PM]
Credits

The Constitution of the United States of

America

Preamble ["We the people...."]

Article I [The Legislative Branch]

..Section 1. [Legislative Power Vested]

..Section 2. [House of Representatives]

..Section 3. [Senate]

..Section 4. [Elections of Senators and Representatives]

..Section 5. [Rules of House and Senate]

..Section 6. [Compensation and Privileges of Members]

..Section 7. [Passage of Bills]

..Section 8. [Scope of Legislative Power]

..Section 9. [Limits on Legislative Power]

..Section 10. [Limits on States]

Article II [The Presidency]

..Section 1. [Election, Installation, Removal]

..Section 2. [Presidential Power]

..Section 3. [State of the Union, Receive Ambassadors, Laws Faithfully Executed, Commission Officers]

..Section 4. [Impeachment]

Article III [The Judiciary]

..Section 1. [Judicial Power Vested]

..Section 2. [Scope of Judicial Power]

..Section 3. [Treason]

Article IV [The States]

Table of Articles and Amendments

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:29 PM]
..Section 1. [Full Faith and Credit]

..Section 2. [Privileges and Immunities, Extradiction, Fugitive Slaves]

..Section 3. [Admission of States]

..Section 4. [Guarantees to States]

Article V [The Amendment Process]

Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]

Article VII [Ratification]

Signers

Amendments

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of

Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Table of Articles and Amendments

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:29 PM]
Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]

Table of Articles and Amendments

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:29 PM]
The Bill of Rights to the

Constitution of the United States

Click Roman Numeral to be sent to appropriate Amendment.

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Amendment I

(1791) Back to top

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

(1791) Back to top

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep

and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

(1791) Back to top

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in

time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

(1791) Back to top

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

things to be seized.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution

http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/bor.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:32 PM]
Amendment V

(1791) Back to top

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in

actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private

property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

(1791) Back to top

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial

jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been

previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be

confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his

favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

(1791) Back to top

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by

jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried to jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the

United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

(1791) Back to top

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines posed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted.

Amendment IX

(1791) Back to top

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others

retained by the people.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution

http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/bor.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:32 PM]
Amendment X

(1791) Back to top

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

● Forward to The Rest of the Amendments

● Return to The Constitution

Back to Documents Page

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution

http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/bor.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:13:32 PM]
USDA Hotline

Report Violations of Law and

Regulations to Protect the Integrity

of USDA Programs: 

 

● Criminal Activity

● Conflict of Interest / Bribery / Employee 

 Misconduct

● Fraud (submission of false claims / statements)

● Misuse of Grant / Contract Funds

● Mismanagement / Waste of Funds

● Actions Endangering the Public Health or Safety

 When Making a Report:

● Convey as much detail as possible such as:

 Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?

● Complaints may be made anonymously or

 you may request confidentiality. 

http://www.usda.gov/oig/hotline.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:38 PM]
USDA policy and the whistleblower provisions of law protect federal

employees

against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employee

reasonably believes evidences:

❍ a violation of law, rules or regulations.

❍ mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority

❍ a danger to the public health or safety [5 U.S.C. 2301 (b) (9)]

You May Call: or Write:

Washington Metropolitan Area United States Department of

Agriculture

202 690-1622 Office of Inspector General

Toll Free P.O. Box 23399

800 424-9121 Washington, DC 20026-3399

TDD

202 690-1202 

Return to USDA HomePage

Return to OIG HomePage

http://www.usda.gov/oig/hotline.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:38 PM]
 Visitor Information Center

Welcome to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Visitor Information Center. USDA touches the lives

of 260 million Americans every day -- plus billions of people around the world. Here are some of the

jobs we do:

● Help American farmers and ranchers earn a good living

● Help bring running water to the homes of rural Americans

● Manage our national forests

● Protect our soil and water

● Keep foreign plant and animal diseases out of our country

● Increase agricultural exports

● Feed hungry people, and provide nutritious meals for 25 million school children each day

● Conduct research to improve agricultural practices and human nutrition

● Improve food safety

This is your USDA. We hope your visit with us will show you how we work to improve your life.

For more information about USDA select from the following list:

● Pioneering for the Future

● Discovering More for Today & Tomorrow

● Quality of Life in Rural Communities

● Managing Our Natural Resources

● Good Nutrition for Everybody

● Farming Business at Home and Abroad

USDA/Visitor Information Center

http://www.usda.gov/visitor/visitor.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:56 PM]
● Protecting You, the Consumer

USDA/Visitor Information Center

http://www.usda.gov/visitor/visitor.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:13:56 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Backgrounders

October 1999

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project

Models Phase

Introduction

FSIS is beginning the models phase of the HACCP-based inspection models project. The models phase has two

parts--the transition phase and the data collection phase. Under the transition phase, participating plants will begin

assuming their new responsibilities, and FSIS will begin new inspection procedures. Under the data collection

phase, organoleptic and microbial data will be collected to determine the achievements of the new system.

Under the project, volunteer plants are extending their HACCP and other process control systems to cover certain

activities conducted before and after slaughter that are not currently covered under HACCP. Plants will be

responsible for preventing meat and poultry that are unsafe or unwholesome from entering the food supply. They

will carry out these activities under FSIS oversight inspection and verification inspection and will be required to

meet FSIS performance standards.

The project will improve food safety by allowing the Agency to use its inspection resources more efficiently and

effectively to protect the public health. FSIS will be able to carry out additional food safety tasks within the plant,

redeploy some inspectors to verify the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry products after they leave

the plant, and to help fill existing inspection vacancies.

The project is a natural extension of the Agency’s implementation of HACCP in all meat and poultry plants.

Under HACCP, plants identify and evaluate the food safety hazards that could affect the safety of their products

and institute controls necessary to prevent those hazards from occurring or to keep them within acceptable limits.

However, HACCP does not currently apply to all activities associated with the slaughter process; FSIS continues

to use its slaughter inspection workforce in traditional ways. This means that during the traditional slaughter

process, FSIS inspectors have assumed responsibility for identifying and removing defects, defining corrective

actions, and solving production control problems. This contrasts with HACCP, under which plants assume their

proper responsibilities for process control, and FSIS sets performance standards and verifies that they are meeting

these and other regulatory requirements.

Greater Focus on Public Health

With inspectors in these slaughter plants no longer carrying out process control activities, which are the plant’s

responsibility, FSIS can better focus on public health concerns and further implement its farm-to-table strategy.

FSIS believes there are additional tasks within slaughter plants, such as verification of the zero tolerance standard

for fecal contamination, sampling for pathogenic microorganisms, and verification of HACCP systems, that

deserve more attention in all plants, not just those operating under the models. In addition, FSIS is concurrently

developing an in-distribution inspection model under which some inspectors currently assigned to plants will be

redeployed to verify the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry products after they leave the plant.

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/backhimp1.htm (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:14:06 PM]
Volunteer Plants

Only plants that slaughter market hogs and young poultry (including young turkeys) are participating in the

project. These classes are composed of young, healthy animals. FSIS is not planning to extend this project to

other classes of animals that may have more complex pathology or other problems to address. As of Sept. 17,

1999, 28 plants have volunteered for the project—3 hog, 5 turkey, and 20 chicken.

Baseline Data Collection

Baseline data are being collected in the pilot plants to document the accomplishments of the current inspection

system, before the models are tested. FSIS has contracted with Research Triangle Institute (RTI), an independent

consulting firm, to collect both microbiological and organoleptic data. As of Sept. 17, baseline data have been

collected in 16 plants. As data are collected, they are added to existing data so that national performance

standards can be established for plants slaughtering each of the market classes included in the project. FSIS has

released two reports to document its progress with baseline data collection.

New Plant Responsibilities

The project involves new roles and responsibilities for participating plants.

Before the models testing phase begins, each plant must modify its HACCP plan to include at least one critical

control point addressing food safety diseases and conditions. In addition, each plant must develop a process

control plan to address other consumer protection concerns that are not food safety related, such as removing

bruises and other quality defects.

With HACCP and other process control programs in place, plants will identify and remove from the slaughter

production process carcasses and parts of carcasses that are unacceptable because they are diseased or

unwholesome. FSIS has developed performance standards and will use them to determine plant compliance.

Inspection under the Models

When volunteer plants assume these process control responsibilities, the FSIS inspection team will be able to

implement new slaughter inspection procedures that verify the effectiveness of the plant’s modified HACCP and

new process control plans.

In pilot plants, slaughter inspection will consist of two types of procedures: oversight inspection and verification

inspection. The number of inspectors needed to perform these inspection procedures will vary according to

factors such as market class of animal or bird slaughtered, plant size and complexity of its operations. The FSIS

inspector-in-charge will determine how to allocate inspection resources in the plant to conduct oversight and

verification procedures.

Oversight inspection involves an FSIS inspector making expert and informed observations of the company’s

HACCP and process control systems. Unlike the current system, where slaughter inspectors are assigned to fixed

points along the slaughter line, under the models, inspectors may be assigned to perform oversight inspection at

any point in the slaughter process. Inspectors can make the decision, in concert with the inspector-in-charge, to

move up and down the line as they see the need. For example, inspectors may perform oversight inspection at

places where plant employees are monitoring critical control points, at points where critical equipment such as

poultry eviscerators are operating, or at any point they may think requires attention. Every carcass will receive

oversight inspection.

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/backhimp1.htm (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:14:06 PM]
Verification inspection consists of inspectors taking samples of products and plant records and carefully

examining them. Verification inspection procedures will be carried out by inspectors after the company’s process

control systems have been completed.

Transition to the New Model

During the transition to the new models, FSIS has set post-mortem organoleptic performance standards for young

poultry that each participating plant must meet. For market hogs, post-mortem performance standards have not

yet been developed because plants entering the transition phase are making changes only in antemortem controls

at this time.

For young poultry, performance standards are set for seven categories of diseases and conditions detected at

slaughter—two address food safety, and five address "other consumer protection" concerns. For the two "food

safety" categories, the performance standards are set at "zero," meaning that no food safety diseases or conditions

are permitted. For the five "other consumer protection" categories, FSIS set the performance standards according

to the baseline data collected so far, which reflect the achievements of the current system.

As FSIS gathers more baseline line data, the "other consumer protection" performance standards may change.

The food safety performance standards will not change. After data collection is complete, FSIS will go through

rulemaking, with the opportunity for public input, to formalize the performance standards.

During the transition, each participating plant must ensure that its HACCP and other process control systems are

working as intended to meet FSIS standards. Any product deemed by inspectors as adulterated will not pass

inspection.

Concurrently, FSIS will ensure that its new inspection procedures are working so that it can verify that the plants

are meeting these standards. FSIS will ensure that the food safety performance standards are met through

oversight inspection and "hands-on" verification, where samples of products will be collected and examined by

FSIS inspectors. The "other consumer protection" performance standards will be verified through "hands-on"

product examinations as well as records review. In addition to these organoleptic verification tasks, FSIS will

conduct Salmonella testing above what is required under HACCP.

During the transition period, FSIS will conduct additional verification tests and have additional inspection

personnel in the plants to provide added assurance to consumers that products meet FSIS requirements.

Data Collection

When the plant HACCP and process control systems and FSIS inspection procedures are working as intended,

RTI will again collect data in order to provide a "before" and "after" picture with regard to organoleptic and

microbial data. The achievements of the new system must meet or exceed the achievements of the current system

as reflected by the baseline data in order for FSIS to consider the system successful.

Regulatory Action by Inspection Personnel

FSIS will take action if the plant exceeds the performance standards. The specific action taken will depend on

whether the performance standard is related to a "food safety" or "other consumer protection" category, and the

degree to which the performance standard has been exceeded. FSIS is taking a preventive approach by relying on

the verification of plant HACCP and process control systems, and corrections to those systems, as the first line of

defense against adulterated product. In addition, FSIS performance standards for the transition phase include

levels for diseases and other conditions at which it will require plants to take action on products.

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/backhimp1.htm (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:14:06 PM]
Under the HACCP-based inspection models project, the authority of inspection personnel to take action in plants

operating under the models is the same as in plants operating under traditional inspection. Inspectors now have,

and will continue to have, the authority to stop the line as appropriate, retain product that they believe is

adulterated or misbranded, to withhold the marks of inspection, and to reject facilities, equipment, or any parts of

the plant they determine are not in compliance with the regulations.

In-Distribution Model

FSIS’ role at the in-distribution level is to focus on meat and poultry products that have been produced by

federally inspected establishments to verify that they are not adulterated or misbranded as they move to the

consumer. FSIS believes that the in-plant and in-distribution segments of the farm-to-table chain should be

viewed as much as possible as a continuum—a seamless system. Thus, under the models, FSIS is testing the

feasibility of deploying inspection resources more effectively within plants and between in-plant and

in-distribution sites, consistent with farm-to-table food safety goals. By having inspectors carrying out both

in-plant and in-distribution activities, compliance officers, who currently carry out some of the in-distribution

activities, will be able to better focus on enforcement activities.

The in-distribution inspection models will run on a parallel track with the in-plant models in geographic locations

near the first group of participating plants. Four states—Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Virginia, and Alabama—have

been selected as the first sites to test the in-distribution models, and 11 "in-distribution" inspectors will be

assigned to these locations. Testing of the in-distribution models is expected to begin in January 2000.

Under the pilot, FSIS will increase the frequency of certain tasks that are now performed outside of federally

inspected plants. All tasks are consistent with FSIS’ current regulatory authority. For example, inspectors will

conduct scheduled as well as unscheduled reviews of a wide range of diverse, commercial operations; conduct

recall effectiveness checks; and conduct sampling to verify compliance with FSIS requirements. In addition, FSIS

will explore whether screening, or market-basket, surveys outside the plant can be used to enforce "other

consumer protection" requirements, such as economic adulteration. FSIS will not duplicate the work carried out

by State and local agencies. FSIS’ goal is to determine how to best meet its food safety responsibilities in concert

with State and local authorities.

Workforce of the Future

FSIS has examined other occupational series that might be appropriate for classifying jobs within the Agency in

light of current and future changes in inspection work and the types of skills and qualifications that will be needed

in the workforce of the future. FSIS has established a new position—consumer safety inspector—that is similar to

the food inspector position in that it is a "technician level" position. Food inspector positions in HACCP plants

are being converted to consumer safety inspector positions, and consumer safety inspectors will be used to carry

out both in-distribution and in-plant activities under the HACCP-based inspection models project.

In the future, FSIS will need to have a flexible, more highly educated workforce that can be assigned at any time,

and to any industry operation, to perform inspection and determine regulatory compliance. The future workforce

will include a variety of scientific disciplines.

The FSIS Steering Committee on the Workforce of the Future will serve as the umbrella group for coordinating

and overseeing a variety of Agency initiatives to design, implement and support the workforce of the future.

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/backhimp1.htm (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:14:06 PM]
Public Process

The HACCP-based Inspection Models Project is being developed through an open public process that allows all

interested constituents the opportunity to participate and provide input through public meetings and other means.

FSIS has consulted closely with the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection; the National

Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods; numerous public health, industry, and consumer

groups; and FSIS employee and supervisory groups, among others. Once FSIS has adequate data and public

input, it will go through formal rulemaking procedures to make any changes to its regulations. The Agency hopes

to publish a final rule on young chickens in fall 2000.

For Additional Information

General inquiries on the project:

❍ Patricia Stolfa, co-chair, Steering Committee, (202) 205-0699

❍ John McCutcheon, co-chair, Steering Committee, (202) 720-5190

Michael Grasso, special assistant, Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation, (202)

205-0025

❍ 

● 

● Media Inquiries: (202) 720-9113

● Congressional Inquiries: (202) 720-3897

● Constituent Inquiries: (202) 720-8594

Consumer Inquiries: Call USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-4555. In the Washington, DC,

area, call (202) 720-3333. The TTY number is 1-800-256-7072.

● 

● FSIS web site: www. fsis.usda.gov 

For Further Information Contact:

FSIS Congressional and Public Affairs Staff

Phone: (202) 720-3897

Fax: (202) 720-5704

Backgrounders Menu | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/backhimp1.htm (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:14:06 PM]
Aquaculture Outlook (LDP-AQS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines the U.S. aquaculture industry: production, inventory, sales, prices, inputs, and trade of

catfish, trout, tilapia, salmon, mollusks, crawfish, shrimp, ornamental fish and new species.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Aquaculture Outlook (LDP-AQS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-aqs/ [10/5/1999 3:14:07 PM]
Welcome to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's science

magazine, published monthly by the Agricultural

Research Service and now available electronically.

Click here to see table of contents for the October 1999

issue or here to view previous issues.

For questions or comments, contact the Editor.

Agricultural Research Magazine

5601 Sunnyside Ave.

Beltsville, MD 20705-5130

Telephone (301) 504-1651 or (301) 504-1658.

How to subscribe to: Agricultural Research

Back to the: News and Information Page

Back to the: ARS Home Page

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

Government System Usage Policy

Commercial Endorsement Disclaimer

This page is updated monthly.

Agricultural Research Magazine 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/ [10/5/1999 3:14:10 PM]
Search Tips

Tuesday, October 05, 1999

RMA Unveils New Web Site

October 4, 1999 -- We've revised our

web site to give you quicker and

easier access to RMA information.

New features and tools, such as our

Agent Locator and software

programs like Premium Calculator

are now available. In the future, we will be adding

more interactive tools that you can use online. So

plan on visiting often and watch us grow.

Secretary Glickman Responds to H.R. 2559

-- The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of

1999

September 29, 1999 -- Strengthening the Federal crop

insurance program has been a top priority for

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and many

agricultural leaders in Congress. On September 29,

the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2559, a

bill that contains many proposals advanced by

USDA.

Old Farm, New Trick

October 4, 1999 -- David and Lorraine Tuttle manage

a farm in Maine that has been producing crops

since 1743. Looking for new ways to stay in

business for another 256 years, the Tuttle's did the

impossible -- discovered a good use for old tax

forms. (View a PDF file of AGR policy; 91Kb)

Clam Growers Catch a Wave

October 4, 1999 -- Innovating to stay profitable is a

way of life for Bill Thompson of Indian River

County, Florida. The latest wrinkle is participating

in RMA's first program to insure an aquatic

species--clams. (View a PDF file of clams policy;

33Kb); view our press release).

Insured Crop Losses Now

$1.9 Billion and Rising

September 15, 1999 -- Even before

losses from Hurricane Floyd can be

calculated, insured farmers will

receive an estimated $1.9 billion in

assistance for crop year 1999.

Virtually all producers will be paid

within 30 days after the claims are

filed.

FCIC Board Expands

Revenue Insurance

Programs; Raises Coverage

Levels

September 29, 1999 -- The FCIC

Board expanded the availability of

the popular Crop Revenue

Coverage (CRC) program (view a

PDF file of the CRC policy; 139Kb) and

the innovative Adjusted Gross

Revenue (AGR) pilot (view a PDF

file of AGR policy; 91Kb). Also

approved were additional crops and

counties that will be eligible for 80

and 85 percent yield coverage.

(View our 1998 press release announcing

the insurance plan)

Farm Workers Transition

from Employee to Employer

(Entrenamiento en Manejo de

Riesgos Ayuda a Latinos Cambiar

de Ser Trabajadores de Campos a

Dueños de Ranchos)

October 4, 1999 -- Through a grant

and technical assistance from

RMA, Latino farm workers from

California's Central Coast are able

to improve their problem-solving

Welcome to the RMA Website...

http://www.rma.usda.gov/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:40 PM]
● 6- to 10-day U.S. Weather Forecast Maps

● Crop Moisture Index

● Palmer Drought Index

skills. The risk management

training is a vital component of a

3-year apprentice program

operated by the Rural Development

Center in Salinas, California.

(Press release | Comunicado de prensa)

Policy Shift To Increase

Program Oversight

September 17, 1999 -- The Risk

Management Agency laid the

groundwork for increasing the

integrity of the crop insurance

program. The new emphasis is now

on prevention rather than

investigation.

Privacy & Security | Nondiscrimination Statement | Document Accessibility

Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may

be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-474) and the

National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

Back to top of page.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 14:03:23 CDT

Welcome to the RMA Website...

http://www.rma.usda.gov/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:40 PM]
October 1999

Volume XI, No. 10

Features

Council Seeks Export Outlets for "Made by American

Indians" Products

Through the Market Access Program, the Intertribal Agricultural Council is helping

Native Americans sell their agricultural products overseas.

Corn Is Not Corn Is Not Corn (Especially When

Its Value Has Been Enhanced)

Want corn with lots of oil? Free of pesticides? High in starch? However the foreign customer

orders it, today’s entrepreneurial U.S. producer can grow maize to match.

Breakfast of Chileans: Cereals Catching On

Despite Chile’s European traditions, the U.S.-style breakfast in

a bowl is feeling its oats.

U.S. Grass Grows Green Profits

in China

The grass is greener on the other side of the world. In the start of marketing

year 1998/99, the volume of U.S. grass seed sales to China rose 22 percent.

October 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 10

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/oct99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:48 PM]
Sunflower Seeds Skyrocket in China

When they started to snack on sunflower seeds, Chinese consumers left a pile of

opportunity in their wake. U.S. producers immediately glommed on to 80

percent of market share.

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Linda Habenstreit

Glenn Kaup

Jill Lee

Eric VanChantfort

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. (703) 605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Tuesday, September 28, 1999

October 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 10

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/oct99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:48 PM]
Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture

Yearbook (FLO-BB)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This report examines trade, protective measures, and marketing statistics for floriculture and

environmental horticulture crops. PLEASE NOTE: This report will not be published in 1998. For

further information, call the ERS Information Center at (202) 694-5050.

Help on using these files is available.

● Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture, 10.01.99 [ Summary ]

● Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture Yearbook 10.01.97 [ Text ]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture Yearbook (FLO-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/specialty/flo-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:14:49 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the USDA Order Desk.

Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. By Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and Sharon Jans, Resource

Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural

Handbook No. 717 (AH-717).

Abstract

This report describes the use of pest management practices, including integrated pest management (IPM),

for major field crops and selected fruits and vegetables. The data came chiefly from the 1996

Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS) developed by USDA. Because different pest classes

may dominate among different crops and regions, requiring different pest management techniques to

control them, the extent of adoption of pest management practices varies widely. For example, insects are

a major pest class in cotton production, while minor for soybeans. As insect management has a wider

variety of nonchemical techniques than weed control, cotton growers are expected to be further ahead on

the IPM continuum than soybean producers.

Keywords: pest management, IPM, pesticides, green technologies, field crops, fruits and vegetables.

Contents

● Frontmatter (Title page, Contents, Summary); 40 kb

● Introduction; 28 kb

● Pests and Pest Management; 79 kb

● Integrated Pest Management (IPM); 35 kb

● The Extent of Adoption of Pest Management Techniques or Practices; 106 kb

● Concluding Comments ; 25 kb

● References; 53 kb

● Appendix I--Tables of Pesticide Treatments by Major Target Pest, State, and Crop; 66 kb

ERS Report--Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/ah717/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:55 PM]
● Appendix II--Tables on Pest Management Practices by Crop and Region; 100 kb

● Appendix III--Tables on Pesticide Use by Crop and Active Ingredient; 79 kb

● Appendix IV--Pest Management Questions from the 1996 ARMS Survey (Corn); 145 kb

● Entire report; 445 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Jack Harrison

Updated: September 30, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report--Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/ah717/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:14:55 PM]
USDA Millennium Events/Remarks

Press Releases / Publications

USDA Agency Millennium Home

Pages

USDA Kids Page

White House Millennium Council

Home Page

As USDA looks toward the next century and millennium, we also look

back to the rich past of American agriculture. Agriculture has played a

central role in this Nation's history, from its discovery and settlement

to its growth into the world leader it is today.

Abraham Lincoln established the U.S. Department of Agriculture in

1862 "to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States

useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most

general and comprehensive sense of that word." He called it "the

people's Department," and it still is.

 

Since 1862, the Department has been charged with very wide

and diverse responsibilities–from the farm support programs

and soil conservation measures of the 1930's to the feeding

programs of the 1960's; from inspecting all meat and poultry

going through interstate commerce to helping bring rural

homeownership to an all-time high; from high-tech research

on pest management, biotechnology, nutrition, and food

safety to management of 192 million acres of national forest

and grass lands.

At the turn of the 21st century, we reflect on all the jobs we

do, observing important historic markers along the way. This

look backward to see where we have been can help us look

forward with better awareness as we meet the challenges of

the new millennium.

As part of the Federal Government's celebration of the

Millennium, USDA has created a web site especially for kids.

USDA for Kids covers the full range of USDA programs, and it

will increase young people's access to accurate, reliable Government information on the internet.

We hope you will join USDA in Celebrating the Millennium in your communities.

USDA Celebrating the Millennium

http://www.usda.gov/millennium/contents.htm [10/5/1999 3:15:04 PM]
Preparation

The National Food Safety Database World-Wide-Web site is designed to be

'Netscape-friendly'. It is best viewed using a Netscape browser (ver. 2.0 or later), which is

available for download from Netscape.

You should also have no trouble viewing this site with Internet Explorer 3.0 or better.

Home | Search | Email | Help | Disclaimer

National Food Safety Database Home Page

http://www.foodsafety.org/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:15:16 PM]
U.S. Agricultural Trade Update (FAU-BB)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Covers the monthly farm trade balance, U.S. farm imports and exports by quantity and value, and

leading exports and exporters.

Help on using these files is available.

● Monthly Text Reports

● Monthly Spreadsheet Files

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

U.S. Agricultural Trade Update (FAU-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/trade/fau-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:15:17 PM]
Agricultural Income and Finance (AIS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Looks at farm income, profitability, government payments, production expenses, debts and assets, and

other areas of farm finance.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Agricultural Income and Finance (AIS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/economics/ais-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:15:18 PM]
FACT SHEET

Why USDA's Technology Protection System (aka 'Terminator')

Benefits Agriculture

A Discovery to Spur New Crop Improvement

On March 3, 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Delta

and Pine Land Co., Scott, Miss., a major breeder of cotton and soybeans, received U.S. Patent 5,723,765

entitled "Control of Plant Gene Expression." The patent covers technology referred to as a plant

"Technology Protection System" (TPS).

TPS uses a genetic engineering approach to prevent unwanted germination of plant seeds. The patent was

based on research conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)

between Delta and Pine Land Co. and the ARS. The CRADA was signed in 1993. The ARS portion of

the work was done at the agency's Cropping Systems Research Laboratory in Lubbock, Tex.

It should be noted that ARS has entered into more than 825 CRADAs since passage of the Federal

Technology Transfer Act of 1986. This act and various other Federal laws--including the

Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, make the transfer of new technology to

the private sector and industry a responsibility of all Federal research agencies.

How does TPS work?

Like most genetically engineered plants, TPS plants are transgenic, meaning their new genes come from

other species. TPS plants hold three new genes: two derived from bacteria, and one from another plant.

The bacterial genes' only function is to help the newly introduced plant gene to work. Before sale, seeds

of the plants are treated with a compound that activates a molecular switch in one of the bacterial genes.

This switch begins a chain reaction that readies the plant gene for eventual action. The farmer plants the

seed and cultivates the crop in the usual manner. When--and only when--the crop's new harvest of seed is

almost finished maturing, the new plant gene becomes active. The gene then stops the seed from

manufacturing any of the protein it would need to germinate and produce offspring plants.

Aside from the inability of the second-generation seeds to germinate, in all other respects the plants

grown from treated TPS seeds should perform normally in terms of growth, maturation, harvest and

quality. Also, if seeds of TPS plants do not undergo the seed treatment before planting, the TPS plants

produce second-generation seeds that are capable of germination.

What is the commercialization status of the technology and what is the role of the Agricultural

Research Service in TPS research?

The discovery of TPS was a joint invention by Delta and Pine Land Co. and ARS, which means each

party is a coowner and may act independantly from the other. Furthermore the discovery was made under

a CRADA. This law provides that government owned CRADA inventions will be licensed exclusively to

the cooperator. Currently the two parties are negotiating a license for the use of ARS' rights to the

Fact Sheet - Why the USDA's Technology Protection System (aka 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/misc/fact.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:15:20 PM]
technology. As these negotiations evolve, ARS will be an active participant in deciding how the

technology is applied. ARS' involvement will ensure that the public interest is represented.

It is ARS policy that technology in which it has an ownership interest will be made widely available.

Therefore, this technology will be widely available for research purposes by public and private

researchers. In line with ARS policy, Delta and Pine Land Co. has agreed to make the technology widely

available for sublicensing to other seed companies.

Delta and Pine Land Co. researchers are further developing the technology to ready it for commercial

use. However, even the most optimistic predictions estimate that commercial cotton with built-in TPS

technology may not be available until 2004.

What are the potential benefits of TPS technology?

Hybrid seeds found in corn, sunflower, sorghum and other crops provide a conventional genetic

protection system that allows seed companies to protect their investment in developing and marketing

new varieties. But other crops produce seed that can be saved and replanted in the next growing season.

Because of this seed-saving practice, companies are often reluctant to make research investments in

many crops because they cannot recoup their multiyear investment in developing improved varieties

through sales in one year. Farmers will also lose since saved seed has lower seed quality than material

developed to meet the standards for certified or commercial markets.

TPS would protect investments made in breeding or genetically engineering these crops. It would do this

by reducing potential sales losses from unauthorized reproduction and sale of seed. The knowledge that

the seed companies could potentially recoup their investment through sales will provide a stronger

incentive for the companies to develop new, more useful varieties that the market demands.

Today's emerging scientific approaches to crop breeding--especially genetic engineering

approaches--could be crucial to meeting future world food needs, conserving soil and water, conserving

genetic resources, reducing negative environmental effects of farming, and spurring farm and other

economic growth. TPS technology will contribute to these outcomes by encouraging development of new

crop varieties with increased nutrition to benefit consumers and with stronger resistance to drought,

disease and insects to benefit farmers for example.

Limiting the Spread of Genes

A concern has often been expressed that transgenes might escape from genetically modified plants into

"wild" populations. The TPS could greatly reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence. Plants that

contain active TPS genes can't reproduce. Because TPS is self-limiting, the system cannot be transmitted

to subsequent generations of other plants.

What plants will it work with?

The patent covers all plants. The genetic molecular switch was originally inserted into tobacco cells as a

model for later research. The ARS researchers subsequently inserted TPS genes into cotton cells, which

grew into normal cotton plants in a greenhouse.

TPS will initially be used with self-pollinated crops such as cotton, soybeans and wheat. It would

generally not be used with cross-pollinated crops such as corn, grain sorghum, sunflower, and canola.

Fact Sheet - Why the USDA's Technology Protection System (aka 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/misc/fact.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:15:20 PM]
These crops usually have hybrid varieties whose seed is not saved because it is not uniformly like the

parent seed, which causes yield and quality losses. The TPS system might, however, be used with these

hybrids to prevent the spread of novel genes from conventional hybrids into "wild populations."

Essentially, the TPS technology gives self-pollinating crops a similar varietal protection to that currently

enjoyed by hybrid varieties of cross-pollinated crops.

Commercial production of TPS plants--as with any gene-engineered plant--would require approval by

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Food crops must also conform to rules of the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration. These approvals are expected because there appear to be no crop or food

safety risks to the new technology. There also appear to be no environmental risks.

Because of the cost of developing improved varieties, it is doubtful if the time and expense would be

justified for incorporating TPS into many varieties. Also, ARS has no plans to insert the system into

improved plant materials it publicly releases for variety development programs and will continue its

policy of an extra level of review for projects utilizing TPS genes. The nonprofit international

agricultural research centers' breeding programs will probably not do so either. Thus, farmers will

continue to have a choice of varieties with and without the TPS.

What are the implications for small farmers in the U.S. and abroad?

Small farmers may benefit greatly if the invention stimulates the extension of biotechnology to "minor

crops" such as tomatoes. Many minor crops--so-called because they don't occupy a large share of the

crop acreage in the U.S. or abroad, even if high-value--are limited by lack of technology to manage pests

or produce and harvest the crop efficiently. The private sector sees too low a rate of return to justify the

plant breeding research investment in varietal improvement. As a result, growers' productivity--and crop

quality--may be lower than their potential. But the new TPS technology could change the equation.

Could the new technology hurt small farmers by ending "brown-bagging," the practice of collecting seed

at harvest and bagging it to use as the next year's planting stock? Few U.S. farmers do this; it is much

more common in other countries. Countries where brown bagging is common practice will still be able to

save their traditional seeds and other public varieties.

Furthermore, loss of cost savings from brown-bagging also must be weighed against the productivity

gains to the farmer from having superior new varieties that could increase crop values such as yield and

quality, input cost reductions such as for fertilizers and pesticides, and reduce losses such as those due to

pests or adverse soils and weather. Raising the economic incentive for minor crop improvement and crop

development will raise the rate of return for growers. Market forces will limit the spread of TPS in the

seed market to levels that are cost effective. If the cost of the improved seeds does not result in greater

value to the producer, there will be no market for the TPS varieties.

Fact Sheet - Why the USDA's Technology Protection System (aka 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/misc/fact.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:15:20 PM]
Agricultural Outlook (AO)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Main source for USDA's farm and food price forecasts; short-term outlook for all major areas of the

agricultural economy; long-term issue analyses of U.S. agricultural policy, trade forecasts,

export-market development, food safety, the environment, farm financial institutions. Includes data on

individual commodities, the general economy, U.S. farm trade, farm income, production expenses,

input use, prices received and paid, per capita food consumption, etc.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1999

● 1998

● 1997

● 1996

● 1995

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Agricultural Outlook (AO)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/economics/ao-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:15:22 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Contents

Overview: Key Changes Involve Transportation,

Emergency Farm Aid, Training, and Public

Housing

General Assistance: New Impetus for Several

General Assistance Programs

Infrastructure Assistance: Transportation Programs

Receive Big Funding Increases

Business Assistance: Microlending Is Latest Trend

in Business Assistance

Housing Assistance: Federal Public Housing

Programs Are Overhauled

Transportation Reauthorization: TEA-21

Authorizes Record Funding for Highways and

Transit Through 2003

Training and Vocational Education: Training and

Vocational Education Programs Are Revised

Emergency Agricultural Assistance: Legislation

Boosts Farm Assistance to Highest Level Since

1993

Tax Policy: Additional Farm Tax Relief Among

New Tax Measures

Regulatory Policy: Regulatory Policy Affects Rural

Development in Many Areas

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Rural Conditions and TrendsMagazine--Volume 10, Issue 1

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat101/ [10/5/1999 3:15:48 PM]
USDA/Land-Grant University Partnership in Action ...

HELPING RURAL AMERICA FACE

CRISIS

Note: This site is updated frequently. To see the latest version, always "refresh" or "reload" the site upon entering.

Rural Americans face myriad crises. Although disasters appear to be different, most stem from one of three origins: changes in

agricultural markets, extreme conditions in nature, and disasters caused by human behavior. This page connects you with

resources that will provide information about rural crises and the response by researchers, educators, and extension program

designers and implementors by Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and its partners.

Please note: Some website addresses are quite long. For instructions on a quick, easy, error-free method of getting to

the sites using the copy-and-paste function, 

Disaster Response and Recovery

General

 For up-to-the-minute relief efforts, visit the American Red Cross News site.

The Disaster Handbook Website - University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), Detailed

information in English and Spanish languages on disaster preparation, safety tips, and recovery after the disaster.

Chapter 7 is specifically on hurricanes–safety, preparation for, concerns for agricultural producers, and clean-up concerns.

This Website is part of a comprehensive disaster preparedness and recovery education module which also includes: The Disaster Handbook

(Print and CD-ROM Editions) and "Are You Ready?" a video. The Handbook and educational module were prepared by the University of Florida's

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service with funds from USDA's Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service.

● 

University of Wisconsin's Disaster Handbook - The UW-Extension Disaster handbook for Extension Agents is designed to help

county agents provide immediate assistance and information regarding before and after a natural disaster. You may download the entire

handbook (approximately 1Mb) in Acrobat PDF format at the site.

● 

● General Disaster Information- The Extension Disaster Education Network (EDEN)

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (1 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
Combined Resources from several USDA Agencies--Disaster Information from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture

● 

Humanitarian Resource Institute - New Guidelines Released by the National Donations Steering Committee - An

excellent resource for persons wishing to help...but not knowing exactly how.

● 

● When Disaster Strikes... Donated Goods and

● Volunteers May Be Needed... HOW YOU CAN HELP

● North Carolina Association of Educators Disaster Relief Fund

● Second Harvest Food Bank

● North Carolina Hurricane Relief Information

● North Dakota State University Extension Service - Coping With Flood

Sites Specific to Affected States

North Carolina

The Washington Post, September 23 - By Scott Wilson and Sue Anne Pressley Washington Post Staff Writers -

Floodwaters Begin to Recede North Carolina Recovery Bid May Take Months, Officials Say - Point to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/23/144l-092399-idx.html

Yahoo! News (Reuters), September 24 - Flooded North Carolina Appeals For Doctors, Nurses - By Gene Cherry - Copy and

paste: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990924/ts/weather_floyd_89.html

The Charlotte Observer - WHAT PEOPLE NEED - a list of the most-needed items for Hurricane Floyd relief in flooded Eastern

North Carolina- September 23 - Copy and paste: http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/0923needs.htm

The Charlotte Observer - How to get help, give help Government and Civic-Service organizations- September 21 - Copy and

paste: http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/0918help.htm

The Charlotte Observer - September 21 - WANT TO HELP? (List of faith groups actively helping recovery efforts): Copy

and paste: http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/0921helpbox.htm

NBC News - Channel 17, Raleigh-Durham - Hurricane Floyd Important Information (Road closings, FEMA Hotline, insurance

numbers, emergency evacuation numbers - Copy and paste: http://nbcin.nbc17.com:80/tvsd/news/floydinfo.shtml

NBC News - Channel 17, Raleigh-Durham - Agencies accepting donations - Copy and paste:

http://nbcin.nbc17.com:80/tvsd/news/floydinfo.shtml

Virginia

Hampton Roads Talk Net - Messages--Questions and Answeposted for and from people from Franklin, VA, hard-hit by

Hurricane Floyd - Point to: http://www.pilotonline.com/webx/cgi-bin/WebX?13@^5987@.ee7741a

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (2 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
The Virginia-Pilot, Norfolk, VA - September 19 - Information for Franklin flood victims (Relief Information) - Copy and

paste: http://www.pilotonline.com/news/nw0919box.html

NBC Channel 12, Richmond, VA - Red Cross raising money for Floyd victims - Point to: http://www.nbc12.com/index2.html

Hot Lines

Special Hotline: FEMA North Carolina Hotline 1-800-462-9029 for information about Federal disaster aid.

Hot Lines serve a number of purposes, from simple advice or information to life-saving counseling. Click the icon above for a list

of telephone numbers and Hot Line World Wide Web sites established to aid those in crisis, especially rural customers.

Hay Hotlines

While many of the hay hotlines reside with private organizations or state Departments of Agriculture, Extension Service staff

have been, and are, instrumental in organizing and implementing hotlines for farmers in dire need of hay at rates they can

afford during weather-related crises. Click on the icon above for a list of web sites that act as, or contain, hay providers.

In Today's Headlines

Yahoo! News, September 14 (Reuters) - USDA Launches Web Site To Help Struggling Farmers. Point to:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990914/wr/economy_farm_1.html

● 

Hurricane Floyd...The Aftermath

Richmond (VA) Times Dispatch, September 27 - Associated Press - Downpours Cause New N.C. Flooding. Copy and paste:

http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&PACKAGEID=hurricane&STORYID=APIS6VOC21G0&SLUG=FLOYD%2dFARMERS

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (3 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
FEMA NEWS - Daily news and information updatesHeavy Rains in the Mid-Atlantic Bring North Carolina

Flooding

The Charlotte Observer - September 23 - Volunteers and donors respond in time of need - By David Perlmutt, Staff Writer -

Copy and paste: http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/0923volunteer.htm

Yahoo! News - Coping With Flood - Link to North Dakota State University Extension Service's flood information -

WRAL News Channel 5 Online (NC) - County-by-county emergency information - Copy and paste:

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/fc/US/Severe_Weather/

FEMA STORM WATCH- Storm Updates; Preparedness Information; Atlantic Storm Data, etc.

See also "Flooding," below.

Joint Agricultural Weather Facility

USDA Current Impacts - shortcuts to drought and other weather impacts

Changing Agricultural Markets

Our partners respond to crises brought on by changing agricultural markets in many ways. Researchers may find ways to improve grain, vegetables,

and animal products so that they cost less to raise and thus bring a larger profit margin to the farmer. Extension staff develop programs and

curriculum, based solely on research results, to help rural Americans cope with the many aspects of economic change, from money management to

stress management. Here are some web pages that will take you to locations and news stories at land-grant universities. They exemplify the ways

research results, program curricula, and people are making information and assistance available to rural clientele.

RECENTLY ADDED

USDA-Economic Research Service -

 Issues Center - Risk Management (9-21)

 Issues Center - Hog and Pork Prices (9/21)

 Wisconsin Farm Center (9/22)

HEADLINE NEWS - THE WASHINGTON POST - SEPTEMBER 20 - Milk-Pricing Battle Spills Into Congress - Copy and

paste: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/sept99/milk20.htm

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (4 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
-----Natural Disasters -----

Photos courtesy of the National Storm Chasers

Other Disaster Preparation, Safety, and Recovery Sites

● Events Affecting Animals - Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry

● Texas A&M Severe Weather Watches and Warnings

● University of Nebraska-Lincoln - Weather and Climate Information

Extreme Weather Conditions

● Drought - Click for drought-related pages

RECENTLY ADDED

USDA Economic Research Service - An Economic Assessment of the 1999 Drought

Tropical Storms

● University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Tropical Storm Page

Online Weather Channel Tropical Report

● National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency Storm Prediction Center

● 

Hurricane

The Charlotte Observer- (Associated Press) - September 22 -Clinton's remarks in Tarboro (full text) - Point to:

http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/x0920speech.htm

❍ 

WeatherCom - News stories on Gert and Harvey - Copy and paste:

http://www.weather.com/weather_center/full_story/full1.html

❍ 

● 

Tornado

❍ Tornado Tips - The Wichita Eagle - find tips at: http://www.wichitaeagle.com/news/weather/book/safety-tornado.htm

❍ Discovery Channel Online Tornado Site

Tornado Myths - The Tornado Project, St. Johnsbury, VT - When it comes to staying safe from a storm, don't just go with

what you've heard. It may be a myth.

❍ 

● 

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (5 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
Flood/Excessive Rain (long-term)

The Charlotte Observer - Rotting carcasses, sewage create mounting health threat as flooding continues - by EstesThompson,

Associated Press Writer - Copy and paste: http://www.charlotte.com/special/floyd/docs/x0920rotting.htm

❍ 

Northscape / Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald Things are wet all over--Estimates indicate that 50 percent or more of some northwest

Minnesota counties' crop didn't get planted this year. Point to:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/south_dakota/story.html?s=v/rs/19990908/sd/index_1.html#5 for story.

❍ 

● 

Intense Cold/Blizzard

❍ University of Minnesota - "Weathering Winter"

● 

Weather-related Fires

Yahoo! News, September 21 - Fires Force Evacuations in Calif. , By Jordan Lite, Associated Press Writer - Copy and paste:

http://unisci.com/stories/19993/0921992.htmhttp://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19990921/us/western_fires_2.html

❍ 

UniSci - a website for daily science news. "Recent Wildfires Reminders Of Their Ecologic Importance" takes a look at the

importance of fires in nature. Point to: http://unisci.com/stories/19993/0921992.htm

❍ 

SO YOU WANT TO BE A F I R E FIGHT E R ? ? by Kelly Andersson. A sometimes amusing and sometimes VERY serious look at what

it takes to be a wildfire fighter. Copy and paste: http://www.wildfirenews.com/fire/articles/jobs.html

❍ 

❍ National Interagency Fire Center - Includes National Fire News page with reports on all current major fires.

Texas - 227 Counties Declared Disaster Areas (fires sparked after drought) - story at:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/texas/story.html?s=v/rs/19990902/tx/index_2.html#4

❍ 

● 

Disaster Recovery

❍ Iowa State University

❍ University of Minnesota - "Picking Up the Pieces After a Natural Disaster"

● 

Other Natural Disasters

❍ Earthquake

❍ Volcanic Eruption

● 

Disasters Caused by Human Behavior

❍ Fires by Arson/Carelessness/Accident

Foodborne Illness

USDA - Economic Research Service - 

Domestic Food Security and Hunger Briefing Room An information resource to stimulate new research using the Federal

food security measure

■ 

■ Center for Disease Control and Prevention - Report on Foodborne Illness

❍ 

Air, Water, and Soil Pollution

■ Richmond Times-Dispatch - September 21 - Transgenic cattle farm opposed / Some in Craig fear impact on

❍ 

● 

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (6 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
environment - Point to: http://www.gatewayva.com/rtd/dailynews/virginia/cow0921.shtml

❍ Environmental Crime

Coping With Stress

One of the effects of any crisis situation is accompanying stress. The Cooperative Extension System has developed many research-based programs

for helping people from all walks of life, in every setting, better handle stress. While many of these programs target rural Americans, they may be

used successfully in urban and suburbans settings as well.

North Carolina State University - News Release - Elderly face unique post-storm challenges "Weathering a hurricane, a flood, and

life in a shelter--and building a new life--can be a tough challenge for the hardiest of adults, but might present special problems for

some frail older people..."

● 

University of Wyoming - Helping Men Cope With Stress- A personal story of how one man coped with stress...and how he believes

his experience may help others..

● 

University of Minnesota - Stress Management Briefs- a series of fact sheets to help people of all descriptions and locations manage

stress.

● 

CSREES National Network for Health- A site that helps people take steps to maintain good health through diet, exercise, and healthy

lifestyle choices--all excellent ways to prevent or manage stress.

● 

Children, Youth and Families Education and Research Network- learn about resiliency--the ability to bounce back from stress and

crisis--and more about developing strengths to positively meet the challenges of life and managing stress by searching this network

created for people everywhere.

● 

● The Ohio State University -materials related to family, stress management, health, etc., as it pertains to farm famililes.

How Our Partners are Responding

Our partners at land-grant universities across the Nation, and in research facilities nationwide, as well as Cooperative Extension Service staff at

county level, respond in many ways to the needs of rural populations, especially in times of stress. Click above to see some examples of how these

partners help rural Americans during times of disaster--whether the slow process of ruin from heat and drought to the wink-of-an-eye devastation

of storms and flooding.

E-answers is a searchable web site that provides reliable, research-based information on a wide range of Extension or Outreach-oriented subjects.

From this source you can access the knowledge of land-grant universities around the Nation.

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (7 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
Kid Connections

Come on, kids! We have lots of stuff for you, too! Just click

HERE

Partners: We invite you to submit links and program stories. E-mail information to: wreid@reeusda.gov

Site Created 8/99

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202/720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or

call 202/720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply approval

to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms.

Farm Crises - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/crises.htm (8 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:16:12 PM]
Project Impact

Y2K Issues

FEMA for Kids

Disaster News

Related Sites

GEMS

Mitigation

Flood Insurance

Animals &

Emergencies

Regional Offices

Staff Directory

New Tropical Depression

Forms in Caribbean

Hurricane Floyd Disaster

Update

North Carolina River

Conditions Improving

Federal Disaster Aid

Ordered For Hurricane

Recovery

● Connecticut

● Florida

● Delaware

● South Carolina

● New York

● New Jersey

● North Carolina

● Pennsylvania

● Virginia

Cash Donations, Volunteers

Sought To Help Hurricane

Victims

Hurricane Georges, An Ill

Wind Remembered One

Year Later

Hugo: Recollections of a

Storm

Major Hurricanes This

Century

Reduce Hurricane Damage

-- Take Action Now

Protecting Property and lives

from Hurricanes and Wind

Events , 2.4 MBytes .mov file

 During a hurricane, homes

may be damaged or destroyed by

high winds and high waves.

However, there are some things

that can be done to help make

homes stronger before a

hurricane strikes. More info on

this topic

Paul J. Lillis, FEMA's Assistant

Inspector General for

Investigations, provides a

message on disaster fraud

Photographs from Hurricane

Floyd

Background and

Preparedness Material How

To Be Ready ...

Atlantic Storm Data:

(Courtesy of NOAA and the

NHC)

● Atlantic Outlook

Current Atlantic/Gulf

Satellite Imagery

● 

U.S. Weather Forecast

Maps - Next 6 to 10

Days

● 

Northeast Pacific:

Eastern Pacific Tropical

Weather Outlook

● 

30 - 90 Day Hawaiian

Outlook

● 

Helpful Information:

An explanation of the La

Niña weather pattern

● 

Surviving the Storm --

1998 Edition, a guide to

hurricane preparedness

-- 301 KBytes

● 

Current Seismic and

Tropical Events

● 

Tips for Recovering

Flood Damaged Items

● 

The Disaster Assistance

Process for Individuals,

a slide presentation

● 

Atlantic Tropical Storm

Formation, 1885-1996

● 

● Hurricane Archives

1998 Disaster News

Locator

● 

FEMA Warns Against

Hurricane Assistance

Fraud

● 

Eastern North Pacific

Hurricane Names

● 

State Emergency

Management Agencies and

Offices

1999 North Atlantic Hurricane

Storm Names

Arlene

Bret

Cindy

Dennis

Emily

Floyd

Gert

Harvey

Irene

Jose

Katrina

Lenny

Maria

Nate

Ophelia

Philippe

Rita

Stan

Tammy

Vince

Wilma

1998 Declared Disasters

Related to Hurricanes

FEMA -- Tropical Storm and Hurricane Watch Information and Preparedness Material

http://www.fema.gov/fema/trop.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:16:25 PM]
FEMA -- Tropical Storm and Hurricane Watch Information and Preparedness Material

http://www.fema.gov/fema/trop.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:16:25 PM]
HOME ACTIVE

CYCLONES FORECASTS IMAGERY ABOUTTPC RECONNAISSANCE

 Keyword search

 Advanced 

We're a Coolest

Science Site of the

Month!

Historical Info

Past Seasons

Climatology

Deadliest:

 1492-Now (Atlantic)

 1900-Now (USA)

Most Expensive

Most Intense

U.S. Strikes by Decade

U.S. Strikes by State

General Info

About the NHC/TPC

Personnel

NOAA Locator

Visitor Info

Local Map

NHC Library

Tropical Cyclone FAQ

NWS Hurricane

 Awareness

NOAA Hurricane

 Awareness

FEMA for Kids:

 HURRICANES

The Saffir-Simpson

 Hurricane Scale

Forecasting Models

Inland Wind Model

Glossary

The Naming of Storms

NOTE: for those who prefer, our streamlined text-only pages are always

available.

Click for NOAA Click for NCEP Click for NWS

Aircraft

Reconnaissance About us Latest SatelliteImagery

Our Mission:To save lives, mitigate property loss,

and improve economic efficiency by issuing watches,

warnings, forecasts, and analyses of hazardous

tropical weather.

Latest Forecasts, Warnings,

and Analyses

Tropical Cyclone Advisories:

AtlanticEast Pacific

Tropical Cyclone Graphics:

AtlanticEast Pacific

Tropical Weather Outlook:

AtlanticEast Pacific

Tropical Weather Discussions

Marine Forecasts and Aviation Products

Sea Surface Temperature Analyses

Important News

TROPICAL PREDICTION CENTER/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:16:49 PM]
What's New

TPC Anonymous FTP Server

Disclaimer Please read

Text-only version

1999 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook Updated August 10

NOAA Confirms Busy Hurricane Season For 1999

 Press Release

National Academy Press has selected the NHC

website as a Coolest Science Site of the Month.

 September 10

Current Season Summaries and Reports

Atlantic Monthly Summary

East Pacific Monthly Summary

Atlantic Preliminary Report

East Pacific Preliminary Report

TPC Forecast and Advisory Archives

Latest Satellite Imagery

United States Weather Radar Images

Aircraft Reconnaissance

Additional Resources

National Weather Service Links

Alternate Cyclone Forecast

Sites

Real-time Weather Sites

More Weather-related Links

TPC Publications

The Tropical Cyclone

FAQ

Hurricane and

Natural Disaster

Brochures

Radiofax Broadcast

Schedule

Tracking Chart Click here for a

GIF version of

the chart. The

image is 115 Kb

(download takes

about a minute

with a 28.8

modem).

Click here for a

TROPICAL PREDICTION CENTER/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:16:49 PM]
PDF version of

the chart. The

file is 154 Kb

(download takes

about 1.5

minutes with a

28.8 modem).

You may need to

install Acrobat®

Reader to view

the file.

Click here for a

Postscript

version of the

chart. The file is

1.58 Mb

(download takes

about 10

minutes with a

28.8 modem).

NHC/TPC is located on the

campus of Florida

International University, in

Miami, Florida.

This site may be accessed by

browsers designed for use by

the disabled.

Problems? Send mail to Todd Spindler.

The image used for the title graphic is Hurricane Mitch, October 27, 1998, taken by the NOAA-15 satellite.

You can find more images like this from the NOAA Operational Significant Event Imagery Server.

Last updated August 27, 1999.

TROPICAL PREDICTION CENTER/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:16:49 PM]
Southeast Regional Climate Center

National Weather Service Products

NWS Weather Information in the Southeast

Current Conditions and Forecasts Maintained by the Weather Underground

NWS Latest Hourly Observations, and Forecasts

Southeast Weather Station Information

ASOS Station List

sercc@water.dnr.state.sc.us http://water.dnr.state.sc.us/water/climate/sercc/nws_data.html

NWS Products

http://water.dnr.state.sc.us/climate/sercc/nws_data.html [10/5/1999 3:16:55 PM]
(A Public Service Center for

Climate-Environment Interactions)

Welcome! The State Climate Office of North Carolina is the

primary source for NC weather and climate data . The SCO is

actively involved in all aspects of climate research, education,

and extension services. Both the Operations Center and

Research Lab are located in the Research III Building on the

Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University. 

The SCO is an extension of the College of Physical and

Mathematical Sciences (PAMS), and works closely with the

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) and the

Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences

(MEAS) in an effort to further understand the details and impacts

of climate on industries and citizens in North Carolina. 

NEW!! DAILY UPDATES of HOURLY DATA

from NCARS Weather and Climate Network

Hurricane Dennis and Floyd Precipitation

Distribution

Click on maps below to view larger image.

State Climate Office of North Carolina

College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences

Room 214, Research III Building

1005 Capability Drive, Centennial Campus

State Climate Office of North Carolina

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/sco/welcome.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:17:50 PM]
Campus Box 7236, North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 27695-7236

Administration: 919-515-1667

Data Services: 919-515-3056

Fax: 919-515-1441

Email: sco@cumulus.meas.ncsu.edu

Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri

State Climate Office of North Carolina

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/sco/welcome.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:17:50 PM]
Welcome to the Virginia State

Climatology Office

Site Index

Virginia Weather Round-Up

Additional Sources of Weather

Information

Climate of Virginia

Miscellaneous Climate

Information

Additional Sources of Climate Information

Drought Links

Hurricane Links

Virginia Weather Round-Up

Current Conditions

Current Weather Conditions Around the State 

Virginia State Climatology Office Home Page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~climate/ (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
Zone Forecasts (Except Southwest)

National Weather Service Zone Forecasts for Virginia (except extreme

Southwest) 

Zone Forecasts (Extreme Southwest)

National Weather Service Zone Forecasts for Extreme Southwest Virginia 

More Detailed Climate/Forecast Information

Detailed Information for Virginia from the National Weather Service 

Regional Radar

Regional Doppler Radar Summary for the mid-Atlantic 

Regional Precipitation Estimate

Regional Precipitation Estimate from Doppler Radar Summary 

Regional Satellite

Infrared Satellite Photo of the mid-Atlantic Region 

Regional Weather Map

Weather Map with Station Models for the mid-Atlantic Region 

Additional Sources of Weather Information

The Purdue University/UNISYS Corporation weather site

Purdue University and the UNISYS Corporation's general purpose weather

visualization tool for current and archived meteorological data. 

Ohio State University Atmospheric Science Program WWW

Ohio State University Atmospheric Science Program WWW. This site

contains a large amount of current observation data, including NEXRAD, as

well as forecast information. 

Virginia State Climatology Office Home Page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~climate/ (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
The Weather Underground

Contains preliminary up-to-date weather information and archival weather

conditions for selected stations. Good for a quick forecast or general weather

conditions for a given date. 

The Weather Superhighway

This area contains a comprehensive collection of the meteorological data,

information, and image sites around the globe. These sites contain products

disseminated by, or derived from data from the NWS and other world weather

organizations. 

Climate of Virginia

Station Climatologies

30-year Normals of Temperature and Precipitation by Station 

Climate Calendars

Daily Climate Information by Station (including record temperatures) 

Fall Foliage Information

Information about Fall Foliage Displays across Virginia 

Lightning Information

Information about Lightning in Virginia 

Virginia Climate Advisory

Publication of the Virginia State Climatology Office 

Miscellaneous Climate Information

Wind-Chill Temperature

Chart and Explanation of Wind-Chill Temperature 

Virginia State Climatology Office Home Page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~climate/ (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
Apparent Temperature

Chart and Explanation of Apparent Temperature 

Sunrise/Sunset/Twilight and Moonrise/Moonset/Phase

From the U.S. Naval Observatory 

Additional Sources of Climate Information

You can't find the information you need?

Try one of these sites:

Southeast Regional Climate Center

Source of lots of climate data for the Southeastern US 

Regional Climate Centers

Source of lots of climate data for the United States. 

Climate Prediction Center

Source of climate products and forecasts; continental and global in scope. 

National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration

Source of a wide range of climate and environmental data. 

Other State Climatology Offices

Complete listing of all of the State Climatologists. 

Or,

Virginia State Climatology Office Home Page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~climate/ (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
Just Give Us a Call

Our number at the Virginia State Climatology Office is (804) 924-0548. 

visits since July 23, 1999.

Please send comments and suggestions to:

Steve Gawtry (gawtry@Virginia.EDU)

Virginia State Climatology Office Home Page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~climate/ (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
Cotton and Wool Outlook (CWS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Provides information and statistics on domestic and world cotton and wool production, consumption,

export sales, use, and prices, including data on raw fibers and textiles.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Cotton and Wool Outlook (CWS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/cws-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:05 PM]
Feed Outlook (FDS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines prospective production, supply, use, prices, demand, and trade for corn, sorghum, barley,

oats, and hay.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Feed Outlook (FDS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/fds-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:06 PM]
Oil Crops Outlook (OCS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines U.S. and world soybean, oilseed and vegetable oil production, supply, prices, and trade;

includes U.S. cottonseed, peanuts, sunflowerseed, other special oilseeds, tropical oils, corn oil, and

animal fats.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Oil Crops Outlook (OCS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/ocs-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:07 PM]
Rice Outlook (RCS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines U.S. rough, milled, long-grain, and medium/short-grain rice: supply, disappearance, price,

acreage, yield, production, stocks, byproducts, brewers' prices, exports, and world rice markets.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Rice Outlook (RCS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/rcs-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:08 PM]
Wheat Outlook (WHS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines supply, use, demand, price and trade for all U.S. wheat and for individual wheat classes.

Includes supply and demand prospects in major importing and exporting countries.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Wheat Outlook (WHS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/whs-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:08 PM]
Visitors since 

July 26, 1996 

Welcome to the 

Marketing & Regulatory Programs (MRP) 

Minneapolis Business Site (MBS)

Bulletin Board

10-05-99

One-Page MRP-MBS Telephone Listing

10-05-99

Who to Call for PRISM & PATS

10-04-99 Followup to PRESTO users: New Web-Based Administrative Systems Set to Go!

10-04-99 New Web Based Administrative Systems Set to Go! Look for them October 12, 1999

09-24-99 Position Description and Job Analysis 

Services

09-23-99 Information on FY2000 Procurement 

Requests

09-15-99 Now Available - the SF-52 in pdf format - Request for Personnel Action (Complete it

on-line)

09-15-99 Rate our Site - "Voting Booth"

09-02-99 TALX - The quick way to verify employment for loans, apartment rental, etc.

08-30-99 APHIS Year End Procedures - FY 1999

08-24-99 Who can Help Me with Processing My Personnel Paperwork

08-24-99 Position Classification Appeals

08-24-99 Employee Guide to Classification Audits

08-20-99 Position Description Information

08-20-99 Leave Transfer Forms, AD-1043, AD-1046, OPM Optional Form 630B - Complete

these Forms 

On-Line! Also, check out the OF-612.

Can't find what you're looking for? 

Try our Library or our Site Map/Index

Please sign our Guest Book

Marketing & Regulatory Programs (MRP) Minneapolis Business Site (MBS)

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mpls/ (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:18:29 PM]
USDA, MRP-MBS

100 N 6th St

Butler Sq, 5th Fl

Minneapolis, MN

55403

Voting Booth 

How would you rate our Web Site?

1 Great... informative and very user friendly!

2 Very good... Useful and user friendly

3 Good... I find it helpful

4 Fair... needs improvement

5 Not very good... needs much improvement

Show Results

Thanks go out to the following people who have completed our "How can we

help you?" survey and have given us GREAT feedback on how we can make this

web site better:

Chris Reinhold, MPR-MBS, Mpls, MN

Cindy Hadlich, MPR-MBS, Mpls, MN

Carolyn Sandoval, PPQ, Sacramento, CA

We Need Your Help! Our Mission

We're getting ready to beef up the business that

we're doing on our Web Site. Please let us know

what you'd like to see and be able to do on our

Marketing & Regulatory Programs (MRP) Minneapolis Business Site (MBS)

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mpls/ (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:18:29 PM]
Site.

All ideas and comments are welcome. E-Mails

can be addressed to:

Bill.F.Rosenfeld@usda.gov

or

complete our New 

On-line Survey

Phone calls should be made to Bill at (612)

370-2093. Feel free to leave a Voice Mail

message if Bill is unavailable.

Thanks Much!

MRP-MBS, Minneapolis 

Web Team

We set the standard for

quality and value as the

provider of choice for

administrative services. Our

Mission is to provide

consolidated administrative,

financial, and human

resources services to help our

customers accomplish their

missions worldwide. Our

greatest strength is our

people.

"A comprehensive

approach to administrative

servicing"

Disclosure: Some items may contain information from commercial vendors. MRP-MBS is not endorsing

any of these products or services. We include these links as a service to our customers.

Please send comments and suggestions about this site to the MRP-MBS WebMaster at

Dixie.M.Simon@usda.gov

USDA MRP APHIS

Marketing & Regulatory Programs (MRP) Minneapolis Business Site (MBS)

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mpls/ (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:18:29 PM]
Crop Production (PCP-BB)

Produced by the National Agricultural Statistics Service

Description:

This file contains crop production data for the U.S., including acreage, area harvested, yield, etc.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Crop Production (PCP-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:30 PM]
WAOB home page | OCE home page | USDA home page

World Agricultural Outlook Board

WASDE REPORT

The World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates(WASDE) report is available electronically within

one hour of release.

Go to the latest WASDE report ====> [Text Format] [Adobe PDF

Format]

Go to all WASDE reports (including the latest) on the USDA Economics and Statistics System

Frequently asked questions about the WASDE report

Supply and demand estimates for all countries

Release Dates

The WASDE report will be released 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on the following dates:

● 1998: Nov. 10, Dec. 11.

1999: Jan. 12, Feb. 10, Mar. 11, Apr. 9, May 12, June 11, July 12, Aug. 12, Sept. 10, Oct. 8, Nov.

10, Dec. 10.

● 

Electronic Subscriptions

Free e-mail subscriptions are available on request. The report will be sent to you shortly after it is posted

on the World Wide Web.

Print Subscriptions

To subscribe to the WASDE report in print, call 1-800-999-6779, or write ERS-NASS, 5285 Port Roal

Road, Springfield, VA, 22161.

Top of page | OCE home page | USDA home page 

The WASDE Page has been accessed times since June 11, 1998.

Last revised: October 28, 1998

URL http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/wasde/wasde.htm

WASDE - World Agricultural Outlook Board

http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/wasde/wasde.htm [10/5/1999 3:18:33 PM]
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS OF THE

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY

The USDA History Collection

Seal of the United States

Department of Agriculture

Adopted June 21, 1895

(Click image for more

information.)

This site is best viewed at 800 x 600 resolution.

Introduction & Project Description

About this Web Site & Hints for Researchers

● 

Finding Aid

Guide to the Collection

● 

Collection Map | Search

Navigation Tools

● 

Collection Highlights

Selected Documents from the Collection

● 

Image Gallery

Pictures, Maps and other Images

● 

References & Research Guides

Resources for further study, plus

>HELP< Notes on How to Use the Guide

● 

This Web site and Finding Aid have been produced as a

cooperative project between the National Agricultural

Library and the University of Maryland Libraries.

Please contact us with your comments and questions.

 Top of Page | Search the USDA History Collection Web site.

Home Page Introduction Finding Aid | Collection Map Highlights Images References Search

Special Collections

Telephone: 301-504-5876

e-mail: speccoll@nal.usda.gov

The National Agricultural Library

Special Collections

10301 Baltimore Avenue

Beltsville, MD 20705

USDA History Collection, Home page/Index 

http://www.nalusda.gov/speccoll/collect/history/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:18:40 PM]
http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/collect/history/index.htm

21 September 1999

USDA History Collection, Home page/Index 

http://www.nalusda.gov/speccoll/collect/history/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:18:40 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Contents

Migrants Settling Far and Wide in the Rural West

Amenities Increasingly Draw People to the Rural

West

Jobs Follow People in the Rural Rocky Mountain

West

Migrants to Oregon in the 1990's: Workign Age,

Near-Retirees, and Retirees Make Different

Destination Choices

Quality of Life, Nontraditional Income, and

Economic Growth: New Development

Opportunities for the Rural West

Employment Growth in the Rural West From 1985

to 1995 Outpaced the Nation

Wildlife Conservation and Economic Development

in the West

Finding Common Ground on Western Lands

Water Markets: Implications for Rural Areas of the

West

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Rural Development Perspectives Magazine--Volume 14, Issue 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rdp/rdpsept99/ [10/5/1999 3:18:46 PM]
September 1999

Volume XI, No. 9

Features

The Barrel Business: U.S. Wood Products on a Boom

U.S. exports of wooden casks, barrels, staves, and other cooperage products are

headed for a record-setting year in 1999.

Change Comes to Italy’s Grocery Sector

Pressure from both internal and global forces is reshaping a

sector that’s been dominated for generations by small, family-owned outlets.

Candy Could Be Sweet Deal to Chinese Importers

Influenced by imports of advanced, high-quality

products from abroad, China’s confectionery

industry is rapidly transforming itself, creating

various opportunities for foreign exporters.

Egypt Gives U.S. Apples a Closer

Look

Egypt’s middle class is getting a taste for imported

apples, thanks to a growing per-capita income.

Greek Consumers Get a Healthy

Craving for U.S. Tree Nuts

Greece is one of the world’s foremost nut-eating

countries, and the demand for tree nuts should continue to grow, thanks to the upcoming Olympic Games.

September 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 9

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/sep99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:18:52 PM]
Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Glenn Kaup

Jill Lee

Jeanne McLaughlin

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. (703) 605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Friday, September 24, 1999

September 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 9

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/sep99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:18:52 PM]
Science and Education make up a partnership for the future. Our partnership of the Land-Grant

universities in every state, and the USDA generates new knowledge, communicates that

knowledge to those who need it, and continually educates new generations.

Our Land-Grant universities, located in every state, and the Cooperative State Research,

Education and Extension Service of the USDA collaborate closely in creating solutions to the

problems and questions faced by many Americans every day. From water quality; to food safety;

to forestry; and agricultural competitiveness, the Land-Grant/USDA partnership makes a

difference.

At the beginning of each year, institutions in the partnership submit information about the impact

of their research, teaching and extension programs on the needs and problems of the public. This

is Impact; science and education at work for you.

● 1999-2000 - Query the database

● 1999-2000 - National summaries of topics

● 1999-2000 - PDF Format (Acrobat Reader Download Provided)

● Query the database - 1998

● 1998 - National summaries of topics

● PDF Format (Acrobat Reader Download Provided)

● Query the database - 1996

● National summaries of topics

● Query the database - 1997

● National summaries of topics

● Southern Region Impact Reports

Impact Statements

http://www.reeusda.gov/success/impact.htm [10/5/1999 3:18:56 PM]
Agricultural Prices Monthly (PAP-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This file contains prices received by farmers for principal crops, livestock and livestock products;

indexes of prices received by farmers; feed price ratios; indexes of prices paid by farmers; and parity

prices.

The monthly reports are summarized in Agricultural Prices - Annual

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Agricultural Prices Monthly (PAP-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/price/pap-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:57 PM]
Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade (AES-BB)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Offers the latest value and volume forecasts for U.S. farm exports, by commodity and region, as well

as the agricultural trade balance, and projected in ports.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade (AES-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/trade/aes-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:58 PM]
Crop Progress (PCR-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This full text file contains reports, issued weekly during the growing season, listing planting, fruiting,

and harvesting progress and overall condition of selected crops in major producing states. The data,

summarized by crop and by state, are republished along with any corrections in the Weekly Weather

and Crop Bulletin.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Crop Progress (PCR-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcr-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:18:59 PM]
 Revised Thrifty Food Plan 1999

 Released August 19, 1999

Press Release

Executive Summary (PDF File, About 500 Kbytes)

Revised Thrifty Food Plan 1999

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FoodPlans/TFP99/Index.htm [10/5/1999 3:19:07 PM]
Last updated: Friday, September 24, 1999

This site provides a comprehensive list of USDA drought assistance and other related resources

to help America's farmers.

New Items 

Friday, September 24, 1999

● Updated Secretarial Disaster Designation Maps

● Updated Emergency Haying and Grazing Maps

Wednesday, September 22, 1999

GLICKMAN CALLS FOR IMPROVED RELIEF EFFORTS AT MEETING OF DROUGHT POLICY

COMMISSION Full Story

● 

USDA Home Page | Comments

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This page visited times

USDA, Drought Information Web Page

http://drought.fsa.usda.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:19:33 PM]
 Welcome to 

What's New

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 8. USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms

2. Background 9. USDA Small Farms Coordinators

3. National Commission on Small Farms 10. Acronyms / Abbreviations

4. Commission Membership 11. Upcoming Events for Small Farms

5. Commission's Report 12. News & Information

6. Time to Act! Campaign 13. Reports & USDA Small Farms Initiatives

7. USDA Council on Small Farms 14. Small Farms Hot Links

15. USDA Small Farm Policy - Departmental 

 Regulation No. 9700-1. (Adobe Acrobat PDF

 File --- 310K). 

1. Introduction

Welcome to the new United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Small Farms Program Web site. This site is intended

to: 

● provide small farmers with a one-stop internet location that serves as a gateway to information

about USDA programs specifically designed to assist small farmers.

● enhance the Department's ability to adequately communicate the many small farms activities

and opportunities to our constituents and stakeholders.

● inform the public of specific actions and initiatives being taken by USDA in response to the

USDA National Commission on Small Farms' report, "A Time to Act".

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

Small Farms@USDA Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:19:47 PM]
2. Background

In February 1997, the USDA Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) report recommended that the Department establish a diverse

commission to examine the problems facing small and limited resource farmers and develop a national policy on small farms.

The CRAT Report was prepared in response to published reports and testimony given during civil rights listening sessions

conducted in the winter of 1996.

According to some of those testifying at these listening sessions, African American farmers lose their land at a rate three times

higher than farmers overall.

On July 9, 1997, Secretary Glickman implemented Departmental Regulation No. 1043-43.This regulation established the

National Commission on Small Farms (Commission). The purpose of the Commission was to gather and analyze information

regarding small U.S. farms and ranches and recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture a national strategy to ensure their

continued viability in U.S. agriculture, including specific measures which could be adopted by the public, non-profit and private

sectors to enhance the economic livelihood of small farms.

In July 1997, Secretary Glickman appointed the 30-member National Commission on Small Farms to determine a course of

action for USDA to recognize, respect, and respond to the needs of small farms, ranches and woodlots (hereafter referred to

as small farms). Between July and September of 1997, the Commission held several public hearings and meetings to solicit

ideas and input directly from small farmers to determine ways that USDA could better assist them.

On January 22, 1998, the Commission submitted its report, A Time to Act, to the Secretary of Agriculture. As stated by the

Commission, "the report was the product of considerable discussion and deliberation based on extensive oral and written

testimonies and suggestions gleaned from the Commission's many regional hearings, as well as from written materials

submitted by the Commission." The report included eight policy goals and 146 recommendations based on written and oral

testimony from over 600 people attending the seven public hearings and meetings held around the country. 

According to the Commission, the report "focuses on those farms with less than $250,000 gross receipts annually, on which

day-to-day labor and management are provided by the farmer and/or the farm family that owns the production or owns, or

leases, the productive assets".

The Department has made considerable progress in addressing the specific recommendations included in the Commission's

report. A Report outlining USDA’s progress and acheivements in response to these recommendations is currently being

developed and will be available on this web site in August 1999.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

3. National Commission on Small Farms

On July 16, 1997, as part of his continuing efforts to support small and limited resource farmers, Agriculture Secretary Dan

Glickman announced the formation of a 30-member National Commission on Small Farms to study the problems of small

farmers and recommend ways to help them. "We cannot let America's small farm heritage, the foundation of our rural

communities, just slip through our fingers", Glickman said at the time. "We must carefully look at the barriers facing small

farms and seek solutions to these problems. This is the charge I have given to the men and women who will serve on this

Commission."

The Commission also was asked to look at ways in which USDA can:

● ensure that small farms are treated fairly and have an equal opportunity to compete in the

market place.

● encourage small farms to adopt farm operations and production practices, such as value-added

cooperatives or direct marketing, that can help to improve their profitability.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

4. Commission Membership

The Commission consisted of 30 members. Members included a chair, two vice chairs, and represented small farms and

ranches, finance, commerce, rural communities, nonprofit organizations, academia, state and local governments, Native

Americans, farm workers and other interests as determined by the Secretary. Equal opportunity practices in line with USDA

Small Farms@USDA Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:19:47 PM]
policies were followed in all appointments to the Commission.

To ensure that a national strategy for small farms would take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA

programs, membership included, "to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities,

women, and persons with disabilities." By Department regulation, the Commission’s term expired in July 1999, two years after

its establishment. A USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms is proposed to replace the Commission in the Fall of 1999.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

5. Commission's Report - A Time to Act

In a transmittal letter dated July 1998, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms transmitted its report, A Time to Act,

to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Commission began its work in Memphis, Tennessee, on July 28. Subsequent public

hearings and meetings were held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on August 21 and 22; Washington, DC, on September 10 and

11; and Sacramento, California, on September 15 and 16. Three smaller meetings were held in Albany, New York;

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Portland, Oregon."

The results of these hearings and meetings are incorporated in the eight policy goals and 146 recommendations published in

the Commission's report, A Time Act. Below is a summary of the these policy goals:

Policy Goal 1: Recognize the Importance and Cultivate the Strengths of Small Farms

Policy Goal 2: Create a Framework of Support and Responsibility for

Small Farms

Policy Goal 3: Promote, Develop and Enforce Fair, Competitive and Open Markets for

Small Farms

Policy Goal 4: Conduct Appropriate Outreach Through Partnerships to Serve Small

Farm and Ranch Operators

Policy Goal 5: Establish Future Generations of Farmers

Policy Goal 6: Emphasize Sustainable Agriculture as a Profitable, Ecological and

Socially Sound Strategy for Small Farms

Policy Goal 7: Dedicate Budget Resources To Strengthen the Competitive Position of

Small Farms in American Agriculture

Policy Goal 8: Provide Just and Humane Working Conditions for All People Engaged

in Production Agriculture

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

6. Time to Act! Campaign

"The purpose of the Time to Act! Campaign is to promote the recommendations of the USDA National Commission on Small

Farms. The Time to Act! Campaign is comprised of individual persons who served as members of the Commission. Their role

in the Time to Act! Campaign is an independent activity". As a follow up to the Commission's report, the Time to Act!

Campaign issued a Report Card on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Commission's report - A

Time to Act. The Report Card was divided into the following program areas:

Small Farms@USDA Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:19:47 PM]
● Market Access

● Market Development

● Research and Extension

● Conservation

● Credit

● Beginning Farmers

● Farm Workers

● Civil Rights

● Risk Management

● Outreach and Organization

The Report Card identified many of the areas where more work needs to be done and the many achievements made by

USDA in responding to the Commission's report and recommendations. For example, it recognized among other

accomplishments the following:

● Appointment of a Small Farms Council at the sub-cabinet level to oversee report

implementation;

● Appointment of USDA Small Farm Coordinators for each mission area and agency; and

● Improvement in Market Development for small farms.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

7. USDA Council on Small Farms

To ensure that the USDA has a formal mechanism in place to focus on developing programs and policies that serve the best

interests of small farms, a USDA Council on Small Farms was established in October 1998. This Council is chaired by the

Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and is comprised of the following sub-cabinet officials at USDA: 

● Under Secretary, Marketing & Regulatory Programs;

● Under Secretary, Farm & Foreign Agricultural Services;

● Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services;

● Under Secretary, Food Safety;

● Under Secretary, Natural Resources & Environment;

● Under Secretary, Research, Education & Economics;

● Under Secretary, Rural Development;

● Assistant Secretary, Administration;

● Director, Office of Civil Rights; and the

● Director, Office of Outreach

The Director of Sustainable Development and Small Farms in the Office of the Chief Economist, serves as the Executive

Director of the Council on Small Farms and is responsible for coordinating, advocating, and facilitating implementation of small

farms policies and programs across all USDA mission areas and agencies.

The Director chairs a Department-wide group of Coordinators identified for each sub-cabinet mission area, the Office of

Outreach, Civil Rights, and individual agencies for the purpose of planning, coordinating, and collaborating the implementation

of small farms policies and programs.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

8. USDA ’s Small Farms Advisory Committee

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2), a notice was published in the Federal Register on June

10, 1999, that the Secretary of Agriculture proposes to establish the Small Farms Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to

as the Committee.

Duties --- The Committee will monitor government and private sector actions and policy and program proposals that relate to

small farms, ranches and woodlots, including limited-resource farms, ranches and woodlots; evaluate the impact such actions

and proposals may have upon the viability and growth of small farms, ranches and woodlots; review USDA programs and

strategies to implement small farm policy; advise the Secretary on actions to strengthen USDA programs; and evaluate other

approaches that the Committee would deem advisable or which the Secretary of Agriculture or the Director of Sustainable

Development and Small Farms may request the Committee to consider.

Small Farms@USDA Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:19:47 PM]
Committee Appointments and Length of Terms --- The Secretary of Agriculture shall make all appointments to the

Committee and the members will serve at the Secretary's discretion. All Members will serve two-year terms. As vacancies

occur, the Secretary will appoint members as appropriate. The Committee may establish subcommittees as it determines

necessary subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the approval of the chair or the chair's

designee.

Membership --- The Committee will have 18 members appointed by the Secretary, one of whom will serve as chair, and one

of whom will serve as a vice-chair as decided by the Committee. Members will represent small farms, ranches and woodlots,

and the diverse groups USDA programs serve, including but not limited to, finance, commerce, conservation, cooperatives,

nonprofit organizations, rural communities, academia, state and local governments, women and minorities, farm workers, and

other interests as the Secretary determines.

EEO Policy --- USDA will follow equal opportunity practices in making appointments to the Committee. To ensure that

recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership

shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with

disabilities.

Meetings --- The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. The Committee will meet at least once a year and make

recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding USDA's small farms program and other matters related to small

farms. The first meeting is planned for September 1999, and all meetings will be open to the public.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents>

9. USDA Small Farm Coordinators

A Small Farms Coordinator has been named for each mission area, agency, and the Office of Civil Rights and Office of

Outreach in USDA. For a list of the USDA Small Farms Coordinators, please click here.

A key function of the Small Farm Coordinators is to coordinate implementation of the Commission's recommendations and to

develop plans to implement them in accordance with Departmental clearance procedures and budgetary constraints.

<Back to Top>

<Table of Contents

You may e-mail any technical questions or comments about the design of this web site to:

smallfarmsweb@fns.usda.gov. Any other comments or questions about USDA's Small Farm

Programs may be sent to sfp@reeusda.gov. Also, for your information, please read USDA's Privacy

Policy. 

 Top · What's New · Contents

Small Farms Hot Links · Sustainable Development Partner Links

Sustainable Development@USDA Home Page

 Sustainable Development & Small Farms Home Page

OCE Home Page · USDA Home Page · E-mail Us

 Last updated: 09/28/99

 URL: http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm

This page has been accessed times since August 17, 1999.

Small Farms@USDA Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:19:47 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Will Increased Highway Funding Help Rural Areas?

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. You can download and get help using the Adobe

Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

Will Increased Highway Funding Help Rural Areas? By Dennis M. Brown, Food and Rural Economics

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin

No. 753 (AIB-753).

Abstract

Rural areas in the United States stand to benefit from new highway funding legislation, especially the

South. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorizes sharply increased

funding for major roads and is the single largest public works bill in U.S. history. Over a 6-year period, it

will provide $171 billion to build new roads, widen lanes, put in new interchanges, and construct bridges.

Under TEA-21, some spending discrepancies will be addressed and resolved for States that contribute

more money into the Federal Highway Trust Fund than they receive in benefits.

Keywords: Federal-aid highways, Federal highway investments, Highway Trust Fund, Federal

transportation policies, rural transportation, rural development, highway funding formula, TEA-21,

ISTEA, donor States, recipient States

Contents

● Frontmatter (Title page, Contents, Summary) (20 kb)

● Introduction and Why Is Federal Highway Investment Important for Rural America? (52 kb)

● The Highway Trust Fund Uses a Complicated Allocation Formula (13 kb)

● The Highway Funding Formula Has Been Criticized (100 kb)

● Highway Funding Under ISTEA (118 kb)

● How Will the Recently Passed Highway Legislation Change Things? (119 kb)

● TEA-21 Increases State Funds (9 kb)

● Other Rural Provisions in TEA-21 and Conclusions (37 kb)

ERS Report--Will Increased Highway Funding Help Rural Areas?

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aib753/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:48 PM]
● Further Readings (17 kb)

● Entire report (519 kb)

Top of Page

Page editor: Deana Kussman

Updated: July 26, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report--Will Increased Highway Funding Help Rural Areas?

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aib753/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:48 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Athletes Need Enough Zinc

By Judy McBride

August 17, 1999

Peak athletic performance depends on adequate zinc as well as

iron and copper, according to a new study from the Agricultural

Research Service, USDA's chief scientific agency.

While most athletes don't have to worry, those who avoid beef

and load up on carbohydrates may fall short in zinc. Beef is the

major source of this essential trace element in the U.S. diet.

Wrestlers, gymnasts and ballerinas who eat sparingly to maintain

a low body weight may also be at risk of not getting enough

zinc.

With these athletes in mind, ARS physiologist Henry C. Lukaski

studied the effects of a low-zinc diet on 12 athletic men in their

twenties. Based at the Grand Forks, N. D., Human Nutrition

Research Center, Lukaski wanted to fill in the limited data on

low-zinc intake.

He focused on a zinc-containing enzyme--carbonic

anhydrase--in red blood cells. The enzyme helps red blood cells

pick up carbon dioxide and drop it off in the lungs to be exhaled.

This exchange helps maintain the chemical environment muscle

cells need to contract and produce energy. If the exchange is

sluggish, the athlete pays the price in performance.

For nine weeks each, the men ate a diet containing 18 milligrams

of zinc per day--slightly more than the recommended

amount--and another containing only 3 mg/day--one fifth of the

recommendation.

After the low-zinc diet, the men had significant drops in peak

oxygen uptake and peak carbon dioxide output as they cycled

all-out on an ergometer. Their respiratory exchange ratios also

dropped, indicating energy production during peak exercise was

Athletes Need Enough Zinc / August 17, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990817.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:50 PM]
not up to snuff.

The low-zinc diet also depressed these measurements while the

men cycled at 75 percent of peak capacity. The activity of the

carbonic anhydrase enzyme also was lower after the low-zinc

diet.

The recommended 12-15 mg/day is adequate for peak

performance. Supplementing with several times that level can

cause health risks, researchers caution.

Scientific contact: Henry C. Lukaski, ARS Grand Forks Human

Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D., phone (701)

795-8355, fax (701) 795-8395, hlukaski@gfhnrc.ars.usda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Athletes Need Enough Zinc / August 17, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990817.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:50 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

News and Information

Updated: August 20, 1999

Dioxin Advisories and Guidance

Dioxin and Imports from the European Union (1999)

Statements Issued by FSIS

❍ Statement by Thomas J. Billy (August 16, 1999)

❍ Statement by Thomas J. Billy (August 2, 1999)

❍ Statement by Thomas J. Billy (July 20, 1999)

❍ Statement by Associate Administrator Margaret Glavin (July 2, 1999)

❍ Statement by Administrator Thomas Billy (June 18, 1999)

❍ Statement by Administrator Tom Billy (June 11, 1999)

❍ Statement by Acting Administrator Mark Mina (June 3, 1999)

● 

Statements Issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

❍ Pesticides, Metals & Chemical Contaminants page: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/pestadd.html

● 

Belgian Federal Government On line

Contamination of animal feedstuffs with

dioxin: http://dioxin.fgov.be/pa/ena_frame.htm 

❍ 

❍ FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions: http://dioxines.advalvas.be/en.html

● 

General and Scientific Information About Dioxin

(These are only examples of many general reference materials available. These are not FSIS

materials, and you will be exiting the FSIS Web site.)

Dioxin Research at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS):

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/dioxin.htm

● 

Dioxin, A Technical Review; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Northeast Center for

Comparative Risk: http://www.epa.gov/docs/futures/risk/nccr/dioxin.txt.html

● 

Dioxin and Related Compounds, EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment:

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin.htm

● 

Dioxin Advisories

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/dioxmenu.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:56 PM]
Dioxin in Livestock, Poultry, and Eggs: Guidance Documents, 1997-98

● Memorandum from Mark Mina to Plant Managers (January 8, 1998)

Memorandum from Mark Mina to Owners and Custodians of Poultry, Livestock and Eggs (September 17,

1997)

● 

● Guidance for Reprocessing of Broilers Exposed to Dioxin-Contaminated Feed (July 13, 1997)

● Memorandum from Mark Mina to Industry Groups (July 10, 1997)

● Memorandum from Mark Mina to District Managers (July 9, 1997)

● Advisory to Owners and Custodians of Poultry, Livestock and Eggs (July 8, 1997)

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/dioxmenu.htm

FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Dioxin Advisories

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/dioxmenu.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:19:56 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

The Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on Food

and Kindred Products Prices: An Analysis of Price

Pass-Through

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. You can download and get help using the Adobe

Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

The Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on Food and Kindred Products Prices: An Analysis of

Price Pass-Through. By Chinkook Lee and Brian O'Roark, Food and Rural Economics Division, ERS,

USDA.

Technical Bulletin No. 1877 (TB-1877).

Abstract

An input-output model is used to analyze price pass-through effects of a minimum wage increase on

prices of the food and kindred products and food-service industries. These sectors employ a

disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, but results suggest a $0.50 increase in the present

minimum wage would increase food prices less than 1 percent for most of the 12 food and kindred

products prices and 1 percent at eating and drinking places.

Keywords: minimum wage, input-output analysis, food and kindred products industries, eating and

drinking places

● Entire report; 72 kb

Page Contact: Jack Harrison

Updated: August 6, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report--The Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on Food and Kindred Products Prices

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/tb1877/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:19:57 PM]
Welcome to the OCIO's Information Resources Management (IRM) Web Site

The IRM analyzes the impact of government-wide information management trends and develops

appropriate USDA principles, policies, and standards. It engages in strategic information management

planning; and, evaluates programs to ensure USDA-wide compliance with all applicable laws, rules,

and regulations for the Secretary and general officers of the Department.

Capital Planning and

Investment Control

a systematic approach to

selecting, managing and

evaluating information

technology (IT)

investments.

Information Security

Information security and

protection of USDA's

critical infrastructure is

important to USDA.

Information

Systems

Technology

Architecture

An open systems, disciplined and

standards-based Information Technology

(IT) architecture will best meet USDA needs

for designing and development future

information systems.

Information Technology Workforce Planning and

Development

Attracting, retaining, and

training information

technology (IT) staff has

become a critical concern

for public and private

organizations throughout the country.

USDA OCIO Information Resources Management 

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/irm/index.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:13 PM]
USDA Records

Management

Save Time

Save Money

and

Give Better Customer

Service!

Records Management is

an important part of knowledge

management. The documents listed here will

help you take charge of your files!

USDA Directives System

The USDA Directives System

serves as the online repository of

all USDA Departmental Directives.

The USDA Directives System

consists of a set of current, in-force

directives.

USDA Information

Collection

The Information

Collection process

within USDA helps

to insure that the

burden of information collected from the

public is kept to the minimum.

http://www.test.ocio.usda.gov/irm/index.html

We welcome your comments and suggestions about these pages.

For comments regarding the site:ociowebmaster@tasc.usda.gov

Last Updated: 09.30.1999

USDA OCIO Information Resources Management 

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/irm/index.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:13 PM]
U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA

COMMUNITY

FOOD

SECURITY

INITIATIVE

 

"The USDA Community Food Security Initiative

is designed to help communities build their local

food systems in order to decrease hunger,

improve nutrition, and help families move from

poverty to self-sufficiency. The Initiative is

building vital links directly between USDA and

non-profit groups, private businesses, and

ordinary citizens, as well as with state, local, and

tribal governments - all with one goal in mind:

helping Communities across America end

hunger."

- Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman

NATIONAL SUMMIT ON COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY, OCTOBER 14-15,

1999

What is the National Summit on Community Food Security?

Invitation and Program - National Summit on Community Food Security (PDF

Format - 290k)

The Community Food Service Initiative

Food Security Initiative

http://www.reeusda.gov/food_security/foodshp.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:18 PM]
Background on Community Food Security Initiative - PDF Format 28.2k

An Action Plan

Get Help in Your State (List of state Community Food Security Liasions)

Examples of Best Practices and New Commitments (PDF Format 91)

Community Food Competitive Project Grants Program

Federal Nutrition Assistance Safety Net

Gleaning and Food Recovery

The USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse

For more information, contact: Joel Berg, Coordinator of Community Food Security, USDA, Room 536-A,

14th and Independence SW, Washington, DC, 20250, phone (202) 720-5746, fax (202) 690-1131, e-mail:

joel.berg@usda.gov

dated September 1999

Food Security Initiative

http://www.reeusda.gov/food_security/foodshp.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:18 PM]
Organic Perspectives Newsletter

1999 Issues

August - Upcoming Promotional Opportunities for U.S. Exporters * News from the UK * Organics in Austria * Belgium's

Potential Growth in Organics * Organic Trade Association News * Spotlight on USDA Programs * New Attache Reports

July - Codex Approves Organic Food Guidelines * Israel's Organic Sector * EU Organic Farming on the Rise * Organics

in Mexico * New Zealand's Organic Kiwifruit Production * 'Organics in Argentina' Presentation * Organic Coffee

Association * Trends (Japanese Trade Advisor Posted to Canada) * New Attache Reports

June - National Organic Program Update * OTA to Receive MAP Funds * Codex Considers Organic Guidelines * Spain's

Organic Market * Organics in Italy * Second Organics Fair Held in Chile * Trends (EU/FAO Cotton Project, Austria's Food

Channels) * Minnesota's New Organic Initiative * New Info Source for U.S. Organic Industry

May - Update on Codex Organic Guidelines * Organics in Hungary * Canada Announces National Organic Standard *

Retailers Expand Organics in the UK * Organic Agriculture in Italy * USDA/USTR to Sponsor Public Listening Sessions on

WTO * Opportunities in Europe for U.S. Suppliers This Fall * Trends from Australia and New Zealand

April - National Organic Program Update * Organics in Poland * Organics in Brazil * New Zealand's Organic Products

Exporters Group * World Market for Organic Bananas * Update on Dutch Organic Market * Britain Boosts Organic

Subsidies * Canada Sets Up New Office for Natural Health Products * Is Internet Marketing for You? * USDA Launches

New Campaign for Small Farms

March - FAS/HTP Expands Organic Web Site * U.S. Companies Participate in Organic/Natural Foods Promotion in

Europe & BioFach * Highlights from Natural Products Expo West * Danish Government Support for Organics to Continue

* 5-Step Guide to the Dutch Organic Food Market * Organic Farming Increased in France in 1998 * Growers' Group to

Work with USDA Seed Banks

February - New Opportunity on Taiwan for U.S. Exporters * Europe's Largest Organic Shopping Center to Open in

Germany * Accessing Germany's Retail Food Sector * Brazilian Organic Vegetables Find a Market in Japan * Organics at

USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum * Iowa's Organic Agriculture Certification Program * FAS Food & Agricultural

Export Directory Available

January - National Organic Program Update * Organic Labeling Claim Allowed on U.S. Meat & Poultry Products *

Korean Economic Recovery=Opportunity for U.S. Exporters * Japan Issues Report on Organic Inspection & Certification *

Growing Dutch Interest in Organic Farming * Organic Support for British Farmers Set to Increase

Last modified: Friday, September 10, 1999

Organic Perspectives Newsletter - 1999

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/news99.html [10/5/1999 3:20:24 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Antioxidant Power of Natural

Product Supplements Highly

Variable

By Judy McBride

August 9, 1999

Chances are you'll get more protection from eating fresh fruits

and vegetables than from taking natural product supplements

claiming to be potent antioxidants. That's according to analyses

of 46 commercial preparations by researchers with the

Agricultural Research Service, the chief scientific agency of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The total antioxidant capacity of 40 berry-based supplements

ranged from 16 to 3985 ORAC units--a 249-fold difference. The

supplements tested included bilberry, cranberry, chokeberry and

elderberry extracts. Six other antioxidant products with grape

seed or pine bark extracts or pycnogenol® ranged from 16 to

8392 ORAC units--a 525-fold difference.

ORAC--short for oxygen radical absorbance capacity--measures

the ability of a chemical or biological sample to disarm oxygen

free radicals, which can precipitate a cascade of oxidative

damage in body cells. Theory holds that such damage is behind

heart disease, cancer and other diseases of aging. So antioxidant

supplements are gaining popularity.

The results remind consumers that there are no industry

standards for the antioxidant capacity of natural product

supplements and thus little assurance of a high quality product,

according to ARS chemists Ron Prior and Guohua Cao at the

USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts in

Boston, Mass.

Prior and Cao report their findings in the summer issue of the

Antioxidant Power of Natural Product Supplements Highly Variable / August 9, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990809.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:26 PM]
Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association. An abstract

of the article will appear on the Web at:

http://www.americanutra.com

The researchers point out that a single serving of fresh or freshly

cooked fruits or vegetables supplies an average of 300 to 400

ORAC units. Many fruits and vegetables--such as berries, plums,

oranges, leafy greens and beets--provide much higher

antioxidant levels. By contrast 28 of the 40 berry extracts tested

and one of the six other products wouldn't provide 300 ORAC

units in a day's suggested intake.

Scientific contact: Ronald L. Prior, phone (617) 556-3311, or

Guohua Cao, phone (617) 556-3141, USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, Mass., fax (617)

556-3299, prior@hnrc.tufts.edu, cao_am@hnrc.tufts.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Antioxidant Power of Natural Product Supplements Highly Variable / August 9, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990809.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:26 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

FoodReview: 1998 Annual Spotlight on the U.S.

Food System

Managing Editor: Linda Hatcher, 202-694-5121

FoodReview is published three times a year by the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Annual and multiyear subscriptions are available

from the ERS-NASS Sales Desk. The publication is also available electronically. The contents section at

the bottom of this page links to each article in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

This issue is Volume 21, Issue 3; it was released in August 1999.

Article Summaries

U.S. PER CAPITA FOOD SUPPLY TRENDS--The American diet has changed considerably over the

last two decades. Beef consumption, for example, fell 26 percent between 1977 and 1997, while chicken

consumption rose 75 percent, turkey 101 percent, and fish and shellfish 15 percent. Fresh fruits and

vegetables reached record levels in 1997, with fresh mangoes one of the biggest gainers, increasing 881

percent between 1977 and 1997. For more information, contact: Judy Putnam, 202-694-5462,

jjputnam@econ.ag.gov.

HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER ON FAT CONSUMPTION?--Fat consumption in the United

States is one of the most closely watched and frequently reported on aspects of our diet. Per capita

consumption of added fats, such as shortening and salad and cooking oils, peaked in 1993 and has been

declining since. New technologies, especially fat substitutes, may help to further boost the sale of low-fat

foods. For more information, contact: Scott Sanford, 202-720-3392, scott_sanford@wdc.fsa.usda.gov.

SPOTLIGHT: NATIONAL FOOD SPENDING--SPENDING FOR FOOD INCREASED

ALMOST 4 PERCENT IN 1997--Food spending in the United States rose 3.9 percent to $714.9 billion

between 1996 and 1997. Total expenditures for eating out (food away from home) also rose 3.9 percent,

to $320.3 billion in 1997. This increase is higher than the 2.8-percent rise in 1996. Retail food

expenditures (food at home) also increased at a slightly higher pace than in 1996, up 3.8 percent to

$394.6 billion. For more information, contact: Annette Clauson, 202-694-5373, aclauson@econ.ag.gov.

MARKETING BILL ROSE, WHILE FARM VALUE DECLINED IN 1997--Consumers spent

$561.1 billion on domestically produced food in 1997, $14 billion more than in 1996. Consumer

expenditures for domestic farm foods in 1997 rose approximately 2.6 percent, which was smaller than

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/sept98/index.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:20:33 PM]
both the 3.2-percent rise of 1996 and the 4.1-percent average annual increase of the last decade. For more

information, contact: Howard Elitzak, 202-694-5375, helitzak@econ.ag.gov.

NATURAL FOODS SUPERMARKETS GAINING IN POPULARITY--Natural foods supermarkets

are achieving record growth as they gain acceptance from more and more health-oriented consumers.

The outgrowth of the earlier health-food stores, natural foods supermarkets have expanded in size to

accommodate all the departments of a traditional supermarket, including prepared foods and meals. For

more information, contact: Phil R. Kaufman, 202-694-5389, pkaufman@econ.ag.gov.

SALES OF MEALS AND SNACKS AWAY FROM HOME CONTINUE TO INCREASE--The

market for food away from home continues to grow—from $183 billion in sales (excluding sales tax and

tips) in 1987 to $290 billion in 1997. Over the decade, sales of these foodservice establishments

increased an average of 4.8 percent annually, or about 1.7 percent per year when adjusted for inflation.

For more information, contact: Charlene C. Price, 202-694-5384, ccprice@econ.ag.gov.

NONTRADITIONAL RETAILERS ARE CHALLENGING TRADITIONAL GROCERY

STORES--Traditional grocery stores, such as supermarkets, smaller full-line foodstores, and

convenience stores, are competing increasingly with other nontraditional retail outlets that offer many

food and nonfood products typically found in grocery stores. For more information, contact: Phil R.

Kaufman, 202-694-5389, pkaufman@econ.ag.gov.

FOOD SAFETY AT A GLANCE--Consumers rank safety among top concerns about food. Fact is,

foodborne illness costs society billions of dollars each year in medical costs and productivity losses. This

“At a Glance” lists sources of foodborne illness, who is most at risk for foodborne illness, new programs

to promote food safety, and who is responsible for food safety. For more information, contact: Steve

Crutchfield, 202-694-5460, scrutch@econ.ag.gov.

SPOTLIGHT: FOOD ASSISTANCE--DOMESTIC FOOD ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

CONTINUE TO DECLINE--USDA’s spending on domestic food-assistance programs totaled about

$17.7 billion during the first 6 months of fiscal 1998 (October 1997-March 1998), almost 7 percent less

than in the same period in fiscal 1997. If this trend continues for the entire year, it will be the second

consecutive year in which annual expenditures on food-assistance programs declined from the previous

year. (In fiscal 1997, total annual food-assistance expenditures fell 6 percent, the first decrease since

fiscal 1982.) For more information, contact: Victor Oliveira, 202-694-5434, victoro@econ.ag.gov.

PROCESSED FOOD TRADE SURPLUS NARROWED IN 1997--U.S. exports of processed food

and beverages have been growing faster than exports of raw agricultural commodities, and now account

for over half of total agricultural exports. In 1997, sales from U.S.-owned food processing plants abroad

totaled about $134 billion—over four times larger than U.S. processed food exports. For more

information, contact: Charles R. Handy, 202-694-5385, chandy@econ.ag.gov.

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document. This format is used to preserve all of the content

and layout used in our hardcopy publication.

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/sept98/index.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:20:33 PM]
Contents

● Frontmatter (Upfront, Contents), 37 kb

● U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends, 71 kb

● Have We Turned the Corner on Fat Consumption?, 35 kb

● Spotlight: National Food Spending--Spending for Food Increased Almost 4 Percent in 1997, 23 kb

● Marketing Bill Rose, While Farm Value Declined in 1997, 67 kb

● Natural Foods Supermarkets Gaining in Popularity, 25 kb

● Sales of Meals and Snacks Away From Home Continue to Increase, 21 kb

● Nontraditional Retailers Are Challenging Traditional Grocery Stores, 29 kb

● Food Safety at a Glance, 42 kb

● Spotlight: Food Assistance--Domestic Food Assistance Expenditures Continue to Decline, 18 kb

Processed Food Trade Surplus Narrowed in 1997, 40 kb

Download entire issue, 343 kb.

● 

Archives of Past Issues

Top of Page

Contact: Deana Kussman

Updated: July 28, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/sept98/index.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:20:33 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Food Safety Features

August 1999

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

Outdoor activities are popular with Americans nationwide. The fresh air and exercise revives the spirit and the

mind. Hiking, camping, and boating are good activities for active people and families, and in some parts of the

country you can enjoy the outdoors for 2 or 3 seasons. In many cases, these activities last all day and involve

preparing at least one meal. If the food is not handled correctly, foodborne illness can be an unwelcome souvenir.

"Keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold."

Whether you are in your kitchen or enjoying the great outdoors, there are some food safety principles that remain

constant. The first is "Keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold." Meat and poultry products may contain bacteria

that cause foodborne illness. They must be cooked to destroy these bacteria and held at temperatures that are

either too hot or too cold for these bacteria to grow.

Most bacteria do not grow rapidly at temperatures below 40 °F or above 140 °F. The temperature range in

between is known as the "Danger Zone." Bacteria multiply rapidly at these temperatures and can reach dangerous

levels within 2 hours.

If you are traveling with cold foods, bring a cooler with a cold source. If you are cooking, use a hot campfire or

portable stove. It is difficult to keep foods hot without a heat source when traveling, so it’s best to cook foods

before leaving home, cool them, and transport them cold.

"Keep everything clean."

The second principle is that bacteria present on raw meat and poultry products can be easily spread to other foods

by juices dripping from packages, hands, or utensils. This is called cross-contamination. When transporting raw

meat or poultry, double wrap or place the packages in plastic bags to prevent juices from the raw product from

dripping on other foods. Always wash your hands before and after handling food, and don’t use the same platter

and utensils for raw and cooked meat and poultry. Soap and water are essential to cleanliness, so if you are going

somewhere that will not have running water, bring it with you. Even disposable wipes will do.

Food Safety While Hiking and Camping

Sometimes you just have to get out and walk around in the solitude and beauty of our country. You may want to

hike for just a few hours, or you may want to hike for a few days. One meal and some snacks are all that’s needed

for a short hike. Planning meals for a longer hike requires more thought. You have to choose foods that are light

enough to carry in a backpack and that can be transported safely.

Hot or Cold?

The first principle is to keep foods either hot or cold. Since it is difficult to keep foods hot without a heat source

(although the new insulated casserole dishes will keep things hot for an hour or so), it is best to transport chilled

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (1 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
foods. Refrigerate or freeze the food overnight. For a cold source, bring frozen gel-packs or freeze some box

drinks. The drinks will thaw as you hike and keep your meal cold at the same time. What foods to bring? For a

day hike, just about anything will do as long as you can fit it in your backpack and keep it cold – sandwiches,

fried chicken, bread and cheese, and even salads – or choose non-perishable foods.

Clean

The second principle is to keep everything clean, so remember to bring disposable wipes if you are taking a day

trip. (Water is too heavy to bring enough for cleaning dishes!)

Safe Drinking Water

It is not a good idea to depend on fresh water from a lake or stream for drinking, no matter how clean it appears.

Some pathogens thrive in remote mountain lakes or streams and there is no way to know what might have fallen

into the water upstream. Bring bottled or tap water for drinking. Always start out with a full water bottle, and

replenish your supply from tested public systems when possible. On long trips you can find water in streams,

lakes, and springs, but be sure to purify any water from the wild, no matter how clean it appears.

The surest way to make water safe is to boil it. Boiling will kill microorganisms. First, bring water to a rolling

boil, and then continue boiling for 1 minute. Before heating, muddy water should be allowed to stand for a while

to allow the silt to settle to the bottom. Dip the clear water off the top and boil. At higher elevations, where the

boiling point of water is lower, boil for several minutes.

As an alternative to boiling water, you can also use water purification tablets and water filters. The purification

tablets – which contain iodine, halazone, or chlorine – kill most waterborne bacteria, viruses, and some (but not

all) parasites. Because some parasites – such as Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia, and larger bacteria –

are not killed by purification tablets, you must also use a water filter. These water filtering devices must be 1

micron absolute or smaller. Over time purification tablets lose their potency, so keep your supply fresh. Water

sanitizing tablets for washing dishes can also be purchased (just don’t confuse the two). Water purification

tablets, filters, and sanitizing tablets can be purchased at camping supply stores.

What Foods to Bring?

If you are backpacking for more than a day, the food situation gets a little more complicated. You can still bring

cold foods for the first day, but you’ll have to pack shelf-stable items for the next day. Canned goods are safe, but

heavy, so plan your menu carefully. Advances in food technology have produced relatively lightweight staples

that don’t need refrigeration or careful packaging. For example:

● peanut butter in plastic jars;

● concentrated juice boxes;

● canned tuna, ham, chicken, and beef;

● dried noodles and soups;

● beef jerky and other dried meats;

● dehydrated foods;

● dried fruits and nuts; and

● powdered milk and fruit drinks.

Powdered mixes for biscuits or pancakes are easy to carry and prepare, as is dried pasta. There are plenty of

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (2 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
powdered sauce mixes that can be used over pasta, but check the required ingredient list. Carry items like dried

pasta, rice, and baking mixes in plastic bags and take only the amount you’ll need.

Cooking at Camp

After you have decided on a menu, you need to plan how you will prepare the food. You’ll want to take as few

pots as possible (they’re heavy!). Camping supply stores sell lightweight cooking gear that nest together, but you

can also use aluminum foil wrap and pans for cooking.

You’ll need to decide in advance how you will cook. Will you bring along a portable stove, or will you build a

campfire? Many camping areas prohibit campfires, so check first or assume you will have to take a stove. Make

sure to bring any equipment you will need. If you are bringing a camp stove, practice putting it together and

lighting it before you pack. If you build a campfire, carefully extinguish the fire and dispose of the ashes before

breaking camp. Likewise, leftover food should be burned, not dumped. Lastly, be sure to pack garbage bags to

dispose of any other trash, and carry it out with you.

Use a Food Thermometer

Another important piece of camping equipment is a food thermometer. If you are cooking meat or poultry on a

portable stove or over a fire, you’ll need a way to determine when it is done and safe to eat. Color is not a reliable

indicator of doneness, and it can be especially tricky to tell the color of a food if you are cooking in a wooded

area in the evening.

When cooking hamburger patties on a grill or portable stove, use a digital thermometer to measure the

temperature. Digital thermometers register the temperature in the very tip of the probe, so the safety of thin foods

-- such as hamburger patties and boneless chicken breasts -- as well as thicker foods can be determined. A dial

thermometer determines the temperature of a food by averaging the temperature along the stem and, therefore,

should be inserted 2 to 2 1⁄2 inches into the food. If the food is thin, the probe must be inserted sideways into the

food.

It is critical to use a food thermometer when cooking hamburgers. Ground beef may be contaminated with E. coli

O157:H7, a particularly dangerous strain of bacteria. Illnesses have occurred even when ground beef patties were

cooked until there was no visible pink. The only way to insure that ground beef patties are safely cooked is to use

a food thermometer, and cook the patty until it reaches 160 ° F. For chicken, cook breasts or cutlets to 170 °F;

legs and thighs to 180 °F. Pork should be cooked to 160 ° F. Heat hot dogs and any leftover food to 165 °F. Be

sure to clean the thermometer between uses.

Keeping Cold

If you are "car camping" (driving to your site), you don’t have quite as many restrictions. First, you will have the

luxury of bringing a cooler. What kind of cooler? Foam chests are lightweight, low cost, and have good "cold

retention" power. But they are fragile and may not last through numerous outings. Plastic, fiberglass, or steel

coolers are more durable and can take a lot of outdoor wear. They also have excellent "cold retention" power, but,

once filled, larger models may weigh 30 or 40 pounds.

To keep foods cold, you’ll need a cold source. A block of ice keeps longer than ice cubes. Before leaving home,

freeze clean, empty milk cartons filled with water to make blocks of ice, or use frozen gel-packs. Fill the cooler

with cold or frozen foods. Pack foods in reverse order. First foods packed should be the last foods used. (There is

one exception: pack raw meat or poultry below ready-to-eat foods to prevent raw meat or poultry juices from

dripping on the other foods.) Take foods in the smallest quantity needed (e.g., a small jar of mayonnaise). In the

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (3 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
car, put the ice chest in the air-conditioned passenger section, not in the trunk. At the campsite, insulate the cooler

with a blanket, tarp, or poncho. When the camping trip is over, discard all perishable foods if there is no longer

ice in the cooler or if the gel-pack is no longer frozen.

Cleanup

Whether taking a hike or camping at an established site, if you will be washing dishes or cookware, there are

some rules to follow. Camping supply stores sell biodegradable camping soap in liquid and solid forms. But use it

sparingly, and keep it out of rivers, lakes, streams, and springs, as it will pollute. If you use soap to clean your

pots, wash the pots at the campsite, not at the water’s edge. Dump dirty water on dry ground, well away from

fresh water. Some wilderness campers use baking soda to wash their utensils. Pack disposable wipes for hands

and quick cleanups.

Food Safety While Boating

Keeping food safe for a day on the boat may not be quite as challenging as for a hike, but when you are out on the

water, the direct sunlight can be an even bigger food safety problem. Remember the "Danger Zone"? It is true that

bacteria multiply rapidly at warm temperatures, and food can become unsafe if held in the "Danger Zone" for

over 2 hours. At 90 °F or above, food can become dangerous after only 1 hour. In direct sunlight, temperatures

can climb even higher than that. So bring along plenty of ice, and keep the cooler shaded or covered with a

blanket.

Keep Your Cooler Cool

A cooler for perishable food is essential. It is important to keep it closed, out of the sun, and covered, if possible,

for further insulation. Better yet, bring two coolers: one for drinks and snacks, and another for more perishable

food. The drink cooler will be opened and closed a lot, which lets hot air in and causes the ice to melt faster. Pack

your coolers with several inches of ice, blocks of ice, or frozen gel-packs. Store food in watertight containers to

prevent contact with melting ice water.

Keep Cold Foods Cold

Perishable foods, like luncheon meats, cooked chicken (Yes, that includes fried chicken!), and potato or pasta

salads, should be kept in the cooler. Remember the rule: hot foods hot, cold foods cold? And the 2-hour rule: no

food should be in the "Danger Zone" for more than 2 hours? Well, unless you plan to eat that bucket of fried

chicken within 2 hours of purchase, it needs to be kept in the cooler. For optimum safety, consider buying it the

night before, refrigerating it in a shallow container (not the bucket), and then packing it cold in the cooler.

Of course, some foods don’t need to be stored in the cooler: fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, trail mix, canned

meat spreads, and peanut butter and jelly. (However, once canned foods are opened, put them in the cooler.)

If you don’t have an insulated cooler, try freezing sandwiches for your outing. Use coarse-textured breads that

don’t get soggy when thawed. Take the mayonnaise, lettuce, and tomato with you to add at mealtime. In a pinch,

a heavy cardboard box lined with plastic bags and packed with frozen gel packs or ice will keep things cold until

lunchtime. Freeze water in milk cartons for your cold source.

Seafood

If you are planning to fish, check with your fish and game agency or state health department to see where you can

fish safely, then follow these guidelines:

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (4 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
Finfish:

● Scale, gut, and clean fish as soon as they’re caught.

Live fish can be kept on stringers or in live wells, as long as they have enough water and enough room to

move and breathe.

● 

● Wrap fish, both whole and cleaned, in water-tight plastic and store on ice.

● Keep 3 to 4 inches of ice on the bottom of the cooler. Alternate layers of fish and ice.

● Store the cooler out of the sun and cover with a blanket.

Once home, eat fresh fish within 1 to 2 days or freeze them. For top quality, use frozen fish within 3 to 6

months.

● 

Shellfish:

● Crabs, lobsters, and other shellfish must be kept alive until cooked.

● Store in live wells or out of water in a bushel or laundry basket under wet burlap or seaweed.

● Crabs and lobsters are best eaten the day they’re caught.

● Live oysters should be cooked within 7 to 10 days.

● Live mussels and clams should be cooked within 4 to 5 days.

Eating raw shellfish is extremely dangerous. People with liver disorders or weakened immune systems are

especially at risk.

● 

Cleanup

Cleanup on the boat is similar to cleanup in the wild. Bring disposable wipes for handwashing, and bag up all

your trash to dispose of when you return to shore.

General Rules for Outdoor Food Safety

Plan ahead: decide what you are going to eat and how you are going to cook it; then plan what equipment you

will need.

Pack safely: use a cooler if car-camping or boating, or pack foods in the frozen state with a cold source if

hiking or backpacking. Keep raw foods separate from other foods. Never bring meat or poultry products

without a cold source to keep them safe.

● 

● Bring disposable wipes or biodegradable soap for hand- and dishwashing.

● Plan on carrying bottled water for drinking. Otherwise, boil water or use water purification tablets.

● Burn leftover food and carry trash back with you. Do not leave trash in the wild or throw it off your boat.

● If using a cooler, leftover food is safe only if the cooler still has ice in it. Otherwise, discard leftover food.

Whether in the wild or on the high seas, protect yourself and your family by washing your hands before

and after handling food.

● 

For additional food safety information about meat, poultry, or eggs, call the toll-free USDA Meat and

Poultry Hotline at 1 (800) 535-4555; Washington, DC area, (202) 720-3333; TTY: 1 (800) 256-7072. It is

staffed by home economists, registered dietitians, and food technologists weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Eastern time, year round. An extensive selection of food safety recordings can be heard 24 hours a day

using a touch-tone phone.

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (5 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
The media may call Diane Van, Acting Manager, USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, at (202) 720-5604.

Information is also available from the FSIS Web site: www.fsis.usda.gov

"The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

For Further Information Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education Staff

Meat and Poultry Hotline:

● 1-800-535-4555 (Tollfree Nationwide)

● (202) 720-3333 (Washington, DC area)

● 1-800-256-7072 (TDD/TTY)

Consumer Publications List | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Food Safety While Hiking, Camping, and Boating

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/hcb.htm (6 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:20:35 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States - Database Search

211 commodity groups; over 250 countries and regions; 10 years of data; 795,000 data records

[ About FATUS | Ag Trade Briefing Room ]

U.S. Agricultural Exports - 1997/98 Calendar Years [ more years ]

Commodity Report

(exports to all countries)

Sample layout

Country Report

(exports of all products)

Sample layout

Contact: Carol Whitton

Updated: July 20, 1999

Database updated February 1999 with information through December 1998

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

FATUS Database Search

http://www.econ.ag.gov/db/FATUS/index.asp?Type=XS [10/5/1999 3:20:42 PM]
August 1999

Volume XI, No. 8

Features

ASEAN Market Trends: Cause for Concern or Hopeful

Portents?

Here’s a look at region-wide trends and individual market prospects in ASEAN

countries.

The Financial Crisis and ASEAN: Root

Causes, Market Effects–and a Silver Lining

Until mid-1997, Southeast Asia’s emerging economies offered U.S. agricultural exporters

some of their most robust and fastest growing markets. What went wrong, what’s being done

about it and when will things improve?

How Exports Are Faring in ASEAN’s Rough Waters

Even in the face of today’s slump, the mid-1990's stand as a reminder of the true market potential of the ASEAN

region.

Signs Point to a Recovering Korea

Stay tuned! Despite a recent serious downturn, Korea is on the mend–and still ranks

among the top economies in the world.

August 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 8

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/aug99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:50 PM]
Dalian, Snapshot of a Typical Chinese City

Amidst the bright market glow of Shanghai, perhaps your product looks like a winner.

But how will it play in Dalian?

Frozen Vegetables Grow

Popular on Taiwan

More and more, mothers on Taiwan admonish

their offspring to finish their (U.S.-grown)

corn, broccoli, peas and cauliflower.

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Priscilla B. Glynn

Jeanne McLaughlin

Marlene Phillips

Eric Van Chantfort

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. (703) 605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Tuesday, August 03, 1999

August 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 8

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/aug99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:50 PM]
Natural Disaster

Assistance

Please select your

desired topic by

'clicking' on the photo

below.

Farm Service Agency Programs

Natural disaster is a constant threat to America’s farmers and ranchers. From

drought to flood, freeze, tornadoes, or other calamity, natural events can severely

hurt even the best run agricultural operation.

But farmers don’t have to face a natural disaster alone. The Farm Service

Agency (FSA), an Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA), stands ready to help.

If your farming or ranching operation has suffered a loss due to a natural

disaster, you may be eligible for assistance under one or more of the following

FSA programs:

Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program

The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program

(NAP)

Emergency Loan (EM) Assistance

Emergency Haying and Grazing

Assistance

This document tells you what kind of help is available, who may be eligible for it,

and how to go about applying for FSA emergency assistance.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation and

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Crop Loss Disaster

Assistance Program

The Emergency

Conservation Program

(ECP)

The Noninsured Crop

Disaster Assistance

Program (NAP)

USDA, Farm Service Agency - Natural Disaster Assistance

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/disaster/assistance1.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:59 PM]
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964

(voice or TDD).

USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.

Emergency Loan (EM)

Assistance

Emergency Haying and

Grazing Assistance

Where Can I Apply for

FSA Emergency

Assistance?

[ FSA Home Page | Comments | USDA Home Page ]

USDA, Farm Service Agency - Natural Disaster Assistance

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/disaster/assistance1.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:20:59 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Impacts of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops

in the U.S. -- Preliminary Results

July 20, 1999

Genetic engineering is a technique used to alter or move genetic material (genes) of living cells. (A

number of the terms used in this article are defined in Agricultural Biotechnology Concepts and

Definitions). U.S. acreage using genetically engineered crops has increased from about 8 million acres in

1996 to more than 50 million acres in 1998, in major states where data have been collected (see

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management, also in this Issues Center). Has adoption of this

technology benefited farmers and the environment?

Answering this question is not easy, even though survey data have been collected on the characteristics

and performance of farms adopting biotech crops. Attributing differences in yields, pesticide use, and

profits between adopters and nonadopters observed in the data solely to adoption of genetically

engineered crops is nearly impossible because many other factors also affect yield and pesticide use. For

example, producers with more favorable soils and climate may have higher yields than those operating

under less favorable conditions, whether they used herbicide-tolerant varieties or not. Producers in areas

of greater pest pressure may use more pesticide applications than those with fewer pest problems, despite

adopting Bt crops.

However, the impacts of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) adoption can be explored by

statistically controlling for other factors that also affect the impact. Multivariate regression modeling in

effect decomposes the influence various factors exert on the decision to adopt GMO technology, and the

influence of other factors on yields, pesticide use, and variable profits. This report summarizes

preliminary findings from such models using 1997 survey data.

Factors Affecting Adoption

What combination of producer characteristics and resource conditions are associated with greater

probability of adopting GMO technology? Variables examined included farm size, operator education

and experience, target pest for insecticide use, seed price, debt-to-assets ratio, use of marketing or

ERS Issues Center--GMO

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:01 PM]
production contracts, irrigation, crop price, and use of consultants The statistical significance and

importance of these variables varied among crops and technologies, illustrated by the cases of

herbicide-resistant soybeans and Bt cotton.

Herbicide-resistant soybeans--Larger operations and more educated operators are more likely to use

herbicide-tolerant soybean seed. As economists have observed in other cases, expected profitability

positively influences the adoption of agricultural innovations. Thus, average crop price is a statistically

significant and positive factor influencing adoption. Use of conventional tillage is another significant

factor that reduces adoption, since farmers use conventional tillage to help control weeds, while

herbicides are used with conservation or no-till practices. Weed infestation levels and seed price were

positively correlated with adoption, with adopters preferring more expensive, higher quality seed, even

excluding technical fees for herbicide-resistant varieties.

Bt Cotton--Adoption of insect-resistant cotton was only modeled in the Southeast (AL, GA, NC, SC)

because insecticide use in this region was less affected by routine spraying regimes unrelated to the use

of Bt cotton, such as boll weevil control in other producing regions, notably Mississippi. Production and

marketing contracts and seed price were statistically significant variables positively associated with the

adoption of Bt cotton. Presence of insect pests targeted for insecticide use was also statistically

significant, but negative: more target pests treated with traditional synthetic insecticides are associated

with lower Bt cotton adoption levels.

Modeling Impacts of Adoption

Given a specific level of GMO adoption, the impact can be assessed by controlling for the many factors

that also contribute to that impact, in addition to using GMO seeds. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and

cotton and Bt-enhanced cotton crops are modeled individually. In each model, pest infestation levels,

other pest management practices, crop rotations, and tillage are controlled for statistically. Geographic

location is included as a proxy for soil, climate, and agricultural practice differences that might influence

impacts of adoption. In addition, the impact model includes correction factors (obtained from the

adoption model) to control for self-selection of the technology due to differences in producer

characteristics between adopters and nonadopters

Results of such modeling can be interpreted as an elasticity-- the change in a particular impact (yields,

pesticide use or profits) relative to a small change in adoption of the technology from current levels. The

results can be viewed in terms of aggregate impacts across the entire agricultural sector as more and

more producers adopt the technology, or in terms of a typical farm as they use the technology on more

and more of their land. As with most cases in economics, the elasticities estimated in the quantitative

model should only be used to examine small changes (say, less than 10 percent) away from current levels

of adoption.

Impacts From Adopting Herbicide-Tolerant Crops

Cotton production relies heavily upon herbicides to control weeds, often requiring applications of two or

more herbicides at planting and postemergence herbicides later in the season. Close to 28 million pounds

of herbicides were applied to 97 percent of the 13 million acres devoted to upland cotton production in

the 12 major states in 1997. In 1997, increases in adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton are estimated to

have increased yields, leading to increased variable profits (see Table 1, Impact of Adoption of

ERS Issues Center--GMO

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:01 PM]
Herbicide-Tolerant and Insect-Resistant Crops). However, no statistically significant change in herbicide

use on cotton was observed in 1997.

By contrast, increased use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans (17 percent of 1997 soybean acres) produced

only a small increase in yield, and no significant change in variable profits in 1997. Soybean production

in the U.S. uses a large amount of herbicides, and 97 percent of the 66.2 million acres devoted to soybean

production in the 19 major states were treated with more than 78 million pounds of herbicides in 1997.

Genetic engineering produces tolerance to glyphosate herbicide in soybeans, of which 15 million pounds

were used in 1997. However, almost two-thirds of the herbicides used on soybeans were other synthetic

materials. As GMO adoption increased, use of glyphosate herbicide (such as Roundup©) also increased

but use of other synthetic herbicides decreased by a larger amount. The net result was a decrease in the

overall pounds of herbicide applied.

Impacts From Adopting Insect-Resistant Cotton

Cotton production uses a large amount of insecticides and 77 percent of the 13 million acres devoted to

upland cotton production in the 12 major states were treated with 18 million pounds of insecticides in

1997. Malathion was the top insecticide used on cotton, with farmers applying more than 7 million

pounds of this chemical in 1997. Aldicarb was second (2.4 million pounds), followed by methyl

parathion (2 million pounds), and acephate (0.9 million pounds).

In 1997, an increase in adoption of Bt cotton in the Southeast (to 22 percent of cotton acres) led to an

increase in cotton yields and variable profits (see Table 1, Impact of Adoption of Herbicide-Tolerant and

Insect-Resistant Crops). While use of organophosphate insecticides and pyrethroid insecticides did not

have significant changes associated with an increase in Bt adoption, there was a significant decrease in

other insecticides, such as aldicarb.

Summary

Statistically controlling for factors other than adoption of genetically engineered seeds allows an

understanding of the likely impacts of marginal changes in adoption on yields, profits, and pesticide use.

Impacts vary with the crop and technology examined. Increases in adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton

were associated with significant increases in yields and variable profits, but were not associated with

significant changes in herbicide use. Increases in adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans were associated

with small increases in yields and variable profits, and significant decreases in herbicide use. Increases in

adoption of Bt cotton resistant to insects in the Southeast were associated with significant increases in

yields and profits and decreased insecticide use.

For more information, contact Kitty Smith, 202-694-5500, or Ralph Heimlich, 202-694-5504.

Links

Some of these documents are in Adobe Acrobat format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print these documents.

"Value-Enhanced Crops: Biotechnology's Next Stage," Agricultural Outlook, March 1999.

ERS Issues Center--GMO

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:01 PM]
ERS/NASS Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS) survey.

"Update on Bt Corn and Other New Technology", in Feed Yearbook, April 1999, published by ERS.

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management, in the Issues Center on the ERS website.

New Crops, New Century, New Challenges: How Will Scientists, Farmers, and Consumers Learn To

Love Biotechnology and What Happens if They Don't, a July 13, 1999, speech by Secretary of

Agriculture Dan Glickman.

Top of Page

Issues Center Front Page

Contact: Kathryn Lipton

Updated: July 20, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Issues Center--GMO

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:01 PM]
United States 

 Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology 

Responsible Agencies - Overview

The Agencies primarily responsible for regulating biotechnology in the United States are the US

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA). Products are regulated according to their intended use, with some products being

regulated under more than one agency.

Agency Products Regulated Additional Info.

U.S. Department of Agriculture plant pests, plants, veterinary biologics

USDA Contacts

Laws, Regs., Rules

Environmental Protection Agency microbial/plant pesticides, new uses of

existing pesticides, novel microorganisms

EPA Contacts

Laws, Regs., Rules

Food and Drug Administration food, feed, food additives, veterinary drugs,

human drugs and medical devices

FDA Contacts

Laws, Regs., Rules

Before commercialization, genetically engineered plants/organisms must conform with standards set by

State and Federal marketing statutes such as State seed certification laws, the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Plant Pest Act. There are no national requirements for

varietal registration of new crops.

EXAMPLES:

New Trait/Organism Regulatory Review Conducted by: Reviewed for:

Viral Resistance

in food crop

USDA

EPA

FDA

Safe to grow

Safe for the environment

Safe to eat

Herbicide Tolerance

in food crop

USDA

EPA

FDA

Safe to grow

New use of companion herbicide

Safe to eat

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (1 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
Herbicide Tolerance

in ornamental crop

USDA

EPA

Safe to grow

New use of companion herbicide

Modified Oil content

in food crop

USDA

FDA

Safe to grow

Safe to eat

Modified flower color

ornamental crop USDA Safe to grow

Modified soil bacteria

degrades pollutants EPA Safe for the environment

Agency Information

 U.S. Department of Agriculture - USDA

Within USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting US

agriculture from pests and diseases. Under the authority of the Federal Plant Pest Act, APHIS regulations

provide procedures for obtaining a permit or for providing notification, prior to "introducing" a regulated

article in the United States. Regulated articles are considered to be organisms and products altered or

produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests of that there is reason to believe are plant pests.

The act of introducing includes any movement into (import) or through (interstate) the United States, or

release into the environment outside an area of physical confinement. The regulations also provide for a

petition process for the determination of nonregulated status. Once a determination of nonregulated status

has been made, the product (and its offspring) no longer requires APHIS review for movement or release

in the US.

FIELD TRIAL APPROVALS: Available at APHIS Cooperator Web site

PRODUCT APPROVALS: Available at APHIS Web site

CONTACTS: Biotechnology Staff

Address: Biotechnology Evaluation

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

4700 River Road, Unit 147

Riverdale, MD 20737-1236

Name Title Phone/Fax

Number

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (2 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
Dr. Sally McCammon Science Advisor, APHIS 301-734-5761

301-734-5992

Rebecca A. Bech Assistant Director, Biotechnology Evaluation 301-734-8896

301-734-4300

 Environmental Protection Agency -

EPA

EPA ensures the safety of pesticides, both chemical and those that are produced biologically. The

BioPesticides and Pollution Prevention Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) uses the

authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to regulate the distribution,

sale, use and testing of plants and microbes producing pesticidal substances. Under the Federal Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA sets tolerance limits for substances used as pesticides on and in

food and feed, or establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

EPA also establishes tolerances for residues of herbicides used on novel herbicide-tolerant crops.

Under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA's TSCA Biotechnology Program

regulates microorganisms intended for commercial use that contain or express new combinations of

traits. This includes "intergeneric microorganisms" formed by deliberate combinations of genetic

material from different taxonomic genera.

FIELD TRIAL APPROVALS - PLANTS: Available from Contacts listed below

FIELD TRIAL APPROVALS - MICROBES: Available at EPA-TSCA Web site

PRODUCT APPROVALS AND TOLERANCE EXEMPTIONS

CONTACTS:

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Biotechnology Staff

Name Title Phone/Fax

Number Address

Dr. Elizabeth Milewski Advisor 202-260-6900

202-260-0949

401 M Street, S.W. (7101)

Washington, DC 20460

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (3 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics TSCA Biotechnology Program

Name Title Phone/Fax

Number Address

David Giamporcaro Chief, Biotech. Rules Program 202-260-6362

202-260-0118

401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

BioPesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) - Office of Pesticide Programs

Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

BPPD - Office of Pesticide Programs (7501W)

401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Name Title Phone/Fax

Number

Dr. Janet L. Andersen Director, BPPD 703-308-8712

703-308-7026

Dr. Phil Hutton Branch Chief, Microbial and Plant Pesticides 703/308-8260

703-308-7026

Dr. William Schneider Biotech Notifications:Small Scale Field Testing 703/308-8683

703-308-7026

 Food and Drug Administration - FDA

As a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA regulates foods and feed derived from

new plant varieties under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA policy is

based on existing food law, and requires that genetically engineered foods meet the same rigorous safety

standards as is required of all other foods. FDA's biotechnology policy treats substances intentionally

added to food through genetic engineering as food additives if they are significantly different in structure,

function, or amount than substances currently found in food. Many of the food crops currently being

developed using biotechnology do not contain substances that are significantly different from those

already in the diet and thus do not require pre-market approval. Consistent with its 1992 policy, FDA

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (4 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
expects developers to consult with the agency on safety and regulatory questions.

FINAL CONSULTATIONS: Available at FDA Web site

CONTACTS: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)

Name Title Phone/Fax

Number Address

Dr. James Maryanski Biotechnology Strategic Manager 202-205-4359

202-401-2893

200 C Street, S.W.

Washington DC 20204

Dr. Eric Flamm Microbiologist 301-827-0591

301-443-6906

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Relevant Laws - Regulations - Rules

USDA

LAWS

● Federal Plant Pest Act - 7 USC 7B

REGULATIONS

7 CFR 340 - Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic

Engineering Which are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe are Plant Pests

● 

Simplification of Requirements and Procedures for Genetically Engineered Organisms and

Products

Federal Register: May 2, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 85)

● 

Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for the Introduction of

Certain Regulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status

Federal Register: March 31, 1993 (Volume 58, Number 60)

● 

Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which

are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe are Plant Pests

Federal Register: June 16, 1987 (Volume 52, Number 115)

● 

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (5 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
EPA

LAWS

● Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) - 7 USC 136

● Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) - 21 USC 9

● Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - 15 USC 53

REGULATIONS

Regulations under FIFRA/FFDCA

40 CFR Parts 152, 172, 174, 180

Plant-Pesticides, Supplemental Notice; Proposed Rule

Federal Register: May 16, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 95)

● 

Plant-Pesticides Subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Proposed Rule

Federal Register: November 23, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 225)

● 

Microbial Pesticides: Experimental Use Permits and Notifications

Federal Register: September 1, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 169)

● 

Statement of Policy; Microbial Products Subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act (DELETE??)

Federal Register: June 26, 1986 (Volume 51, Number 123)

Regulations under TSCA

40 CFR Part 725 - Reporting Requirements and Review Processes for Microorganisms

● 

Microbial Products of Biotechnology; Final Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

Federal Register: April 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 70)

● 

FDA

LAWS

● Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) - 21 USC 9

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (6 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
REGULATIONS

Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

Federal Register: May 29, 1992 (Volume 57, Number 104)

● 

US Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm (7 of 7) [10/5/1999 3:21:08 PM]
Error processing SSI file '/briefing/fbe/july99/index.htm'

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/fbe/july99/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:21:09 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

New U.S. Farm Resource Regions

June 28, 1999

The U.S. farm sector consists of a highly diverse set of businesses and farm households committed to living in

rural areas and engaging in farm economic activities. Since the early 1900's, USDA analysts have sought to

identify patterns in U.S. farming that might further the understanding of differences in financial performance

of farms and the economic well-being of farm households.

USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) recently constructed a new set of regions depicting geographic

specialization in production of U.S. farm commodities. The new regions recognize both new capabilities and

standards in the resolution of relevant data, and overcome some longstanding problems with the older USDA

Farm Production Regions. The new ERS regions are derived from four sources: the Farm Production Regions,

a cluster analysis of U.S. farm characteristics (Sommer and Hines), the USDA Land Resource Regions, and

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Crop Reporting Districts.

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (1 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
USDA Land Resource Regions (AHB-296)

Background

County clusters, based on types of commodities produced, have shown that a few commodities tend to

dominate farm production in specific geographic areas that cut across State boundaries. The climate, soil,

water, and topography in localized geographic areas tend to constrain the types of crops and livestock that will

thrive there.

The older Farm Production Regions, in following State boundaries, necessarily group unlike areas together

because a single State often encompasses different soils and typography. For example, the old Appalachian

Region, comprised of Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia, contains the Appalachian

mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain areas, all of which have quite different agriculture.

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (2 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
Patterns of Agricultural Diversity (Sommer and Hines)

In constructing the new regions, ERS analysts identified where areas with similar types of farms intersected

with areas of similar physiographic, soil, and climatic traits, as reflected in USDA's Land Resource Regions.

ERS analysts then conformed these intersecting areas to follow the boundaries of NASS Crop Reporting

Districts (CRD), which are aggregates of counties. With more and more data available at the county level,

geographic representations need no longer be constrained to follow State boundaries.

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (3 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
NASS Crop Reporting Districts

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (4 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
Old Farm Production Regions.

What's Ahead?

The new Farm Resource Regions, by more accurately portraying the geographic distribution of U.S. farm

production, will help analysts and policymakers better understand economic and resource issues affecting

agriculture.

For information about how to aggregate County-level and CRD-level data to the Farm Resource Regions, refer

to this Read-Me file.

For more information on any aspect of this issue, contact Ralph Heimlich, phone 202-694-5504.

Links for More Information:

U.S. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas Map.

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management, in the Issues Center on the ERS website.

U.S. Farm Resource Regions

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (5 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
Top of Page

Issues Center Front Page

Contact: Kathryn Lipton

Updated: June 28, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

U.S. Farm Resource Regions--ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm (6 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:21:16 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

New Tests Quickly Diagnose

Bluetongue, Related Diseases

By Kathryn Barry Stelljes

July 29, 1999

New laboratory tests will allow scientists, regulators and

livestock producers to quickly identify animals with

bluetongue or epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD).

ARS scientists in Laramie, Wyo., have developed the first

single genetic test that distinguishes all five types of the virus

that causes bluetongue in the U.S. They’ve also developed

rapid tests that distinguish bluetongue from EHD.

Bluetongue, so named because it can cause a loss of oxygen

and a blue tinge to the tongue, affects sheep, goats, deer, elk

and antelope. Cattle can carry the virus, usually without

becoming ill. Worldwide, there are 24 strains of bluetongue

virus. Countries without bluetongue strictly regulate import

and export of livestock and related products, costing U.S.

producers about $125 million annually.

Previous tests were not always definitive, requiring additional

testing. The new test, developed by ARS microbiologist

William C. Wilson, reduces the time it takes to identify the

virus type from several days to a single day. All official

bluetongue testing in the U.S. is performed at the USDA’s

National Veterinary Service Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and

the lab has incorporated Wilson’s test into its procedures.

Wilson and ARS microbiologist James O. Mecham also

developed tests that identify the two types of EHD present in

the U.S. and distinguish them from bluetongue viruses. Both

scientists work at ARS’ Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases

Research Laboratory in Laramie.

New Tests Quickly Diagnose Bluetongue, Related Diseases / July 29, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990729.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:18 PM]
EHD can cause a bluetongue-like disease in cattle and is often

fatal to white-tailed deer. Correctly identifying which virus an

animal harbors is important for trade purposes. There is no

cure for either bluetongue or EHD.

ARS is USDA's chief scientific research agency. A detailed

story on the research appears in the agency's July Agricultural

Research magazine and on the Internet at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul99/blue0799.htm

Scientific contact: William C. Wilson or James O. Mecham,

ARS Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory,

Laramie, Wyo., phone (307) 766-3600, fax (307) 766-3500,

wcwilson@uwyo.edu (Wilson) jmecham@uwyo.edu

(Mecham).

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

New Tests Quickly Diagnose Bluetongue, Related Diseases / July 29, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990729.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:18 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Food Safety Features

July 1999

Does Washing Food Promote Food Safety?

 Historically, we equate washing to cleanliness. We wash clothes, linens, cars, dishes, and ourselves. So, it is

logical that many people believe meat and poultry can be made cleaner and safer by washing it. Is this true? Does

washing meat, poultry, eggs, fruits, and vegetables make them safer to eat?

Review of studies from several universities related to washing meat and poultry indicate that there is no benefit.

In fact, washing can allow bacteria on meat and poultry to spread to other ready-to-eat foods. But always

remember, bacteria that is present on the surface of the meat or poultry will be destroyed by cooking to a

temperature of 160 oF.

Cross-Contamination

Bacteria in raw meat and poultry juices can be spread to other foods, utensils, and surfaces. We call this

cross-contamination.

Hand washing after handling raw meat or poultry or its packaging is a necessity because anything you touch

afterwards could become contaminated. In other words, you could become ill by picking up a piece of fruit and

eating it after handling raw meat or poultry. Practice good hand washing before and after handling raw foods as

well as when using the bathroom, changing diapers, tending to a sick person, blowing your nose, sneezing and

coughing, and after petting animals.

It is important to prevent cross-contamination from raw meat or poultry juices by washing counter tops and sinks

with hot, soapy water. If desired, you may sanitize with a solution of one teaspoon of liquid chlorine bleach per

quart of water.

Packaging materials from raw meat or poultry also can cause cross-contamination. Never reuse them with other

food items. These and other disposable packaging materials, such as foam meat trays, egg cartons, or plastic

wraps, should be discarded.

Washing or Soaking Meat and Poultry

Washing raw poultry, beef, pork, lamb, or veal before cooking it is not recommended. Some consumers think

they are removing bacteria from the meat and making it safer; however, any bacteria present on the surface is

destroyed by cooking it to a temperature of 160 oF.

Callers to the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline sometimes ask about soaking poultry in salt water. This is a

personal preference and serves no purpose for food safety. If you choose to do this, however, preventing

cross-contamination when soaking and removing the poultry from the water is essential.

Sometimes consumers wash or soak ham, bacon, or salt pork because they think it reduces the sodium or salt

enough to allow these products to be eaten on a sodium-restricted diet. However, very little salt is removed by

Does Washing Food Promote Food Safety?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/washing.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:21 PM]
washing, rinsing, or soaking a meat product and is not recommended.

Washing Eggs

Do not wash eggs before storing or using them. Washing is a routine part of commercial egg processing and the

eggs do not need to be washed again. Federal regulations outline procedures and cleansers that may be used.

"Bloom", the natural coating on just-laid eggs that helps prevent bacteria from permeating the shell, is removed

by the washing process and is replaced by a light coating of edible mineral oil which restores protection. Extra

handling of the eggs, such as washing, could increase the risk of cross-contamination, especially if the shell

becomes cracked.

Washing Produce

Before eating or preparing, wash fresh produce under cold running tap water to remove any lingering dirt. This

reduces bacteria that may be present. If there is a firm surface, such as on apples or potatoes, the surface can be

scrubbed with a brush. Consumers should not wash fruits and vegetables with detergent or soap. These products

are not approved or labeled by the Food and Drug Administration for use on foods. You could ingest residues

from soap or detergent absorbed on the produce.

When preparing fruits and vegetables, cut away any damaged or bruised areas because bacteria that cause illness

can thrive in those places. Immediately refrigerate any fresh-cut items such as salad or fruit for best quality and

food safety.

For additional food safety information about meat, poultry, or eggs, call the toll-free USDA Meat and

Poultry Hotline at 1 (800) 535-4555; Washington, DC area, (202) 720-3333; TTY: 1 (800) 256-7072. It is

staffed by home economists, registered dietitians, and food technologists weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Eastern time, year round. An extensive selection of food safety recordings can be heard 24 hours a day by using a

touch-tone phone.

The media may call Diane Van, Acting Manager, USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, at (202) 720-5604.

Information is also available from the FSIS Web site: www.fsis.usda.gov

"The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

For Further Information Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education and Communications Staff

Meat and Poultry Hotline:

● 1-800-535-4555 (Tollfree Nationwide)

● (202) 720-3333 (Washington, DC area)

● 1-800-256-7072 (TDD/TTY)

Consumer Publications List | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Does Washing Food Promote Food Safety?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/washing.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:21 PM]
Livestock, Dairy and Poultry (LDP)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Timely livestock, dairy and poultry information focusing on current production, price, and trade

statistics for each of the sectors.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Livestock, Dairy and Poultry (LDP)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/ [10/5/1999 3:21:22 PM]
Agricultural Prices--Annual (ZAP-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This report contains the annual summary of indexes of prices received and paid by farmers; prices

received for farm commodities by states and prices paid for production items by region and the U.S.,

past year and earlier years.

Two file formats are available for this report. The ASCII text version omits tables when the data are

greater than 80 characters wide. The PDF files contain the entire report which can be read using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader which is free from Adobe.

Monthly updates are published within the Agricultural Prices -- Monthly Reports

Help on using these files is available.

● Agricultural Prices Annual Summary 07.23.99 [ Text | PDF ]

● Agricultural Prices Annual Summary 07.23.98 [ Text | PDF ]

● Agricultural Prices Annual Summary 07.23.97 [ Text | PDF ]

● Agricultural Prices Annual Summary 07.16.96 [ Text ]

● Agricultural Prices Annual Summary 07.14.95 [ Text ]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Agricultural Prices--Annual (ZAP-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/price/zap-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:21:29 PM]
Vegetables and Specialties (VGS-BB)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines U.S. production of vegetables and specialty crops including consumption, supply, use,

value, trade, prices, processing and more.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Vegetables and Specialties (VGS-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/specialty/vgs-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:21:30 PM]
Conservation Reserve Program

Tree Thinning

July 1999 Fact Sheet

Overview

During Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP) Signups 15, 16, and 18, some

CRP participants agreed to:

1 create and maintain open areas of

native herbaceous and/or shrub

plantings best suited for wildlife on 15

to 20 percent of the CRP acreage;

and/or

2 thin existing tree stands.

CRP offers were more likely to be

accepted because of the increased

benefit for wildlife.

Participants agreed to complete the tree

thinning and/or creation of open areas

within 3 years of the CRP contract

effective date.

Some reports from U.S. Forest Service,

industry representatives, producers, and

others have indicated that sufficient

contractors are not available to conduct

the agreed-upon tree thinning.

Time to Create Open Areas and/

or Thin Trees and Contracts Can

Be Extended 3 Years

CRP participants with practice CP11,

Trees Already Established, who agreed

to thin or establish open areas, may:

1 modify their contract by adding 3

years to the term of the contract and

to conduct agreed-upon creation of

open areas/and or thinning;

2 terminate their CRP contract without

refunds or liquidated damages; or

3 make no changes to the contract and

create open areas and/or thin trees

within the initial agreed-upon 3 years.

Adding 3 Years to Contract and

Requirement to Create Open

Areas and/or Thin Trees

CRP participants who offered to thin

existing stands or to thin existing

stands and create and maintain open

areas may take up to 6 years from the

effective date of the CRP contract to

complete the required activity provided

they also agree to modify and extend

the CRP contract for 3 additional years

with no additional annual rental payment.

Contract Termination

CRP participants who agreed to create

open areas and/or thin trees for wildlife

may terminate all or a portion of their

contract without having to refund

payments or pay liquidated damages if

the creation of open areas and/or

thinning has not been completed.

Acreage termination is irrevocable. The

acreage terminated may not be reinstated and will be ineligible to be

reoffered for enrollment.

Continuing the Contract Without

Any Changes

Participants may continue the CRP

contract that provides for creation of

open areas and/or tree thinning within 3

years of the contract’s effective date.

All terms of the contract will remain the

same.

Signup Period

CRP participants may take advantage of

these options from now through September 1, 2000.

Extending Contracts by 3 Years

CRP participants should visit their local

USDA service center and ask the Farm

Service Agency for a copy of the CRP1H Addendum, CRP-1 Modification to

Extend the Expiration Date For 3 Years.

Rental Outlays Not Increased

Remaining annual payments will be

prorated over the extended period.

The United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on

the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-

2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA.

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410, or

call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is

an equal employment opportunity employer.
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

County Courthouse Photos

Rural Development Briefing Room

What's New | Rural America at a Glance | Emerging Issues | Briefings | Data | Publications | Contacts | Links

Photos by Calvin Beale, Senior Demographer at the Economic Reseach Service.

Calvin Beale, the Senior Demographer at ERS, has visited the majority of counties in the U.S. He

typically stops at the county seat and talks to USDA staff, extension service agents, or others about the

county and current trends. Part of the visit is his photograph of the county courthouse, combining his

interests in architecture and rural small town America. In Calvin's seminars, the courthouse slides

provide a vehicle around which to discuss a county's history, what makes it unique, and issues affecting

county residents.

View the Thumbnails

State Courthouse

Alabama Bibb County Courthouse (Built 1902), Centreville, Alabama

Pickens County Courthouse (Built 1877-1878), Carrollton, Alabama

Arizona Mohave County Courthouse (Built 1914), Kingman, Arizona

California Detail of Mono County Courthouse, Brideport, California

Modoc County Courthouse (Built 1914), Alturas, California

Mono County Courthouse, Bridgeport, California

Colorado Rio Blanco County Courthouse (Built 1935), Meeker, Colorado

Georgia Berrien County Courthouse (Built 1898), Nashville, Georgia

Grady County Courthouse (Built 1908) after fire, Cairo, Georgia

Grady County Courthouse (Built 1908), Cairo, Georgia

Wilkes County Courthouse (Built 1908 - photo taken November 1969), Washington,

Georgia

Wilkes County Courthouse (Built 1908 - photo taken September 1998 after restoration),

Washington, Georgia

Idaho Washington County Courthouse (Built 1940), Weiser, Idaho

Illinois Ex-Alexander County Courthouse (Built 1848), Thebes, Illinois

Ex-State Capitol and ex-Fayette County Courthouse (Built 1836), Vandalia, Illinois

Illinois Appellate Court (Built 1851-1857), Mt. Vernon, Illinois

Massac County Courthouse and Superman statue, Metropolis, Illinois

ERS Rural Briefing Room--County Courthouse Photos

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/photos/ (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:21:37 PM]
Public Square and Macoupin County Courthouse Dome (Built 1867-1870), Carlinville,

Illinois

Indiana Johnson County Courthouse (Built 1879-81), Franklin, Indiana

Morgan County Courthouse (Built 1857), Martinsville, Indiana

Iowa Dallas County Courthouse (Built 1902), Adel, Iowa

Detail of Mitchell County Courthouse, Osage, Iowa

Michell County Courthouse (Built 1858), Osage, Iowa

Kentucky Nelson County Courthouse (Built 1891-92), Bardstown, Kentucky

Lousiana East Feliciana Parish Courthouse (Built 1840), Clinton, Lousiana

Michigan Detail of Lake County Courthouse (Built 1927), Baldwin, Michigan

Lake County Courthouse (Built 1927), Baldwin, Michigan

Minnesota Lac qui Parle County Courthouse (Built 1899), Madison, Minnesota

Mississippi Attala County Courthouse (Built 1894), Kosciusko, Mississippi

Hinds County Courthouse (Built 1857-1859), Raymond, Mississippi

Madison County Courthouse (Built 1854-1858), Canton, Mississippi

New York Chemung County Courthouse complex, Elmira, New York

Lewis County Courthouse (Built 1852 & 1948), Lowville, New York

Oneida County Courthouse (Built 1869), Rome, New York

Seneca County, ex-Courthouse clerks office and GAR buildings (The Three Bears),

Ovid, New York

Wayne County Courthouse, Lyons, New York

North Carolina Camden County Courthouse (Built 1847), Camden, North Carolina

North Dakota Emmons County Courthouse (Built 1933), Linton, North Dakota

Oregon Wheeler County Courthouse (Built 1901), Fossil, Oregon

Texas DeWitt County Courthouse (Built 1894), Cuero, Texas

Grimes County Courthouse (Built 1891), Anderson, Texas

Lee County Courthouse (Built 1899), Giddings, Texas

Vermont Windham County Courthouse (Built 1825). Newfane, Vermont

Virginia Former Prince William County Courthouse (Built 1822), Brentsville, Virginia

Frederick County Courthouse (Built 1840), Winchester, Virginia

Greene County Courthouse (Built 1838), Stanardsville, Virginia

Rappahanock County Courthouse (Built 1871) Washington, Virginia

Spotsylvania County Courthouse (Built 1839), Spotsylvania Virginia

Washington Columbia County Courthouse (Built 1887), Dayton, Washington

Garfield County Courthouse, Pomeroy, Washington

50 photos from 22 states.

Contact: Tim Parker

ERS Rural Briefing Room--County Courthouse Photos

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/photos/ (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:21:37 PM]
Updated: August 11, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Rural Briefing Room--County Courthouse Photos

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/photos/ (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:21:37 PM]
'

Farm Production Expenditures (ZPE-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This full-text file contains the annual estimates of farm production expenditures by U.S. farm

production regions and economic class for major expenses; major input items include feed, farm

services, rent, agricultural chemicals, fertilizer, lime and soil conditioners, interest, taxes (real estate

and property), labor, fuels, farm supplies and repairs, farm improvements and construction, tractors

and self-propelled farm machinery, other farm machinery, seeds and plants, trucks and autos.

Help on using these files is available.

● Farm Production Expenditures Summary 07.20.99 [ Text | PDF ]

● Farm Production Expenditures Summary 07.17.98 [ Text ]

● Farm Production Expenditures Summary 07.17.97 [ Text ]

● Farm Production Expenditures Summary 07.18.96 [ Text ]

● Farm Production Expenditures Summary 07.19.95 [ Text ]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Farm Production Expenditures (ZPE-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/price/zpe-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:21:39 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Rural Conditions and Trends

Volume 9, Number 2 (Socioeconomic Conditions Issue)

Contacts: Douglas E. Bowers (Executive Editor), 202-694-5398; Peggy Cook (Issue Editor),

202-694-5419.

Rural Conditions and Trends is published three times per year by the Economic Research Service. To

order Rural Conditions and Trends or any other ERS publication, please visit the ERS-NASS Sales

Desk.

Articles in this issue:

Overview: Recent Indicators Send Mixed Signals About Rural Economic Performance, by

Peggy Cook. Recent declines in rates of employment and population growth point to a possible

slowdown in the favorable eonomic conditions prevailing in rural areas during much of the current

decade. However, falling unemployment levels, growing per capita incomes, and rising weekly

earnings for rural workers indicate the continuation of a positive economic climate.

● 

Minorities Represent Growing Share of Tomorrow's Work Force, by Linda L. Swanson.

Minorities constitute an increasing proportion of the population, particularly among children and

younger working-age adults. Although the proportion of minorities is lower in the rural population

than in the urban population, specific minority groups are so concentrated in some rural regions

that programs and policies affecting the current economic status of minorities are highly relevant

there.

● 

Minority Counties Are Geographically Clustered, by John B. Cromartie. In 333 rural counties,

a minority group makes up one-third or more of the population. ERS delineated these counties to

help researchers and policymakers better understand the diversity of rural economic well-being

and current economic changes. Poverty rates for minority populations in these counties are higher

than for minorities elsewhere.

● 

Nonmetro Population Rebound: Still Real but Diminishing, by Calvin Beale. From 1995 to

1997, population growth in nonmetro America fell from its pace of the preceding 2 years, while

metro growth held steady. Yet, rural and small-town areas continued to see some net inmovement

of people. Counties where minorities have the greatest concentration diverged from the overall

nonmetro growth pace, either toward faster growth in Native American and Hispanic areas or

slower change in Black areas.

● 

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat92/ (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:21:41 PM]
Rural Areas Attract Young Families and College Graduates, by Mark Nord and John B.

Cromartie. The rural population increased, especially in the South and West, due to net migration

from urban areas. The largest rural gains were among people in early career ages (26-30),

including many young families. College graduates were well-represented among rural

immigrants--a trend that began in the early 1990's and represents an important reversal of the rural

"brain drain" of earlier decades.

● 

Socioeconomic Circumstances of Minority Elderly Differ from Those of White Elderly, by

Carolyn C. Rogers. Current Population Survey data from 1997 show that a smaller proportion of

the minority population is age 60 and older than is the White population in both metro and

nonmetro areas. Minority elders are less likely than Whites to rate their health as excellent or very

good. Black elders are more likely to be widowed and living alone than are White elders,

increasing the likelihood of poverty. A larger share of minority elders are poor or near poor than

are their White counterparts, especially in nonmetro areas.

● 

Nonmetro Employment Growth Slows, but Unemployment Continues to Fall, by Lorin

Kusmin. Nonmetro employment continued to expand through 1997. During the early 1990's,

nonmetro employment outpaced metro growth, but in the past 3 years, the employment growth rate

in nonmetro areas has run behind the metro rate. Unemployment rates have continued to fall in

both nonmetro and metro areas over the past several years. In nonmetro areas, employment growth

rates in Black counties have generally been below those in low minority counties in both the

1980's and 1990's, while Hispanic county growth has been similar to low minority county growth.

● 

Manufacturing Sector in Black Counties Weakens in Era of New Technology, by David A.

McGranahan. Manufacturing has historically been an important source of job growth in counties

with high proportions of Blacks, but with new technology demanding more highly skilled workers,

some manufacturers in these counties are having difficulty competing. Despite extensive

government support, manufacturing has not expanded in predominantly Black counties in the

1990's.

● 

Rural Nonfarm Earnings Growth Lags Urban, by Linda M. Ghelfi. During 1996, rural real

earnings per nonfarm job grew more slowly than urban earnings. Earnings per job grew slightly

faster in Black rural counties, but those and other minority counties still have jobs that average

lower earnings than all rural jobs.

● 

Rural Earnings Continue a Slow, Steady Rise, by Robert Gibbs and Timothy S. Parker. Rural

earnings rose slightly between 1996 and 1997. Earnings growth was high for rural Blacks and

Hispanics, but their earnings levels remained well below that of non-Hispanic Whites. Regardless

of race, women accounted for most of the overall gains in rural earnings during the 1990's.

● 

Rural Per Capita Income Grows Slightly Faster Than Urban, by Linda M. Ghelfi. During

1996, rural real per capita income increased slightly faster than urban income. Income in rural

minority counties also increased, but per capita income in all types of rural areas continues to lag

urban income.

● 

Growth in Rural Transfer Payments for Some Public Assistance Programs Offsets Sharp

Declines in Others, by Peggy Cook. In the face of a strong economy, growth of nonmetro and

metro per capita transfer payments to individuals slowed steadily during the 1990's, although

● 

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat92/ (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:21:41 PM]
transfers continued to grow slightly faster in nonmetro areas. Per capita transfer payments in most

major program categories either slowed or declined, but not all individual programs responded in

the same way.

Sources of Rural Household Income Vary by Demographic Groups, by Kenneth Hanson. The

differences in the sources from which households receive cash income and other in-kind benefits

are especially striking when rural households are compared by racial and ethnic groups. The share

of rural household income from earnings ranges from about 72 percent for Whites and Blacks to

80 percent for Hispanics. Capital returns account for 6 percent of Whites' income, but only 1.3

percent of Blacks' and Hispanics' income. Social insurance programs contribute 18 percent for

Whites, 13 percent for Blacks, and 10.4 percent for Hispanics. The share of income from

government assistance programs range from 3.3 percent for Whites to 8 percent for Hispanics and

12 percent for Blacks.

● 

Rural Poverty Rate Unchanged, by Mark Nord. The rural poverty rate was unchanged from 1995

to 1996. Rural minorities, women, and children were especially disadvantaged economically.

Poverty rates were highest in the rural South and West.

● 

The Socioeconomic Well-Being of Rural Children Lags That of Urban Children, by Elizabeth

M. Dagata. Larger shares of rural minority children were poor than White children in 1996. They

were more likely than White children to live in families headed by single parents or without an

earner and have less educated parents, all of which substantially increased their chances of

poverty. Rural minority children also lived in families that relied on social welfare programs more

than their White counterparts. Thus, they will be more affected by welfare reform than White

children.

● 

New Indicator Reveals Similar Levels of Food Security in Rural and Urban Households, by

Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Gary Bickel. A new survey and measurement scale developed

by USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services provides a tool for monitoring food

security--the extent to which households consistently and dependably get enough food for an

active and healthy life--in the United States. The prevalence rates of food security, food insecurity,

and hunger are similar in rural and urban households. Single-parent families and racial and ethnic

minorities have higher rates of food insecurity and hunger.

● 

Housing Problems Differ Across Types of Rural Households, by James Mikesell. Government

policy recognizes housing as a basic need, and home ownership as desirable. Minimum standards

for appropriate housing include being safe and sanitary, of sufficient size, and affordable.

Households whose incomes fall short of necessary or desirable standards are concentrated in

certain population segments. However, the reasons for these housing problems differ widely

among groups and between nonmetro and metro areas.

● 

Minority Hired Farmworkers Earn About the Same as Their Nonminority Counterparts, by

Jack L. Runyan. Minority workers have become almost one-half of the hired farmworkers in the

United States. They are more likely than White farmworkers to be male, older, married, less

educated, employed in crop production, and to experience wider fluctuations in employment

during the year. Unlike all minority wage and salary workers' earnings, minority hired

farmworkers' earnings do not differ from those of White workers.

● 

● Sources and Levels of Farm Household Income Vary by Type of Farm, by Robert A. Hoppe.

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat92/ (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:21:41 PM]
Average farm operator household income was about equal to that of all U.S. households in 1996.

Only 16 percent of farm households' income came from farming. But, the sources and level of

farm household income varied considerably, depending on the type of farm operated. The wealth

of farm households, however, consisted largely of their farms, regardless of the type of farm they

operated.

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

Contents

Contents, 71 kb

Overview

Recent Indicators Send Mixed Signals About Rural Economic Performance, 556 kb

Race and Ethnicity in Rural Areas

● 

● Minorities Represent Growing Share of Tomorrow's Work Force, 33 kb

Minority Counties Are Geographically Clustered, 1,696 kb

Population and Migration

● 

● Nonmetro Population Rebound: Still Real but Diminishing, 620 kb

● Rural Areas Attract Young Families and College Graduates, 166 kb

Socioeconomic Circumstances of Minority Elderly Differ from Those of White Elderly, 43 kb

Employment and Labor Force

● 

● Nonmetro Employment Growth Slows, but Unemployment Continues to Fall, 284 kb

● Manufacturing Sector in Black Counties Weakens in Era of New Technology, 349 kb

Rural Nonfarm Earnings Growth Lags Urban, 246 kb

Earnings and Income

● 

● Rural Earnings Continue a Slow, Steady Rise, 28 kb

● Rural Per Capita Income Grows Slightly Faster Than Urban, 61 kb

Growth in Rural Transfer Payments for Some Public Assistance Programs Offsets Sharp

Declines in Others, 628 kb

● 

Sources of Rural Household Income Vary by Demographic Groups, 38 kb

Poverty and Well-Being

● 

● Rural Poverty Rate Unchanged, 25 kb

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat92/ (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:21:41 PM]
● The Socioeconomic Well-Being of Rural Children Lags That of Urban Children, 125 kb

New Indicator Reveals Similar Levels of Food Security in Rural and Urban Households, 346

kb

● 

Housing Problems Differ Across Types of Rural Households, 30 kb

Farm Labor and Income

● 

Minority Hired Farmworkers Earn About the Same as Their Nonminority Counterparts,

495 kb

● 

Sources and Levels of Farm Household Income Vary by Type of Farm, 44 kb

Appendix

● 

Data Sources and Definitions, 31 kb

Appendix Tables

● 

Tables 1-21, 2,684 kb

Download entire issue, 8.4 mb

● 

Archives of Past Issues

Top of Page

Page editor: Jack Harrison

Updated: February 23, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat92/ (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:21:41 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Rural America At A

Glance

Rural Development Briefing Room

What's New | Publications | Emerging Issues | Briefings |

Data | Contacts | Links

Defining Rural America

● What is rural?

● Map of nonmetro counties

● Link to ERS publications on the geography of rural areas

Maps of county types:

❍ Farming-dependent counties

❍ Mining-dependent counties

❍ Manufacturing-dependent counties

❍ Government-dependent counties

❍ Services-dependent counties

❍ Nonspecialized counties

❍ Retirement-destination counties

❍ Federal lands counties

❍ Commuting counties

❍ Persistent poverty counties

❍ Transfers-dependent counties

● 

Rural America at a Glance - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/ruralecn/ruramg.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:45 PM]
 Population and Demographics

● County map of nonmetro population change, 1990-98

● County map of nonmetro population change in the population age 65 and over, 1990-98

● County map of nonmetro net migration, 1990-98

● County map of nonmetro natural population change, 1990-98

● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Socioeconomic Conditions Issue

 Employment and Unemployment

● Chart of nonmetro unemployment by age, sex, race, and education, 1998

● County map of nonmetro unemployment, 1998

● State map of nonmetro employment change 1997-98

● County map showing employment growth versus the unemployment rate, 1996

● Chart showing the change in the metro/nonmetro employment cost index, 1980-98

● County map of farm labor expenditures, 1992

● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Socioeconomic Conditions Issue

 Income and Poverty

● Line chart of changes in nonmetro per capita income, 1980-97

● Map showing where the nonmetro poor are located, 1995

● Pie chart of transfer payments to nonmetro residents, 1995

● Map of nonmetro counties by poverty rate, 1995

● Persistent-poverty and other high-poverty nonmetro counties, 1990

Map showing nonmetro counties with overlap of high AFDC dependence and high

unemployment, 1995

● 

● County-level map showing the proportion of families receiving AFDC, 1995

● County-level map showing per capita value of food stamps benefits, 1997

● Line chart of metro and nonmetro poverty rates by residence, 1959-97

● Pie chart of composition of nonmetro poor by employment,1997

● Nonmetro poverty rates by race and ethnicity,1989-97

● Nonmetro poverty rates by education, 1997

Rural America at a Glance - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/ruralecn/ruramg.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:45 PM]
● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Socioeconomic Conditions Issue

 Rural Housing

● Chart of metro and nonmetro households who own their own homes, 1995

● Chart of metro and nonmetro households living in crowded houses, 1995

● Chart of metro and nonmetro households who lack complete plumbing facilities, 1995

● Chart of metro and nonmetro households whose homes are physically inadequate, 1995

Chart of metro and nonmetro households whose housing expenses exceed half of income,

1995

● 

● County-level map showing HUD section 8 per capita housing assistance, fy97

● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Federal Programs Issue

 Rural Industry

● Table of change in nonmetro jobs by industry, 1990-97

● Chart of nonmetro and metro jobs by industry, 1997

● Table of change in nonmetro earnings by industry, 1990-97

● Chart of nonmetro and metro earnings by industry, 1997

● Chart of nonmetro and metro real earnings per job, 1969-97

● State map of nonmetro food and fiber employment, 1997

● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Rural Industries Issue

 Rural Credit and Agricultural Finance

● Chart of nonmetro and metro bank loan-to-deposit ratios, 1990-98

● Chart of nonmetro and metro bank capital-to-asset ratios, 1990-98

● Chart of nonmetro and metro bank loan loss provisions/loans outstanding ratios, 1990-98

● County map of nonmetro counties served by fewer than 3 banking firms, 1996

● Chart of agricultural bank failures, 1981-98

● Chart of agricultural interest rates, 1980-98

● For more information see Issues in Agricultural and Rural Finance

Rural America at a Glance - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/ruralecn/ruramg.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:45 PM]
 Federal Funds to Rural America

Federal Funds for USDA-Related Programs

❍ Map showing direct government payments to farmers in nonmetro counties, fy97

❍ County map of per capita aid for USDA's water & wastewater disposal program, fy95

❍ County map of per capita USDA rural rental assistance payments, fy97

County map showing the location of rural empowerment zones and enterprise

communities

❍ 

● 

Federal Funds for Other Programs

Counties receiving general development assistance from the Economic Development

Administration, fy97

❍ 

❍ County map of EDA public works grants, fy97

State map showing per capita allotments from the job training programs in the

Workforce Investment Act, fy99

❍ 

❍ County map showing per capita rural business assistance, fy97

❍ State map showing per capita welfare-to-work formula grants, fy98

● 

● For more information see Rural Conditions and Trends: Federal Programs Issue

Top of Page

Contact: Tim Parker

Updated: June 25, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Rural America at a Glance - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/ruralecn/ruramg.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:45 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Rural Labor Market Indicators

Rural Development Briefing Room

What's New | Rural America at a Glance | Emerging Issues | Briefings | Data | Publications | Contacts | Links

Rural Unemployment Falls to Lowest Rate Since 1973

The rural (nonmetro) unemployment rate fell to 4.8 percent in 1998, down slightly from 5.2 percent in 1997. The

1998 rate was the lowest since 1973, when the rural unemployment rate stood at 4.4 percent. Urban (metro)

unemployment was also lower in 1998- dropping to 4.4 percent from 4.9 percent in 1997. The urban

unemployment rate in 1998 was the lowest recorded in our data series that begins in 1973. Although this is the

sixth consecutive year both rural and urban unemployment rates have declined, the rural-urban gap has increased

with the rural unemployment rate falling more slowly than urban (fig.1). The unemployment rate is now about a

half point higher in rural areas than in urban, compared with 1996 when the rates were almost identical.

Despite the low overall rural unemployment rate in 1998, unemployment remained high for youth, minorities, and

the least educated (fig. 2). In1998, the unemployment rate for rural Blacks was 10.3 percent, 7.1 percent for

Hispanics, 14.1 percent for teenagers, and 10.5 percent for high school dropouts. The unemployment levels for

these groups has improved greatly with the growing economy, although they remain substantially higher than

average.

In 1998 the rural unemployment rate varied widely across geographic areas (fig 3). The highest rural

unemployment rates were in the West (7.2 percent), followed by the South (5.9 percent), Northeast (5.1 percent),

and the Midwest (4.4 percent). High concentrations of unemployment are found in areas with large proportions of

rural minorities, or economically disadvantaged areas. Areas such as the Mississippi Delta, Indian reservations in

the West, areas along the Texas-Mexico border, and Appalachia had particularly high unemployment rates. 

Nonmetro quarterly labor force data, 1Q 1990 to 2Q 1999 (Not seasonally adjusted).

Nonmetro annual averages, 1990-98

Metro quarterly labor force data, 1Q 1990 to 2Q 1999 (Not seasonally adjusted).

Metro annual averages, 1990-98

ERS Rural Briefing Room--Labor Market Indicators

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/labor/index.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:48 PM]
ERS Rural Briefing Room--Labor Market Indicators

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/labor/index.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:48 PM]
ERS Rural Briefing Room--Labor Market Indicators

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/labor/index.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:48 PM]
Top of Page

Contact: Tim Parker

Updated: July 21, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Rural Briefing Room--Labor Market Indicators

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/rural/labor/index.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:21:48 PM]
This monthly magazine for businesses selling farm products overseas provides tips on exporting, descriptions of

markets with the greatest sales potential, and information on export assistance available from the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. The audience is U.S. agricultural producers, exporters, trade organizations, state departments of

agriculture and any other export-oriented organization.

To obtain a sample copy of AgExporter

Magazine, contact the FAS Information

Division at (202) 720-7115 or E-mail

AgExporter Magazine. To order a

subscription to AgExporter, contact NTIS,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Technology Administration, National

Technical Information Service, Springfield,

VA 22161, (703) 487-4630 or FAX (703)

321-9467.

1999

January July

February August

March September

April October

May November

June December

extra space

Past Issues

1998

January July

February August

March September

April October

May November

June December

Index of AgExporter Pages

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/agexport.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:50 PM]
To order the print edition, use the

Superintendent of Documents order form or

cite Agexporter (FA), and send a check for

$31 for one-year ($38.81 foreign) or

provide VISA, Mastercard, or Discover

number and expiration date to

Superintendent of Documents, PO Box

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.

Telephone credit card orders can be made

from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern time at

(202) 512-1800 or fax orders to (202)

512-2250.

extra space

1997 1996

Index of Articles

Last modified: Monday, October 04, 1999

Index of AgExporter Pages

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/agexport.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:50 PM]
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President

______________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release 

Sunday, July 18, 1999 Contact: (202) 456-7035

VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR

ADDITIONAL CASH PAYMENTS FOR STRUGGLING HOG FARMERS

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Gore today announced that struggling small- and medium-sized

hog farmers will begin to receive about $100 million in additional cash assistance as early as

mid-August.

"The current farm crisis has been disastrous for small hog producers, so this additional assistance

is really needed," said Gore. "We made $50 million in cash payments to hog farmers earlier this

year and also stepped up government purchases of pork in our aggressive effort to help during

this time of need."

Many American hog farmers are suffering because of the lowest prices in 50 years.

The new funds build on the $50 million already paid to hog farmers earlier this year, providing

more money to an even greater number of hog farmers.

Sign-up for the new round of assistance is slated to begin August 9, 1999. Hog farmers who

received the earlier payments will automatically receive the new payment in August, and are not

required to reapply or fill out additional paperwork. Farmers seeking payments for the first time will

receive checks within a few weeks of their sign-up.

Eligible producers will receive $10 per slaughter-weight hog marketed during the last six months of

1998 on up to 500 market hogs (or an equivalent number of feeder pigs or other swine). Hog farm

operators who received payments under the earlier disbursement would receive a pro-rated

amount to bring their total payment amount to $10 per slaughter-weight hog or equivalent.

Payments would be limited to hog operations that produced hogs in the United States and sold

less than 2,500 hogs during the specified marketing period. If the operation is owned by one or

more individuals or entities with annual gross revenue of $2.5 million or more in farming and

ranching operations in calendar year 1998, the payment would be reduced by a pro-rata share.

Further details will be published soon in the Federal Register.

The Administration has taken a number of other steps to assist America’s hog farmers, including

increasing USDA pork purchases, promoting increased pork exports, and extending additional

financial protections to hog farmers.

###

VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/1999/07/wh0718.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:53 PM]
Return to Release Index

VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/1999/07/wh0718.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:53 PM]
1999

January April July

1998

January April July October

1997

January April July October

1996

January April July October

1995

January April July October

Comments?

Back to: Newsletters & Reports

Food & Nutrition Research Briefs Index 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/ [10/5/1999 3:21:55 PM]
 U.S. Department of Agriculture -

Biotechnology Overview

Here at USDA, several agencies are involved in regulating and monitoring the use of biotechnology for

agriculture. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the movement,

importation, and field testing of Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEOs) through permitting and

notification procedures. In addition, APHIS Veterinary Biologics inspects biologics production

establishments and licenses genetically engineered products. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)

has responsibility for the safe use of engineered domestic livestock, poultry, and products derived from

them. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) monitors foreign regulations and restrictions of

Genetically Engineered Organisms. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS)conducts in-house research

on GEOs and Economic Research Service (ERS) conducts research on the economic impact of GEOs.

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) funds the biotechnology

risk assessment program, and research in gene mapping, sequencing and biotechnology applications. In

addition to these agencies, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will be responsible for

administration of new organic labeling requirements when they are finalized later this year. Any one of

these agencies can be accessed through the USDA homepage or you can click on one of the following

options to answer specific questions about biotechnology.

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions

APHIS REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

FIELD TRIAL APPROVALS: Available at USDA, PPQ, View current status of notification

or release applications

❍ 

PRODUCTS DEREGULATED BY APHIS: Available at USDA, PPQ, View current status

of petition applications

❍ 

INFORMATION ON OBTAINING BIOTECHNOLOGY PERMITS FROM APHIS:

Biotechnology Permits

❍ 

❍ VETERINARY BIOTECHNOLOGY: Center for Veterinary Biologics

● 

● ARS GRAIN CROP IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH: Available at ARS web site

ERS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS FOR PEST MANAGEMENT: Available at ERS

web site

● 

● BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH: Available from CSREES WEB SITE

● RICE GENOME SEQUENCING PROJECT: Available from CSREES web site

AGENCIES OUTSIDE OF USDA REGULATING BIOTECHNOLOGY: United States

Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

● 

USDA Biotechnology>

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/usda_biotech.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:58 PM]
● FOOD & AG. IMPORT REGULATIONS & STANDARDS: Site currently under construction

● COUNTRY IMPORT REGULATIONS: Site currently under construction

● COUNTRY LABELING REQUIREMENTS: Site currently under construction

Back to USDA Home Page

Site Created and Maintained by John Turner, APHIS-PPQ

USDA Biotechnology>

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/usda_biotech.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:21:58 PM]
WEEKLY COST MONTHLY COST

AGE-GENDER

GROUPS

Thrifty

plan

Low-cost

plan

Moderatecost planLiberal

plan

Thrifty

plan

Low-cost

plan

Moderatecost planLiberal

plan

INDIVIDUALS2

 CHILD:

1-2 years 15.50 19.10 22.40 27.30 67.20 82.80 97.10 118.30

3-5 years 16.80 20.90 25.90 31.10 72.80 90.60 112.20 134.80

6-8 years 20.70 27.80 34.60 40.20 89.70 120.50 149.90 174.20

9-11 years 24.60 31.50 40.10 46.60 106.60 136.50 173.80 201.90

 MALE:

12-14 years 25.40 35.50 44.00 51.60 110.10 153.80 190.70 223.60

15-19 years 26.10 36.40 45.50 52.50 113.10 157.70 197.20 227.50

20-50 years 28.10 36.20 45.10 54.70 121.80 156.90 195.40 237.00

51 years and over 25.30 34.60 42.60 51.10 109.60 149.90 184.60 221.40

 FEMALE:

12-19 years 25.40 30.50 37.00 44.80 110.10 132.20 160.30 194.10

20-50 years 25.40 31.60 38.60 49.40 110.10 136.90 167.30 214.10

51 years and over 24.90 30.80 38.30 45.90 107.90 133.50 166.00 198.90

 FAMILIES:

 FAMILY of 23

:

20-50 years 58.90 74.60 92.10 114.50 255.10 323.20 399.00 496.20

51 years and over 55.20 71.90 89.00 106.70 239.30 311.70 385.70 462.30

 FAMILY OF 4:

Couple, 20-50 years and 

children----

1-2 and 3-5 years 85.80 107.80 132.00 162.50 371.90 467.20 572.00 704.20

6-8 and 9-11 years 98.80 127.10 158.40 190.90 428.20 550.80 686.40 827.20

Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels,

U.S. Average, May 19991

This file may be accessed on CNPP’s home page at: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp Issued June 1999

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Center for Nutrition

Policy and Promotion

1120 20th Street NW

Suite 200, North Lobby

Washington, DC 20036

1Basis is that all meals and snacks are purchased at stores and prepared at home. For specific foods and quantities of foods in the Low-Cost,

 Moderate-Cost, and Liberal Plans, see Family Economics Review, No. 2 (1983); for specific foods and quantities of foods in the Thrifty

 Food Plan, see Family Economics Review, No. 1 (1984). The food plans are based on 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey

 data updated to current dollars using the Consumer Price Index for specific food items.

2

The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested:

 1-person----add 20 percent; 2-person----add 10 percent; 3-person----add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person----subtract 5 percent; 7- (or more) person----

 subtract 10 percent.

3

Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid:

Implications for U.S. Agriculture

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document. This format is used to preserve all of the content

and layout used in our hardcopy publication.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid: Implications for U.S. Agriculture. By C. Edwin Young,

Market and Trade Economics Division, and Linda Scott Kantor, Food and Rural Economics Division,

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 779.

Abstract

Recent studies show that average diets differ considerably from Food Guide Pyramid recommendations.

The gap between current consumption and recommendations is particularly large for caloric sweeteners,

fats and oils, fruits, and certain vegetables—notably dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, and

dry beans, peas, and lentils. The change in food consumption needed to meet Food Guide Pyramid

serving recommendations will result in adjustments in U.S. agricultural production, trade, nonfood uses,

and prices. The net adjustment in crop acreage is projected to be relatively small, about 2 percent of total

cropland in 1991-95. However, this small net adjustment masks larger anticipated changes for some

sectors, particularly sweeteners, fats and oils, and citrus fruits.

Keywords: Food, food consumption, Food Guide Pyramid, crop production, commodity prices, trade,

dietary recommendations, 1996 Farm Act

Contents

● Frontmatter (Title page, Contents, Executive Summary); 40 kb

● Introduction; 23 kb

● Estimating the Change in Food Consumption; 27 kb

● Estimating Agricultural Sector Adjustments; 32 kb

● How Much Would Agriculture Have To Adjust?; 95 kb

ERS Report--Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid Implications for U.S. Agriculture

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer779/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:01 PM]
● Conclusion; 13 kb

● References; 33 kb

● Glossary; 17 kb

● Entire report; 170 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Jack Harrison

Updated: July 2, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report--Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid Implications for U.S. Agriculture

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer779/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:01 PM]
Agricultural Land Values and Agricultural Cash

Rents (PLR-BB)

Agricultural Land Values and Agricultural Cash Rents is a combined report published by the National

Agricultural Statistics Service. The data series will continue to have January 1 reference date for land

values and crop or grazing year for cash rents. Prior to this report, farm land values and cash rent data

were published by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) in the periodic AREI UPDATE series.

The previous ERS estimates are published along with the current land values and cash rents estimates.

1998, "Agricultural Land Values" will be released March 17, 1998 and "Agricultural Cash Rents" will

be released August 25, 1998.

● Agricultural Cash Rents, 07.08.99 [ Text | PDF ]

● Agricultural Land Values, 04.06.99 [ Text | PDF ]

● Agricultural Cash Rents, 08.25.98 [ Text ]

● Agricultural Land Values, 03.17.98 [ Text ]

● Agricultural Land Values and Agricultural Cash Rents, 10.01.97 [ Text ]

● 

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Agricultural Land Values and Agricultural Cash Rents (PLR-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/plr-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:22:02 PM]
Horticultural and Tropical Products Division (H&TP)

Horticultural Success Stories: The Benefits of the Market Access Program

● APPLES ● HONEY ● TOMATOES

● CHERRIES ● PISTACHIOS ● WALNUTS

● GRAPE JUICE ● RAISINS ● WINE

● GRAPEFRUIT ● STRAWBERRIES

Return to the HTP Homepage.

Last modified: Wednesday, August 18, 1999

Horticultural Success Stories: The Benefits of the Market Access Program

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/marketing/mapsucces/horticul.htm [10/5/1999 3:22:03 PM]
Recent Publications of the Southern Research Station

Announcement of Publications -- June 1999

(This document is also available in PDF format for printing.)

PLEASE NOTE: All publications listed in this catalog are available for viewing,

printing, and downloading from this site. Just click on the "View and Print

this Publication Now" link under the abstract. Please send e-mail to

rdm@srs.fs.usda.gov if you have any problems viewing or printing these

publications.

The eight publications that are published by the Southern Research Station

are also available in hard copy through the mail. To order Station

publications in hard copy, print the Publications Order Form that is at the

"Order This Publication" link. You may request more than one title per form,

up to two copies of the same title. The number in parentheses at the end of

the publication description, is the number to circle on the form; i.e., to order

Johnson, Tony G.; Steppleton, Carolyn D. 1999. "Southern pulpwood

production, 1997", you would circle number (14).

Water – The Resource That Commands Attention and Requires

Protection

Water dominates the agenda of many groups in the arid Western United States. The

population explosion in the Southeast and cumulative effects of drought years are

causing water levels to drop and tensions to rise east of the Mississippi also. The

Chattahoochee River’s headwaters originate in the Chattahoochee National Forest,

just off the Appalachian Trail in the mountains of north Georgia. The river flows

southwest through Atlanta, then heads further west, where it courses along the

Georgia-Alabama border. Continuing south, the Chattahoochee merges with the

Apalachicola River in Florida, and empties into the Gulf of Mexico. At the beginning of

this decade, Alabama and Florida filed suit against Georgia because their water needs

exceeded the amount they could take from the Chattahoochee and because of their

concern about water quality.

The States continue to work toward compromise, now mandated by two compacts

signed by President Clinton on November 20, 1997. The

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa

(ACT) Rivers compacts govern the allocation of water for the "purposes of promoting

interstate comity, removing causes of present and future controversies, equitable

apportioning surface waters of the ACT and ACF, engaging in water planning,

developing and sharing common data bases." The States’ deadline for developing a

mutually agreeable water allocation formula is December 31, 1999.

Mike Dombeck, Chief of the USDA Forest Service, identifies watershed protection and

restoration as the first priority in our natural resource agenda. Dombeck’s commitment

to restore, protect, and maintain healthy ecosystems at the watershed level speaks to

the significance of the Forest Service’s role in ensuring a pure water supply. The

national forests contain numerous municipal watersheds, and 80 percent of the

Nation’s freshwater sources originate on national forest land. Dombeck explains, "We

must protect our healthiest watersheds and restore those that are degraded. We must

also continue our long tradition of protecting wild areas, such as wilderness, so they

can remain important reserves of clean water and biological diversity."

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (1 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Southern Research Station scientists contribute significantly to the Forest Service’s

knowledge base regarding water resources. The Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in

Coweeta, NC, received the 1998 Chief’s Stewardship Award for outstanding

stewardship accomplishments leading to conservation of soil, water, and air resources.

In the June 1999 issue of Recent Publications of the Southern Research Station,

Wayne T. Swank, project leader at Coweeta, discusses a study of more than 30 years

duration in Multiple Use Forest Management in A Catchment Context. Swank

emphasizes the significance of demonstration and education to advance integrated

catchment management.

This issue of the SRS catalogue includes two publications co-authored by Steve

McNulty, project leader of the Southern Global Change Program in Raleigh, NC, and

former member of the Coweeta research work unit, and Sun Ge, assistant research

professor of forest hydrology at North Carolina State University. In The Development

and Use of Best Practices in Forest Watersheds Using GIS and Simulation

Models, McNulty and Ge explore the demands on forest watersheds.

In Modeling Soil Erosion and Transport on Forest Landscape, Sun and McNulty

cite century-long studies on the impacts of forest management in North America that

suggest sediment can cause major reduction on stream water quality. The objective of

this study is to develop a user friendly management tool for land managers to design

forest management activities (e.g., road building, prescribed burning) that may

minimize water quality impacts. Sun and Ge concluded that poorly managed roads are

the main source of sediment in a forested watershed and that the spatial location of

forest roads affected sediment contribution to streams.

A. Dennis Lemly, research biologist in the Coldwater Streams and Trout Habitat in the

Southern Appalachians research work unit in Blacksburg, VA, addresses Selenium

Transport and Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Proposal for Water

Quality Criteria Based on Hydrological Units. Lemly argues for recognition of the

hydrological connections between the various aquatic habitats that may be present in a

watershed basin – wetlands, rivers, streams, and impoundments. The connectivity of a

watershed’s aquatic habitats results in the toxic threat from selenium contamination

also being connected. Lemly’s research points out the need to test water quality using

a hydrological unit approach to avoid biological and legal problems.

Sustainability – Monitoring, Using, and Conserving Natural Resources

The complexity of monitoring and using natural resources while ensuring their ability to

survive and thrive requires the Forest Service’s commitment to collaborate more

closely than ever with colleagues from many disciplines and organizations. The

Southern Annual Forest Inventory System (SAFIS) provides an example of how well

professionals and private landowners can come together to accomplish a goal. The

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) units of the Forest Service conduct the only

inventory of public and private lands, making FIA reports uniquely valuable to regional,

national, and international customers. Forest Service administrators, scientists,

technicians, and land managers, State foresters, industry leaders, and university

scientists are working to upgrade the inventory system.

In A New Annual Forest Inventory System for the South, Noel Cost, the SAFIS

coordinator, discusses the need to change the inventory cycle and reporting schedule.

He also details the implementation schedule for SAFIS and its benefits. SAFIS

provides for continuous inventory within each Southern State, a significant

improvement from the previous 10 year interval. SAFIS provides uniform information

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (2 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
from State to State, annual observation of events and trends, and annual collection of

data and stable confidence intervals. State reports will be published when data for an

entire State have been analyzed.

The spruce-fir forests of the Blue Ridge Mountains attract much attention for their

reported – and some would say apparent – decline. J.C.G. Goelz, research forester at

the Southern Hardwoods Laboratory in Stoneville, MS, collaborated with Thomas E.

Burk, University of Minnesota, and Shepard M. Zedaker, VPI, to publish Long-term

Growth Trends of Red Spruce and Fraser Fir at Mt. Rogers, VA and Mt. Mitchell,

NC. The authors state that analysis of cross-sectional area growth provided no

evidence of growth decline. Goelz, Burk, and Zedaker suggest that subordinate crown

position or previous top damage caused growth decline in individual discs.

The Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forests also provide the setting for a study on

environmental equity by Joseph E. Aldy, Council of Economic Advisers; Randall A.

Kramer, Duke University; and Thomas P. Holmes, Southern Research Station

research forester in the Economics of Forest Protection and Management research

work unit in Research Triangle Park, NC. The authors examine Environmental Equity

and the Conservation of Unique Ecosystems: An Analysis of the Distribution of

Benefits for Protecting Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forests. Learn how the

authors weave together the health and value of the Southern Appalachian spruce-fir

ecosystem, contingent valuation and regression analysis, and management of natural

resources based on an environmental equity framework.

Southern Research Station scientists David N. Wear and Raymond M. Sheffield

collaborate with Rei Liu and J. Michael Foreman from the Commonwealth of Virginia to

study The Effects of Population Growth on Timber Management and Inventories

in Virginia. Wear leads the Economics of Forest Protection and Management

research work unit in Research Triangle Park, NC. Sheffield is a research forester in

the Forest Inventory and Analysis research unit in Asheville, NC. As domestic and

global populations increase, the demand for natural resources -- both products and

amenities – increases also. The authors examine the relationship between the

increase in population density and timber management and supply in Virginia. As

urban-rural interfaces change the landscape, the amount of land dedicated to timber

production decreases.

Recent Publications -- June 1999

Aldy, Joseph E.; Kramer, Randall A.; Holmes, Thomas P. 1999. Environmental equity and the conservation

of unique ecosystems: an analysis of the distribution of benefits for protecting Southern Appalachian

spruce-fir forests. Society & Natural Resources. 12(2): 93-106.

Some critics in the environmental equity literature argue that low-income populations

disproportionately have environmental risks, while the wealthy and better educated gain

disproportionately from protecting unique ecosystems. The authors test this hypothesis in an

analysis of the decline of Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forests. They calculate

willingness-to-pay measures for forest protection through a contingent valuation survey. Survey

respondents consider spruce-fir forest protection to be a normal good (income elasticity: 0.421).

Education does not influence willingness-to-pay. In an assessment of willingness-to-pay scaled by

income, the authors found that income has a negative effect, implying that as income increases,

willingness-to-pay as a percentage of income decreases. Education weakly influences

willingness-to-pay in this assessment. Given the substantial existence and bequest values

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (3 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
associated with these forests, these results substantiate rejection of the hypothesis that

conserving this unique ecosystem only benefits the wealthy and better educated.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Cain, M.D. 1998. A 9-year comparison of hardwood control treatments for enhancing natural

regeneration and growth of loblolly-shortleaf pines in an uneven-aged stand. In: Dusky, Joan A., ed.

Proceedings, 51st annual meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society; 1998 January 26-28; Birmingham,

AL. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society: 235-240.

Preharvest control of hardwoods facilitated natural regeneration of loblolly and shortleaf pines

(Pinus taeda L. and P. enchinata Mill.) in an overstocked, uneven-aged stand in southern

Arkansas. During spring 1983, hardwoods were controlled by either basal injection of Tordon®

101R, soil application of Velpar® L, or rotary mowing following by a broadcast spray of Tordon®

101 applied over the hardwood stubble. After hardwood control, an improvement cut in summer

reduced merchantable pine basal area from 97 to 70 sq ft/ac, just before a bumper pine seed crop

that winter. Two additional improvement cuts in July 1987 and June 1991 left 55 and 48 sq ft/ac,

respectively, in merchantable pine basal area. Nine years after hardwood control, untreated check

plots had an adequate density of pine regeneration for uneven-aged stands, but dominant stems

of pine regeneration on check plots were of low vigor, small in size, and overtopped by nonpine

competing vegetation. In contrast, dominant pine regeneration on plots where hardwoods were

controlled 9 years earlier averaged 10 feet taller and 1.3 inches larger in groundline diameter than

the dominants on untreated plots.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Cain, Michael D.; Shelton, Michael G. 1998. Viability of litter-stored Quercus falcata Michx. acorns after

simulated prescribed winter burns. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 8(4): 199-203.

Partially stratified (11 days) southern red oak (Quercus falcata Michx.) acorns were placed at

three depths in a reconstructed forest floor and subjected to simulated prescribed winter burns.

Within the forest floor, acorns were placed within the L layer, at the upper-F/ lower-F interface,

and at the lower-F/mineral-soil interface. Winds for a backfire and headfire were generated by

electric box-fans. After the burns, acorns were transferred to moist sand flats, stratified for an

additional 16 days, then assessed for viability during a 45-day germination test. As depth within

the forest floor increased, germinative capacity of acorns increased. All acorns placed within the L

layer during prescribed burning failed to germinate. Germinative capacity of acorns placed at the

upper-F/lower-F interface was lower (P=0.03) in the backfire (8.75 percent) than in the headfire

(55.00 percent). At the lower-F/mineral-soil interface, there was no difference (P=0.09) in

germinative capacity between backfire (92 percent) and headfire (89 percent), and their mean

was no different (P=0.26) than the 93 percent achieved by unburned control acorns.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Clinton, Barton D.; Vose, James M. 1999. Fine root respiration in mature eastern white pine (Pinus

strobus) in situ: the importance of CO2 in controlled environments. Tree Physiology. 19: 475-479.

Clinton and Vose measured seasonal fine root respiration rate in situ while controlling chamber

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (4 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
temperature and [CO2]. Atmospheric and [CO2] ([CO2]a) and measured soil [CO2] ([CO2]s) were

alternately delivered to a cuvette containing intact fine roots of eastern white pine (Pinus strobus

L.). Respiration rates were consistently higher in [CO2] [CO2]a than in [CO2]s, and were almost

three times higher during midsummer. Respiration rates were immediately reversed after

returning to the alternate [CO2] (i.e., [CO2]a ® [CO2]s ® [CO2]a, and vice versa) suggesting a

direct effect of elevated [CO2] on apparent respiration. Soil[CO2] -based respiration rates

decreased with increasing [CO2] on a dry mass and tissue [N] basis. The authors conclude that

estimates of soil CO2 flux and soil carbon budgets may be improved by more completely

accounting for the rhizosphere microclimate (i.e., soil temperature and [CO2]s) during

measurement of fine root respiration.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Cost, Noel D. 1999. A new annual forest inventory system for the South. Forest Landowner. 58(2): 16-19.

The author and director of the Southern Annual Forest Inventory System (SAFIS) details the

Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis program and the demand for more timely and

reliable forest inventory data that led to the new annual inventory program. Cost discusses the

research and implementation of SAFIS and the benefits the program has already produced.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Devall, Margaret S.; Van Deusen, Paul C.; Reams, Gregory A. 1999. Defining old growth in the Southeast:

example of cypress. In: Miller, Gary L., ed. The value of old growth forest ecosystems of the Eastern United

States: conference proceedings; 1993 August 26-28; Asheville, NC. Asheville, NC: University of North Carolina,

Asheville: 81-86.

There is a lot of misunderstanding over what comprises an old growth stand, because there is no

well accepted definition of old growth. Malcolm Hunter proposed a broad conceptual definition:

"old-growth forests are relatively old and relatively undisturbed by humans." Because there can

be large differences among forest types, Hunter suggested that specific definitions for each forest

type could be derived from the broad definition and that age and disturbance criteria that may be

ecologically significant could be modified to form locally appropriate definitions. This is the

approach that the USDA Forest Service has taken. In this paper the authors review the process of

defining old growth in the Southeast, the format for the definitions of old growth forest type

groups, and the progress that has been made, and they discuss an example of one forest type

group: the cypress-tupelo type.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Flebbe, Patricia. 1999. Trout use of woody debris and habitat in Wine Spring Creek, North Carolina.

Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 367-376.

Wine Spring Creek basin, in the mountains of North Carolina's Nantahala National Forest, is an

ecosystem management demonstration site, in which ecological concepts for management and

restoration are tested. Large woody debris (LWD) is an important link between streams and the

adjacent riparian forest, but evidence for the connection between LWD and trout in the Southern

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (5 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Appalachian streams is limited. Woody debris loadings, trout habitat, and brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were inventoried for the entire 9.8 km that

trout occupy in Wine Spring Creek. Compared to two reference streams in North Carolina

old-growth forests, Wine Spring Creek had less LWD, evidence of conditions associated with

mid-successional riparian forests. More units in Wine Spring Creek lacked LWD altogether and

accumulations of two or more pieces of LWD were less common than was the case in the

reference watersheds. On average, about 71 percent of pools and riffles in Wine Spring Creek

were occupied by trout, compared to about 90 percent in reference streams. Trout nearly always

occupied pools with at least two pieces of LWD, but rates of occupancy for pools with one or no

LWD pieces and riffles were unusually low compared to reference streams. Habitats on the lower

and middle reaches on the mainstem of Wine Spring Creek had highest trout numbers and were

nearly always occupied by trout. In these reaches, riparian ages were older and stream habitat

had abundant LWD or boulder substrate. Upper reaches of Wine Spring Creek and its tributaries,

however, were characterized by less mature riparian forest, less LWD, and little boulder

substrate, low rates of trout occupancy, and lower trout numbers. These conditions are the basis

for an LWD addition experiment in headwater reaches.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Franzreb, Kathleen E. 1999. Factors that influence translocation success in the red-cockaded

woodpecker. Wilson Bulletin. 111(1): 38-45.

To restore a population that had declined to 4 individuals by late 1985, 54 red-cockaded

woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) were translocated at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina

between 1986 and 1995. Translocation success was evaluated by sex, age, and distance

between the capture and release site. For moves involving females, the presence of a resident

male and the status of the male (breeder, inexperienced, or helper) also was assessed. Of the

factors evaluated, only the distance of the move was statistically significant, with increasing

success associated with increasing distance. The presence of a resident male at the female's

release site led to no more success than releasing the female concurrently with a male; nor did

the male's status appear to play a significant role in female translocation success. Overall, 31 of

49 (excluding nestlings) translocated birds remained at or near the release site for at least 30

days, resulting in a success rate of 63.2 percent. Of the birds that were successfully translocated,

51.0 percent had reproduced by July 1996.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Goelz, J.C.G.; Burk, Thomas E.; Zedaker, Shepard M. 1999. Long-term growth trends of red spruce and

fraser fir at Mt. Rogers, Virginia and Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina. Forest Ecology and Management. 115:

49-59.

Cross-sectional area growth and height growth of Fraser fir and red spruce trees growing in

Virginia and North Carolina were analyzed to identify possible long-term growth trends.

Cross-sectional area growth provided no evidence of growth decline. The individual discs were

classified according to parameter estimates of the growth trend equation. The predominant

pattern of growth was a steady increase followed by fluctuation about a horizontal line. Other

cross-sections exhibited a steady increase throughout the series. The only discs that represent

declining growth patterns were from trees in subordinate crown position or which had previous top

damage. No unexplained growth decline was present in any disc. The results regarding height

growth were uncertain. A slight decline in height growth was present, although the authors

suggest that this observation was due to problems with the data or the model used to fit height

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (6 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
growth. These findings contradict other studies, suggesting that a recent growth decline has

occurred in red spruce in the Southern Appalachians.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Goelz, J.C.G.; Meadows, J.S. 1999. Precommercial thinning of water tupelo stands on the Mobile-Tensaw

River Delta: third-year results. Res. Pap. SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 6 p.

Three 4-year-old stands were selected for precommercial thinning. Treatment consisted of two

components: (1) thinning water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica L.) stump sprouts and dense patches of

water tupelo seedlings and (2) cutting all stems of Carolina ash (Fraxinus cariliniana Mill.) and

black willow (Salix nigra Marsh.) (cleaning). This approach provided a 2 by 2 factorial with two

replications in each stand. Thinning increased average diameter growth of water tupelo stump

sprouts, with the greatest increase in one stand that had the highest density of stumps and

apparently the highest productivity; cleaning did not increase diameter growth. Thinning

decreased stand basal area growth; cleaning did not affect basal area growth. Mortality of water

tupelo stump sprouts was negligible. Cleaning may increase the number of water tupelo

seedlings, although the evidence from this study is not compelling. Precommercial thinning will

probably provide a favorable response in stands with high density of stumps and high productivity.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Haywood, James D.; Martin, Alton, Jr.; Pearson, Henry A.; Grelen, Harold E. 1998. Seasonal biennial burning

and woody plant control influence native vegetation in loblolly pine stands. Res. Pap. SRS-14. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.

This paper documents the results of a study to determine the effects of selected

vegetation-management treatments in loblolly pine. Vegetation in precommercially thinned,

6-year-old stands was subjected to five biennial growing season burns in either early March, May,

or July, coupled with hand felling of residual woody stems. Using a randomized complete block

design, the authors compared the vegetation- management treatments to an unthinned,

unburned, and unweeded check. By stand age 17, intensive vegetation management increased

pine diameter growth by 2 centimeters (a = .004) and volume growth by 0.04 cubic meters (m3 )

per tree (a = .02) when compared to the check. However, this was a small biological gain in

growth. Among the burned treatments, five burns in early March reduced average pine total

height by 0.8 m (a = .004), diameter at breast height by 1.5 cm (a = .03), and volume per tree by

0.04 m3 (a = .06) compared to burning in early May or July. Vegetation management significantly

reduced the height of hardwood trees and shrubs (a = .0001), but the number of trees and shrubs

per hectare was not significantly affected. Vegetation management significantly increased total

herbaceous plant production (a = .003). Pinehill bluestem was not on the check plots, but it was

the most productive herbaceous species on the vegetation-management treatments, composing

49 percent of the average total annual production of 457 kilograms per hectare.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Hse, Chung-Yun; Bryant, Ben S. 1993. Mechanical and physical properties of wood fiber-reinforced,

sulfur-based wood composites. In: Hse, Chung-Yun; Branham, Susan J.; Chou, Chun, eds. Adhesive

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (7 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
technology and bonded tropical wood products. Taiwan, China: Taiwan Forestry Research Institute: 572-580.

Sulfur-based composite was made from sulfur impregnated, oven dried, wet-formed fiber mats.

The fiber mats consisted of a 50/50 mixture of recycled newsprint pulp and mechanical hardwood

pulp from several species made from chips in a laboratory refiner. The thickness of the

composites was 0.125 inch and the specific gravity of the unimpregnated fiber mat was 0.2. The

average MOR of the sulfur-based composites is in the order of the MOR of particleboard that

contains more than three times as much fiber per unit volume (i.e., specific gravity of 0.65). The

high MOE of the sulfur-based composites, nearly four times greater than that of particleboard, is

most impressive. After the 24-hour soak test, the composites retained 64 percent of MOR and 28

percent of MOE. They swelled significantly less in thickness as compared to most wood

composites and expanded significantly more in length. The only species used to make the

composite that appeared to be consistently superior in mechanical properties was sweetgum. The

lack of permeability of white oak might also have accounted for its good show in its wet MOR and

MOE. A conceptual understanding of the high strength properties of the sulfur-based composites

is presented.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Johnsen, Kurt H.; Major, John E. 1999. Shoot water relations of mature black spruce families displaying a

genotype % environment interaction in growth rate. I. Family and site effects over three growing

seasons. Tree Physiology. 19(6): 367-374.

Pressure-volume curves were determined for black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) trees from

four full-sib families. During the first two years, trees were measured from a plantation on a dry

site. In the third year, trees were sampled from the dry site and a wet site. Diurnal measurements

of shoot water potential allowed in situ shoot turgor to be estimated in addition to standard water

relations traits. Over all years, Female 59 progeny displayed lower osmotic potentials at

saturation (Y sat) than Female 63 progeny. Genetic differences in Y sat were similar on both the

dry and wet sites. Modulus of elasticity (e ) was greater for Female 59 progeny than for Female

63 progeny, producing a compensatory effect resulting in no genetic or site differences in osmotic

potential at turgor loss point (Y tlp) or relative water content at turgor loss point (RWC tlp). Mean

and predawn shoot turgor pressures (P x and P pd) were higher for Female 59 progeny than for

Female 63 progeny and higher at the wet site than the dry site. Genotype % environment trends

were observed; compared to Female 63 progeny, Female 59 progeny displayed 9.8 and 5.1

percent higher P pd on the dry and wet sites, respectively, and 3.4 and 9.8 percent greater P pd

values in wet and dry years, respectively. Tree volume growth showed no relationship to Y tlp or

RWC tlp, but was correlated with Y sat and P x; however, the strongest correlation was with P ph (r

=0.90).

View and Print This Publication Now!

Johnson, Tony G.; Steppleton, Carolyn D. 1999. Southern pulpwood production, 1997. Resour. Bull.

SRS-37. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 34 p.

In 1997, the South’s production of pulpwood increased 11 percent to 75.9 million cords.

Roundwood production increased to 54.2 million cords and accounted for 71 percent of the total

pulpwood production. The use of wood residue increased to 21.7 million cords. Alabama leads

the South in total production, number of mills, and pulping capacity. Currently, 103 mills are

operating and drawing wood from the 13 Southern States. Southern mills’ pulping capacity of

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (8 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
140,153 tons per day account for more than two-thirds of the Nation’s total pulping capacity.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Kard, Brad. 1999. Mesh may fit in as a termite barrier. Pest Control. February: [Not paged].

Stainless steel mesh tests are currently being conducted in an effort to investigate alternatives or

supplements to termiticides for control of subterranean termites. Some people are extra sensitive

to insecticides or would prefer to use non-insecticidal means to control termites, and stainless

steel mesh may provide one such alternative.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Koehn, Anita C.; Doudrick, Robert L. 1999. Diurnal patterns of chlorophyll fluorescence and CO2 fixation

in orchard grown Torreya taxifolia (Arn.). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126(2): 93-98.

Diurnal patterns of chlorophyll fluorescence and CO2 fixation in orchard measurements were

taken on sunny days in October 1996, on three Torreya taxifolia (Arn.) plants grown in an open

canopy orchard. Information from chlorophyll fluorescence quenching analysis indicated that

during periods of highest light intensity and temperatures there were reductions in yield of

photosystem II photochemistry and photochemical quenching and increases in nonphotochemical

quenching. Photochemical quenching and yield of photosystem II recovered by the end of the

measurement period in late afternoon to levels measured at the beginning of the day.

Nonphotochemical quenching remained at high levels for a longer period of time and by late

afternoon had not returned to levels measured at the beginning of the day. Diurnal patterns of

CO2

fixation and stomatal conductance showed decreases in the afternoon as ambient temperatures

remained high and light intensity began to decrease. Internal CO2 partial pressures remained

constant throughout most of the day, possibly indicating the presence of nonstomatal limitations

to photosynthesis. The measurements of CO2 fixation and chlorophyll fluorescence on the three

T. taxifolia plants in this study indicate that the plants recovered from daily periods of high light

and temperatures suggesting that they may tolerate higher light conditions than found in their

native habitat.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Kormanik, P.P.; Sung, S.S.; Kormanik, T.L. [and others]. 1998. Effect of acorn size on development of

northern red oak 1-0 seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28: 1805-1813.

The effect of acorn size on seedling development was determined for 20 northern red oak

(Quercus rubra L.) mother tree selections from the USDA Forest Service's Eastern Tennessee

Watauga seed orchard. Acorns from each mother tree were visually separated into three size

groups, weighed, and sown separately in forest nurseries located in Georgia, North Carolina, and

Tennessee. Seedling height, root collar diameter, and survival within sibling seedlots were

significantly related to acorn mass. The three sizes of acorns showed the same trends in seedling

development among the four nurseries. Heritability (h2 ) estimates for the variables were

uniformly high among all acorn sizes. A wide range in sibling seedling quality occurred within

each acorn size class regardless of nursery location. This suggests that while sizing of acorns into

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (9 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
several categories may result in more uniform germination within a seedbed, it will not result in

uniform seedling development even when using sibling seedlots and acorns of uniform size.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Landis, T.D.; Barnett, J.P., tech. coords. 1999. National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery

associations – 1998. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-25. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 192 p.

This proceedings is a compilation of 43 papers that were presented at the 3 regional nursery

meetings in 1998. The Southern Forest Nursery Association Conference was held in Lafayette,

LA, on July 13-16. The Northeastern Forest Nursery Association Conference was held in

Annapolis, MD, on July 27-30. The Combined Forest Nursery Association of British

Columbia/Western Forest and Conservation Nursery Association meeting was held on August

10-13 in Victoria, BC, Canada. The subject matter ranged from seed collection and processing –

through nursery cultural practices – to harvesting, storage, and outplanting.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Lee, Andy W.C.; Hse, Chung Y. 1993. Evaluation of cement-excelsior boards made from yellow-poplar

and sweetgum. In: Hse, Chung-Yun; Branham, Susan J.; Chou, Chun, eds. Adhesive technology and bonded

tropical wood products. Taiwan, China: Taiwan Forestry Research Institute: 565-571.

Previous research conducted in the laboratory pointed out several hardwood species which were

either superior, comparable, marginal, or unsuitable for manufacturing cement-excelsior board

(CEB). In this study, forty full-sized boards were manufactured in a commercial production facility

with the following species: yellow-poplar, sweetgum, southern pine, and sweetgum/southern pine

mixture. The properties of hardwood CEB were evaluated and compared with those of standard

southern pine CEB. Results indicate that CEB made with yellow-poplar has equal or better

properties than southern pine CEB. However, CEB made with all sweetgum or 50 percent

sweetgum/50 percent southern pine does not meet the requirement of bending strength.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Lemly, A. Dennis. 1999. Selenium transport and bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems: a proposal for

water quality criteria based on hydrological units. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 42: 150-156.

Local water quality criteria for selenium should be based on an assessment of the degree of

toxicological hazard to fish and wildlife, which is influenced by the spatial and temporal variation

of the selenium cycle at the site under consideration. The physical area from which

measurements are taken to evaluate selenium residues and biological effects, i.e., the database

for setting site-specific criteria, must encompass more than an isolated segment of river, a

tributary stream, etc. Because of hydrological connections between the various aquatic habitats

that may be present in a watershed basin -- wetlands, rivers, streams, and impoundments -- the

toxic threat from selenium contamination is also connected. For example, a criterion that is

appropriate for a stream or river where low bioaccumulation occurs may result in seemingly

harmless concentrations of selenium becoming a problem in downstream impoundments or in

off-channel bays and wetlands where bioaccumulation is greater. The hydrologically connected

parts of a basin downstream of a selenium discharge (natural or synthetic selenium source),

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (10 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
extending to the point at which new sources of low-selenium water dominate the hydrology (e.g.,

confluence with larger tributary or river, spring, or ground-water inflow), should be the area

evaluated and given a specific criterion, not isolated components. Thus, a hydrological unit should

be identified and used as the "site" for the purpose of setting criteria. Importantly, criteria derived

in such a fashion will reflect the transport and bioaccumulation of selenium within the entire

hydrological unit rather than simply focusing on a small, artificially designated segment of the

system. Failure to use a hydrological-unit approach can set the stage for significant biological and

legal problems.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Loeb, Susan. 1999. Responses of small mammals to coarse woody debris in a southeastern pine forest.

Journal of Mammalogy. 80(2): 460-471.

The importance of coarse woody debris (CWD) to small mammals in a managed pine forest in

South Carolina was tested experimentally during summer and autumn 1990 and winter and spring

1991-1994. Abundance and demographics of small mammals were compared between plots with

abundant CWD created by a tornado (unsalvaged plots) and plots where tornado-created CWD

had been removed (salvaged plots). Species composition was similar between unsalvaged and

salvaged plots, but more small mammals were captured on unsalvaged plots. Cotton mice

(Peromyscus gossypinus) were the most abundant species captured in all plots and were

significantly more abundant in unsalvaged plots in every trapping period. Adult female P.

gossypinus in unsalvaged plots had greater survival and were more likely to be in reproductive

condition than adult females in salvaged plots. Southern short-tailed shrews (Blarina carolinensis)

and cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) tended to be more abundant in unsalvaged plots. Fox

squirrels (Sciurus niger), the second most abundant species in salvaged plots, were never

captured on unsalvaged plots. Large amounts of CWD improve habitat quality of pine forests for

P. gossypinus, and CWD is probably an important habitat component for other species.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Lowe, W.J.; Byram, T.D.; Bridgwater, F.E. 1999. Selecting loblolly pine parents for seed orchards to

minimize the cost of producing pulp. Forest Science. 45(2): 213-216.

Southern pine cooperative breeding programs currently emphasize genetic improvement of

growth rates. When a deployment population, typically a seed orchard, is established, there is an

opportunity to emphasize traits other than growth rate to maximize the profit of individual

cooperators in the breeding program. The authors studied a southeast Texas breeding population

and developed selection indexes to optimize profits for Kraft and mechanical pulp mills. The

relative economic weights for volume and wood density were 1:8.1 and 1:8.6 for Kraft and

mechanical pulp mills, respectively. Choosing parents with these indexes increased expected

profit per ton of dry pulp by 3.4 percent for both mill types. Expected gains in profit were 3.3

percent when parents were chosen based on wood density alone. If parents were chosen based

solely on volume growth, expected gains in profit were only 0.3 to 0.4 percent.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Major, John E.; Johnsen, Kurt H. 1999. Shoot water relations of mature black spruce families displaying a

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (11 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
genotype x environment interaction in growth rate. II. Temporal trends and response to varying soil

water conditions. Tree Physiology. 19(6): 375-382.

Pressure-volume curves and shoot water potentials were determined for black spruce (Picea

mariana (Mill.) BSP) trees from four full-sib families at the Petawawa Research Forest, Ontario,

Canada. Trees were sampled from a dry site in 1992 and from the dry site and a wet site in 1993.

Modulus of elasticity (e ), osmotic potential at turgor loss point (Y tlp) and relative water at turgor

loss point (RWC tlp) all decreased during the growing season. Osmotic potential at saturation (Y

sat) and turgor displayed no general temporal trend. Across a range of environmental conditions,

Female 59 progeny had equal or lower Y sat, and higher or similar e , mean turgor pressure (P x)

and predawn turgor pressure (P pd) compared with Female 63 progeny. Osmotic potential at

saturation decreased as water stress increased from mild to moderate and increased as water

stress increased from moderate to severe. Stable genetic differences in Y sat were maintained by

the same rate of osmotic adjustment from low to moderate water stress. Modulus of elasticity and

RWC tlp decreased with decreasing water availability, whereas Y tlp showed no response. The

combined effects of Y sat and e resulted in no change in P pd as water stress increased from low

to moderate values, but turgor declined sharply as water stress increased from moderate to high

values. The authors conclude that drought tolerance traits strongly influence the growth of these

black spruce families across sites of varying water availability.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Martin, Jonathan G.; Kloeppel, Brian D.; Schaefer, Tara L. [and others]. 1998. Aboveground biomass and

nitrogen allocation of ten deciduous southern Appalachian tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 28: 1648-1659. (Editor’s note: Steven G. McNulty, Southern Research Station project leader

and scientist, co-authored this publication.)

Allometric equations were developed for mature trees of 10 deciduous species (Acer rubrum L.;

Betula lenta L.; Carya spp.; Cornus florida L.; Liriodendron tulipifera L.; Oxydendrum arboreum

(L.) DC.; Quercus alba L.; Quercus coccinea Muenchh.; Quercus prinus L.; and Quercus rubra L.)

at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in Western North Carolina, U.S.A. These equations

included the following dependent variables: stem wood mass, stem bark mass, branch mass, total

wood mass, foliage mass, total biomass, foliage area, stem surface area, sapwood volume, and

total tree volume. High correlation coefficients (R2) were observed for all variables versus stem

diameter, with the highest being for total tree biomass, which ranged from 0.981 for Oxydendrum

arboreum to 0.999 for Quercus coccinea. Foliage area had the lowest R2 values, ranging from

0.555 for Quercus alba to 0.962 for Betula lenta. When all species were combined, correlation

coefficients ranged from 0.822 for foliage area to 0.986 for total wood mass, total tree biomass,

and total tree volume. Species with ring versus diffuse/semiring porous wood anatomy exhibited

higher leaf area with a given cross-sectional sapwood area, as well as lower total sapwood

volume. Liriodendron tulipifera contained one of the highest foliar nitrogen concentrations and had

consistently low branch, bark, sapwood, and heartwood nitrogen contents. For a tree diameter of

50 cm, Carya spp. exhibited the highest total nitrogen content, whereas Liriodendron tulipifera

exhibited the lowest.

View and Print This Publication Now!

McNulty, Steven G.; Sun, Ge. 1998. The development and use of best practices in forest watersheds

using GIS and simulation models. In: International Research and Training Center on Erosion and

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (12 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Sedimentation, ed. Proceedings of the international symposium on comprehensive watershed management;

1998 September 7-10; Beijing, China. Beijing, China: Patent Documentation Publishing House: 391-398.

Forest watersheds provide timber and water, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and recreational

opportunities. However, not an entire watershed is equally suited for each activity. Steeper slopes

may be better left forested and used for wildlife habitat, while more gentle slopes of the watershed

could be used for timber production. Logging steep slopes can lead to soil erosion that can

seriously degrade stream water quality and reduce long-term site productivity. Best Management

Practices (BMP’s) are forest practices designed to minimize negative environmental impacts

caused by human forest use. The difficulty in developing BMP’s arise when multiple objectives

(e.g., improved timber production, water quality, and recreation) are applied to a single

watershed. The objective of this research was to maintain long-term stream water quality,

fisheries, and timber productivity, while minimizing soil erosion and negative water quality impacts

associated with forest management. Computer simulation models and a geographic information

system (GIS) were used to create management scenarios that test how a watershed could best

be managed to maximize its multiple potential use. The authors used an 1143 ha forest

watershed in Western North Carolina, USA. Basin elevations range from 920 m to 1655 m. The

scientists combined a GIS, three desired future conditions, the Universal Soil Loss Equation

(USLE), and a terrestrial transport model to predict BMP’s for the watershed. Through the use of

a GIS, model predictions of sediment production and transport can be spatially distributed across

the watershed and displayed as map outputs of soil movement. This paper demonstrates how

land managers could identify BMP’s using a GIS-based modeling system. Once identified,

alternative management scenarios can be developed to assess the cumulative effects of

management practices on forested watershed health and sustainability.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Miller, James H. 1999. Controlling exotic plants in your forest. Forest Landowner. 58(2): 60-64.

The author discusses the impacts of exotic plants and suggests control and rehabilitation

measures. Trees, shrubs, and vines addressed include silk tree or mimosa, Chinese and

Japanese privet, kudzu, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, and Chinese wisteria.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Nakamura, Hitoshi; Kaneko, Shigeru; Spaine, Pauline. 1998. Differences in molecular characteristics

between Cronartium quercuum from Japan and fusiform rust from USA. In: Jalkanen, Risto; Crane,

Patricia (Pat) E.; Walla, James (Jim) A.; Aalto, Tarmo, eds. Proceedings of the first IUFRO [International Union

of Forestry Research Organizations] rusts of forest trees working party conference; 1998 August 2-7;

Saariselka, Finland. Research Papers 712. Metla, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute: 235-241.

The molecular characteristics were compared among Cronartium quercuum f. sp. densiflorae and

C. quercuum f. sp. thunbergii from Japan and C. quercuum f. sp. fusiforme, fusiform rust from the

USA. The authors examined the PCR-amplified internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of six

collections (RFLP) analysis and nucleotide sequences. The ITS regions of six collections from

Pinus densiflora and four collections from P. thunbergii from Japan and five collections from the

native American hosts P. taeda or P. elliotti were amplified by PCR. The RFLP patterns with the

three enzymes Dra I, Hinf I, and Taq I showed clear differences between the two Japanese

formae speciales and the American C. quercuum f. sp. fusiforme. No differences were found in

the RFLP patterns between ff. spp. densiflorae and thunbrgii. Nucleotide sequences of the ITS2

region confirmed the distinction between ff. sp. densiflorae and fusiforme. Comparisons with

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (13 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
sequence data obtained from GenBank database on the other formae speciales in C. quercuum

also confirmed the distinctiveness of f. sp. densiflorae. These molecular data supported the

morphological differences reported earlier between the Asian and American forms in the C.

quercuum complex.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Peitz, David G.; Tappe, Philip A.; Shelton,Michael G.; Sams, Michael G. 1999. Deer browse response to

pine-hardwood thinning regimes in southeastern Arkansas. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(1):

16-20.

Understanding relationships between stand thinning and browse production allows land managers

to encourage both white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) browse production and timber

production. In this study, browse biomass was determined before thinning and two and four

growing seasons after thinning a 35 yr. old natural loblolly pine-hardwood stand (initially 27 m2/ha

of pine and 8 m2/ha of hardwood basal area). Combinations of 3 loblolly pine (15, 18, 21 m2/ha)

and 3 hardwood (0, 3.5, and 7 m2/ha) basal areas were replicated 3 times, resulting in a total of

27 0.08 ha plots. Understory biomass was determined for 14 browse species on 25 understory

plots systematically located within each plot. Browse production following thinning was dominated

by grape (Vitis spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and

greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Most deer browse species responded negatively to retained pine and/or

hardwood basal areas, with hardwoods having the greater impact. Thinning improved overall

browse biomass availability for deer, but responses varied by individual species.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Schaberg, Rex H.; Holmes, Thomas P.; Lee, Karen J.; Abt, Robert C. 1999. Ascribing value to ecological

processes: an economic view of environmental change. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 329-338.

Decisions made by individual landowners and public land managers can have a significant impact

on the rates of ecological change. Interdisciplinary cooperation is desirable if economists and

ecologists are to correctly interpret the impacts of individual choices for landscape management.

This paper reports results from two studies of the residents of North Carolina which contrast

individual preferences for utilitarian forest benefits and financial returns with less tangible benefits

of forest amenities and ecosystem stability. One study reports preliminary findings from a

forest-benefit mail survey on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests; the second study

presents an analysis of harvest decisions by private landowners. Economic methods pertinent to

valuation of environmental goods are briefly considered. Individual behavior is described which

suggests that segments of the public recognize welfare benefits specifically from forest amenities,

and from "natural" production of environmental goods and services. The two studies suggest how

economic tools may be extended to help quantify complex social and biological values associated

with ecological processes.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Scholl, Eric R.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 1999. Photos for estimating fuel loadings before and after prescribed

burning in the upper coastal plain of the southeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-26. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 25 p.

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (14 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Although prescribed burning is common in the Southeastern United States, most fuel models

apply to only western forests. This paper documents a fuel classification system that was

developed for plantations of loblolly and longleaf pines for the Upper Coastal Plain region.

Multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant function analysis were used to confirm eight

discrete fuel groups. A photo series describing these unique fuel complexes is presented to

display preburn loading and postburn reductions. This photo series will improve the accuracy of

fuel-loading estimates and will provide a measure of the effectiveness of prescribed fires for rough

reduction.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Shear, Theodore H.; Summerville, K.O., eds. 1999. Proceedings: Atlantic white-cedar: ecology and

management symposium; 1997 August 6-7; Newport News, VA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-27. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 82 p.

As the past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecyparis

thyoides (L.) B.S.P.), a conference was convened in August 1997 to present the latest information

in the research and management of the species. New information included, among other things:

natural and artificial regeneration and growth after harvesting; genetics and seedling production;

management on public lands; development of new taper equations for predicting wood volume;

and distribution and composition of plant communities dominated by Atlantic white-cedar. These

were reported in 16 oral presentations and 3 abstracts.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Shelton, Michael G.; Cain, Michael D. 1999. Structure and short-term dynamics of the tree component of a

mature pine-oak forest in southeastern Arkansas. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126(1): 32-48.

The R.R. Reynolds Research Natural Area is a 32-ha second-growth forest with little human

intervention for nearly 60 years. In this paper, the authors characterize the existing vegetation,

which represents 60 years of successional change with no major disturbances, and report

vegetative changes over a 5-year period, which suggest the future successional direction. Trees 3

9.0 cm d.b.h. were inventoried in twenty 0.1-ha plots and placed into four species groups: pines,

oaks, other overstory trees, and midstory trees. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) was the dominant

tree species, accounting for 51 percent of the total basal area and having the largest mean d.b.h.

(56.5 cm) and height (35.7 m). Tree ages ranged from 50 to 140 years for the pines and from 40

to 150 years for the oaks. However, 70 percent of the pines became established in the 4 decades

that followed harvest of the virgin forest in the 1910’s, while the oaks showed two peaks of

establishment (one after harvest and one 50 years before harvest). The pines displayed a

bell-shaped d.b.h.-class, distribution, while the oaks displayed a gradual decline in numbers as

d.b.h.-class increased. In contrast, the other overstory trees and midstory trees had negative

exponential distributions. Multiple occupancy was common within the canopy, which had a

horizontal coverage of 97 percent. Canopy positions of the species groups were as follows:

pines>oaks>other overstory trees>midstory trees. The growth of individual trees was positively

related with tree size. Stand-level survivor growth was positively related with the basal area of the

species group. Recruitment was greatest for the other overstory trees and midstory trees (totaling

6.2 trees ha-1 yr -1 ), but did not occur for the pines and oaks. Mortality of large pines during the

observation period (averaging 3.3 trees ha-1 yr -1 ) resulted in net losses in basal area and volume

for that species group. By contrast, hardwood species groups displayed net increases, totaling

0.17 m2 ha-1 yr -1 for basal area and 1.59 m3 ha-1 yr-1 for volume. Stand dynamics suggest that

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (15 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
the shade-intolerant pines are rapidly being replaced by more shade-tolerant hardwoods.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Spaine, Pauline. 1998. Research on the biology of fusiform rust in the southeastern United States. In:

Jalkanen, Risto; Crane, Patricia (Pat) E.; Walla, James (Jim) A.; Aalto, Tarmo, eds. Proceedings of the first

IUFRO [International Union of Forestry Research Organizations] rusts of forest trees working party conference;

1998 August 2-7; Saariselka, Finland. Research Papers 712. Metla, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute:

231-234.

The incidence of fusiform rust has continued to be one of the major forest disease problems in the

Southeastern United States. In the past, much of the research has concentrated on field studies

with provenance selection and genetic breeding of pine families to increase resistance in the host.

In the last 10 years, there has been an increased interest in the actual biology of the fusiform rust

fungus. Three areas of research on-going in the South are overlapping the areas of molecular,

cellular, and population biology. In order to control the disease, a combination of host genetics will

be valuable, but so will a biological understanding of the survival mechanisms and ecology of

Cronartium species. In the last decade, research has started in the Southeastern United States

with collaborations between Federal and State agencies concentrated on the biology of fusiform

rust.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Spetich, Martin A.; Shifley, Stephen R.; Parker, George R. 1999. Regional distribution and dynamics of

coarse woody debris in Midwestern old-growth forests. Forest Science. 45(2): 302-313.

Old-growth forests have been noted for containing significant quantities of deadwood. However,

there has been no coordinated effort to quantify the deadwood component of old-growth remnants

across large regions of temperate deciduous forest. The authors present results of a regional

inventory that quantifies and examines regional and temporal trends for deadwood in upland

old-growth forest remnants within Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. From 1992 to 1994, down

wood 3 10 cm in diameter and standing trees 3 10 cm d.b.h. were inventoried on 328 one-tenth ha

plots at 12 sites. The mean ratio among the sites by diameter class of the number of standing

dead to standing live trees (dead/live ratio) ranged from 0.08 to 0.11 and was consistent for trees

£ 65 cm in diameter. The dead/live tree ratio was generally greater for old-growth than for mature

second-growth forests (70 to 90 yr old). Mean volume of standing dead trees across all old-growth

sites was 21.4 m3/ha and down wood was 60.4 m3/ha. However, both standing and down wood

volume (total deadwood) increased along a regional gradient of increasing productivity from

southwest Missouri to northeast Indiana and also increased with increasing age of dominant and

codominant trees. Old-growth forests on high productivity sites averaged more pieces/ha of down

wood in all diameter classes and higher volume/ha of down wood in nearly all diameter classes

than did old-growth forests on low productivity sites. A chronosequence of forests from 10 yr to

more than 200 yr since stand establishment indicated a sharply declining down wood volume from

age 10 to 70 yr followed by increasing volume between 80 and 200 yr.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Stelzer, H.E.; Doudrick, R.L.; Kubisiak, T.L.; Nelson, C.D. 1999. Prescreening slash pine and Cronartium

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (16 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
pedigrees for evaluation of complementary gene action in fusiform rust disease. Plant Disease. 83(4):

385-389.

Single-urediniospore cultures of the fusiform rust fungus were used to inoculate seedlings from 10

full-sib families of a five-parent slash pine diallel at two different times in 1994. The presence or

absence of fusiform rust galls was recorded for each inoculated seedling at 9 months

postinoculation, and percent infection levels for each family-inoculum-time combination were used

for detecting differences among host families and fungal cultures and for identifying differential

interactions. The existence of differential interactions between two or more fungal cultures and

two or more host families verifies that complementary gene action does exist in this pathosystem.

Some host families may be excluded from more detailed interaction studies on the basis of their

redundancy and lack of participation in differential interactions.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Sun, Ge; McNulty, Steven G. 1998. Modeling soil erosion and transport on forest landscape. In: Winning

solutions for risky problems: Proceedings of conference 29; 1998 February 16-20; Reno, NV. Steamboat

Springs, CO: International Erosion Control Association: 189-198.

Century-long studies on the impacts of forest management in North America suggest sediment

can cause major reduction on stream water quality. Soil erosion patterns in forest watersheds are

patchy and heterogeneous. Therefore, patterns of soil erosion are difficult to model and predict.

The objective of this study is to develop a user friendly management tool for land managers to

design forest management activities (e.g., road building, prescribed burning) that may minimize

water quality impacts. This system has the capability to predict long-term soil erosion and

sediment transport from hillslopes to stream networks under different climate conditions and

forest management scenarios. A Geographic Information System (GIS) coupled with the

Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model was used to facilitate database development,

manipulation, and output display. The 1140 ha watershed was divided into 30 by 30 m grid cells

and gross soil erosion was first predicted by the USLE model for each cell. The Arc/Info GIS

utilities are employed to calculate the total mass of sediment moving from each cell to the nearest

stream network. Field measurements were used to develop sediment movement routing

functions. This study concluded that poorly managed roads are the main source of sediment in a

forested watershed. The spatial location of forest roads affected sediment contribution to streams.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Swank, Wayne T. 1998. Multiple use forest management in a catchment context. In: Cresser, M.; Pugh, K.,

eds. Multiple land use and catchment management; Proceedings of an international conference; 1996

September 11-13; Aberdeen Research Consortium, Land Management and Environmental Sciences Research

Centre. Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: 27-37.

The objectives in this contribution are (1) to briefly review the history of multiple use forest

management on public lands in the United States; (2) to illustrate, with examples, past and

present approaches to multiple use management in a catchment context; and (3) to suggest

promising approaches, methods, and technology to meet future needs.

View and Print This Publication Now!

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (17 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Tang, R.C.; Pu, Jianhua; Hse, C.Y. 1993. Effect of resin variables on the creep behavior of high density

hardwood composite panels. In: Hse, Chung-Yun; Branham, Susan J.; Chou, Chun, eds. Adhesive

technology and bonded tropical wood products. Taiwan, China: Taiwan Forestry Research Institute: 606-614.

The flexural creep behavior of oriented strandboards (OSB) fabricated with mixed high, density

hardwood flakes was investigated. Three types of adhesives, liquid phenolic-formaldehyde (LPF),

melamine modified urea-formaldehyde (MUF), and LPF (face)/MUF (core) were chosen in this

investigation. The resin contents (RC) used were 3.5 percent and 5.0 percent. The flakes

prepared from white oak, southern red oak and post oak with a mixed ratio of 1:1:1 were used for

the panel fabrication. Results indicated that the panels fabricated with 5.0 percent RC of MUF had

highest bending modulus of rupture (MOR), and the group fabricated with 3.5 percent RC of LPF

(face)/MUF (core) was the lowest. Significant differences among the modulus of elasticity (MOE)

of each resin type and resin content group were not found. Highest internal bond (IB) strength

was observed in the specimens with 5.0 percent RC of LPF (face)/MUF (core) whereas lowest

one was found in the group with identical resin combination but with a 3.5 percent RC. The

flexural creep behavior of the fabricated OSB under a cyclic RH of 65 percent f 95 percent at a

constant temperature of 75° F (23.9°C) was also investigated. The frequency of cyclic RH was

96-hour and the duration of load was 794 hours (approx. 1 month) while the duration of recovery

(after unloaded) was 286 hours under constant 65 percent RH at 75° F. Results indicated that the

creep resistance of OSBs are very sensitive to the cyclic RH of 65 percent f 95 percent at 75° F.

MUF-boards performed best in creep resistance; LPF/MUF groups were the weakest. Significant

effect of resin content level on the creep resistance in LPF- and MUF-OSBs was not found.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Thompson, Michael T. 1999. A forested tract-size profile of Florida’s NIPF landowners. Res. Pap. SRS-15.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 10 p.

Information gathered from 2,713 permanent Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) sample plots

showed that over 1.0 million acres, or 15 percent of the nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)

timberland in Florida is in forested tracts £ 10 acres. Forested tracts ranging from 11 to 100 acres

accounted for the largest proportion of NIPF timberland. By NIPF-ownership group, over 23

percent of other privately owned land was in forested parcels < 11 acres, whereas the other

corporate and farmer-owned categories each recorded 6 percent. There was a higher proportion

of natural pine stands in small forested tracts than in planted stands. Average softwood and

hardwood growing-stock volume varied significantly by forested tract-size category. There was

significantly more softwood growing-stock removals in the largest tract-size category than in the

smallest. Comparisons of harvest and regeneration rates by forested tract size indicate that

harvest and regeneration rates are considerably lower in tracts < 11 acres.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Tomita, Bunichiro; Yoshida, Yasunori; Hse, Chung-Yun. 1993. Kinetics on cocondensation of phenol and

urea. In: Hse, Chung-Yun; Branham, Susan J.; Chou, Chun, eds. Adhesive technology and bonded tropical

wood products. Taiwan, China: Taiwan Forestry Research Institute: 71-83.

The chemical kinetics on cocondensation between methylolphenols and urea under acidic

condition were investigated using 2- and 4-hydroxybenzyl alcohols as well as

2,4,6-trimethylolphenol as model compounds. The reactivity of the cocondensation were

compared between o- and p-methylol groups. Moreover, the kinetics on self-condensations of

monomethylolphenols and cocondensation between monomethylolphenols and urea were

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (18 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
determined simultaneously.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Vose, James M.; Swank, Wayne T.; Clinton, Barton D. [and others]. 1999. Using stand replacement fires to

restore southern Appalachian pine-hardwood ecosystems: effects on mass, carbon, and nutrient pools.

Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 215-226.

Pine-hardwood ecosystems in the Southern Appalachians are in serious decline due to fire

exclusion and insect infestations. Fire has been advanced as a tool to restore these ecosystems,

yet there are few studies evaluating overall ecosystem effects. The authors’ objectives were to

evaluate the effects of stand restoration burning on forest floor nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) pools,

and soil and stream chemistry. The scientists measured changes in forest floor (coarse woody

debris, small wood, litter, and humus) mass, N, and C; changes in soil chemistry (calcium (Ca),

potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, C, and N); and changes in

stream nitrate (NO3 ). Results showed that significant reductions in mass, N, and C occurred only

for litter and small wood on the ridge, where N losses were 52.9 kg ha–1 for litter and small wood

combined. No significant effects were observed on the mid- or lower slope of the treatment

watershed. Losses on the ridge are considerably lower than losses which occur with alternative

burning treatments used in the region, such as the fell and burn treatment. Soil and stream

chemistry showed no response to burning. Spatial heterogeneity in fire intensity (combustion

temperatures ranged from <52- >800° C) and severity associated with stand replacement burning

results in a mosaic of fire effects and considerably less consumption and subsequent nutrient

losses.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Wagner, John E.; Holmes, Thomas P. 1998. Estimating economic gains for landowners due to

time-dependent changes in biotechnology. Forest Science. 45(2): 163-170.

This paper presents a model for examining the economic value of biotechnological research given

time-dependent changes in biotechnology. Previous papers examined this issue assuming a

time-neutral change in biotechnology. However, when analyzing the genetic improvements of

increasing a tree's resistance to a pathogen, this assumption is untenable. The authors derive

analytical expressions for the optimal rotation age given non-constant changes in biotechnology.

Their model is then implemented using (1) growth and yield simulations; (2) optimal rotation

calculations; and (3) survey data on genetic resistance of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) to fusiform

rust. Non-parametric regression models are used to estimate the economic gain functions which,

for the cases considered, averaged about 1 percent of forestland value per year.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Waldrop, Thomas A.; Brose, Patrick H. 1999. A comparison of fire intensity levels for stand replacement

of table mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.). Forest Ecology and Management. 113: 155-166.

Stand-replacement prescribed fire has been recommended to regenerate stands of table

mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.) in the Southern Appalachian Mountains because the

species has serotinous cones and is shade intolerant. A 350 ha prescribed fire in northeast

Georgia provided an opportunity to observe overstory mortality and regeneration of table

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (19 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
mountain pine at various levels of fire intensity. Fire intensity for each of 60 study plots was

classified by discriminant function analysis. Fires of low and medium-low intensity gave rise to

abundant regeneration but may not have killed enough of the overstory to prevent shading.

High-intensity fires killed almost all overstory trees but may have destroyed some of the seeds.

Fires of medium-high intensity may have been the best choice; they killed overstory trees and

allowed abundant regeneration. The forest floor remained thick after fires of all intensities, but

roots of pine seedlings penetrated duff layers up to 7.5 cm thick to reach the mineral soil. In this

study area, fire intensity levels did not have to reach extreme levels in order to successfully

regenerate table mountain pine.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Walker, Joan. 1999. Longleaf pine forests and woodlands: old growth under fire! In: Miller, Gary L., ed.

The value of old growth forest ecosystems of the Eastern United States: conference proceedings; 1993 August

26-28; Asheville, NC. Asheville, NC: University of North Carolina, Asheville: 33-40.

The author discusses a once widespread forest type of the Southeast – longleaf pine dominated

forests and woodlands. This system depends on fire – more or less frequent, and often of low

intensity. Because human-mediated landscape fragmentation has drastically changed the

behavior of fire on longleaf pine dominated landscapes, these forests and woodlands will never

be self-sustaining. Additionally, virtually all of these forests have been disturbed (cutting, plowing,

fire exclusion), or converted irreversibly to other uses. Consequently, preserving existing remnant

old forest will only partially fulfill an objective to conserve the range of diversity in longleaf pine

ecosystems. It is likely that protecting minimally to moderately disturbed second growth longleaf

pine forests, in order to produce some facsimile of "old growth forests" in the future, will be an

important part of the old growth management strategy for the East. The author describes natural

longleaf forests, and provides an overview of the environmental factors and ecological processes

important in creating and maintaining their diversity. Walker presents information about historical

and current distribution and its status. Based on the ecology and status of the forests, the author

offers suggestions for management to preserve the biological diversity associated with old growth

longleaf pine systems.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Walkinshaw, C.H. 1999. Promising resistance to fusiform rust from southeastern slash pines. Res. Pap.

SRS-16. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 6 p.

Two hundred twenty-four disease-free slash pines with good growth and form were tested for rust

resistance. Trees in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi were selected. After artificial

inoculations, a low percentage of open-pollinated progeny of 32 selected trees had galls. In

progeny from six of those, the number of gall-resistant trees increased from 50 to 75 percent after

one round of crossing. Analysis of seedling height, gall length, formation of adventitious shoots,

and pith necrosis suggests that the six families may differ in their response to infection, even

though they form similar percentages of galls. This resistance appears to be stable in a variety of

fungus field isolates.

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (20 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Wear, David N.; Liu, Rei; Foreman, J. Michael; Sheffield, Raymond M. 1999. The effects of population

growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management. 118:

107-115.

Expanding human populations may have important effects on the availability of timber from

private lands in the South. To examine the effects of development on timber supply, the authors

compared the density of populations and various site variables with expert opinions on the future

location of commercial timberland for a study site in Virginia. Population density is a significant

predictor of commercial timberland and resulting probability equations provide a method for

adjusting timber inventories. Findings indicate that the transition between rural and urban land

use occurs where population density is between 20 and 70 people per square mile. Population

effects reduce commercial inventories between 30 and 49 percent in the study area.

View and Print This Publication Now!

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (21 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Please Note: ALL publications listed in this

catalog are available for viewing, printing, and

downloading now! Just click on the "View and

Print This Publication Now!" link listed under

the abstract.

Publications printed by the Southern Research

Station are available upon request in bound

hard copy. Please print a copy of the

Publications Order Form and return it to the

Station address on the form via US Postal

Mail. ( This file is in the Adobe Acrobat

Portable Document Format (PDF). Click on the

icon if you need to download the Adobe

Acrobat Reader used to view and print PDF

files.)

Join our Publications Electronic Mailing List

Return to the Publications Homepage

Return to the Station Homepage

June 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9906_publications.htm (22 of 22) [10/5/1999 3:22:21 PM]
Projected and Actual Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Payments (1000$)

Single year Multi-Year Total

Projected Actual

as of 6/18/99 Projected Actual

as of 6/18/99 Projected Actual

as of 6/18/99

Alabama 20,502 20,140 17,316 16,582 37,818 36,722

Alaska 217 216 34 34 250 250

Arizona 4,344 4,168 1,676 1,609 6,020 5,776

Arkansas 47,791 46,952 3,195 2,931 50,987 49,884

California 167,109 136,649 5,806 5,127 172,915 141,775

Colorado 8,730 8,528 11,241 11,115 19,971 19,643

Connecticut 4,340 3,963 136 136 4,476 4,099

Delaware 530 530 245 238 775 768

Florida 30,119 23,953 3,950 2,942 34,069 26,895

Georgia 73,566 69,969 19,905 19,866 93,471 89,834

Idaho 6,501 6,095 3,561 3,345 10,062 9,440

Illinois 13,802 13,259 13,803 13,335 27,605 26,594

Indiana 17,448 17,205 14,060 13,752 31,508 30,958

Iowa 23,138 22,750 14,018 13,759 37,156 36,510

Kansas 16,570 16,433 24,966 24,245 41,536 40,678

Kentucky 25,513 24,733 2,408 2,399 27,921 27,132

Louisiana 52,989 51,994 1,731 1,727 54,720 53,720

Maine 1,868 1,744 1,491 1,358 3,360 3,102

Maryland 3,350 3,259 919 848 4,268 4,107

Massachusetts 5,968 5,633 107 102 6,076 5,736

Michigan 31,223 30,434 7,967 7,972 39,191 38,406

Minnesota 22,226 20,719 40,281 39,457 62,507 60,177

Mississippi 29,802 28,075 3,627 3,275 33,428 31,349

Missouri 31,810 31,443 10,267 10,014 42,077 41,457

Montana 40,750 40,155 5,038 4,861 45,788 45,016

N. Mariana 0 0 2 0 2 0

Nebraska 16,099 15,936 18,008 17,912 34,108 33,848

Nevada 59 59 27 0 85 59

New Hampshire 1,266 1,253 0 0 1,266 1,253

New Jersey 1,061 922 234 157 1,295 1,079

New Mexico 7,081 6,961 2,849 2,845 9,930 9,806

USDA, Farm Service Agency, Crop Loss Disaster Assisitance Program

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ao/epas/brad/cldap0618.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:37 PM]
New York 9,543 9,385 360 342 9,903 9,727

North Carolina 33,912 32,713 34,488 33,994 68,400 66,707

North Dakota 33,145 32,365 76,219 75,968 109,364 108,333

Ohio 8,500 8,213 7,093 6,075 15,594 14,287

Oklahoma 38,039 37,784 31,239 30,769 69,277 68,553

Oregon 5,125 4,693 467 465 5,592 5,158

Pennsylvania 8,109 7,581 1,512 1,463 9,621 9,044

Puerto Rico 42,584 36,531 2,076 9 44,660 36,541

Reserve 120 6,184 6,305

Rhode Island 324 287 13 13 336 299

South Carolina 29,956 29,454 2,866 2,805 32,822 32,259

South Dakota 22,236 22,169 46,510 45,745 68,746 67,914

Tennessee 19,904 19,582 3,365 3,243 23,269 22,826

Texas 334,380 328,189 126,830 125,754 461,210 453,943

Utah 427 420 361 361 789 781

Vermont 1,224 1,054 0 0 1,224 1,054

Virgin Islands 34 0 0 0 34 0

Virginia 15,038 14,643 6,217 5,975 21,255 20,618

Washington 10,790 9,905 1,214 1,129 12,003 11,034

West Virginia 1,248 1,247 540 540 1,788 1,787

Wisconsin 8,930 8,415 5,022 4,821 13,952 13,236

Wyoming 2,936 2,874 1,280 1,257 4,216 4,131

US 1,332,276 1,261,635 582,724 562,671 1,915,000 1,824,306

June 15th upload

This page was created by Bradley Karmen on Thursday, June 24, 1999.

You are visitor since June 24, 1998.

| FSA Home Page | Comments | USDA Home Page |

USDA, Farm Service Agency, Crop Loss Disaster Assisitance Program

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ao/epas/brad/cldap0618.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:37 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Transforming Pollen for Better

Plants for the “Pharm”

By Don Comis

June 29, 1999

Alfalfa has long been sold in health food stores but it’s now on

its way to becoming a manufacturer of mainstream medicines,

thanks to a technique patented by the Agricultural Research

Service for altering future plants through pollen. The technique,

pollen electro-transformation, was first developed about seven

years ago by ARS biochemists James A. Saunders and Benjamin

F. Matthews in Beltsville, Md. ARS is the USDA's chief

scientific arm.

BTG International, Inc., in Gulph Mills, Pa., licensed the ARS

technique in 1993. Now, BTG has granted a sub-license to

Medicago Inc., Québec City, Québec, Canada, to create

“pharmable” varieties of perennial forage legumes such as

alfalfa and clover. In pharming, gene-engineered plants make

medicinal ingredients that pharmaceutical firms can harvest or

extract directly from plants. This may be less expensive than

having microbes make the pharmaceuticals in fermentation vats.

In electro-transformation, pollen receives an extremely brief

electrical shock that moves the desired new genes into the pollen

cells' genetic material. After this pollen is used to pollinate new

flowers, the plants bear seeds coded for the new genes. This

eliminates the tedium of nourishing gene-engineered cells into

tiny plantlets in lab dishes and, ultimately, into seed-bearing

plants. It also saves time and money. ARS and BTG scientists

worked together to put the technology into practice for tobacco,

corn and alfalfa.

Medicago, Inc.--named for the alfalfa plant genus--plans on

using the technique to create alfalfa varieties that produce

Transforming Pollen for Better Plants for the "Pharm" / June 29, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990629.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:38 PM]
enzymes, proteins and other compounds for human and animal

medicines, vitamins, skin care products, food additives and other

products. This is the latest sub-license from research agreements

between ARS and BTG since 1993. Research agreements with

BTG resulted in the ARS patent.

BTG and ARS also have sub-licensing or option agreements

with American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, N.J., for soybeans and

sugarbeets; Sanford Scientific, Inc., Waterloo, N.Y., for

ornamentals; and Okanagan Biotechnology, Inc., Summerland,

B.C., Canada, for cherry, peach and other stone fruits. BTG

officials are evaluating potential sub- licenses for other crops and

uses.

Scientific contacts: James A. Saunders, ARS Climate Stress

Laboratory, Beltsville, Md., phone (301) 504-7477, fax (301)

504-6626, saund10449@aol.com; Benjamin F. Matthews, ARS

Soybean and Alfalfa Research Laboratory, Beltsville, Md.,

phone (301) 504-5730, fax (301) 504-5320,

bmatthew@asrr.arsusda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Transforming Pollen for Better Plants for the "Pharm" / June 29, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990629.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:38 PM]
Hogs and Pigs (PHP-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This full-text report, issued four times yearly, presents data on the U.S. pig crop for 16 major states

and the U.S., including inventory number by class, weight group, and value of hogs and pigs,

farrowings, farrowing intentions. Also includes the number of operations keeping hogs, the number of

hog operations and percent of inventory by size groups.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Hogs and Pigs (PHP-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/php-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:22:39 PM]
USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service

NASS Ag. Newsletter

A Monthly Publication

The NASS Monthly Ag. Newsletter

is published monthly by

USDA-NASS. It includes estimates,

forecasts, and projections mainly

taken from recent publications of the

National Agricultural Statistics

Service, Economic Research

Service, and the World Agricultural

Outlook Board of the USDA.

1 9 9 9 

January February March

April May June

July August September

October November December

 These publications are

available in Adobe Acrobat PDF

(Portable Document Format) files.

When PDF files are downloaded to

your computer and displayed using

the free Acrobat Reader, the files

will display as an on-screen

publication. You will need the

Acrobat Reader on your computer in

order to read the files.

1 9 9 8 

January February March

April May June

July August September

October November December

If you have not already downloaded the free Acrobat

Reader, you should download it now from Adobe.

[ Other NASS Publications ] - [ USDA Home Page ]

Send comments and questions to: NASS Customer Service at nass@nass.usda.gov

or Phone the NASS Information Hotline at 1-800-727-9540.

USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics

http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/nassfact.htm [10/5/1999 3:22:46 PM]
Click on the map to follow the adventures of elementary school teachers

USDA Sends Teachers to South Africa

 Teachers from three Washington, DC,

elementary schools are traveling to South

Africa to participate in a research project

through the Foreign Agricultural Service,

USDA.

 The teachers will work with South African

scientists in a survey of floral plant diversity at

several parks and conservation areas and will

meet South African educators who are also

participating in the pilot program.

The teachers will also study plant taxonomy

and ecology at the Southern African Wildlife

College in Pretoria. During the two-week trip,

they will also travel to Timbavati Private

Nature Reserve, Kruger National Park, and

Kalahari Gemsbok National Park.

The cooperative effort is funded by FAS'

International Cooperation and Development

and hosted by the Plant Genetic Resources Unit

of South Africa's Agricultural Research

Council.

Learn about South Africa as we follow the teachers through their research project.

Meet the DC Teachers South Africa and USDA

Diary of Activities Meet the Scientists

Photo Gallery The Science

"I expect to be charmed, if not mesmerized by the

USDA Sends DC Teachers to South Africa

http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/safrica.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:55 PM]
natural beauty that awaits us south of the equator."

-- Phillip Roosevelt Oliver

Leckie Elementary School

Last modified: Thursday, July 22, 1999

USDA Sends DC Teachers to South Africa

http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/safrica.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:22:55 PM]
Return to USDA Forest Service Nature Watch Program Home Page

Nature Watch

Coloring Contest

Choose your preference:

 Migration Sensation

 Aquatic Diversity

WANTED

Your Artistic Talents

Join in the fun this summer with this fantastic opportunity to win fabulous

prizes and possibly get YOUR PICTURE used in one of the Nature Watch

Year 2000 Calendars.

Click on the Coloring Contest topics to the left and find out the details of how

YOU can show your artistic skills

to the previous page.

New Page 

http://www.fs.fed.us/outdoors/naturewatch/education/1999_coloring_contest.htm [10/5/1999 3:22:59 PM]
U. S. Department of Agriculture

 Search · Site Map · Links · E-Mail Us · FNS Home · USDA

About WIC

What's New?

FAQs

Contacts

WIC Food Delivery Systems

FNS Proposes Changes to WIC Food Delivery Systems

Comment Period Extended to 10/14/99

FNS Proposes Changes to WIC Food Delivery Systems On June 16, 1999, the

Department published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 64 32308 entitled

"Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC):

Food Delivery Systems." The proposal would amend WIC Program regulations to

strengthen the requirements for operation of vendor management systems by

establishing mandatory selection criteria, limitation of vendors, training requirements,

criteria to be used to identify high-risk vendors, and monitoring requirements,

including compliance buys. In addition, the proposal would strengthen food

instrument accountability and sanctions for participants who violate program

regulations. It would also streamline the vendor appeals process. The rule is intended

to ensure greater program accountability and efficiency in food delivery and related

areas, and to promote a decrease in vendor violation of program requirements and loss

of program funds.

Click here to go to the WIC Food Delivery Systems

Proposed Rule through the Federal Register Online Access.

NOTE: Comments on the proposal are due on or before September 14, 1999. The

comment period has been extended -- comments on the proposal are due on or before

October 14, 1999. Due to the large volume of comments this rule is expected to

generate, electronic transmission of comments, including data faxes and e-mail, will

not be accepted. Written comments may be mailed to Patricia Daniels, Director,

Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center

Drive, Room 540, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

Last Updated: 09/01/99

Last Updated: 09/02/99

Food Delivery System Proposed Rule

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/menu/new/Proposed_Rule.htm [10/5/1999 3:23:12 PM]
[TODAY'S REPORTS]

[Publications]

[Agricultural Graphics]

[Historic Data]

[Data Search]

[Agency Information]

[State Offices]

[Census]

[Research]

[Customer Service]

[Other Links]

[Coming Events]

[USDA HOME]

[NASS HOME]

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1997 Census of Agriculture Profiles

For State and County Profiles data based on the 1997 Census of Agriculture Geographic

Area Series, select from the map or the list provided below:

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1997 Census of Agriculture: State and County Profiles

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/profiles/ag-state.htm [10/5/1999 3:23:17 PM]
1999 . 1998

January/February

March/April

May/June

July/August

September/October

November/December

Note: Rural Cooperatives 1999 on-line issues are in PDF format; Rural Cooperatives 1998

on-line issues are in HTML format. We welcome your comments and/or suggestions.

Copies may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC at $3.00 domestic; $3.75 foreign; or by annual subscription at $11.00

domestic, $13.75 foreign.

Mention in Rural Cooperatives of company and brand names does not signify endorsement

over other companies' products and services.

Rural Cooperatives (1088-8845) is published bimonthly by Rural Business-Cooperative

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has

determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business

required by law of the Department.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service Publications & Magazines

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/openmag.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:23:26 PM]
United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service Publications & Magazines

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/openmag.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:23:26 PM]
[Text Version]

State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

To jump quickly to a particular state, please use the following table, click on the state

abbreviation.

Select a State:

AK| AL| AR| AZ| CA| CO| CT| FL| GA| HI| IA| ID| IL| IN| KS| KY| LA| MA|

MD| ME| MI| MN| MO| MS| MT| NC| ND| NE| NH| NJ| NM| NV| NY| OH|

OK| OR| PA| PR| SC| SD| TN| TX| UT| VA| VT| WA| WI| WY|

Cooperative Service Directory Organizational Chart

ALASKA

Dean Stewart

USDA Rural Development

800 W. Evergreen, Suite 201

Palmer, AK 99645

Phone: (907) 745-2176

Fax: (907) 745-5398

dstewart@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (1 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
ALABAMA

Chris Harmon

USDA Rural Development

4121 Carmichael Road, Suite 601

Montgomery, AL 36106-3683

Phone: (334) 279-3490

Fax: (334) 279-3491

charmon@rurdev.usda.gov

Clyde Rice, Jr.

USDA Rural Development

Room 226 US Post Office &

Federal Building

Culluman, AL 35055

Phone: (256) 734-6522

Fax: (256) 737-7512

crice@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

ARKANSAS

Tim Smith

RBS Loan Specialist

USDA Rural Development

Federal Building, Room 5411

700 West Capital Avenue

Little Rock, AR 72201

Phone: (501) 324-6284

Fax: (501) 324-6271

stucker@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (2 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
ARIZONA

Gary Mack

Rural Development Specialist

USDA Rural Development

Phoenix Corporation Center

3003 N. Central Ave, Suite 900

Phoenix, AZ 850122906

Phone: (602) 280-8717

Fax: (602) 280-8730

gmack@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

CALIFORNIA

Annette Joyner

USDA Rural Development

194 W. Main St, Suite F

Woodland, CA 95695-2915

Phone: (916) 668-2070

Fax: (916) 668-2056

cclenden@rurdev.usda.gov

COLORADO

Victor Crain

Loan Specialist

USDA Rural Development

655 Parfet St, Room E-100

Lakewood, CO 80215

Phone: (303) 236-2801

Fax: (303) 236-2847

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (3 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
CONNECTICUT

Johan Strandson

Rural Development Manager

USDA Rural Development

238 West Town Street

Norwich, CT 06360

Phone: (860) 859-5218

Fax: (860) 859-5223

FLORIDA

Joseph Mueller

USDA Rural Development

4440 NW 25th Place

PO Box 147010

Gainesville, FL 32614-7010

Phone: (352) 338-3482

Fax: (352) 338-3452

Larry Purnell

USDA Rural Development

32245 Merry Road

Tavares, FL 32778

Phone: (352) 742-9711 ext. 5

Fax: (352) 343-3858

GEORGIA

Karen Bryan

USDA Rural Development

355 East Hancock

Athens, GA 30601-2768

Phone: (706) 742-2154

Fax: (706) 546-2135

hfrankli@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (4 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
HAWAII

Tim O'Connell

Co-op Development Specialist

Room 311, Federal Building

154 Waianuenue Ave

Hilo, HI 96720

Phone: (808) 933-6912

Fax: (808) 933-6913

toconnel@rurdev.usda.gov

IOWA

Jeff Jobe

USDA Rural Development

873 Federal Bldg

210 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309

Phone: (515) 284-5192

Fax: (515) 284-4859

jjobe@rurdev.usda.gov

Tom Miller

USDA Rural Development

603 East Platt

Maquoketa, IA 52060

Phone: (319) 652-6731

Fax: (319) 652-4889

tmiller@rurdev.usda.gov

Karla Peiffer

USDA Rural Development

873 Federal Building

210 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309

Phone (515) 284-4665

Fax: (515) 284-4859

kpeiffer@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (5 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
IDAHO

Terry Stigile

USDA Rural Development

9173 W. Barnes Dr., Suite A1

Boise, ID 83709-1555

Phone: (208) 837-8562

Fax: (208) 378-5643

tstigile@rurdev.usda.gov

ILLINOIS & INDIANA

Michael Doherty

USDA Rural Development

402 N. Kays Drive

Normal, IL 61761

Phone: (309) 454-2658

Fax: (309) 452-6642

mdoherty@rurdev.usda.gov

KANSAS

Galen Rapp

USDA Rural Development

1200 S.W. Executive Drive

P.O. Box 4653

Topeka, KS 66604

Phone: (785) 271-2744

Fax:(785) 271-2708

grapp@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (6 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
KENTUCKY

Jeffrey Jones

RBS Specialist

USDA Rural Development

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200

Lexington, KY 40503

Phone: (606) 224-7436

Fax:(606) 224-7425

jjones@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

LOUISIANA

Judy Meche

Cooperative Development Specialist

USDA Rural Development

3727 Government Street

Alexandria, LA 71302

Phone: (318) 473-7960

Fax: (318) 473-7829

jmeche@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

MASSACHUSETTS

Richard Burke

Rural Development Coordinator

USDA Rural Development

451 West Street

Amherst, MA 01002-2999

Phone: (413) 253-4300

Fax: (413) 253-4347

rburke@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (7 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
MARYLAND

Roger Persons

Community & Business Program Loan Specialist

Upper Chesapeake Corporation Center

101 Chesapeake Blvd, Suite A1

Elkton, MD 21921

Phone: (410) 620-0307

Fax: (410) 697-4388

rpersons@rurdev.usda.gov

MAINE

Alan Daigle

Business & Co-op Program Director

P.O. Box 405

Bangor, ME 04402-0405

Phone: (207) 990-9168

Fax: (207) 990-9129

adaigle@rurdev.usda.gov

Milton Ross, Jr.

Rural Development Specialist

99 Fort Fairfield Road

Presque Isle, ME 04769

Phone: (207) 764-4155

Fax: (207) 762-2246

Alden Turner

Rural Development Specialist

P.O. Box 1938

Lewiston, ME 04241

Phone: (207) 753-9400

Fax: (207) 784-1335

Ronald Lambert

USDA Rural Development

Bangor Area Office

28 Gilman Plaza, Suite 3

Bangor, ME 04401-3516

Phone: (207) 990-3676

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (8 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
Fax: (207) 990-5092

rlambert@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

MICHIGAN

Jason Church

Business & Co-op Specialist

3001 Coolidge Rd, Suite 200

East Lansing, MI 48823

Phone: (517) 324-5217

Fax: (517) 324-5224

jchurch@rurdev.usda.gov

Bobbie Morrison

Business & Co-op Specialist

3001 Coolidge Rd, Suite 200

East Lansing, MI 48823

Phone: (517) 324-5222

Fax: (517) 324-5224

rmorriso@rurdev.usda.gov

MINNESOTA

Joe Folsom

Cooperative Development Specialist

USDA Rural Development

410 AgriBank Building

375 Jackson Street

St. Paul, MN 55101-1853

Phone: (612) 602-7803

Fax: (612) 602-7824

jfolsom@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (9 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
MISSOURI

Nathan Chitwood

USDA Rural Development

601 Bus Loop 70 West

Parkade Center, Suite 235

Columbia, MO 65203

Phone: (573) 876-9320

Fax: (573) 876-0984

nchitwoo@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

MISSISSIPPI

Cecil Williams

USDA Rural Development

Federal Bldg, Suite 831

100 West Capitol Street

Jackson, MS 39269

Phone: (601) 965-5460

Fax: (601) 965-5384

cewillia@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

MONTANA

Shelene Reno

USDA Rural Development

Box 850

Bozeman, MT 59771

Phone: (406) 585-2540

Fax: (406) 585-2565

pbsmreno@avicom.net

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (10 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
NORTH CAROLINA

Julie Hessman

USDA Rural Development

4405 Bland Street

Suite 260

Raleigh, NC 27609

Phone: (919) 873-2045

Fax: (919) 873-2075

jhessman@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

NORTH DAKOTA

Dennis Rodin

Business & Co-op Development Specialist

USDA Rural Development

P.O. Box 1737

Bismarck, ND 58502

Phone: (701) 250-4791

Fax: (701) 250-4670

NEBRASKA

Dianna Amandus

USDA Rural Development

8901 South 154 Street, Suite 2

Omaha, NE 68138-3621

Phone: (402) 896-0121

Fax: (402) 891-0429

damandus@rurdev.usda.gov

Linda Mettscher

USDA Rural Development

P.O. Box 2009

North Platte, NE 69103

Phone: (308) 534-2360

Fax: (402) 423-7614

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (11 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
imettsch@rurdev.usda.gov

Delbert Virchow

USDA Rural Development

Federal Bldg, Room 152

100 Centennial Mall North

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 423-9683

Fax: (402) 423-7614

dvirchow@rurdev.usda.gov

NEW HAMPSHIRE & VERMONT

Rhoda L. Shippee, VT

William W. Konrad, NH

USDA Rural Development

89 Main Street

City Center, 3rd Floor

Montpelier, VT 05602

Phone: (802) 828-6030

Fax: (802) 828-6037

Scott Johnson

USDA Rural Development

10 Ferry Street, Suite 218

Box 317

Concord, NH 03301

Phone: (603) 223-6045

Fax: (603) 223-6062

rmcart@rurdev.usda.gov

NEW MEXICO

Eric Vigil

USDA Rural Development

6200 Jefferson St, NE, Room 255

Albuquerque, NM 87109

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (12 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
Phone: (505) 761-4952

Fax: (505) 761-4976

evigil@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

Andres Aragon

USDA Rural Development

242 Mills Avenue

Las Vegas, NM 87701

Phone: (505) 425-3594

Fax: (505)425-1430

aaragon@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

NEVADA

Michael Stoner

USDA Rural Development

1390 South Curry Street

Carson City, NV 89703-5405

Phone: (702) 887-1222 x20

Fax: (702) 885-0841

mstoner@rurdev.usda.gov

NEW JERSEY

John Bartolone

USDA Rural Development

Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22

790 Woodlane Road

Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

Phone: (609) 265-3674

Fax: (609) 265-3651

jbartolo@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (13 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
NEW YORK

Robert Pestridge

USDA Rural Development

The Galleries of Syracuse

441 S. Salina St., Suite 357 5th Floor

Syracuse, NY 13202-2541

Phone: (315) 477-6426

Fax: (315) 477-6448

rpestrid@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

OHIO

Bill Taylor

USDA Rural Development

200 N. High Street, Suite 507

Columbus, OH 43215

Phone: (614) 469-5606

Fax: (614) 469-5158

taylor.383@osu.edu

OKLAHOMA

Kathy James

USDA Rural Development

100 USDA, Suite 108

Stillwater, OK 74074-2654

Phone: (405) 742-1000

Fax: (405) 742-1005

kjames@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (14 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
OREGON

Robert Haase

USDA Rural Development

625 SE Salmon, Suite 5

Redmond, OR 97756

Phone: (541) 923-4358

Fax: (541) 923-4713

rhaase@rural.usda.gov

PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald Ely

USDA Rural Development

RR # 3, Box 27 F

Montrose, PA 18801

Phone: (717) 278-2542 ext.111

Fax: (717) 278-2648

gely@rurdev.usda.gov

Linda Hager

USDA Rural Development

One Credit Union Place, Suite 330

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996

Phone: (717) 237-2289

Fax: (717) 278-2648

ihager@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

Linda Taylor

USDA Rural Development

R.R.#3, Box 27F

Montrose, PA 18801

Phone: (717) 278-3781

Fax: (717) 278-2648

1:taylor@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (15 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
PUERTO RICO

Lyzette Caparros

USDA Rural Development

PO Box 366106

San Juan, PR 00936-6106

Phone: (787) 766-5095

Fax: (787) 766-5844

SOUTH CAROLINA

Jesse Risher

Cooperatiave Development Specialist

Strom Thurmond Federal Bldg

1835 Assembly, Room 1007

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: (803) 253-3653

Fax: (803) 253-3827

SOUTH DAKOTA

Gary Korzan

USDA Rural Development

Federal Bldg, Room 210

200 4th Street SW

Huron, SD 57350

Phone: (605) 352-1142

Fax: (605) 352-1146

gkrozan@rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (16 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
TENNESSEE

Lee Lovelace

USDA Rural Development

3322 West End Ave., Suite 300

Nashville, TN 37203-1071

Phone: (615) 783-1300

Fax: (615) 783-1394

TEXAS

Billy Curb

USDA Rural Development

Federal Building, Suite 102

101 South Main

Temple, TX 37203

Phone: (254) 742-9775

Fax: (254) 742-9709

bcurb@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

UTAH

Jack Cox

Richard Carrig

USDA Rural Development

Wallace Bennett Federal Building

Room 4434, 125 South State

Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0350

Phone: (801) 524-4326

Fax: (801) 524-4406

jcox@ut.usda.gov

rccarig@ut.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (17 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
VIRGINIA

Laurette Tucker

USDA Rural Development

Culpeper Bldg, Suite 238

1606 Santa Rosa Road

Richmond, VA 23229

Phone: (804) 287-1594

Fax: (804) 287-1786

ltucker@rurdev.usda.gov

Barbara Fulcher

Culpeper Bldg, Suite 238

1606 Santa Rosa Road

Richmond, VA 23229

Phone: (804) 287-1604

bjfulcher@va.usda.gov

WASHINGTON

John Brugger

USDA Rural Development

1908 North Dale Lane

Spokane, WA 99212

Phone: (509) 924-7350

Fax: (509) 924-7787

Pager: (509) 249-4659

jbrugger@rdasun2.rurdev.usda.gov

Randall Baird

USDA Rural Development

1606 Perry St. Suite E

Yakim, WA 98902-5769

Phone: (509) 454-5743

Fax: (509) 454-5682

rbaird@rdasun2.rurdev.usda.gov

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (18 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
WISCONSIN

Margaret Bau

USDA Rural Development

4949 Kirschling Court

Stevens Point, WI 54481

Tel: (715) 345-7600 ext. 7108

Fax: (715) 345-7669

mbau@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

WYOMING

Jerry Tamlin

USDA Rural Development

100 E. B, Federal Bldg, Room 1005

P.O. Box 82602

Casper, WY 82601

Phone: (307) 261-6320

Fax: (307) 261-6339

jtamlin@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

Karlene Sjoden

USDA Rural Development

100 East B, Fderal Bldg Room 1005

P.O. Box 82602

Casper, WY 82602

Phone: (307) 261-6319

Fax: (307) 261-6339

United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (19 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
Rural Business-Cooperative Service

July 1999

RBS- CS State Cooperative Specialist Contacts

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm (20 of 20) [10/5/1999 3:23:40 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Trio of New Seedless Grapes

on the Way to Consumers

By Marcia Wood

June 18, 1999

FRESNO, Calif., June 18--Three delicious new seedless grapes

from scientists here at USDA's Agricultural Research Service

may make their way to consumers in the next few years. Melissa,

Summer Royal and Summer Muscat are the newest varieties

from the 76-year-old grape breeding program at the ARS

Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory. Cuttings are now

available to growers and breeders.

The Fresno breeding program is best known for developing

Flame Seedless, America's most popular red seedless grape. The

new varieties have undergone 5 to 18 years of testing in

California's San Joaquin Valley.

Melissa, a new white seedless grape, yields large, sweet berries.

They ripen about the same time as Thompson

Seedless--America's number one seedless grape, said ARS

geneticist David W. Ramming. "But unlike Thompson Seedless,

Melissa vines don't need to be sprayed with a natural growth

regulator to make the plant form big berries. That saves money,"

he said.

Ramming, who leads the grape breeding research program at

Fresno, is a pioneer in "embryo rescue." This is a sophisticated

lab procedure he used to produce Melissa and other recent grape

varieties. In embryo rescue, scientists remove tiny, developing

seeds from promising grapes. In laboratory petri dishes, the

seeds are nurtured into tiny rooted plantlets. "These seeds often

are mere wisps," Ramming said. "In nature, they probably

wouldn't survive."

The Fresno laboratory's new Summer Royal black seedless grape

Trio of New Seedless Grapes on the Way to Consumers / June 18, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990618.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:23:42 PM]
is sweet, large, firm and ideal for snacks and salads. "Summer

Royal fills a production gap at the end of August, when there are

usually no American-grown black seedless grapes on the

market," Ramming said. The California Table Grape

Commission helped fund the research.

Makers of candy-coated raisins might want to try the Fresno

researchers' new Summer Muscat seedless raisin grape. "This

grape has a sweet, strong, muscat flavor somewhat like the

traditional 'Muscat of Alexandria' grape,” Ramming said. "But

it's easier to candy-coat because it's seedless. Muscat of

Alexandria has seeds that have to be removed mechanically.

That makes the raisins sticky and hard to process."

Muscat-flavored grapes are also used to make sweet dessert

wines, he noted.

Summer Muscat is the second dry-on-the-vine or "DOV" grape

developed by Ramming's team. Unlike conventional raisin

grapes, DOV grapes, which dry naturally on the vine once the

cane or branch that they grow on is severed, can be mechanically

harvested, thus saving labor costs.

Scientific contact: David W. Ramming, ARS Horticultural

Crops Research Laboratory, Fresno, Calif., phone (559)

453-3061, fax (559) 453-3088, dramm@qnis.net.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Trio of New Seedless Grapes on the Way to Consumers / June 18, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990618.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:23:42 PM]
Text Version of AMS Home Page

AMS at USDA - Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture Home Page

http://www.ams.usda.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:24:17 PM]
June 1999

Volume XI, No. 6

Features

Coal to Newcastle? No, California Kiwi to New Zealand!

California kiwifruit producers made exporting history, fending off disappointment as New

Zealand's domestic supplies dried up.

New Zealand Market Wins Over U. S.

Exporters

Among the top sellers in this comfortably familiar yet faraway market are U.S.

consumer-oriented products.

Italy Gives "Thumbs Up" to Ethnic Foods

While nothing may ever compare to Mamma’s spaghetti

sauce, today’s Italians have ventured into the great unknown of ethnic food.

Getting Information on U.S. Agricultural

Trade Has Never Been Easier

In the months ahead, our pull-out guide to export

know-how is sure to earn its keep on your bulletin board.

June 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 6

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/jun99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:22 PM]
Vaccinating for the Y2K Bug: Getting Your Business Ready

Media hype or risky business? A little bug or a ravening beast? Here are some explanations

and tips to help you and your organization take the year 2000 in stride.

Departments

Fact File: The World Trade Organization

The launching of global World Trade Organization negotiations this November in

Seattle marks the opportunity for a stronger and more open world trading system.

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Priscilla B. Glynn

Linda Habenstreit

Jeanne McLaughlin

Mary Rekas

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. 703-605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Monday, June 14, 1999

June 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 6

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/jun99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:22 PM]
June 1999

Note: This early release contains world crop production tables and production highlights. The Final

edition (Feature Articles, Weather, and Production Briefs) will be released on June 17.

This month's cover

Production Highlights

Final Edition (Feature Articles, Weather, and Production Briefs)

The following tables are available in Adobe Acrobat and

Lotus version 3 format. You may need to GET the

Acrobat reader.

Download the trade tables in Lotus 123 version 4 format. Please note that

some versions of Netscape Navigator will change the filename extension; if

this happens, you MUST rename the file to .wk4 to access it.

Crop Production Tables

Crop and Weather Information Below Provided by WAOB/JAWF

Crop Calendar by Month for Winter and Summer Crops

FSU Weather and Crop Highlights

China Weather and Crop Highlights

World Agricultural Weather Highlights

Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division Links

PECAD Homepage

PECAD Staff

Crop Condition Assessment: Remote Sensing

Weekly Weather Maps

World Agricultural Production, Table of Contents

http://www.fas.usda.gov/WAP/circular/1999/99-06/toc.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:26 PM]
Last modified: Thursday, July 08, 1999

World Agricultural Production, Table of Contents

http://www.fas.usda.gov/WAP/circular/1999/99-06/toc.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:26 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Rural Conditions and Trends

Volume 9, Number 3 (Rural Industry Issue)

Contacts: Douglas E. Bowers (Executive Editor), 202-694-5398; Fred Gale (Issue Editor), 202-694-5419.

Rural Conditions and Trends is published three times per year by the Economic Research Service. To

order Rural Conditions and Trends or any other ERS publication, please visit the ERS-NASS Sales

Desk.

Articles in this issue:

Overview: A Combination of Longrun Forces and Short-Term Macroeconomic Fluctuations

Are Shaping Rural Industry, by Fred Gale. Several sectors important to the rural

economy--agriculture, mining, and manufacturing--showed signs of weakness in 1998. At the

same time, the growing importance of technology and a skilled labor force to U.S. industry has

important implications for the structure of the rural economy, which has traditionally relied on

agriculture, other extractive industries, and low-skill manufacturing. Deregulation of industry

raises concerns about rural service, but safeguards have been put in place to protect rural

businesses and consumers.

● 

Global Conditions Hurting Rural Economy, by David Torgerson and Karen Hamrick. Although

the U.S. eoconomy continues to grow, global economic conditions have adversely affected U.S.

mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. The confluence of abundant supplies, the appreciation of

the U.S. dollar, and weak demand from Asia and elsewhere have resulted in low agricultural

prices. Slow world growth and low farm prices have softened the rural economy.

● 

Future Job Growth Will Benefit Educated Workers Most, by Karen Hamrick. Nonmetro areas

have disproportionately more workers in industries and occupations with projected slow or

negative growth by 2006. However, a large share of nonmetro workers are in sectors and

occupational groups that are expected to grow at least moderately.

● 

Most Jobs Created by Exports Are in Medium- and High-Skill Occupations, by Chin Lee,

Gerald Schluter, and Fred Gale. U.S. jobs supported by exports are more concentrated in mediumand high-skill occupations compared with jobs displacced by imports, about half of which are in

low-skill occupational categories. Exports also seem to be linked to increasing skill requirements

for workers in rural manufacturing businesses. However, analysis of long-term trends in job

creation shows that domestic demand generates most high-skill jobs.

● 

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat93/ (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:28 PM]
Manufacturing Employers Report Widespread Problems With Labor Quality, by Fred Gale.

Labor quality is a chief concern of manufacturing employers, both rural and urban. New skill

demands due to advanced technology use explain part of the problem, but dissatisfaction with

work attitude is common to high- and low-tech employers. Lack of a high school diploma is linked

to problems with worker skills and attitude.

● 

Advanced Technology Means Better Pay and Benefits for Workers, by David McGranahan.

Manufacturing employers vary considerably in the wages and benefits they offer. "Good jobs"

with high wages and benefits are linked to a number of factors, including use of advanced

technology and management practices, which require greater skills and training. Nonmetro

technology-intensive plants added jobs during 1992-95. Promotion of technology-intensive

manufacturing appears to be a promising development strategy.

● 

Rural Businesses May Benefit from Big Transportation Funding Increases, by Dennis Brown.

Most transportation programs received big funding increases in 1998. Major transportation

developments included reauthorization of highway and public transit funding programs, continued

consolidations in the rail freight industry, and added funding for rural air service.

● 

Electric Utility Industry Restructuring: Issues for Rural America, by Marvin Duncan.

Congress is considering several proposals to restructure the electric utility industry that could

lower the costs of generating electricity as new less costly and more efficient capacity is added to

the generation mix, reducing the average cost of producing electricity. Until now, most of the

restructuring has been at the State level as States have moved forward with restructuring

legislation. Moreover, States will continue to play a vital role because most regulation of the

industry is at State and local levels. Restructuring also would reduce regional differences in

electric rates by stimulating creation of larger regional markets for electricity. Rural households,

farms, and businesses are concerned about a number of issues, including universal access, regional

differences in energy costs, stranded investments, and taxation, that will determine how they fare

under restructuring.

● 

Deregulation Will Not Eliminate Rural Banks, by Daniel Milkove. Interstate banking and

branching are accelerating consolidation of the banking industry. Rural banks and branch offices

that were already owned by large urban bank holding companies or banks are caught up in this

process, but many rural banks will maintain their independent status. The degree to which rural

lenders and their customers will be affected by other changes sweeping the industry is less clear.

● 

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

Contents

Contents, 48 kb

Overview

● A Combination of Longrun Forces and Short-Term Macroeconomic Fluctuations Are

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat93/ (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:28 PM]
Shaping Rural Industry, 17 kb

National Economy

Global Conditions Hurting Rural Economy, 19 kb

Demand for Worker Skills

● 

● Future Job Growth Will Benefit Educated Workers Most, 20 kb

● Most Jobs Created by Exports Are in Medium- and High-Skill Occupations, 90 kb

● Manufacturing Employers Report Widespread Problems With Labor Quality, 32 kb

Advanced Technology Means Better Pay and Benefits for Workers, 54 kb

Deregulated Industries

● 

● Rural Businesses May Benefit from Big Transportation Funding Increases, 33 kb

● Electric Utility Industry Restructuring: Issues for Rural America, 70 kb

Deregulation Will Not Eliminate Rural Banks, 27 kb

Appendix A

● 

Data Sources, 8 kb

Appendix B

● 

Definitions, 14 kb

Appendix C

● 

Latest Trends in Nonfarm Jobs and Earnings, 6 kb

Appendix D

● 

Two Methods of Measuring Farm-Linked Employment, 6 kb

Appendix E

● 

Economic Activity Triggered by Agricultural Trade, 6 kb

Appendix Tables

● 

Tables 1-7, 58 kb

Download entire issue, 320 kb

● 

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat93/ (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:28 PM]
Archives of Past Issues

Top of Page

Page editor: Deana Kussman

Updated: June 10, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 9, No. 2

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/rcat/rcat93/ (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:28 PM]
Animal Regulations Library

 US State Animal Regulations

● Aquatic Animals

● Non-Aquatic Animals

International Animal Regulations

International Animal Product Regulations

International Animal Regulations

Animal Regulations

Veterinarian Directory

USDA : APHIS : Veterinary Services

Animal and Animal Product Regulations

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/guidance/regulations/animal/ [10/5/1999 3:24:35 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Food Safety Features

June 1999

Foodborne Illness Peaks In Summer -- Why?

Year after year, we hear and read the same advice: Handle food carefully in the summer because foodborne

illness -- also known as "food poisoning" -- is more prevalent in warmer weather. Do foodborne illnesses increase

during the summer months? If so, why?

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) looked at the data collected for the first 3 years of the Foodborne

Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) project to help answer some of these questions. The FoodNet

project was developed to better characterize, understand, and respond to foodborne illnesses in the United States.

It is a collaborative project between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration.

Together with state and local health departments in seven selected sites, these agencies work together to collect

data on the incidence and causes of foodborne diseases in the United States. FoodNet conducts active surveillance

to identify confirmed cases of seven targeted pathogenic bacteria (Campylobacter, Escherichia coli O157:H7,

Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia). Data collection has been completed for 3 years, 1996, 1997,

and 1998 [See Figure 1. Source: CDC "Incidence of Foodborne Illnesses: Preliminary Data from the Foodborne

Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) – United States, 1998." MMWR March 12, 1999/48(09);

189-194]. Go to the CDC Web site at www2.cdc.gov/mmwr/weekcvol.html to see the article in its entirety.

Foodborne Illness Peaks in Summer -- Why?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/illpeaks.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:38 PM]
Review of the 1996 through 1998 FoodNet data showed an increase in laboratory-confirmed infections caused by

E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, and Salmonella during the summer months (June through August). But why?

The answer appears to be two-fold.

First, there are the natural causes. Bacteria are present throughout the environment in soil, air, water, and in the

bodies of people and animals. These microorganisms grow faster in the warm summer months. Most foodborne

bacteria grow fastest at temperatures from 90 to 110 ° F. Bacteria also need moisture to flourish, and summer

weather is often hot and humid.

Given the right circumstances, pathogenic bacteria can quickly multiply on food to large numbers. When this

happens, someone eating the food can get sick.

Second, there are the "people" causes for the upswing in summertime foodborne illnesses. Outside activities

increase. More people are cooking outside at picnics, barbecues, and on camping trips. The safety controls that a

kitchen provides -- thermostat-controlled cooking, refrigeration, and washing facilities -- are usually not

available.

Fortunately, people seldom get sick from contaminated food because most people have a healthy immune system

that protects them not only from bacteria on food, but from other harmful organisms in the environment. At the

Foodborne Illness Peaks in Summer -- Why?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/illpeaks.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:38 PM]
same time, FSIS, other government agencies, and food producers go to great lengths to keep food safe. And, of

course, consumers can protect themselves at home with proper refrigeration and thorough cooking of perishable

foods.

We know foodborne illness increases in warm weather. We also know that consumers can follow four simple

steps to safer food in the summertime.

Clean: Wash Hands and Surfaces Often

Unwashed hands are a prime cause of foodborne illness.

Whenever possible, wash your hands with hot, soapy water before handling food and after using the

bathroom, changing diapers, and handling pets.

● 

When eating away from home, pack clean, wet, disposable washcloths and paper towels for cleaning hands

and surfaces.

● 

Separate: Don’t Cross-Contaminate

Cross-contamination during preparation, grilling, and serving food is a prime cause of

foodborne illness.

When packing the cooler chest for an outing, wrap raw meats securely; avoid raw meat juices from coming

in contact with ready to eat foods.

● 

Wash plates, utensils, and cutting boards that held the raw meat or poultry before using again for cooked

food.

● 

Cook: Cook to Proper Temperatures

Food safety experts agree that foods are properly cooked when they are heated for a long enough

time and at a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria that cause foodborne illness.

Take your thermometer along. Meat and poultry cooked on a grill often browns very fast on the outside, so

be sure that meats are cooked thoroughly. Check them with a thermometer.

● 

Cook hamburger and other ground meats (veal, lamb, and pork) to an internal temperature of 160 ° F, and

ground poultry to 165 ° F.

● 

Cook steaks and roasts that have been tenderized, boned, rolled, etc., to an internal temperature of 160 ° F

for medium, and 170 ° F for well-done. Whole steaks and roasts may be cooked to 145 ° F for medium

rare.

● 

● Whole poultry should be cooked to 180 ° F in the thigh. Breast meat should be cooked to 170 ° F.

Cook meat and poultry completely at the picnic site. Partial cooking of foods ahead of time allows bacteria

to survive and multiply to the point that subsequent cooking cannot destroy them.

● 

Chill: Refrigerate Promptly

Holding food at an unsafe temperature is a prime cause of foodborne

illness. Keep cold foods cold!

Cold refrigerated perishable foods like luncheon meats, cooked meats, chicken, and potato or pasta salads

should be kept in an insulated cooler packed with several inches of ice, ice packs, or containers of frozen

water.

● 

Consider packing canned beverages in one cooler and perishable foods in another cooler because the

beverage cooler will probably be opened frequently.

● 

● Keep the cooler out of the trunk and place in the shade or shelter, out of the sun, whenever possible to help

Foodborne Illness Peaks in Summer -- Why?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/illpeaks.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:38 PM]
keep foods cold.

● Preserve the cold temperature of the cooler by replenishing the ice as soon as it starts melting.

If a cooler chest is not an option, consider taking fruits, vegetables, hard cheeses, canned or dried meats,

dried cereal, bread, peanut butter, crackers, and a bottle of refreshing beverage.

● 

Take-out foods: If you don’t plan to eat take-out foods within 2 hours of purchase, plan ahead and chill the

food in your refrigerator before packing for your outing.

● 

Leftovers?

Food left out of refrigeration for more than 2 hours may not be safe to eat. At 90 ° F or above, food should not be

left out over 1 hour. Play it safe; put leftover perishables back on ice once you finish eating so they do not spoil or

become unsafe to eat.

If you have any doubts, throw it out.

For additional food safety information about meat, poultry, or eggs, call the toll-free USDA Meat and

Poultry Hotline at 1 (800) 535-4555; Washington, DC area, (202) 720-3333; TTY: 1 (800) 256-7072. It is

staffed by home economists, registered dietitians, and food technologists weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Eastern time, year round. An extensive selection of food safety recordings can be heard 24 hours a day

using a touch-tone phone.

The media may call Bessie Berry, Manager, USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, at (202) 720-5604.

Information is also available from the FSIS Web site: www.fsis.usda.gov

"The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

For Further Information Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education Staff

Phone: (202) 720-7943

Fax: (202) 720-1843

E-mail: fsis.outreach@usda.gov

Consumer Publications List | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Foodborne Illness Peaks in Summer -- Why?

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/illpeaks.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:24:38 PM]
The United States will host the 3rd WTO Ministerial conference in Seattle from November 30 to

December 3. This is an historic opportunity for the United States to exercise leadership in setting the trade

agenda for the next century, much as we did after World War II. The participants expect to launch a new

round of trade negotiations to reduce trade barriers, and expand exports of agriculture, services, and

manufactured products. The range of WTO work will expand to address emerging issues in the trade

arena.

WTO Fact Sheet

The World Trade Orginization Works For You (.pdf, .html)

America and the World Trade Organization (.pdf, .html)

WTO - Seattle Ministerial Conference

WTO Home page

Agriculture and the WTO

USDA and USTR Listening Sessions

Commodity and State Fact Sheets

Trade Information (1994 - 1998 and year-to-date comparison)

Exports (by product) Imports (by product)

Exports (by market) Imports (by market)

Uruguay Round Negotiations

Other Links

USTR trade agreements page

 Negotiations on Agriculture Objective and Overall Framework for the Agriculture

WTO Listening Sessions

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:41 PM]
Negotiations 

 Communication from the United States (.html) or (.pdf )

 U.S. Proposals on Agriculture (4 documents) (.html) or (.pdf )

USDA Economic Research Service WTO briefing room

Last modified: Friday, September 17, 1999

WTO Listening Sessions

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:41 PM]
Issue 1, June 1999

About this Newsletter

Healthy Animals: An ARS

Priority

U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists have been at

the forefront of animal health research since the

department's inception in 1862. Early successes included

the landmark discovery in 1889 that a tick-transmitted

protozoan causes Texas cattle fever and the development

of the anti-hog-cholera serum in 1906.

Today, animal production, product value and safety ,

including all aspects of animal health, is one of the three

priorities of the USDA's chief scientific agency, the

Agricultural Research Service. The components of ARS'

animal health research program include

● Animal Health

● Arthropod Pests of Animals and Humans

● Aquaculture

● Animal Well-being and Stress Control Systems

Within these general programs, researchers at ARS

laboratories study everything from disease epidemiology

and transmission to diagnosis and vaccination. Scientists

also work to keep animals healthy through optimum

Research Briefs

The first approved modified live

fish vaccine for catfish against

enteric septicemia has been

developed by ARS researchers.

Intervet, Inc., Millsboro, Del., has

licensed the vaccine.

Phillip H. Klesius and Craig

Shoemaker, (334) 887-4526

Poultry should be vaccinated for

mycoplasmosis before they begin

laying eggs--at 10 weeks of

age--to maximize egg production,

report ARS researchers.

Scott L. Branton, (601) 323-2230

A new ARS test detects swine

atrophic rhinitis in 3 days. Other

tests take longer and aren't always

reliable.

Karen B. Register, (515) 239-8275

A new guide to animal handling

and transport is available from the

ARS' National Agricultural

Library.

Brian Norris, (301) 504-6778

ARS researchers discovered that a

fungus-produced compound called

myriocin may help save horses

exposed to fumonisincontaminated corn.

Healthy Animals Newsletter

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/ha/han1.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:44 PM]
nutrition and management systems that reduce stress

And the list of accomplishments grows every year. In

1998, ARS researchers announced the first noninvasive

test for scrapie , a fatal brain disease of sheep and goats.

Other ARS scientists helped discover that dogs host

Neospora caninum, a parasite that causes pregnant cows

to abort. That finding provides a missing key to

understanding some cattle abortions.

Early on, research efforts were often geared towards

animal survival. Now many programs address chronic

problems like mastitis in dairy cows or ascites in poultry

that can occur in large-scale production agriculture.

ARS can also quickly mobilize its resources to address

emerging diseases or outbreaks, such as new strains of

avian leukosis in poultry or vesicular stomatits in cattle

and horses. State-of-the-art quarantine facilities at some

of the laboratories also allow ARS to study disease

agents that may pose a threat to U.S. agriculture in the

future, or which affect international trade.

Now, as in the past, ARS strives to keep animals healthy

and productive. Be sure to visit the links below to find

out more about ARS research.

Ronald Riley, (706) 546-3377

Better Salmonella detection

methods in poultry may result

from an ARS discovery that

Salmonella pullorum has flagella

and can therefore propel itself

through bodily fluids. Previously,

researchers believed this strain did

not have this transport ability.

Peter Holt, (706) 546-3442

The leaves from forage peanut

plants are just as nutritious for

goats as alfalfa, ARS scientists

found.

William Windham, (706)

546-3513

A gamma-irradiated vaccine for

coccidiosis developed by ARS

scientists can help producers deal

with the disease. The vaccine isn't

feasible as the only long-term

solution because it is difficult to

produce, but researchers are

investigating several additional

options.

Harry Danforth, (301) 504-8300

Click here to view additional

research briefs.

Back to Top

ARS Animal Health Research Laboratories

For More Information

Healthy Animals Newsletter

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/ha/han1.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:44 PM]
WAOB home page | OCE home page | USDA home page

Office of the Chief Economist

Interagency Commodity Estimates Committees Study

Statement by Chief Economist Keith Collins on Completion of the Study

Findings and Recommendations only Adobe Acrobat (pdf) Microsoft Word 97

Entire study

❍ Adobe Acrobat (pdf) 787 kilobytes

❍ Microsoft Word 97 3.5 megabytes

❍ Microsoft Word, zipped 1.9 megabytes; unzip to read

Last revised: June 7, 1999

URL http://www.usda.gov/oce/icecstudy/index.htm

Interagency Commodity Estimates Committee Study

http://www.usda.gov/oce/icecstudy/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:24:45 PM]
United States Department of Agriculture

Nomination Guidelines

You are cordially invited to

Submit your nomination to FNS for consideration

in our 1999 Dan Glickman Pyramid of Excellence

Award Program

Objectives:

To recognize excellence and innovation in the administration of nutrition assistance programs by our

State and local cooperators.

To increase public awareness of FNS programs and the Federal and State partnerships through

which they are administered.

To promote information sharing and replication of innovative approaches to program administration

across programmatic as well as geographic boundaries.

Programs accepting nominations.

Food Stamp Program

WIC Program (WIC and WIC Farmer’s Market Programs)

School Programs (National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and Special Milk Program)

Community Nutrition Programs (Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food

Program, and Homeless Children Nutrition Program)

Commodities Programs (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, The Emergency Food

Assistance Program, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Nutrition Program for the Elderly,

Charitable Institutions that provide meals with commodities such as soup kitchens, churches,

shelters, etc.)

1999 Dan Glickman Pyramid of Excellence Award Nomination

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/menu/pyramid/pyramid.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:48 PM]
How many awards will be given out and who may submit the nominations?

Five awards will be presented. Nominations will be accepted from FNS regional offices, Governor’s offices, State

and local organizations, non-profit organizations, and peers.

What is the closing date for the receipt of nominations?

Nominations must be received by 3:00 PM EST on Monday, September 13, 1999.

Examples of Last Year's Winners

 Microsoft Word Doc ( 98pyramid.doc 38 KB) PDF File (98pyramid.pdf 32 KB)

Where do I submit my nominations?

Nominations must be mailed to:

FNS Administrator

3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 803

Alexandria, Virginia 22302

Who can I call to get my questions answered?

Please call (703) 605-0765. A coordinator will respond to your questions.

Last Updated: 08/23/99

1999 Dan Glickman Pyramid of Excellence Award Nomination

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/menu/pyramid/pyramid.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:24:48 PM]
Search Tips

Tuesday, October 05, 1999

Crop Policies

Overview | Types of Policies | Producer Obligations | Producer Expectations | Important Deadlines | New Policies and Policy

Expansion

Overview

Buying a crop insurance policy is one risk management option. Producers should always

carefully consider how a policy will work in conjunction with their other risk management

strategies to insure the best possible outcome each crop year. Crop insurance agents and

other agri-business specialists in the private and public sectors can assist farmers in

developing a good management plan.

RMA provides policies for more than 76 crops. (This number would be much higher if every

crop variety insured in every county were counted.) RMA is also currently conducting

studies to determine the feasibility of insuring many other crops and is conducting pilot

programs for some new crop policies in selected states and counties. Federal crop insurance

policies typically consist of (1) the Common Crop Insurance Policy; (2) the specific crop

provisions; and (3) the policy endorsements and special provisions. See RMA's Summary of

Business Reports for information about crop policies available in specific counties and states.

 View policies available for: 1998 | 1999 | 2000

Types of Policies

Farmers may select from various types of policies. Standard Multiple Peril Crop Insurance

(MPCI) policies are available for most insured crops. Other plans may not be available for

some insured crops in some areas. In addition, some of the policies listed below are not

available nationwide; they are being tested in pilot programs and are only available in

selected states and counties.

Yield-based (APH) Insurance Coverage

Multiple Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI)--These policies insure producers against

losses due to natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost,

insects, and disease. The farmer selects the amount of average yield he or she wishes

to insure; from 50 to 75 percent (in some areas to 85 percent). The farmer also selects

the percent of the predicted price he or she wants to insure; between 55 and 100

percent of the crop price established annually by RMA. If the harvest is less than the

yield insured, the farmer is paid an indemnity based on the difference. Indemnities are

calculated by multiplying this difference by the insured percentage of the established

● 

Crop Policies

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/policies/ (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:25:07 PM]
price selected when crop insurance was purchased.

View our MPCI factsheet.

Group Risk Plan (GRP)--These policies use a county index as the basis for

determining a loss. When the county yield for the insured crop, as determined by the

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), falls below the trigger level chosen

by the farmer, an indemnity is paid. Payments are not based on the individual farmer's

loss records. Yield levels are available for up to 90 percent of the expected county

yield. GRP protection involves less paperwork and costs less than the farm-level

coverage described above. However, individual crop losses may not be covered if the

county yield does not suffer a similar level of loss. This type of insurance is most often

selected by farmers whose crop losses typically follow the county pattern.

View our GRP factsheet.

● 

Dollar Plan--The dollar plan provides protection against declining value due to

damage that causes a yield shortfall. The amount of insurance is based on the cost of

growing a crop in a specific area. A loss occurs when the annual value of the crop is

less than the amount of insurance. The maximum dollar amount of insurance is stated

on the actuarial document. The insured may select a percent of the maximum dollar

amount equal to CAT (catastrophic level of coverage), limited, or additional coverage

levels. The dollar plan is available for several crops, including fresh market tomatoes,

strawberries, and cherries (on a pilot proram basis in limited areas only).

● 

Revenue Insurance Plans

Note: All revenue-based options determine revenue differently. See each policy's provisions

for their definition of revenue.

Group Revenue Insurance Policy (GRIP)--GRIP makes indemnity payments only

when the average county revenue for the insured crop falls below the revenue chosen

by the farmer.

● 

Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR)--insures the revenue of the entire farm rather than

an individual crop by guaranteeing a percentage of average gross farm revenue,

including a small amount of livestock revenue. The plan uses information from a

producer's Schedule F tax forms to calculate the policy revenue guarantee.

View our AGR factsheet. (This factsheet is in Adobe PDF format.)

● 

Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC)--provides revenue protection based on price and

yield expectations by paying for losses below the guarantee at the higher of an

early-season price or the harvest price.

● 

Income Protection (IP)--protects producers against reductions in gross income when

either a crop's price or yield declines from early-season expectations. To determine

coverage, see the policy provisions.

● 

Revenue Assurance (RA)--provides dollar-denominated coverage by the producer

selecting a dollar amount of target revenue from a range defined by 65-75 percent of

expected revenue. To determine coverage, see the policy provisions.

● 

Crop Policies

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/policies/ (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:25:07 PM]
Policy Endorsements

Catastrophic Coverage (CAT)--pays 55 percent of the established price of the

commodity on crop losses in excess of 60 percent. The premium on CAT coverage is

paid by the Federal government; however, producers must pay a $60 administrative

fee for each crop insured in each county. Limited-resource farmers may have this fee

waived. CAT coverage is not available on all types of policies.

● 

Producer Obligations

Producers must:

● Report acreage accurately,

● Meet policy deadlines,

● Pay premiums when due, and

● Report losses immediately.

Producer Expectations

Producers will receive:

● Accurate answers to questions on types of coverage,

● Prompt processing of their policy, and

● Timely payments for covered losses.

Important Deadlines

● Sales closing date--last day to apply for coverage.

● Final planting date--last day to plant unless insured for late planting.

Acreage reporting date--last day to report the acreage planted. If not reported,

insurance will not be in effect.

● 

Date to file notice of crop damage--after damage; the date the producer decides to

discontinue caring for the crop; prior to the beginning of harvest; immediately, if

farmer determines that the crop is damaged after harvest begins; or the end of the

insurance period, whichever is earlier.

● 

● End of insurance period--latest date of insurance coverage.

● Payment due date--last day to pay the premium without being charged interest.

● Cancellation date--last day to request cancellation of policy for the next year.

Production reporting date--last day to report production for Actual Production

History (APH).

● 

Debt termination date--date insurance company will terminate policy for

nonpayment.

● 

New Policies and Policy Expansion

Although in recent years, RMA has streamlined the process of developing new policies,

much has to be done before a policy can be made available nationwide, especially if it is a

new type of policy or a policy on a crop which is not similar to any crop already insured.

Crop Policies

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/policies/ (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:25:07 PM]
Generally, the process takes several years. Read in Frequently Asked Questions about how

insurance policies are developed. Also see feasibility studies and pilot programs for more

information on how RMA develops new policies.

In areas where an established crop policy is not available, farmers may request that their

RMA Regional Office expand the program to their county the next crop year. They may also

request that for the current crop year they be insured under a written agreement, a kind of

individual policy which bases premium rates on data from other counties. Farmers are

required to have at least 1 year of documented experience in growing the crop to obtain the

agreement.

Note: Any examples are for illustrative purposes only. Contact a crop insurance agent for terms

specific to your farm.

Privacy & Security | Nondiscrimination Statement | Document Accessibility

Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may

be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-474) and the

National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

Back to top of page.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 08:32:22 CDT

Crop Policies

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/policies/ (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:25:07 PM]
Other Trade Shows

The page is a collection of trade shows not listed on the "USDA Trade Show" calendar, but recommended

by FAS overseas offices. Interested parties should request additional information directly from the contact

listed for the event.

This partial list is furnished for your information. No discrimination is intended

and no guarantee of reliability is implied.

August, 1999 Caribbean Basin - A Taste of the Caribbean

Taiwan - American 4th of July

September, 1999 Australia - Fine Food '99

China - Shanghai - Food China '99

Egypt - 2nd Great American Food Fest

Italy - FLORMART

Italy - SANA

Japan - Asahi Foodland

Japan - Ehime Pan Pacific Business Fair

Japan - Maruichi Sansho Wholesaler Event

Taiwan - 1999 American Food Festival

October, 1999 Italy - SAIE I

Japan - Osaka - Beer Summit '99

Japan - Osaka - G-BOC '99

Japan - Osaka - Hoteres & Foodex Kansai '99

Japan - Matsuyama,Shikoku Island -

Matsuyama International Fair

Thailand - International Food and Hospitality Show '99

China - AgriLink 1999

China - WoodMac & FurniTek China 99

China - Fall'99 National Candy & Spirits Fair

November, 1999 China - Shanghai - China Fisheries & Seafood Expo

International Export Events

http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/shows/intoppt.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:10 PM]
'99

France - Batimat '99

Italy - FLOROMA

Italy - LINEAPPELE

Korea - Seoul International Bakery Fair '99

Japan - Tokyo -U.S. Food Regional Agent Showcase.

Switzerland - IGEHO 99

December, 1999 China - Guangzhou - ChinaMart '99

January, 2000 Germany - Fruit Logistica 2000

Germany - ISM 2000 (International Sweets and Biscuit)

February, 2000 Bahrain - MEFEX

Germany - ISM 2000 (International Sweets and Biscuit)

Germany - Bio Fach 2000

March, 2000 Germany - Internorga 2000

Japan - Japan Flora 2000

Japan - Osaka - Hoteres & Foodex Kansai '99

October, 2000 Australia - Fine Food '99

China - Shanghai -National Candy and Spirits Trade

Show

Japan - Japan Flora 2000

Last modified: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

International Export Events

http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/shows/intoppt.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:10 PM]
Best Prospects for U.S. Exports of Food and Fiber

Get a listing of the best prospects for U.S. exports of food and fiber in the top 20 U.S.

markets. Information includes current value of imports, projected rate of import growth,

and absolute market share.

Belgium Japan

Canada Korea

China Mexico

Colombia Netherlands

Dominican Republic Philippines

Egypt Spain

France Taiwan

Germany Turkey

Hong Kong United Kingdom

Italy

Last modified: Tuesday, May 04, 1999

Best Prospects for U.S. Exports

http://www.fas.usda.gov/cmp/prospects/bestprosp.html [10/5/1999 3:25:12 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Food Irradiation and Chlorine

Team Up to Kill E. coli O157:H7

and Salmonella

By Doris Stanley Lowe

June 1, 1999

Treating alfalfa seeds and sprouts with a combination of

irradiation and chlorine effectively safeguards them against

contamination by E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, Agricultural

Research Service scientists report.

ARS scientists Donald W. Thayer, Kathleen T. Rajkowski and

William F. Fett found that a treatment of irradiation and chlorine

solution not only killed both organisms, but extended the shelf

life of sprouts from about five days to more than a week. They

conducted the lab studies at the ARS Eastern Regional Research

Center’s Food Safety and Plant Science and Technology

Research Units in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania. The research is part

of the effort by a task force of representatives from several

Federal Government agencies and industry to find ways to

control microbial contamination of sprouts .

The finding is good news for sprout growers. Since 1995, raw

alfalfa sprouts have been recognized as a source of foodborne

illness in the United States, with several outbreaks of both E. coli

O157:H7 and Salmonella. FDA and the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention have advised those at high

risk—including children, the elderly, and persons with

compromised immune systems—to avoid eating raw alfalfa

sprouts. Since sprouts can’t withstand abrasive physical washing

because of their fragility, cleaning the seed has become the

primary focus.

In the tests, the scientists used the irradiation dose approved for

Food Irradiation and Chlorine Team Up to Kill E. coli O157:H7 and S... / June 1, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990601.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:13 PM]
irradiating meat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

has approved ionizing radiation as a safe and effective food

preservation tool.

Along with irradiation, they subjected alfalfa seeds to 2-percent,

2.5-percent, and 3-percent weight-per-volume concentrations of

calcium hypochlorite (a chlorine source). A 3-percent

concentration equals about 20,000 parts per million of available

chlorine. With a neutral pH of about 7, the 2.5 and 3-percent

concentrations reduced E. coli O157:H7 99.99 percent. The pH

level is important because at a higher pH level, such as 10, the

chlorine would change to a form that would not be as effective in

killing bacteria.

According to the scientists, the best way to eliminate pathogens

would be a combination of irradiation and sanitation treatments.

This is because sprouts can be contaminated internally, which

would prevent a surface disinfectant from working effectively.

ARS is USDA’s chief scientific research agency. More

information on this story appears in the agency’s June

Agricultural Research magazine, available at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun99/food0699.htm

Scientific contact: Donald W. Thayer, ARS Food Safety

Research Unit, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor,

PA 19038, phone (215) 233-6582, fax (215) 233-6406,

dthayer@arserrc.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Food Irradiation and Chlorine Team Up to Kill E. coli O157:H7 and S... / June 1, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990601.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:13 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

News and Information

Updated August 27, 1999

Listeria monocytogenes

Federal Register; Industry Guidance

FSIS Notice 23-99, Instructions for Verifying the Listeria

monocytogenes Reassessment (August 3, 1999)

● 

FSIS Notice 17-99, Listeria monocytogenes Reassessment (June 17,

1999)

● 

Listeria monocytogenes contamination of ready-to-eat products;

compliance with HACCP system regulations and comment request (May

26, 1999)

● 

● Listeria Guidelines for Industry, May 1999

Latest News

FSIS Announces Strategy To Control Listeria Monocytogenes In

Ready-To-Eat Meat And Poultry Products: News Release, May 25, 1999

● 

USDA Recommends Safeguards for Consumers At Increased Risk for

Listeriosis, May 25, 1999

● 

Backgrounders

● FSIS Action Plan for Addressing Listeria monocytogenes, May 1999

● FSIS Strategies for Addressing Listeria monocytogenes, February 1999

Consumer Information from FSIS:

Listeriosis and Food Safety Tips, May 1999

PDF version for reproduction [use legal (81⁄2 x 14") paper and shrink

to fit]

● 

● 

● Listeria monocytogenes and Listeriosis, February 1999

Press Availability, May 25, 1999

● Remarks of Thomas J. Billy

Public Meeting, February 10, 1999

● Opening Remarks of Dr. Catherine E. Woteki

● Opening Remarks of Thomas J. Billy

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Listeria monocytogenes

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/lm.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:16 PM]
Preventing Foodborne Illness: Listeriosis (Brochure)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/publications/brochures/lister.htm

Listeriosis Fact Sheet (Updated December 25, 1998)

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/lister.htm

CDC Media Relations

Update: Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis (News Release, Updated March 17,

1999)

Links to these FAQ's, updated January 22, 1999:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/foodborn/lister.htm

CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Update: Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis -- United States,

1998-1999, January 08, 1999 / 47(51);1117-1118

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056169.htm

● 

Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis -- United

States, 1998, December 25, 1998 / 47(50);1085-6

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056024.htm

● 

For more information about foodborne bacteria:

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition

Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook

(The"Bad Bug Book")

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/intro.html

The Partnership for Food Safety Education

The Problem of Foodborne Illness

http://www.fightbac.org/problem/index.html

● Includes Ten Least Wanted Foodborne Pathogens and

● Organisms That Can Bug You

For Further Information Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education Staff

MEDIA: Media Communications Office, (202) 720-9113

CONSUMERS: Meat and Poultry Hotline, 1-800-535-4555 or (202) 720-3333 (voice); 1-800-256-7072 (TTY)

FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Listeria monocytogenes

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/lm.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:16 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Iron for Premature Infants--Is

Formula the Best Way?

By Jim De Quattro

May 28, 1999

Extra iron is part of physicians' nutritional strategies for newborn

premature infants. But they disagree on whether their tiny

patients should get the iron along with their formula or between

feedings. A new study at the Children's Nutrition Research

Center in Houston, Texas, concludes iron-fortified formulas are

a good option.

While the researchers found that premature infants actually made

2 percent better use of iron given separately, this very small

increase is not significant compared to the extra effort required

and the possible stomach irritation that can come with giving

iron as a separate supplement.

It is simpler and effective to use iron-enriched formulas for

premature infants when breast feeding isn’t an option. Giving

premature infants iron-fortified formula enables them to

“graduate” from the hospital sooner and join their families at

home.

The Houston center is a cooperative venture of the Agricultural

Research Service and Baylor College of Medicine. ARS is

USDA's chief scientific agency.

Pediatric nutritionists have long agreed that extra iron can also

push up red blood cell production. As a result, many milk

formulas designed for preemies are fortified with iron.

But researcher Steven A. Abrams, an expert in metabolism

research at the Houston center, wanted to scientifically confirm

the optimal method of providing iron to preemies. High levels of

calcium are contained in formulas used for premature infants.

Iron for Premature Infants--Is Formula the Best Way? / May 28, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990528.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:17 PM]
Could the extra calcium interfere with the iron absorption?

Abrams and a research team decided to find out.

They traced red blood cell iron use in 13 premature infants given

both kinds of iron treatments. They used stable isotopes of iron

to compare the rate at which the infants’ bodies used the iron in

formulas versus separate supplements.

Scientific contact: Steven A. Abrams, ARS Children’s Nutrition

Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas,

phone (713) 798-7124, fax (713) 798-7119,

sabrams@bcm.tmc.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Iron for Premature Infants--Is Formula the Best Way? / May 28, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990528.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:25:17 PM]















































Farm_Labor_(PFL-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This file contains regional and national data for self-employed, unpaid, and hired workers and wage

rates for selected weeks; also hired worker numbers and wage rates for selected states.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Farm_Labor_(PFL-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pfl-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:25:55 PM]
Sugar and Sweetener (SSS-BB)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines world and U.S production, consumption, supply and use, trade, stocks, and prices for beet

and cane sugar, and high fructose corn syrup.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Sugar and Sweetener (SSS-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/specialty/sss-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:25:59 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

USDA Research Yields New

Wheat Variety to Help Farmers

Fight Scab

By Don Comis

May 18, 1999

WASHINGTON, May 21--A new variety of wheat developed

by USDA researchers will help farmers in the Northern Great

Plains slow the spread of wheat scab, a costly fungal disease,

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced today.

"USDA's intensified research efforts are helping American

farmers fight wheat scab," Glickman said. "This new wheat

variety, our most scab-tolerant ever, will be available to farmers

for the spring 2000 planting season, preventing more damage by

this costly disease."

Scab losses cost American wheat growers more than $2.6 billion

between 1991 and 1997. Scab, or Fusarium head blight, shrivels

kernels of wheat and other cereal grain crops such as barley. The

disease also produces toxins that can make crops unsuitable for

flour, cereal, some malt, and animal feed. Many growers

discovered the problem only after harvesting wheat kernels that

were empty shells.

The new variety, McVey hard red spring wheat, slows the spread

of the disease in the seedhead so fewer kernels are destroyed. It

is the first product to emerge from USDA's accelerated research

efforts in response to the scab epidemic.

This year, USDA increased its annual research spending on scab

by $3 million. The new funding to USDA Agricultural Research

Service and university researchers builds on the $500,000 per

year that USDA has allocated each year since 1997. The

researchers are part of the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative,

USDA Research Yields New Wheat Variety to Help Farmers Fight Scab / May 18, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990518.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:00 PM]
a consortium of 20 state universities supported by many wheatand barley-related organizations and individuals. Minnesota

farmer Tom Anderson and Michigan State University breeder

Rick Ward are co-chairs of the scab consortium.

The new variety is named for Donald V. McVey, a plant

pathologist at the USDA's Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul,

Minn. Its development was funded in part by the Minnesota

Wheat Research and Promotion Council, Red Lake Falls, Minn.,

through money collected from wheat farmers. The Minnesota

Crop Improvement Association, based in St. Paul, is distributing

seed to certified seed growers.

A comprehensive story on ARS scab research around the

country, including development of McVey, will appear in the

June issue of ARS' Agricultural Research magazine.

Scientific contact: Robert H. Busch, ARS Plant Science

Research Unit, St. Paul, Minn., phone (612) 625-1975, fax (651)

649-5058, busch005@maroon.tc.umn.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

USDA Research Yields New Wheat Variety to Help Farmers Fight Scab / May 18, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990518.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:00 PM]
GIPSA

Official Standards

Official United States Standards for:

● Grain

● Rice

● Beans

● Whole Dry Peas, Split Peas, and Lentils - PDF

Return to the GIPSA Home Page

GIPSA Official Standards

http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/strulreg/standard/stds.htm [10/5/1999 3:26:01 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

FoodReview: The Diet Quality Balancing Act

Managing Editor: Mary Maher, 202-694-5126

FoodReview is published three times a year by the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Annual and multiyear subscriptions are available

from the ERS-NASS Sales Desk. The publication is also available electronically. The contents section at

the bottom of this page links to each article in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

This issue is Volume 21, Issue 2; it was released in May 1999.

Article Summaries

POPULARITY OF DINING OUT PRESENTS BARRIER TO DIETARY

IMPROVEMENT--Americans are dining out more often than ever, a trend that may lower the

nutritional quality of consumers' diets, since food away from home is generally higher in fat and

saturated fat, and lower in fiber and calcium, than is food at home. For more information, contact:

Biing-Hwan Lin, 202-694-5458.

PRICES AND INCOMES AFFECT NUTRIENTS CONSUMED--Americans are moving toward

more healthful diets, as measured by increased consumption of lowfat and nonfat foods and leaner cuts

of meat. But a considerable gap still exists between dietary recommendations and consumers' nutrient

intakes. Economic factors--such as prices and incomes--play a role along with health concerns in

consumers' food choices. For more information, contact: Kuo S. Huang, 202-694-5459.

MATCHING PERCEPTION AND REALITY IN OUR DIETS--Nutrition advice is often given in

terms of eating less of one dietary component (nutrient) or more of another. This advice rests on the

assumption that people know not only what nutrients are in the food they eat, but also their

quantities--especially difficult information to obtain when dining out. And, nutrition advice will fall on

deaf ears if people believe their diets already meet recommendations. Nutrition is but one of many

attributes people consider in their food choices. Qualities such as taste, variety, and convenience may

take precedence over nutrition in people's food consumption decisions. For more information, contact:

Jayachandran N. Variyam, 202-694-5457.

UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY BETWEEN NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE AND DIET

QUALITY--No two people eat exactly alike, but what accounts for the vast differences in diet quality?

Information and knowledge are the keys to unlock the door to better diets and in turn better health, longer

lives, and children with improved cognitive and learning abilities. Nutrition information affects diet

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/may98/ (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:26:06 PM]
quality, even after controlling for a host of personal characteristics, including education, age, gender,

race, ethnicity, smoking behavior, and body mass. For more information, contact: Jayachandran N.

Variyam, 202-694-5457.

MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS: THEIR IMPORTANCE IN THE AMERICAN DIET--Small

increases between 1970 and 1994 (the latest year for which nutrient data are available) in per capita

availability of dietary calcium and milkfat--up 8 percent and 4 percent, respectively--belie huge shifts in

dairy product consumption patterns since 1970. In 1997, Americans consumed a fourth less beverage

milk and two-and-a-half times more cheese than they did in 1970. Substantial changes in dietary patterns

are needed to ensure adequate calcium intake and optimal bone health. For more information, contact:

Judy Putnam, 202-694-5462.

FOOD COMPANIES SPREAD NUTRITION INFORMATION THROUGH ADVERTISING

AND LABELS--Food companies effectively reach consumers with health information. Diets improved

after food manufacturers were permitted to link diet to disease risks through truthful health claims in

advertising and product labeling. Allowing companies to use health claims also resulted in more

healthful product innovations and provided companies with incentives to compete on the health features

of their products. For more information, contact: Pauline Ippolito, 202-326-3477.

ADVERTISING'S INFLUENCE: THE CASE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS--Advertising campaigns to

promote the positive benefits of dairy products spurred milk and cheese sales and boosted prices. Generic

advertising expenditures raised fluid milk sales about 6.0 percent in 1996. Retail sales of natural and

processed cheese rose by about 2.3 percent. Gross returns to dairy farmers were estimated to be more

than five times their increased advertising costs. For more information, contact: Noel Blisard,

202-694-5445.

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document. This format is used to preserve all of the content

and layout used in our hardcopy publication.

Contents

● Frontmatter (Upfront, Contents), 37 kb

● Popularity of Dining Out Presents Barrier to Dietary Improvements, 69 kb

● Prices and Incomes Affect Nutrients Consumed, 37 kb

● Matching Perception and Reality in Our Diets, 39 kb

● Unlocking the Mystery Between Nutrition Knowledge and Diet Quality, 50 kb

● Milk and Milk Products: Their Importance in the American Diet, 62 kb

● Food Companies Spread Nutrition Information Through Advertising and Labels, 44 kb

● Advertising's Influence: The Case of Dairy Products, 28 kb

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/may98/ (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:26:06 PM]
Download entire issue, 264 kb.

Archives of Past Issues

Top of Page

Contact: Jack Harrison

Updated: May 10, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

FoodReview Magazine--May-August 1998

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/foodrevw/may98/ (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:26:06 PM]
Factoids

Celebrating 100 Years of the

National Cooperative Soil

Survey-- 1899-1999

Spotlight on the Soil Survey

The soil survey was largely the brainchild of one man -- Milton

Whitney. Associated with state agricultural experiment stations in

Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland, he

became the first chief of the Division of Agricultural Soils at the

U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1894. He developed the idea of

mapping soil characteristics as a means of promoting agricultural

development.

● 

The first soil surveys were started to find areas for the expansion of

agriculture. The surveys in the eastern United States were started to

see if certain imported varieties of tobacco could be grown. The

western surveys were in areas with very dry climates and were

mapped to see if they were suitable for food production under

agriculture.

● 

The first soil survey field operations began in the summer of 1899.

The soil survey parties worked in four areas: Pecos Valley, New

Mexico; Salt Lake Valley, Utah; Cecil County, Maryland; and the

Connecticut Valley of Massachusetts and Connecticut.

● 

Leadership for the soil survey has always been in the U.S.

Department of Agriculture -- always with partners, which today

include universities, state agencies, local county governments,

private consultants, and other federal agencies.

● 

Early transportation for soil surveyors was by foot, horse, horse-and

buggy, wagon, bicycle, and rowboat. Today, pickup trucks -- many

with power augers -- are most commonly used.

● 

Field work for soil scientists has changed little through the years.

They study the land acre by acre, its vegetation and its features.

They identify the different kinds of soil by examining the soil

layers, usually to a depth of 2 meters. They also determine the slope,

possible erosion hazards, the color, the acidity or alkalinity, and the

proportions of sand, silt, clay, and organic matter. They classify the

● 

NRCS--Celebrating 100 Years of the National Cooperative Soil Survey-- 1899-1999

http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/soilmnth.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:12 PM]
soils according to a national system and outline each kind of soil on

an aerial map before they leave the field.

The soil survey continues to be challenged to answer new

environmental and agricultural questions. All updated surveys are

now digitized into electronic databases. This provides a common

format so that users can build geospatial data to visualize the

landscape and natural resource information in relation to each other.

● 

Hugh Hammond Bennett, the father of soil conservation, made his

early discoveries of the effects of sheet erosion in 1905 when he was

a young soil scientist mapping soils in Louisa County, Virginia. He

began a crusade to explain and reduce soil erosion that resulted in a

national program to protect natural resources, first in USDA’s Soil

Conservation Service, later renamed the Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

● 

The history of soil scientists is rich with their stories of encounters

while doing field work -- including countless encounters with angry

bulls, bears, rattlers, desperadoes, and moonshiners.

● 

The sight of a stranger digging in a field arouses a wide range of

reactions, former Soil Conservation Service information director D.

Harper Simms wrote in his book Soil Conservation Service in 1970.

Simms tells of one "unfortunate" soil surveyor in Oregon who had

just finished studying the soil profile he had excavated and was

filling in a last shovelful of earth when an armed posse arrived. He

had to dig out the deep hole again to convince the posse that he was

neither a grave-robber nor a murderer trying to dispose of a body.

● 

Today, soil surveys are completed on about 21 million acres a year

-- compared with 720,000 acres 100 years ago.

● 

Today’s soil surveys are mapped on a scale of 3 to 5 inches to the

mile, compared with 1 inch to the mile in 1899.

● 

| What's New | About NRCS | Whom we work with | What you can do... | General information | Technical

Resources | Programs |

Homepage Links: | NRCS | USDA | NACD | FSA | RD | FS | CSREES |

> Send us your comments regarding content of this site

> Report technical problems using this site

NRCS--Celebrating 100 Years of the National Cooperative Soil Survey-- 1899-1999

http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/soilmnth.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:12 PM]
USDA APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine

Why Are You Taking My . .

.

? ? ?

If you've had food or sourvenirs taken away by an inspector of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) while entering the United States at an airport, border station, or seaport, we want to be sure you

understand why.

USDA restricts certain items brought into the United States from foreign countries. Prohibited items can

harbor foreign animal and plant pests and diseases that could seriously damage America's crops,

livestock, pets, and the environment.

Because of this threat, you are required to declare on a U.S. Customs form any meats, fruits, vegetables,

plants, animals, and plant and animal in your possession. This declaration must cover all items carried in

your baggage and hand luggage. You will also be asked to indicate whether you have visited a farm or

ranch outside the United States. Officers of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) inspect passenger baggage for undeclared agricultural products. At some ports, APHIS

personnel use beagle dogs to sniff out hidden items. APHIS inspedtors also use low-energy x-ray

machines adapted to reveal concealed fruits and meats. Travelers who fail to declare a prohibited item

can be fined up to $250 on the spot and have their items confiscated.

Travelers are often surprised when told that their one piece of fruit or meat can cause serious damage. In

fact, one pest- infested or disease-infected item carelessly discarded can wreak havoc on American crops

and livestock. And the extra cost for controlling agricultural pests and diseases ripples down from

farmers to consumers in the form of higher food prices. Taking prohibited agricultural items from

travelers helps ensure against outbreaks that could affect everyone.

APHIS Web -- PPQ -- Why are you taking my?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/yrutakin.html (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:26:39 PM]
Fresh Fruit

It may look luscious and wholesome, but fruit you bring into the United States

from abroad could carry agricultural pests and diseases. Oranges, for example,

could harbor the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly)--a devastating pest of more

than 200 fruits, nuts, and vegetables. In fact, it's possibble that individual

travelers carried in the infested fruit that brought the Medfly to California in

1979, and to Florida in 1997. Medfly infestations can cause billion-dollar losses to the citrus industry.

USDA regulations regarding the importation of fresh fruit can be found in Title 7 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 319.56.

Meat and Meat Products

Regulations prohibit you from bringing in fresh, dried, and canned meats

and meat products from most foreign countries. If any meat is used in

preparing a product, it is prohibited. Commercially canned meat is allowed

if the inspector can determine from the label that the meat was cooked in the

can after it was sealed to make it shelf-stable without refrigeration. Animal

disease organisms can live for months in sausage and other meat, including many types of canned hams

sold abroad. Foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever are just two of several dreaded foreign

livestock diseases that could cost the U.S. livestock industry billions to eradicate, cause higher food

prices, and eliminate export markets.

USDA regulations regarding the importation of meat and meat products can be found in Title 9 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 94.

Plants in Soil

Some of the most notorious and varied pest hitchhikers are microscopic insects,

disease agents, and weed seeds that lurk in soil and plant parts. These organisms

could cause extensive harm to our crops and forests.

You can import many plants legally and safely, provided you follow USDA

guidelines and buy plants from reputable dealers. For information and permit applications, write USDA,

APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 4700 River Road, Unit 136, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Attn:

Permit Unit.

USDA regulations regarding the importation of plants in soil can be found in Title 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 319.37.

APHIS Web -- PPQ -- Why are you taking my?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/yrutakin.html (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:26:39 PM]
Exotic Birds

Sometimes without even showing signs of illness, parrots, parakeets and

other bired brought to the United States from other countries can carry and

spread serious diseases, such as exotic Newcastle disease. Therfore, birds

are subject to specific rules. Restrictions include a minimum 30-day

quarantine stay in a USDA-operated import facility, which requires advance

reservations and related fees. Birds also must be tested for exotic diseases while in quarantine.

To avoid confiscation of pet birds, know current restrictions and guidelines. For information, USDA,

APHIS, Veterinary Services, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Attn: National

Center for Import/Export (vsncie@aphis.usda.gov).

USDA regulations regarding the importation of pet birds can be found in Title 9 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 92.

Hunting Trophies

The entry of hunting trophies into the United States--as well as game animal carcasses, hides, dairy

products, and other animal products and byproducts--is prohibited or severely restricted. These articles

can also harbor livestock disease organisms. When the product involves endangered species, restrictions

of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service also apply. For information, contact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA

22203.

USDA regulations regarding the importation of hunting trophies can be found in Title 9 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 95.

Packing Material

Insects and even diseases can hide in packing material made from agricultural products like straw and

burlap. Straw from wheat, if infected with an exotic wheat smut, for example, could be billions of dollars'

worth of damage to American wheat fields. Straw hats or other decorative items made from straw may be

forbidden entry into the United States if derived from prohibited material.

You may be surprised to hear that some agricultural pests can live on packing material for long stretches

of time without any source of food. One such pest is the khapra beetle, a tiny, brownish-black pest of

grain. It can hide in the folds of burlap and can survive there, without feeding, for up to 3 years. But

when the beetle reaches a supply of grain, it goes on a rampage. A colony reproduces so fasts and eats so

much that an infested grain bin literally comes alive with wriggling larvae. A khapra beetle infestation in

the United States and Mexico in the 1950's cost about $11 million to eradicate.

APHIS Web -- PPQ -- Why are you taking my?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/yrutakin.html (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:26:39 PM]
USDA regulations regarding the importation of plants in soil can be found in Title 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 319.69.

Live Snails

No live snails may be brought into the mainland United States without a permit obtained from USDA. In

1966, a small boy brought two giant African snails into Florida from Hawaii. He eventually discarded

them, and shortly thereafter these voracious eaters of foliage and fruit were infesting a 16-block area near

his home. It took years and half a million dollars to eradicate them.

To request an application and permit informatio, write USDA, APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1246, Attn: Permit Unit.

USDA regulations regarding the importation of plants in soil can be found in Title 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 330.200.

Do Your Part

Please do your part to help protect American agriculture and ensure we continue to enjoy a healthy and

abundant food supply. If you have questions about APHIS' inspection procedures or the enterability of

particular agricultural products, call for help. Look in the phone book under "U.S. Department of

Agriculture" for APHIS' nearest Plant Protection and Quarantine office, or call the central office at (301)

734-8645. In addition, an Internet APHIS web page provides up-to- date information on these and other

topics.

September 1997

 Visitors since August 8, 1997.

Questions or comments on our quarantine rules? E-mail us.

APHIS Home Page Excluding Pests Travelers' Tips Domestic Plant Health PPQ Home Page

APHIS Web -- PPQ -- Why are you taking my?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/yrutakin.html (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:26:39 PM]
May 1999

This month's cover

Production Highlights

Final Edition (Feature Articles, Weather, and Production Briefs)

The following tables are available in Adobe Acrobat and

Lotus version 3 format. You may need to GET the

Acrobat reader.

Download the trade tables in Lotus 123 version 4 format. Please note that

some versions of Netscape Navigator will change the filename extension; if

this happens, you MUST rename the file to .wk4 to access it.

Crop Production Tables

Crop and Weather Information Below Provided by WAOB/JAWF

Crop Calendar by Month for Winter and Summer Crops

FSU Weather and Crop Highlights

China Weather and Crop Highlights

World Agricultural Weather Highlights

Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division Links

PECAD Homepage

PECAD Staff

Crop Condition Assessment: Remote Sensing

Weekly Weather Maps

World Agricultural Production, Table of Contents

http://www.fas.usda.gov/WAP/circular/1999/99-05/toc.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:43 PM]
Last modified: Friday, June 04, 1999

World Agricultural Production, Table of Contents

http://www.fas.usda.gov/WAP/circular/1999/99-05/toc.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:26:43 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Highway Investment and Rural Economic

Development:

An Annotated Bibliography

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

Highway Investment and Rural Economic Development: An Annotated Bibliography. By Dennis M.

Brown, Food and Rural Economics Division, ERS, USDA. Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture

No. 133.

Abstract

This annotated bibliography summarizes studies of the rural economic development implications of

highway investment. Primary emphasis is on research dealing with rural areas, but some urban studies

are also cited. Topics covered include the aggregate economic effects of highway investment, the effects

of highway investment on business location decisions and employment expansion, the effects of highway

investment on different industries, local and regional spatial effects of highway investment, and highway

effects over time.

Keywords: Highways, investment, rural economic development

Contents

● Entire report; 160 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Jack Harrison

Updated: May 7, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Highway Investment and Rural Economic Development--ERS Report

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/bla133/ [10/5/1999 3:26:48 PM]
Backgrounder

 USDA'S FOOD GUIDE PYRAMID FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

 HEALTHY EATING / HEALTHY KIDS PARTNERSHIPS

 On March 25, 1999, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman unveiled the Food Guide

Pyramid for Young Children, an adaptation of the original Food Guide Pyramid released in

1992,

and targeted to children ages two to six. Like the traditional food guide pyramid, the

children's

pyramid emphasizes balanced meals, moderation, and variety in food choices, with special

emphasis on grain products, fruits, and vegetables. The new pyramid also emphasizes the

importance of physical activity for good health.

 With development of the Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children complete, USDA now

is focused on using the children's pyramid to teach children to eat healthy for a

lifetime through

partnerships within government, the non-profit sector, and private industry. Through

these

partnerships, USDA will expand the reach of the wealth of nutrition advice contained in

the

children's pyramid, the traditional Food Guide Pyramid, and the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans.

 USDA's Food and Nutrition Service has begun an ambitious project to use the Food

Guide Pyramid for Young Children as a cornerstone in fulfilling its nutrition education

and

promotion missions. During the next year, FNS will provide copies of the children's

pyramid

poster and parent and care giver guide to the 70,000 elementary schools participating in

the

School Meals Programs, to the more than 100,000 day care providers participating in the

Child

and Adult Food Care Program, to 10,000 WIC clinics, and to the 35,000 Food Stamp Program

offices across the country.

 In addition, USDA will pursue partnerships with the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services to reach young children with positive nutrition messages in the Head Start

Program, and with the U.S. Department of Education. Working with non-profit professional

organizations in pediatrics, physical fitness, nutrition, and education, USDA hopes to

further

expand public access to practical nutrition advice for young children.

 Finally, USDA recognizes the importance of partnerships with the private sector. 

Today's announcement of agreements with eleven major food companies and a national

parenting magazine to use the Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children in the companies'

education and marketing campaigns recognizes the critical role the private sector can

play in

teaching good nutrition to all Americans.

 #

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/05/0207bkgr

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/05/0207bkgr [10/5/1999 3:26:52 PM]
STORY LEAD:

NAL Publishes Guide to Animal Handling, Transport

A current guide to the "do's and don'ts" of transporting and handling farm animals is now available from

USDA's National Agricultural Library.

The new publication, "Information Resources for Livestock and Poultry Handling and Transport,"

1990-1998, provides access to scientific, training, and organizational resources for farmers, livestock and

poultry producers, researchers, animal caretakers and other animal handlers. The publication is available

from NAL's Animal Welfare Information Center.

The publication contains bibliographic citations, audiovisuals, governmental and institutional guidelines,

Internet resources, and expertise from individuals and organizations. A special section lists organizations

concerned with livestock transport and handling issues. Information is provided on how to contact each

organization either via electronic means or postal address and a brief summary of the resources and

services each organization offers.

Preceding the bibliography is the article, "Assessment of Stress During Handling and Transport," by

Temple Grandin, Ph.D., from Colorado State University. Dr. Grandin is a recognized authority in the

field of livestock handling.

Copies of the publication are available free of charge while supplies last by contacting the Animal

Welfare Information Center, National Agricultural Library, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD

20705-2351, telephone (301) 504-6212, fax: (301) 504-7125, e-mail: awic@nal.usda.gov

NAL is part of the Agricultural Research Service, USDA's chief research agency. NAL is the largest

agricultural library in the world and one of four national libraries in the United States, along with the

Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine and the National Library of Education.

http://www.nalusda.gov/spevents/pressrel/preg9003.htm [10/5/1999 3:26:53 PM]
Welcome to your

These wind-swept seas of grass and wildflowers

-- four million acres in all --

have witnessed the pageant of the frontier,

the Dust Bowl, and the dramatic recovery into a great national

treasure. 

Come visit the 20 publicly-owned National Grasslands

administered by the USDA Forest Service.

Disclaimers

Webmaster

Privacy and Security Notice

Customer Service Comment Card -We welcome your comments and questions

Page Last Updated: 08/13/1999

National Grasslands

http://www.fs.fed.us/grasslands/index-content.htm [10/5/1999 3:26:58 PM]
Welcome to 

 

What's New

 

USDA - Sustainable Development and Small Farms Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/sdsf/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:27:13 PM]
This page has been accessed times since August 17, 1999.

For general information about Sustainable Development and Small Farms, call (202) 720-5447 or send

e-mail to rbridge@oce.usda.gov. 

Last updated: 08/16/99 

URL: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sdsf/ 

USDA - Sustainable Development and Small Farms Home Page

http://www.usda.gov/oce/sdsf/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:27:13 PM]
May 1999

Volume XI, No. 5

Features

Federation of Southern Cooperatives Makes Big Move to

Become an International Player

By offering minority farmers a business advantage in the arena of international

trade, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives is furthering its most fundamental

objective: retention of black-owned land.

Patience and Preparation Promise

Profits in Venezuela

Following the expected upturn in Venezuela's

economy the last half of this year, watch for big

returns on U.S. consumer-oriented products.

Hypermarkets

a Hit with Taiwan's Consumers

Hypermarkets have raised the competitive bar in

Taiwan, But will not replace other food retail sectors.

Germany: Nuts About U.S. Almonds

Besides being used as ingredients, almonds are now

munched from Bonn to Berlin.

May 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 5

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/may99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:27:20 PM]
Leveraging Those Dreams: MIATCO Works for Exporters in the

Midwest

Never took on international trade before? MIATCO lays on the help for midwestern

agribusinesses.

Perfectly Paired: India and Ice Cream

India's ice cream enthusiasts have more choices now when they partake of the frozen delicacy.

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Mary Rekas

Don Washington

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. 703-605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Wednesday, June 09, 1999

May 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 5

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/may99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:27:20 PM]
U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.

Questions? USDA Webmaster

USDA for Kids

http://www.usda.gov/news/usdakids/index.html [10/5/1999 3:28:04 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Human Genome Project Aids

Soybean Genome Mapping

By Don Comis

April 22, 1999

What's the difference between a soybean and a person? Besides

the obvious, soybean plants have three fewer pairs of

chromosomes--and about 1.7 billion fewer pieces of DNA.

Still, plant geneticist Perry B. Cregan borrows biotech tools from

the human genome project to map soybean genes. Cregan is with

USDA's Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Md.

The United Soybean Board has awarded more than a million

dollars in grants to support soybean gene mapping by Cregan

and other scientists around the country. Finding soybean genes

to enhance yields and pest resistance could eventually lead to

raising U.S. yields by several hundred million bushels a year.

Recently, Cregan found map markers near the first two of the

four genes he thinks give the plant resistance to cyst nematodes.

These microscopic roundworms rob farmers to the tune of 220

million bushels a year. He and University of Minnesota

colleagues are seeking markers for the other two resistance

genes.

One of the biotech tools from the human genome project is

called "simple sequence repeats." Cregan and Nebraska

colleagues are using it to search for yield-boosting genes in a

wild ancestor of soybeans.

With simple sequence repeats or SSRs, the scientists can draw

maps that allow them to systematically search for useful genes in

the genome one section at a time.

With SSRs, the scientists have developed more than 300 lines of

Human Genome Project Aids Soybean Genome Mapping / April 22, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990422.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:05 PM]
soybeans in which one-eighth of the original genome has been

replaced by wild DNA fragments. These lines are fertile

breeding ground for finding yield-boosting genes.

Scientific contact: Perry B. Cregan, ARS Soybean and Alfalfa

Research Laboratory, Beltsville, Md., phone (301) 504-6070, fax

(301) 504-5728, pcregan@nal.usda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Human Genome Project Aids Soybean Genome Mapping / April 22, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990422.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:05 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

License Granted for Aerial

Electrostatic Spray System

By Linda McGraw

April 20, 1999

A new nozzle and aerial spraying system to cut pesticide use on

agricultural crops are now on the market. Developed by an

Agricultural Research Service scientist, the equipment is being

manufactured and sold by a Texas company under an exclusive

license granted by ARS, the chief research agency of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

The nozzle and electrostatically-charged chemical spraying

system were developed by ARS agricultural engineer James B.

Carlton, now retired. Carleton designed the aerial application

system while working at the agency’s Areawide Pest

Management Research Unit in College Station, Texas.

The system reduces the amount of chemical that must be sprayed

and helps get the chemical onto the crop with less drift. The

system has been shown to provide good insect control on several

agricultural crops.

Spectrum Electrostatic Sprayers of San Antonio is marketing the

nozzles and spraying system for airplanes. This system is most

effective for low volume (LV) and ultra-low volume (ULV)

applications of pesticides.

Millions of acres of grain, cotton and vegetable crops are treated

annually with crop protection materials by agricultural aircraft.

Additionally, millions of acres are treated annually with ULV

applications of chemicals for mosquito control and outbreaks of

introduced pests. This technology has the potential to reduce

chemical use on these acres.

The types of chemicals that can be applied with aerial spray

License Granted for Aerial Electrostatic Spray System / April 20, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990420.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:06 PM]
nozzles include liquid formulations of pesticides, herbicides,

insecticides, fungicides and fertilizers. Benefits of the

electrostatic aerial spray system include a safer operation with

less risk to the applicator and the environment.

Scientific contact: Ivan W. Kirk, ARS Areawide Pest

Management Research, College Station, TX., phone (409)

260-9584, fax (409) 260-9386, i-kirk@tamu.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

License Granted for Aerial Electrostatic Spray System / April 20, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990420.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:06 PM]
AVERAGE BLOOMING DATES

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR-ROUND

Year-Round Interest

Asian Collections, Friendship Garden, National Bonsai and Penjing Museum, National Boxwood

Collection, Gotelli Collection of Dwarf and Slow- Growing Conifers, Knot Garden in the National

Herb Garden, Morrison Garden, Holly and Magnolia Collections

January & February

Witchhazel, conifer foliage and cones, holly in fruit, Japanese apricot, wintersweet, sweetbox,

winter jasmine

March

2nd week: Early bulbs, winterhazel, wintersweet, sweetbox, cornelian cherry

3rd week: Japanese andromeda, winterjasmine

4th week: Pussywillows, daffodils, woodland wildflowers

April

lst week: Daffodils, crocus, early magnolias, Korean azalea, Japanese andromeda, forsythia,

cornelian cherry, woodland wildflowers

2nd week: Daffodils, crocus, early magnolias, Korean azalea, Japanese andromeda, forsythia,

early azaleas, oconee bells

3rd week: Daffodils, magnolias, Japanese andromeda, forsythia, bradford pear, Japanese quince,

early crabapples, flowering cherries, azaleas, woodland wildflowers

What's Blooming

http://www.ars-grin.gov/na/blooming.html (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:28:20 PM]
4th week: Magnolias, crabapples, azaleas, early rhododendrons, daffodils, Japanese quince,

woodland wildflowers.

May

1st week: Early rhodendrons, azaleas, flowering dogwoods, crabapples, late flowering cherries,

Japanese quince, asiatic magnolias, woodland wildflowers, tree peonies, lilacs, dove tree, species

roses

2nd week: Late azaleas, rhododendrons, sweet bay magnolia, tree peonies, tulip trees, black

locust, peonies, woodland wildflowers, herbs, old garden roses

3rd week: Late azaleas, rhododendrons, mountain laurel, southern magnolia, sweet bay magnolia,

Chinese dogwood, peonies, herbs, old garden roses, iris

4th week: Chinese dogwood, mountain laurel, southern magnolia, sweet bay magnolia, old garden

roses, iris, herbs, herbaceous peonies, fringetree

June

1st week: Satsuki azaleas, southern magnolia, mountain laurel, southern catalpa, fringetree, iris,

arrowood viburnum, lilies, daylilies, herbs, annuals, waterlilies, Chinese dogwood, rhododendrons,

firethorns

2nd week: Mountain laurel, linden viburnum, rosebay rhododendron, golden raintree, daylilies,

herbs, annuals, waterlilies

Late June to early July

Butterflyweed, meadow and prairie flowers, waterlilies, annuals, herbs

July

Waterlilies, hibiscus, crapemyrtle, conifers, daylilies, boxwood, herbs, annuals, sweet pepper bush,

pepper collection, meadow and prairie wildflowers

August

Waterlilies, hibiscus, crapemyrtle, conifers, boxwood, herbs, annuals, sweet pepper bush, pepper

collection, meadow and prairie wildflowers, cardinal flower, plumleaf azalea

September

Firethorn in fruit, hibiscus, viburnum in fruit, autumn crocus, boxwood, crapemyrtle, herbs,

annuals, holly, osmanthus, pepper collection

What's Blooming

http://www.ars-grin.gov/na/blooming.html (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:28:20 PM]
Late September into early October

Meadow flowers, herbs, annuals

October

Fall foliage, firethorn in fruit, hibiscus, autumn crocus, waterlilies, crapemyrtle, viburnum in fruit,

conifer foliage and cones, dogwood in fruit, boxwood, herbs, annuals, ornamental grasses, native

witchhazel

November

Conifer foliage and cones, dogwood in fruit, viburnum in fruit, ornamental grasses, fall foliage

December

Holly in fruit, heavenly bamboo in fruit, conifer foliage and cones, Japanese apricot, wintersweet

(in mild weather)

Back to the Arboretum Home Page

About the Arboretum || Special Attractions || What's Blooming || Calendar of Events

Internship Opportunities || New Plant Introductions || Horticulture FAQs and Facts

Pest Management || Research Activities || About Friends of the National Arboretum

USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map || Comments

last updated May 5, 1998

narj

What's Blooming

http://www.ars-grin.gov/na/blooming.html (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:28:20 PM]
Updated 8/24/99

e-mail comments to

Web Master

New Record of

Decision (pdf)

Tongass Land

and Resource

Management

Plan

April 1999

Summary and

Other

Information

News

Cabin Information

New Schedule of

Proposed Actions

Forest Facts • Recreation • What We Do • Management News

Office Directory • Work With Us • Related Sites

National Monuments • Visitor Centers • Ranger Districts

Forest Maps • Index • Disclaimers • Text Only

Links to Other Related Sites:

Alaska Region • USDA Forest Service • Recreation.gov

National Recreation Info

Tongass National Forest Home

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:33 PM]
Customer Service Comment Card - we welcome your comments on our

customer service and your suggestions for improvement. Please add the

name of the office you've dealt with after the "(Alaska)" at the top of the

form.

Tongass National Forest Home

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:28:33 PM]
Feed the soil using only minimal amounts of fertilizer!

Avoid black plastic film's cost and landfill woes!

Reduce your worries about weeds!

Best of all, plan for a bumper crop of everybody's favorite midsummer crop!

Whether you're a backyard tomato baron or a commercial producer, you can do it

yourself—almost effortlessly!

Transplant your tomato seedlings into a home-grown cover crop which you convert into a

soil-feeding mulch by mowing!

This simple tomato-growing system, which works well for other vegetables too, was developed by

scientists at USDA's Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Maryland. Check out these tomatoes...

A Gardener's Freebie—A free brochure, detailing this innovative system!

How You Do It—Learn how to grow tomatoes in a cover crop of hairy vetch.

Hairy Vetch—Hairy what???

The Project and the Scientists—Sparking a sustainable ag revolution.

National Agricultural Library—A cornucopia of agricultural information from USDA.

Return to:

Power Tomatoes: Heres how to grow more and better tomatoes

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/tom/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:33 PM]
ARS Vegetable Laboratory | ARS Weed Science Laboratory | ARS Publications

Power Tomatoes: Heres how to grow more and better tomatoes

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/tom/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:33 PM]
USDA NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM

International Standards Organization (ISO) Guide

65 Assessment Training

WHAT:

USDA will provide two free training sessions to assist U.S. organic certifiers to prepare for an ISO Guide

65 compliance evaluation.

WHEN:

Session I: Tuesday April 20, 1999

USDA South Building - Room 1623

(USDA Training Center, Lincoln 3)

14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC

Session II: Thursday, May 6, 1999

USDA Food and Nutrition Service

Colonnade Building - 9th Floor

13th Avenue and Spear Blvd.

Denver, Colorado

Sessions will begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m.

WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND

Upon completion of the training, participants will be able to:

● Discuss each of the requirements outlined in ISO Guide 65

● Describe the process of preparing a quality manual demonstrating compliance with ISO Guide 65

Describe the procedure for conducting a self-assessment and gap analysis based on the

requirements of ISO Guide 65

● 

● Describe the USDA procedures for assessing compliance with ISO Guide 65

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Participants are invited to submit specific questions about the ISO Guide 65 assessment process to

USDA prior to the training sessions. We will incorporate these questions into the training curriculum so

that your specific concerns are addressed. You may send your questions to: Beth Hayden, National

Organic Program, Phone: 202-720-8405; FAX 202-205-7808; or e-mail: beth.hayden@usda.gov.

ISO Guide 65 Assessment Training

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/training.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:35 PM]
Return to NOP Home Page

ISO Guide 65 Assessment Training

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/training.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:35 PM]
April 1999

Contents

Can Antioxidant Foods Forestall

Aging? Food Pyramid for the 70+ Generation

Some Starchy Foods Trigger

Overeating Safer Salad in the Bag

Boosted Production of Anti-Cancer

Drug Snapshot of U.S. Homocysteine Levels

Rapid Test for a Shifty Salmonella A Healthy Change for the Delta

Horseradish Too Hot for Food

Pathogens A Good Idea During Pregnancy

Can Antioxidant Foods Forestall Aging?

Foods that score high in an antioxidant assay called ORAC may protect cells and their components from

damage by oxygen radicals, according to studies of animals and human blood. ORAC measures the total

antioxidant power of foods and other chemical substances. Early findings suggest that eating plenty of

high-ORAC fruits and vegetables—such as spinach and blueberries—may help slow the processes

associated with aging in both body and brain.

Two human studies show that eating high-ORAC fruits and vegetables or simply doubling intake of

fruits and vegetables—both naturally high in antioxidants—raises the antioxidant power of the blood

between 13 and 25 percent. The studies are published in the Journal of Nutrition (vol. 128, pp.

2383-2390) and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (vol. 68, pp. 1081-1087).

Early evidence for the protective power of high-ORAC foods comes from rat studies. Rats fed daily

doses of blueberry extract for six weeks before being subjected to pure oxygen suffered much less

damage to the capillaries in and around their lungs. In other tests, middle-aged rats were fed diets

fortified with spinach or strawberry extract or vitamin E for nine months. A daily dose of spinach extract

prevented some loss of long-term memory and learning ability normally experienced by 15-month-old

rats. Spinach also proved most potent in protecting different types of nerve cells in two separate parts of

the brain against the effects of aging, the researchers reported in the Journal of Neuroscience (vol. 18,

pp. 8047-8055).

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (1 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
For more information, contact Ronald Prior or James Joseph, (617) 556-3310, Jean Mayer USDA

Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, MA

Top Antioxidant Foods

[ORAC* units per 100 grams**]

Fruits Vegetables

Prunes 5770 Kale 1770

Raisins 2830 Spinach 1260

Blueberries 2400 Brussels sprouts 980

Blackberries 2036 Alfalfa sprouts 930

Strawberries 1540 Broccoli florets 890

Raspberries 1220 Beets 840

Plums 949 Red bell peppers 710

Oranges 750 Onions 450

Red grapes 739 Corn 400

Cherries 670 Eggplant 390

* Oxygen Radical Absorbance

Capacity **About 3.5 ounces

Back to Contents

Some Starchy Foods Trigger Overeating

Ever wonder why you feel hungry a few hours after eating a big meal? Chances are you ate

carbohydrate-containing foods that caused a rapid spike in your blood sugar. This musters extra insulin

into the blood. The high insulin, in turn, makes blood sugar crash and suppresses the fat fuels as well. As

a result, you get that famished feeling that leads to overeating.

That's what happened in a study of obese teenage boys by researchers at Children's Hospital in Boston

and the USDA center in Boston. It's the first solid evidence that carbohydrates with a high glycemic

index (GI)—those that are rapidly digested and absorbed—contribute to obesity.

On three separate days at least a week apart, researchers fed the boys breakfast and lunch having either a

high, medium or low glycemic index. The boys ate almost twice as much after the high-GI meals

compared to the low-GI fare. The high-GI meals induced a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes

that promoted overeating, the researchers reported in the electronic edition of Pediatrics at:

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/e26. They suspect the findings apply to the middle-aged

and elderly as well. About one-fifth of U.S. children and one-third of adults are now significantly

overweight, despite a significant drop in fat intake over recent years.

Most starchy foods commonly eaten in North America, chiefly refined grain products and potatoes, have

a high GI. Moreover, many of the low-fat foods that have flooded grocery shelves are also high in

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (2 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
calories. Some starchy foods have GI's up to 50 percent higher than table sugar. Sources of concentrated

sugars, such as sodas and fruit juices, also have a high GI. By contrast, vegetables, legumes and fruits

generally have a low GI.

For more information, contact Susan B. Roberts, (617) 556-3238, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, MA , or David S. Ludwig, (617) 355-4878, Children's

Hospital, Boston, MA

Back to Contents

Boosted Production of Anti-Cancer Drug

Taxol, a powerful but expensive anti-cancer drug, could become more plentiful in the future. Researchers

have vastly improved the process for producing taxol in cell culture. The new process is 100 times more

productive than the original cell-culture technique patented by ARS in 1991. Taxol is a potent

chemotherapy drug for breast, ovarian, lung and other cancers. But it takes about 6,700 pounds of bark

from increasingly scarce Pacific yew trees to produce a pound of the taxol drug.

Researchers with ARS, Washington State University and Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., screened

some 2,000 cell lines from all five known yew species and found about 20 that are good taxol producers.

They also optimized the growth media and other culture conditions for these top producers, they report in

Biotechnology and Bioengineering (vol. 62, pp. 97-105). Their efforts increased taxol output from about

1 milligram per liter to more than 100 mg/L. The cultures also produce some taxol-related compounds,

called taxanes, that can be converted to the drug in a semi-synthetic process.

ARS has applied for patent protection on the new process. If use of this new source of taxol is approved

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and proves medically effective, anti-cancer drugs based on

the process could be available within a few years.

For more information, contact Donna M. Gibson, (607) 255-2359, U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition

Research Laboratory, Ithaca, NY

Back to Contents

Rapid Test for a Shifty Salmonella

Now there's a technique to rapidly detect DT104, a potentially deadly strain of Salmonella bacteria that

resists many antibiotics. ARS researchers found a key gene sequence, present in this virulent strain of

Salmonella typhimurium, that allows for quick identification. The new technique cuts identification time

from six weeks to two hours. It means scientists can take samples, grow a culture, identify Salmonella

DT104 and begin treatment in three to five days.

The sooner physicians know that they are dealing with DT104, the sooner they can begin the treatments

needed to combat the bacteria. Delays in identifying DT104 almost cost a Vermont dairy farmer her life

in 1997 and killed 14 of her cows. The pathogen has killed people in Great Britain and sickened children

in Nebraska.

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (3 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
The new technique opens the door to development of test kits. Such a kit might be able to detect the

pathogen in blood samples or in runoff water from animal production.

For more information, contact Paula Fedorka-Cray, (706) 546-3305, Poultry Microbiological Safety

Research Unit, Athens, GA

Back to Contents

Horseradish Too Hot for Food Pathogens

Some people love putting a dollop of horseradish on their steamy roast beef. As it turns out, this natural

taste-maker may also be a useful food preservative. ARS studies show that both horseradish and mustard

oil pack a punch against Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and other food

pathogens you definitely don't want in your sandwich.

That's because these condiments contain a pungent chemical with the unsavory name of allyl

isothiocyanate (AITC). Mustard oil is 93 percent AITC but has a milder flavor than horseradish, which is

60 percent AITC, researchers reported in the Journal of Food Science (vol. 63, pp. 621-624).

In 1989, USDA issued a "zero tolerance" policy for L. monocytogenes. But consumers now demand that

foods rely less on artificial preservatives. This research fits in with the trend of seeking natural

substitutes for chemical preservatives in the food industry. If this work is borne out in further research,

horseradish and mustard oil could join the natural arsenal against malevolent microbes.

For more information, contact Henry Fleming, (919) 515-2979, Food Science Research Unit, Raleigh,

NC, or Brian Shofran, (405) 744-4115, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK ;

Back to Contents

Food Pyramid for the 70+ Generation

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (4 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
Recognizing

that the elderly

need fewer

calories than

younger

Americans,

researchers

have modified

USDA's Food

Guide

Pyramid for

the over-70

generation,

hoping to

optimize their

nutrient intake.

Published in

the Journal of

Nutrition (vol.

129, pp.

751-753), the

modified

pyramid

emphasizes

nutrient- dense

foods, fiber

and water and

recognizes a

possible need

for

supplements.

Its base is

narrower than

the original pyramid to reflect the decrease in energy (calorie) needs. And it rests on a new base

accenting the elderly's need for fluids—at least 2 quarts, or 8 cups, of water per day. Older people often

have a reduced sense of thirst, and that can lead to dehydration.

A fiber icon is scattered throughout to emphasize the need for a high-fiber diet. The food groups and

recommended servings are the same as in the original pyramid with more emphasis on nutrient density

and fiber. The researchers recommend that elderly consumers choose foods from the bread and cereal

group that are whole-grain, enriched or fortified. Preferred vegetables are dark green, orange or yellow,

which contribute vitamin C, vitamin A and folic acid, and the crucifers, such as beets, kale, cabbage and

broccoli—all rich in antioxidants. Fruits should be yellow, orange or red, and the whole food is

preferable to fruit juice. The researchers also recommend that dairy products be low fat.

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (5 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
A flag at the top of the pyramid reminds older people that they may need to add supplements of calcium,

vitamin D and vitamin B12 to bring daily intakes up to recommended levels. Those who exclude dairy

products because of lactose intolerance, for instance, may need extra calcium. If sun exposure is

minimal, a vitamin D supplement might be in order. And a vitamin B12 supplement may be necessary

because many elderly don't efficiently absorb the vitamin from meat and other foods.

For more information, contact Robert M. Russell, (617) 556-3133, or Alice H. Lichtenstein, (617) 556-

3127, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, MA

Back to Contents

Safer Salad in the Bag

Irradiating bagged salads after washing the vegetables in a chlorine solution reduces harmful and

harmless microorganisms without affecting quality, studies show. And the irradiated lettuce has about the

same shelf life as untreated samples. That's good news for health-conscious consumers who are eating

more salads. U.S. sales of packaged lettuce alone were more than $1.2 billion in 1997.

A chlorine wash doesn't eliminate all the organisms that can be present on fresh-cut lettuce, like Shigella

and E. coli O157:H7. This combination treatment could help fresh-cut salads to be included in diets of

people with weakened immune systems who otherwise can't enjoy them.

Irradiation significantly reduced the microbial and yeast populations. Eight days after zapping

chlorine-washed lettuce with only 0.2 kilogray (kGy) of irradiation, microbial counts were 290

colony-forming units (CFU) and 60 CFU of yeast. That's compared to counts of 220,000 CFU and 1,400

CFU of yeast on nonirradiated lettuce, the researchers published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food

Chemistry (vol. 45, pp. 2864-2868). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved up to 1 kGy

of irradiation for fresh produce.

Scientists also irradiated chlorine-washed, shredded carrots in modified-atmosphere packaging. Nine

days after irradiation, on the expiration date, microbial count was 1,300, compared with 87,000 for

nonirradiated, chlorinated control samples, as reported in the Journal of Food Science (vol. 65, pp.

162-164).

For more information, contact Robert D. Hagenmaier, (941) 293-4133, x123, U.S. Citrus and

Subtropical Products Research Laboratory, Winter Haven, FL

Back to Contents

Snapshot of U.S. Homocysteine Levels

A profile of U.S. blood homocysteine levels confirms findings of earlier, nonrepresentative studies: This

recently recognized risk factor for heart disease increases with age and is higher in males than females.

Homocysteine is produced during the conversion of one amino acid into another. Incomplete conversion

causes a buildup of homocysteine in the blood where it is thought to irritate artery linings, encouraging

formation of plaque—fatty deposits that cling to artery walls.

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (6 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
Researchers with the USDA center in Boston used sera from the latest National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey to measure homocysteine for 3,766 males and 4,819 females from age 12 up.

Homocysteine levels between the two genders were closest in the young and old, diverging around

puberty and converging after menopause. Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention collaborated on the study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (vol. 69,

pp. 482-489).

One unexpected finding: Mexican-American females had the lowest homocysteine levels. The

researchers don't have an explanation for this finding yet. As for higher homocysteine levels in older

people, they suspect impaired kidney function may contribute. And the difference between genders may

be due to body size, estrogen and vitamin status.

Low intake of folate, vitamin B12 or vitamin B6 can be a cause for the homocysteine buildup. Orange

juice and green leafy vegetables are good sources of folate, which seems the most limiting of the three

vitamins.

For more information, contact Paul Jacques (617) 556-3322, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, MA

Back to Contents

A Healthy Change for the Delta

A consortium called the Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative promises to help low-income

families of the lower Mississippi Delta eat better food and lead healthier lives. Delta NIRI involves poor

Delta communities in deciding what their key nutrition problems are and empowers them to find

solutions, with help from nutrition scientists.

Compared to national statistics, Delta families are more likely to lack prenatal care, have

low-birth-weight newborns and high infant mortality. Nutrition-related chronic diseases such as

hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes are also above national averages.

Coordinated by ARS, Delta NIRI serves 36 counties or parishes in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

Its members include seven nutritional research centers in those states. Begun in 1995, Delta NIRI has an

operating budget of $3.1 million for 1999. The consortium hires and trains Delta residents to survey area

counties about health and nutrition problems. Then researchers in the Delta NIRI program design and test

nutrition interventions based on these concerns. Ultimately, the community decides if the programs are

worthwhile and should continue.

For more information, contact Margaret L. Bogle, (501) 954-9152, ARS Delta Nutrition Intervention

Research Initiative, Little Rock, AR

Back to Contents

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (7 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
A Good Idea During Pregnancy

Getting enough copper during pregnancy may be important for Baby's brain development, according to a

study of newborn rat pups. Slashing the mother rats' copper intake during pregnancy and nursing reduced

the pups' brain levels of the enzyme PKC, important to development of the nervous system. The findings

may have implications for people in the U.S. and other industrialized nations where copper intake is less

than desirable.

Throughout pregnancy and afterward, one group of rat mothers got only 1 microgram (mcg) of copper

daily—one-sixth the level recommended for pregnant rats. A second group got 2 mcg and a control

group got all they needed. PKC increased in all the pups' brains during the three weeks after birth. But

compared to the control group, the increase was only about half as much in the group whose moms got 1

mcg of copper.

Pups from the 2-mcg group also had a smaller increase—25 percent less overall—with one form of PKC

lagging by 50 percent in the cerebellum, which controls motor function. This is significant because poor

muscle coordination is a well-known symptom of copper deficiency in baby animals.

The brain has several enzymes that would suffer from a shortage of copper. Some contain copper.

Others, like PKC don't contain it but are less active in its absence. Between 1.5 and 3 milligrams of

copper daily is currently suggested for all adults. The richest sources of copper are oysters, liver and

cocoa. Whole grains, nuts and seeds are good sources.

For more information, contact W. Thomas Johnson, (701) 795-8411, Grand Forks Human Nutrition

Research Center, Grand Forks, ND

Back to Contents

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To

file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Comments?

ARS Food & Nutrition Research Briefs - April 1999

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/fnrb/fnrb299.htm (8 of 8) [10/5/1999 3:31:40 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

One Book -- 10,000 Plants

By Hank Becker

April 9, 1999

A new book covering 10,000 of the world's economically

important plants greatly expands upon an out-of-date,

out-of-print reference long popular with botanists, other

scientists, teachers and others.

The new 784-page volume is World Economic Plants: A

Standard Reference. It stems from Agricultural Handbook 505,

published in 1977 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and

revised in 1986.

Two scientists with the Agricultural Research Service, USDA's

principal scientific agency, wrote the new book. It provides

information required by scientists and others who study, identify

or classify crop plants, weeds, poisonous plants and other plants

of economic importance, including those with medicinal and

industrial potential.

World Economic Plants was published under a cooperative

research and development agreement between ARS and CRC

Press of Boca Raton, Fla.

The earlier book was A Checklist of Names for 3,000 Vascular

Plants of Economic Importance. The new one gives reference

information on three times as many plants--nearly 10,000 in all.

Like the 1977 handbook, World Economic Plants supplies

accepted scientific names, important synonyms and common

names. But it also provides economic uses and geographical

distribution.

The new information reflects more than two decades of research

by ARS plant taxonomists. The project arose from the need for

consistent as well as accurate data in the Germplasm Resources

One Book -- 10,000 Plants / April 9, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990409.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:45 PM]
Information Network (GRIN) databases used by researchers and

others around the globe. The new data are being added to GRIN

databases on a World Wide Web site of ARS' National Plant

Germplasm System:

http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs

The book's authors are taxonomists John W. Wiersema and

Blanca León of ARS' Systematic Botany and Mycology

Laboratory, Beltsville, Md. The book, priced at $125.00, is

available from CRC Press. More details can be found at a CRC

web site:

http://www.crcpress.com/catalog/2119.htm

Scientific contact: John W. Wiersema, ARS Systematic Botany

and Mycology Laboratory, Beltsville, Md., phone (301)

504-9181, fax 504-5810, jwiersema@ars-grin.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

One Book -- 10,000 Plants / April 9, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990409.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:45 PM]
It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it--S.K.Worm, the official annelid, or worm, of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service answers

students questions about soil. Even their teachers can’t wiggle their way out of this

one! Slither your way through these soiled questions and earn a very special diploma.

You might even get hooked on Soil!

Ask the Answer Worm!

Hello, worm lovers and soil

supporters!

It is I, S.K. Worm. The S.K. stands

for "Scientific Knowledge." But you

can call me Skworm, as in squirm

around and wiggle all over the place.

I'm the official annelid, or worm, of

the U.S. Department of

S.K. Worm Answers Your Questions About Soil and Stuff!

http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/squirm/skworm.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:52 PM]
Agriculture's Natural Resources

Conservation Service. And it's my

job to make you and everybody else

naturally resourceful about natural

resources. Let's get started!

| What's New | About NRCS | Whom we work with | What you can do... | General information | Technical

Resources | Programs |

Homepage Links: | NRCS | USDA | NACD | FSA | RD | FS | CSREES | EPA |

> Send us your comments regarding content of this site

> Report technical problems using this site

S.K. Worm Answers Your Questions About Soil and Stuff!

http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/squirm/skworm.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:31:52 PM]
Attache Reports

Following is a list of FAS staff reports specifically dealing with organics or a related topic. Additional reports covering

specific conventional commodities and general information about markets are also available through the Attache Report site

where searches can be conducted by country or commodity. Another site, the Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and

Standards provides a country-by-country overview of generic technical regulations and standards for consumer-ready food

products.

Country Report Title Date

Argentina

Update on Argentina’s Organic Sector (AR8066) 10-15-98

Austria

Organic Foods (AU8039)

Strict Inspection of Organic Farms (AU8007)

Austria to Include Ecological Criteria (AU7006)

Ecological Program Achieves All Goals (AU7002)

Organic Agriculture and Food (AU6055)

08-25-98

01-29-98

02-07-97

01-28-97

11-07-96

Belgium

Organic Farmers; Potential to Grow 10-Fold (BE9007)

Health Foods Have a Bright Future (BE8009)

The Belgian Boerenbond Goes Organic (BE8003)

05-20-99

04-04-98

01-27-98

Brazil

Organic Farming in Brazil (BR9616) 04-16-99

Canada

Canada Introduces National Organic Standard (CA9082)

National Organic Standard Announced (CA9053)

New Office for Natural Health Products (CA9034)

Organic Food (CA7032)

Organic Food (CA6074)

07-07-99

05-03-99

03-29-99

06-11-97

11-19-96

China

Attache Reports 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/attache.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:31:56 PM]
China’s 4th Annual Green Food Expo (CH8607)

Organic "Green" Food Movement (CH7819)

02-12-98

04-22-97

Denmark

Support to Danish Organic Production (DA9002)

Action Plan II for Organic Production (DA9003)

Danish Organic Production Subsidies (DA8012)

Regulations on Organic Production (DA5004)

02-11-99

02-11-99

08-14-98

03-06-95

France

Regulations & Labeling - Dietetic/Health Foods (FR9055)

Functional Foods - A Promising Market (FR9038)

Organic Farming Increased in 1998 (FR9022)

APCA Discussions on Organic Farming (FR8081)

Update on French Organic Consumers (FR8036)

French Demand for Organic Food Skyrockets (FR7060)

Organic Foods Update (FR6094)

Organic Food Market Potential and Regulations (FR6007)

08-24-99

08-02-99

03-23-99

11-10-98

06-15-98

10-01-97

12-24-96

01-15-96

Germany

Organic Market Brief (GM8020)

Organic Beef and Dairy Products (GM6083)

The Organic Market (GM6046)

Organic Food (GM5027)

04-08-98

12-02-96

07-15-96

03-27-95

Hong Kong

Market for Organic Healthier Foods (HK6117) 12-11-96

Hungary

Organic Production (HU9004) 03-29-99

Italy

Organic Food Products (IT9719)

Organic Agriculture (IT9021)

Health Food Market Brief (IT8713)

Organic Products (IT6051)

06-25-99

05-11-99

05-22-98

11-01-96

Japan

New Age Beverages (JA9048)

Health & Functional Foods (JA9047)

MHW Begins Inspections (organic vegetables) (JA8052)

MAFF Considers Labeling Certification (JA8048)

07-27-99

07-26-99

07-16-98

07-08-98

Attache Reports 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/attache.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:31:56 PM]
Japanese Product Labeling Survey (JA8038)

Organic Wholesale Food Trade Mission (JA7720)

Australian Organics in Food Service (JA7718)

Organic Frozen Vegetable Imports (JA6743)

06-03-98

05-21-97

04-18-97

11-25-96

Mexico

Regulation on Organic Produce (MX7055)

Rule for Production of Organic Produce (MX7045)

Mexican Market for Health Foods (MX5515)

06-10-97

05-21-97

08-03-95

Netherlands

Health, Dietietic & Functional Foods in the Benelux (NL9025)

Update - Dutch Organic Food Market (NL9022)

A 5-Step Guide to the Dutch Organic Food Market (NL9017)

Growing Dutch Interest in Organic Farming (NL9003)

Largest Supermarket Goes Organic (NL8027)

Organic Products Increase in Largest Supermarket (NL8011)

Organic and Natural Food Promotion (NL7041)

Action Plan for Organic Foods (NL6167)

Organic Foods (NL6152)

04-27-99

04-07-99

03-09-99

01-11-99

07-30-98

03-03-98

03-13-97

12-04-98

11-05-96

New Zealand

New Zealand Organic Exporters Group (NZ9030)

Organic Products Exports (NZ7003)

04-01-99

01-28-97

Poland

Organic Farming in Poland -Update (PL9022)

Organic Farming in Poland (PL9011)

07-12-99

04-15-99

Singapore

Guide to Singapore Market for Health Foods (SN7017) 08-11-97

Slovakia

Organic Farming in Slovakia (LO8003) 03-19-98

Spain

Spain's Organic Product Market (SP9031) 06-11-99

Sweden

Organic Products Market Brief (SW8009)

Organic Foods Report (SW6019)

06-29-98

11-19-96

Attache Reports 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/attache.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:31:56 PM]
Switzerland

Swiss Organic Market (SZ8006) 05-27-98

Taiwan

Organic Food Market on Taiwan (TW8015) 03-20-98

United Kingdom

Organic Food Market (UK7075)

Organic Food Trade (UK7062)

Parliamentary Committee for Organic Aid (UK7029)

Organic Food Board Opposes GMOs (UK6147)

Organic Food Market (UK6138)

08-18-97

06-25-97

03-20-97

12-11-96

10-22-96

Last modified: Tuesday, September 07, 1999

Attache Reports 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/attache.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:31:56 PM]
The National Agricultural Library (NAL), part of the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, is one of four National Libraries in the United States. NAL is a major

international source for agriculture and related information. This Web site provides access to NAL's

many resources and a gateway to its associated institutions.

Webmaster@nal.usda.gov | Disclaimers | http://www.nal.usda.gov | Last updated Apr. 7, 1999

The National Agricultural Library Homepage

http://www.nalusda.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:32:15 PM]
World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates

(WASDE-BB)

A product of the World Agricultural Outlook Board, Office of the Chief Economist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

Description:

This full-text monthly report provides the most current USDA forecasts of U.S. and world supply-use

balances of major grains, soybeans and products, and cotton; and U.S. supply and use of sugar and

livestock products.

Help on using these files is available.

● 1995

● 1996

● 1997

● 1998

● 1999

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/waobr/wasde-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:32:16 PM]
FOIA

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - FOIA

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal statute which allows any person the right to obtain

federal agency records unless the records (or part of the records) are protected from disclosure by any of

the nine exemptions contained in the law. On October 2, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the

Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA). E-FOIA will make it possible

for individuals to have electronic access to certain USDA information without making a formal FOIA

request.

How to Make a FOIA Request Electronic Reading Room (by agency)

Agency FOIA Contacts USDA FOIA Regulations

Publications:

 USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1998

 USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1997

 USDA Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 1996

 

FOIA main page

http://www.usda.gov/news/foia/main.htm [10/5/1999 3:32:19 PM]
Agricultural Research Service/Vol. 5, No. 1/January 1999

Administration Extends Deadline on MeBr Ban to 2005

Great Britain: Calculating the Loss of MeBr for Nonsoil Uses

Transferring Technology of MeBr Alternatives From Lab to Field

Managing Pests With Good Manufacturing Practices

EPA Updates the Envrionmental Impact of MeBr

TECHNICAL REPORTS

Methyl Iodide: Recent Results

Evaluating MeBr Alternative Fumigants on Tomato Under Polyethylene Mulch in Florida

January 1999 Methyl Bromide Index

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan99/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:32:58 PM]
[Newsletter Issues Listing] [Methyl Bromide Home Page]

[ARS Home Page] [USDA Home Page]

Send questions and comments about this site to MEBRinfo@ars-grin.gov

Last Updated: January 12, 1999

January 1999 Methyl Bromide Index

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan99/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:32:58 PM]
A new potato that's highly resistant to late blight—the world's worst potato disease—is now

available from ARS for plant breeders. Scientists hope the new spud, called AWN86514-2, can be

bred with top-rated experimental potatoes or commercially successful varieties to boost their resistance

to late blight. This fungal disease caused the Irish potato famine in the 1800s. New, more aggressive,

fungicide-resistant strains of the disease-causing fungus have appeared in recent years. Breeding and

testing to incorporate the new potato's resistance in new commercial varieties for farmers may take 6 to

10 years or more. In experiments by ARS scientists and colleagues in eight states and Mexico,

AWN86514-2 held up well when attacked by new strains of the disease fungus, Phytophthora infestans.

The new tuber also resisted attack by viruses that cause two other potato diseases, potato virus Y and

potato leafroll virus. The potato's parents are an ARS-developed french fry variety called Ranger Russet

and a spud selected from a collection sent to ARS by Poland's potato breeding institute. The average

American eats about 143 pounds of potatoes a year, making spuds America's favorite vegetable.

Small Grains and Potato Research Unit, Aberdeen, ID

Dennis L. Corsini, (208) 397-4181, dcorsini@uidaho.edu

A new mildew-resistant wheat breeding stock from ARS and cooperating scientists has surprised

plant pathologists by warding off every strain of powdery mildew in their laboratory gauntlet.

Previously, eight strains out of ten was the best any wheat could do. Commercial seed companies can use

the breeding line, called NC97BGTAB-10, as a hybrid-parent to build mildew resistance into profitable,

new soft red wheat varieties for farmers. Bakery cookies and cakes get their delicate texture from flour

made with soft red winter wheat, which grows east of the Mississippi River. Powdery mildew hits the

East's soft wheat types the hardest, costing growers between $2 million and $3 million annually.

Scientists developed the new line from wheat's hardy wild ancestors from the Middle East. The work was

a collaborative effort with North Carolina State University.

Plant Science Research Unit, Raleigh, NC

Steven Leath, (919) 515-6819, Steven_leath@ncsu.edu

Home gardeners in the southeastern U.S. can soon grow a new southern pea that is ideal for

producing fresh peas suitable for freezing. The new pea, "Petite-N-Green," can also be harvested when

fully dry and stored as an attractive pack of dry peas. Developed by ARS scientists under a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement with Western Seed Multiplication, Inc., Oglethorpe, GA, the pea

is the product of 8 years of intensive breeding. The plant grows low and bushy, producing pods in 70 to

76 days. Each pod is slightly curved, about 51⁄2 inches long with 14 peas. The dry peas are small—100

peas weigh about 1/3 ounce—and have a smooth seed coat. They can be restored to their near-fresh green

Plant Genetic Resources, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/gr498.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:33:05 PM]
color by blanching in boiling water for 3 minutes. Western Seed has the right of first refusal to an

exclusive license to market the new cultivar. Breeders' seed will be maintained by the U.S. Vegetable

Laboratory, Charleston, SC. Genetic material will be stored in the National Plant Germplasm System and

will be available for future breeding efforts. Petite-N-Green seeds should be available to home gardeners

by spring of the year 2000.

U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, SC

Richard L. Fery, (843) 556-0840, rfery@awod.com

New peanut cultivars that withstand the root-knot nematode could come from a collection of

resistant germplasm identified by ARS scientists. If breeding is successful, new cultivars would be

commercially available within 5 years. For farmers, this won't be a moment too soon. Varieties they

grow today generally can't survive severe nematode attack without chemical nematicide. Such attacks

cost U.S. farmers up to $30 million annually in losses and chemical controls. The nematode, a

microscopic roundworm, inflicts its costly mischief by forming galls or knots on the peanut plant's roots,

blocking nutrients and sapping vital energy. Female nematodes lay thousands of eggs on the roots,

setting up farmers for a fresh round of losses next season. Researchers hope to break this cycle by

crossing high-yielding cultivars with resistant plants from a collection of 36 strains that deprive the pests

of a chance to feed and lay eggs. In greenhouse trials, scientists observed a 70 percent reduction in the

number of root galls and egg clusters on resistant plants compared with Florunner, a susceptible variety.

The two most resistant plants, from Asia, showed a 90 percent reduction.

Nematode, Weeds and Crops Research, Tifton, GA

Corley Holbrook, (912) 386-3176, nfla@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu

Peanut breeders have a rich new source of genes to improve commercial peanut varieties, thanks to

ARS-supported plant explorations. In 1995 and 1996, an ARS plant explorer and colleagues from

Texas, Colombia and Ecuador traveled throughout Ecuador collecting more than 200 samples of native

peanut varieties, commonly known as landraces. For centuries, indigenous farmers in Ecuador have

selected peanuts that grow best under local conditions and have the characteristics they prize. Ecuadorian

cultures have various uses for peanuts and select seed for specific traits, such as white peanuts for use in

candy. The landraces collected include all six botanical varieties of peanut (Arachis hypogaea): hirsuta,

hypogaea, fastigiata, peruviana, aequatoriana and vulgaris. Several of the landraces collected were

previously unknown to science. Resistance to pests, diseases and environmental stresses are a few of the

useful traits that may be found in the Ecuadorian landraces. The mission filled gaps in the U.S. peanut

collection and reestablished a national peanut germplasm collection in Ecuador. In follow-up activities,

the U.S, and Ecuador worked together to multiply and characterize the collected germplasm so that it can

be used by peanut breeders around the world.

Plant Exchange Office, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Karen A. Williams, (301) 504-5421, kwilliams@ars-grin.gov

Native wild onion plants may be easier to propagate from seed collected in the wild than from seed

produced in a greenhouse or conventional field. To stock seed banks of these and other plants, ARS

scientists are increasing their use of the approach known as in situ or on-site preservation. The agency

Plant Genetic Resources, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/gr498.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:33:05 PM]
maintains a network of repositories, known as the National Plant Germplasm System, to store seeds and

other reproductive tissues of crop plants and their wild relatives. For researchers, this network is an

invaluable tool for finding new genetic sources of disease resistance and other beneficial characteristics

to breed into commercial crops. U.S. cultivated onion and garlic crops are worth more than $900 million

annually. But more than 60 American species in the onion family grow in wild rocky places. Many

species have not been incorporated into the repository system because they are difficult to propagate in

traditional crop settings. So, scientists are trying to propagate them in situ by identifying areas where

they grow naturally and collecting seeds from wild plants for storage. As a pilot test, they're looking at

three species of wild onion in Washington: Douglas' onion (Allium columbianum) and Geyer's onion (A.

geyeri) at the Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge west of Spokane and fringed onion (A. fibrillum) in the

Umatilla National Forest outside Dayton.

Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Pullman, WA

Barbara Hellier, (509) 335-3763, bhellier@mail.wsu.edu

Finding and preserving a native wild grape called Vitis rupestris Scheele was the mission of an ARS

scientist who drove and hiked more than 12,000 miles in the United States last summer. Rock grape

is a prized rootstock because of its excellent resistance to diseases and insects and its ability to adapt to

harsh environmental conditions such as drought. Finding wild rock grape plants undisturbed in their

native habitat is a vital first step toward preserving the species' genetic potential for developing new

grape varieties. Rock grape typically grows along rivers and creeks, on gravel bars and in areas with

large boulders. Flooding may uproot and redeposit the plants or transport the fruits downstream, where

seeds germinate. The ARS scientist looked for the plants in 60 waterways in 10 states—from

Pennsylvania to Texas—where the plants had previously been collected. Because of stream channeling or

other changes that eliminated the plant's habitat, she found it on only two dozen of the 60 waterways. At

each site, she measured the plants, recorded physical data on 238 of the plants and took leaf samples for

genetic screening. Her analyses identified populations that differed in specific favorable traits. Another

ARS scientist at Geneva, NY, collaborated on screening the plants and evaluating plant populations for

their genetic diversity using DNA markers. From these analyses, the scientists have proposed seven

populations as in situ conservation sites.

National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Diane S. Pavek/Edward J. Garvey, (301) 504-5692, peodp@ars-grin.gov

Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, NY

Warren F. Lamboy, (315) 787-2359, wfl1@cornell.edu

The nutritional quality of sorghum, the world's fifth leading cereal grain, could get a boost from 30

new breeding lines. ARS collaborated with Texas A&M University on developing and releasing the new

lines as part of an ongoing program to improve sorghum. Some of the lines have higher levels of

carotene, a nutrient the body converts to vitamin A. The new lines are tropical sorghums genetically

converted to grow in temperate areas. As a result, they can produce an early grain crop in temperate

areas, where long summer days mean more sunlight than along the Equator. The researchers developed

the lines by crossing late-maturing sorghums from India, Ethiopia and Nigeria with early-maturing

varieties. The scientists also released 30 partially converted lines that may be useful to researchers and

breeders. ARS is exploring new biotechnology procedures to speed up sorghum breeding. By

Plant Genetic Resources, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/gr498.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:33:05 PM]
conventional methods, converting tropical sorghum germplasm into plants that will grow in temperate

regions takes 5 to 10 years.

Tropical Agriculture Research Station, Mayagüez, PR

Jeff Dahlberg, (787) 831-3435, ext. 241, jdahlberg@ars-grin.gov

DNA markers on the new soybean genome maps allow rapid identification of plants carrying the

two major genes that give resistance to the soybean cyst nematode. This pest robs U.S. farmers of an

average of 220 million bushels of soybeans a year. The genome maps are proving useful in the ongoing

hunt for two or three additional minor resistance genes. ARS scientists at Beltsville, MD, found and

mapped almost 700 genetic markers that serve as road signs to genes on the soybean genome highway.

Collaborators in the mapping research include researchers with the University of Nebraska at Lincoln,

the University of Utah at Salt Lake City, ARS at Ames, IA, and a private company, BioGenetic Services,

Inc. of Brookings, SD. ARS and Nebraska scientists are using the soybean maps for another first:

identifying rare desirable genes in crosses between wild and commercial soybean lines. The genome

maps enable them to pinpoint genetic material, including possible yield enhancing genes. Without such

information, the chances of improving yield by crossing wild soybean (a vine-like weed) and commercial

soybean would be unlikely. The mapping research was funded in part by the United Soybean Board.

Soybean and Alfalfa Research Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Perry B. Cregan, (301) 504-5070, pcregan@nal.usda.gov

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Plant Genetic Resources, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/gr498.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:33:05 PM]
Beneficial strains of fungi are the star players in a new antiaflatoxin program planned for spring of

1999 on 20,000 acres of Arizona cotton. Certain strains of Aspergillus flavus fungi and related fungi

produce aflatoxin, a potential carcinogen. In Arizona, aflatoxin contamination costs cotton growers an

estimated $3 million to $8 million each year. The campaign against it depends on ARS-developed

technology. Under an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, farmers

will apply beneficial fungi as a biopesticide. Developed by ARS scientists, these fungi are

atoxigenic—nonaflatoxin producing—strains of A. flavus. When applied to the soil beneath cotton plants,

the good-guy strains crowd out or exclude the bad-guy Aspergillus from choice nutrients and space. This

undermines the bad fungi's ability to spread to the crop and produce aflatoxin. Federal law prohibits

cottonseed with more than 20 parts per billion of aflatoxin from being fed to dairy cattle. Until recently,

cotton farmers could do little to reduce contamination, other than harvest crops early and control insects

that spread the fungi. ARS has tested the new approach, called "competitive exclusion," on more than

1,100 acres of cotton since 1996. The tests show that the approach reduces contamination by 90 percent.

To expedite Arizona's program, ARS scientists supplied EPA with 1,200 pages of scientific data on the

safety and efficacy of the atoxigenic fungi.

Southern Regional Research Center, New Orleans, LA

Peter J. Cotty, (504) 286-4391, pjcotty@commserver.srrc.usda

New high-tech tests more quickly detect a key organism that can cause food poisoning. ARS

researchers developed the tests to detect Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) strains, such as E. coli

O157:H7 in cattle feces and beef. These bacteria form toxins and other proteins that contribute to

diarrhea in infected animals. The new test uses a technique called fluorescent PCR (polymerase chain

reaction). In this process, scientists first amplify the organism's DNA using PCR. Then they use a

fluorescent detector to illuminate the DNA. Results from the test can be obtained within 4 hours, which

is 4 to 8 hours faster than other laboratory procedures. The researchers tested more than 60 strains,

demonstrating 100 percent accuracy in detecting STEC and distinguishing E. coli O157:H7 from other

STEC strains. These tests will be useful to cattle producers and veterinarians for fast diagnosis of

diarrhea caused by STEC bacteria in calves. Cattle producers need this information to meet federal

restrictions against the presence of E. coli O157:H7 on animal carcasses. The bacteria are transmitted to

humans who eat foods contaminated with infected animal feces. About 20,000 human cases of E. coli

O157:H7 infection are reported annually in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA

Vijay Sharma, (515) 239-8279, vsharma@nadc.ars.usda.gov

Food Safety, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/fsq498.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:08 PM]
A simple three-step process can help poultry producers keep Salmonella and other food pathogens

out of poultry—and may increase profits, according to an ARS trial in cooperation with a Georgia

poultry producer. Each step blocks contamination at a critical point in the bird's life cycle. Farmers

would spray freshly laid eggs with a mild detergent and a reliable farm disinfectant chemical; hatcheries

would spray a fine mist of hydrogen peroxide in the cabinet while chicks are hatching; and young chicks

would receive benign gut bacteria from healthy mature chickens to prevent Salmonella colonization in

the grow-out house. Working with a farmer, an ARS researcher confirmed the effectiveness of the first

step. This producer found cleaning and disinfecting eggs paid for itself because more eggs were sold at a

higher price. Estimates are that a large-scale farm selling millions of eggs annually could recover the cost

of the spraying equipment in 2 years.

Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens, GA

Mark Berrang, (706) 546-3551, mberrang@ars.usda.gov.

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Food Safety, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/fsq498.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:08 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

"Restrained Eating" May Put

Bones at Risk

By Marcia Wood

April 6, 1999

WASHINGTON, April 6--Women who consistently limit what

they eat to avoid gaining weight may undermine the health of

their bones, Agricultural Research Service Administrator Floyd

P. Horn said.

"Investigations into the role of nutrition in bone growth and

maintenance are a priority of ARS' human nutrition research

program," he said. "Now, a study by ARS researchers indicates

that women may increase their risk of osteoporosis if they

overemphasize being slim at the expense of good nutrition."

ARS is the chief scientific agency of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

Osteoporosis, a thinning and weakening of bone, increases the

risk of fractures, particularly of the hip and spine. "The estimated

annual costs of osteoporosis are more than $10 billion for care

alone," said Horn. "But exercising and eating a well-balanced

diet with adequate calcium are two of the best ways to keep

bones strong and healthy."

Scientists with USDA's Agricultural Research Service in

California looked at the eating behavior of 192 women

volunteers between the ages of 18 and 50. Those classified as

"restrained eaters" had significantly lower bone mineral content

and bone mineral density than those who were classified as

"normal eaters," said Horn.

"Data from the study show that women who are concerned about

their weight, and thus restrain their eating, may increase their

chances of developing osteoporosis," said physiologist Marta D.

Van Loan with the ARS Western Human Nutrition Research

"Restrained Eating" May Put Bones at Risk / April 6, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990406.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:33:11 PM]
Center at Davis.

"These restrained eaters," said Van Loan, "may be trying to meet

a target weight that they've imposed upon themselves or that

they think our image-conscious society demands." Van Loan and

ARS chemist Nancy L. Keim conducted the study.

Scientists already know that not getting enough foods with

calcium or other bone enhancing nutrients can lead to a low

bone-mineral-density. But the California study, according to Van

Loan, is apparently the largest of its kind to demonstrate a

significant association between restricted eating and either bone

mineral content or bone mineral density.

"Our volunteers were healthy individuals who did not have

eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia," Van Loan pointed

out. "The majority of the volunteers, that is, 51 percent," said

Van Loan, "can be classified as 'restrained eaters.' If this sample

is representative of the U.S. female population as a whole, it

means that one woman out of every two could potentially have

this eating behavior, and may be increasing her risk of

developing osteoporosis. It also means the number of women at

risk of developing osteoporosis in the next 10 to 20 years could

be greater than previous estimates."

Van Loan and Keim used a device called a DEXA, or dual

energy x-ray absorptiometer, to measure bone mineral content

and density. Those two factors are key indicators of overall bone

strength and health, according to the scientists.

The researchers administered a standard test known as a

Three-Factor Eating Inventory to determine if volunteers were

always overly concerned about their weight, as is typical of

restrained eaters.

Based on scores from the Three-Factor Inventory, Van Loan and

Keim classified the women as "restrained eaters" or "normal

eaters." The restrained eaters had about 12 percent less mineral

content in their bones and about 6 percent lower bone mineral

density than women with normal eating behavior, the researchers

reported.

Foods that are a good source of calcium include cheese, milk, ice

cream, most dark- green leafy vegetables, broccoli, baked beans

and other dried legumes, dried figs and soft fish bones like those

in canned salmon.

In addition to a diet rich in calcium, Keim said, proper exercise

"Restrained Eating" May Put Bones at Risk / April 6, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990406.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:33:11 PM]
can help keep bones from becoming brittle and porous,

especially exercise that "increases the force or load on your

skeleton, such as jogging, lifting weights or working out with

resistance-type gym equipment."

An article about the research appears in the April 1999 issue of

the agency's monthly journal, Agricultural Research, and on the

World Wide Web at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr99/bone0499.htm

Scientific contact: Marta D. Van Loan and Nancy L. Keim,

ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, c/o University

of California at Davis, Davis, CA; phone (530) 752-4160 (Van

Loan), (530) 752-4163 (Keim), mvanloan@whnrc.usda.gov or

nkeim@whnrc.usda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

"Restrained Eating" May Put Bones at Risk / April 6, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990406.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:33:11 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The

Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform

Environment

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform

Environment. By Craig Gundersen, Michael LeBlanc, and Betsey Kuhn, Food and Rural Economics

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report

773.

Abstract

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) dramatically

transformed and continues to transform the food assistance landscape in the United States. The Act cut

more funds from the Food Stamp Program than it did from any other program, through reductions in

benefits per person and restrictions in eligibility. Despite these cuts, food stamps now have a more

prominent role in the post-welfare reform social safety net because the largest cash-assistance entitlement

program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was replaced with the Temporary

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, a nonentitlement program. This leaves the Food Stamp

Program as one of the only remaining entitlement programs available to almost all low-income

households.

Keywords: Food stamps, transfer payments, food consumption, nutrition.

Contents

● Frontmatter (Title Page, Table of Contents, Summary); 30 kb

● Introduction; 51 kb

● The Food Stamp Program; 66 kb

● Impact of Cuts in Federal Assistance; 69 kb

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment (ERS Report)

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer773/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:13 PM]
● Economic Cycles and the Social Safety Net; 67 kb

● Fiscal Effects of Block Grants; 66 kb

● Conclusions; 49 kb

● References; 57 kb

● Appendix A: Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on Food Stamps and Poverty; 25 kb

● Appendix B: Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on Food Stamp Outlays; 25 kb

● Entire report; 489 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Jack Harrison

Updated: March 31, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment (ERS Report)

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer773/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:13 PM]
Crop Production--Prospective

Plantings--supplement (PCP-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This ASCII text file reports the expected plantings as of March 1 for corn, all wheat, winter wheat,

durum wheat, other spring wheat, oats, barley, flaxseed, cotton, rice by length of grain classes, all

sorghum, sweet potatoes, dry edible beans, soybeans, sunflower, peanuts, and sugarbeets; acreage for

harvest of oats, hay, tobacco.

Help on using these files is available.

● Prospective Plantings, 03.31.99 [ Text | PDF ]

● Prospective Plantings, 03.31.98 [ Text ]

● Prospective Plantings, 03.31.97 [ Text ]

● Prospective Plantings, 03.29.96 [ Text ]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Crop Production--Prospective Plantings--supplement (PCP-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bbp/ [10/5/1999 3:33:15 PM]
Recent Publications of the Southern Research Station

Announcement of Publications -- March 1999

(This document is also available in PDF format for printing.)

PLEASE NOTE: All publications listed in this catalog are available for viewing,

printing, and downloading from this site. Just click on the "View and Print

this Publication Now" link under the abstract. Please send e-mail to

rdm@srs.fs.usda.gov if you have any problems viewing or printing these

publications.

The seven publications that are published by the Southern Research Station

are also available in hard copy through the mail. To order Station

publications in hard copy, print the Publications Order Form that is at the

"Order This Publication" link. You may request more than one title per form,

up to two copies of the same title. The number in parentheses at the end of

the publication description, is the number to circle on the form; i.e., to order

Clinton, Barton D.; Vose, James M.; Swank, Wayne T.; and others. 1998. "Fuel

consumption and fire characteristics during understory burning in a mixed

white pine-hardwood stand in the Southern Appalachians", you would circle

number (6).

Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests

The USDA Forest Service and the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council

(SE-EPPC) present Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests, which focuses on

invasive exotic pest plants and insects and diseases. Kerry Britton,

project leader and research plant pathologist for the Insects and Disease

research work unit in Athens, GA, edited the 29 papers presented at the

April 1997 conference in Nashville, TN. Sponsors of the Exotic Pests of

Eastern Forests conference aimed to enhance awareness of the many

invasive exotic pests in eastern forests, the damage they have caused to

the ecosystem, and the potential impact if prevention and control

measures are not developed and utilized soon.

On February 3, President Clinton signed an Executive Order to prevent

the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to

minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that

invasive species cause. In September 1998, USDA Forest Service Chief

Mike Dombeck introduced the Forest Service Strategy for Noxious and

Nonnative Invasive Plant Management. When implementing the program,

Chief Dombeck emphasized the devastating effects of invasive plants:

reducing biological diversity, impacting threatened and endangered

species and wildlife habitat, modifying vegetative seral stages, changing

fire and nutrient cycles, and degrading soil structure. Considering the

ecological and economic effects of the chestnut blight, the rapid spread

of the gypsy moth, and kudzu=s alteration of the southern landscape, the

invasion of exotic pest plants, insects, and diseases clearly have

dramatically impacted the health, composition, and productivity of

eastern forests.

James H. Miller, research forest ecologist in the Vegetation Management

Research and Longleaf Pine Ecosystems research work unit in Auburn,

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (1 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
AL, contributed Exotic invasive plants in southeastern forests to

Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests. In this chapter, Miller brings attention

to the problem of exotic plants in the sub-tropical part of the southeastern

forest region and to mobilize support for organizing integrated weed

management programs. The Southern Weed Science Society honored

James Miller as the 1999 Weed Scientist of the Year, the first forestry

member of the society to receive this prestigious award. Miller’s

outstanding achievements in research and technology transfer relate to

forest vegetation management science. His accomplishments include

basic science and applied technology for the control and management of

native and nonnative plants and shrubs in a forest setting using

techniques that are ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially

acceptable.

Paula Spaine, Southern Research Station research plant pathologist in

the Insects and Disease research work unit, co-authored Three

American tragedies: chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch

elm disease. Spaine collaborated with Scott Schlarbaum, Frederick

Hebard, and Joseph C. Kamalay. Schlarbaum teaches in the Department

of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries at the University of Tennessee,

Knoxville; Frederick Hebard conducts research with The American

Chestnut Foundation; Kamalay is a Forest Service scientist at the

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. These scientists present brief

accounts of the impacts of chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch

elm disease on their host species, examples of research approaches for

disease control, and a prognosis for the future of each species. Spaine

worked with scientists at the Forestry and Forest Products Research

Institute in Tsukuba, Japan from 1990-1992. The Japanese International

Science and Technology grant, awarded by the Japanese government,

the National Science Foundation, and the Forest Service sponsored

Spaine’s sabbatical. She continues to collaborate with colleagues in

Japan on whether specific introduced pathogens in the US. have

occurred in the Far East. Butternut canker, caused by a fungus believed

to be an introduced pathogen, has not been reported in Japan. This type

of global communication helps to trace the origin of exotic pests.

To view or download Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests, visit

www.webriver.com/tn-eppc/ You can purchase a copy for $5 by calling

800-449-6339; printed copies are extremely limited. Weed control

programs operate in many States, and Colorado and Montana distribute

noxious weed calendars loaded with graphics and information about

those often enticing exotics. If you want to get involved with a weed

control group in the Southeastern U.S., Steve or Lee (800-449-6339)

would be willing to point you in the right direction.

In this catalogue, Gary L. DeBarr, research entomologist with the Athens

Insects and Disease research work unit, contributes Description of new

primary parasitoid, Zarhopalus Ashmead (Hymenoptera:

Encyrtidae), of Oracella Acuta (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).

DeBarr co-authored this publication with Jianghua Sun, Northeast

Forestry University, Harbin, China; C. Wayne Berisford, University of

Georgia, Athens; and Michael E. Schauff, USDA National Museum of

Natural History.

Continuing the Southern Research Station’s aggressive research against

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (2 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
invasive species, Kerry Britton, Gary DeBarr, and Dave Orr, a

collaborator from North Carolina State University, travel to China in April

1999 to work with Beijing scientists to control and eradicate kudzu

Sustainability through Ecosystem Management

In charting the USDA Forest Service’s path for conservation leadership in

the 21st century, Chief Mike Dombeck says ecological sustainability is

"our essence – our reason for being." Dombeck leads the Forest Service

toward a new organizational direction based on outcomes on the

landscape as opposed to outputs produced. He recognizes the economic

and social value of timber and mineral production, livestock grazing,

hunting, and fishing on the 191 million acres the Forest Service

manages.

Chief Dombeck also realizes that the values most citizens appreciate

from their national forests include clean air and water, open space and

large unfragmented landscapes – forests that look like forests – wildness

and naturalness that support diverse and abundant wildlife, fish, and

plants. By conserving endangered species and managing for ecological

sustainability, we will leave choices for future generations.

Kay Franzreb, research wildlife biologist and project leader for the

Endangered Species research work unit in Clemson, SC, co-authored

The role of indicator species: Neotropical migratory song birds. This

publication focuses on the Neotropical migrants that predominate in the

breeding bird community of eastern deciduous forests. In some parts of

the Southern Appalachians, up to 80 percent of the breeding bird

community is comprised of these species. These approximately 75

species use ground, shrub, and especially canopy nests, and about 80

percent of them are insectivores. Recent concern over the status of these

birds has been prompted by surveys showing widespread population

declines. Franzreb collaborated with T. Simons, K. Rabenold, D. Buehler,

and others on this chapter in Ecosystem management for

sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a regional

biosphere reserve cooperative. Edited by John D. Peine, a scientist

with the U.S. Geological Survey, this book is available through CRC

Press, Lewis Publishers. To purchase a copy, call 800-272-7737

(http://www.crcpress.com/ ).

Mike Rauscher, research forester at Bent Creek Research and

Demonstration Forest, Asheville, NC, contributes Ecosystem

management decision support for federal forests in the United

States: a review to the March catalogue of Recent Publications.

Rauscher says ecosystem management has all the characteristics of a

"wicked" problem – tricky, complex, and thorny: finding a sensible middle

ground between ensuring long-term protection of the environment while

allowing an increasing population to use its natural resources for

maintaining and improving human life. Rauscher states that managers

need to use knowledge, organization, judicious simplification, and

inspired leadership to implement ecosystem management – no small

order, even with such a well-stocked toolbox. Rauscher reviews decision

support systems related to implementing ecosystem management. He

presents a conceptual model of the context in which ecosystem

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (3 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
management is expected to function, describes a candidate for an

operational ecosystem management process, and reviews many existing

systems.

Rauscher is instrumental in presenting an international conference on

Application of Scientific Knowledge to Decision Making in Managing

Forest Ecosystems in Asheville, NC, May 3-6, 1999. The International

Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), the USDA Forest

Service, Southern Research Station, and the Forest Resources Systems

Institute, Clemson, SC, sponsor this conference to bring together the

leading developers and users of decision support systems (DSS) in the

world. Speakers and participants will discuss contemporary issues

regarding the development and applications of DSS for managing forest

ecosystems. To learn more about the conference, visit our web site at

www.srs.fs.fed.us or contact Mike Rauscher at 828-667-5261, ext. 102;

e-mail him at mrauscher/srs_bentcreek@fs.fed.us/

Sustainability and air quality become real for many people when "ozone

alerts" suggest limitation of outdoor activities, as could happen in

Western North Carolina from May 1 through September 30. This topic will

surely attract attention when North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.

hosts the Governors’ Summit on Mountain Air Quality April 6-7, 1999, in

Asheville. Key participants figure to be the Governors and delegations

from the Southern Appalachian Mountain States – Alabama, Georgia,

Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West

Virginia. Air quality experts from the Forest Service and other

government agencies, industry, academia, and environmental

organizations are engaged in understanding the air problems of the

southern mountains and crafting strategies to solve those problems. The

Air Quality Summit will prepare State policy makers for the decisions they

will face over the next few years. Developing equitable and effective

solutions requires regional collaboration. To register, call Salli Gaddini at

828-232-5123 or e-mail her at sgaddini@unca.edu

Outdoor Recreation: Assessment and Valuation

Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand

and supply trends presents the United States only ongoing,

comprehensive assessment of the trends, current situation, and likely

future of outdoor recreation demand and supply. Thirty-one contributors

examine new and different aspects of national demand, resemblances to

the past, and trends in the supply of outdoor recreation opportunities,

both from the private and public sectors. Authors include academicians,

Federal and State scientists and managers, and specialists representing

recreation user groups, the recreation industry, and providers of

recreation opportunities

Chapters authored by Southern Research Station scientists include the

following selections:

Outdoor recreation resources by Carter J. Betz, Donald B.K. English,

and H. Ken Cordell

Projections of outdoor recreation participation to 2050 by J.M.

Bowker, Donald B.K. English, and H. Ken Cordell

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (4 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
Framework for the assessment by H. Ken Cordell

Outdoor recreation participation trends by H. Ken Cordell, Barbara L.

McDonald, Jeff R. Teasley, and others

Implications of this assessment by Donald B.K. English, H. Ken

Cordell, and J.M. Bowker

Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions of outdoor

recreation setting attributes by Micheal A. Tarrant, Erin Smith, and H.

Ken Cordell

Private lands and outdoor recreation in the United States by R. Jeff

Teasley, John C. Bergstrom, H. Ken Cordell, and others

To purchase a copy of Outdoor recreation in American life: a national

assessment of demand and supply trends, call Sagamore Publishing

(800-327-5557) or visit the web site at www.sagamorepub.com/

Recent Publications -- March 1999

Achtemeier, Gary L.; Jackson, William; Hawkins, Bernie; and others. 1998. The smoke dilemma: a head-on

collision! In: Wadsworth, Kelly G., ed. Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

conference; 1998 March 20-25; Orlando, FL. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 415-421.

A head-on collision is imminent! The drivers are people. The vehicles are special interests. The

road is smoke! Those concerned about air quality ride in the first car; those concerned about

natural resource management ride in the second. In this paper, the authors look at what smoke is

and why it is sometimes dangerous, factors leading to a collision, and what can be done to avoid

a collision.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Betz, Carter J.; English, Donald B.K.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1999. Outdoor recreation resources. In: Cordell, H.

Ken; Betz, Carter; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of

demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 39-182.

The authors examine recreation resources and opportunities by the four types of providers:

Federal, State, local governments, and the private sector. They discuss the trend of partnerships

in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities, especially two types that emerged in the

1990’s: Scenic Byways and Watchable Wildlife opportunities. Where possible, the authors discuss

the changes and trends in recreation resources since the mid-1980’s. Those trends, in turn, point

to anticipated future trends. Brief articles by 36 contributors from Government agencies,

environmental organizations, and recreation industry groups address issues and trends that have

emerged over the past decade and offer their outlooks for the future. The chapter provides

indexes that describe categories of recreation resources and how they have changed over the

past 10 years. The authors also present observations about the outdoor recreation resource base

in the United States by summarizing the current status, trends, and future outlook.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (5 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Bowker, J.M.; English, Donald B.K.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation participation

to 2050. In: Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a

national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 323-351.

The authors project future outdoor recreation participation and consumption, in days and trips,

well into the next century, as mandated by the Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA). The

chapter begins with a brief description of the data and methods used. They report indexed

projections of future recreation participation (by millions of participants aged 16 and over) and

consumption (by millions of days annually and by millions of primary purpose trips taken) across

the four assessment regions [North, South, Rocky Mountains/Great Plains, and Pacific Coast] at

10-year intervals beginning in 2000 and ending in 2050. For convenience, the authors place

projections for specific activities in the following groups: winter, water, wildlife, dispersed land, and

developed land. Finally, they discuss some important findings, implications, and limitations of the

analysis.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Brockway, Dale G.; Outcalt, Kenneth W. 1998. Gap-phase regeneration in longleaf pine wiregrass

ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. 106: 125-139.

Naturally regenerated seedlings of longleaf pine are typically observed to cluster in the center of

tree fall canopy gaps and be encircled by a wide zone from which they are generally excluded.

Twelve representative canopy gaps distributed across 600 ha of a naturally regenerated

uneven-aged longleaf pine forest in the sandhills of north central Florida were examined to

determine which aboveground and belowground factors are responsible for development of this

seedling exclusionary zone. Within 12 m of adult trees growing along the gap edge, significantly

fewer longleaf pine seedlings were present. The canopy of overstory trees, however, extended

only 4 to 5 m into the gap. The relatively open structure of the longleaf pine canopy (57 percent

cover) allowed photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) to be evenly distributed upon the forest

floor across each canopy gap. Thus, light availability was not related to pine seedling clustering

near gap centers. Significantly greater forest litter mass beneath adult trees (5 Mg ha− 1 ) could

result in fires more intense than would be supported by the litter mass near gap centers (2.5 Mg

ha− 1 ). However, litter mass was significantly elevated only within 4 m of the gap edge. The fine

root biomass within 12 m of the gap edge (3 to 4.5 Mg ha− 1 ) was two to six times that measured

near the gap center and most closely coincided with the width of the seedling exclusionary zone

along the margin of each gap. Thus, while the canopy of adjacent adult trees may indirectly

influence seedling mortality through deposition of needle litter and greater fire intensity within 4 m

of the gap edge, the root systems of these adults also appear to directly compete with seedlings

within 12 to 16 m of the gap edge for limited site resources. To effectively regenerate and sustain

longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems, caution should be used in prescribing single-tree selection

harvest methods so as not to create gap openings so small (< 30 m diameter) that intraspecific

competition from adult trees totally excludes seedlings. Group selection methods may prove more

effective in creating canopy gaps of sizes suitable (≥ 40 m diameter) for ensuring that intraspecific

competition from adults is maintained at a level which allows for survival and growth of seedlings.

Shelterwood and deferment methods may also prove useful where more open canopy conditions

are desired. However, the pine seedlings’ need for light cannot be used as an appropriate

rationale for application of clearcutting methods.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (6 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Brockway, Dale G.; Outcalt, Kenneth W.; Wilkins, R. Neal. 1998. Restoring longleaf pine wiregrass

ecosystems: plant cover, diversity and biomass following low-rate hexazinone application on Florida

sandhills. Forest Ecology and Management. 103: 159-175.

A longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystem in the sandhills of north central Florida, upon which turkey

oak gained dominance following a wildfire, was treated with low rate (1.1 or 2.2 kg/ha)

applications of the herbicide hexazinone during the 1991 growing season. All applications

successfully reduced oak in the overstory and understory, mortality ranging from 83 to 93 percent.

The declining competition from oaks was associated with progressive increases in foliar cover of

wiregrass, all graminoids, and forbs over time. Plant species diversity declined in the initial year,

but recovered by the second growing season. Species richness increased overall, while evenness

declined with the continuing expansion of wiregrass. Initial increases in the standing biomass of

wiregrass did not persist beyond the second growing season. The broadcast application methods

exposed a greater number of understory plants to contact with hexazinone, resulting in initial

declines in forb cover, species richness, and diversity. Although recovery was noted in

subsequent years, because of lower selectivity, this broadcast application method is not

recommended as a restoration technique. Spot applications of liquid hexazinone was generally

more selective in its effect upon the plant community. The 1.1 and 2.2 kg/ha application rates,

while producing an initial year reduction in diversity and evenness, resulted in increases in the

cover of all graminoids and forbs and the highest species richness. While both applications rates

are useful, the 2.2 kg/ha application is most effective in controlling woody plant competition and

stimulating increases in wiregrass and is therefore recommended for restoring xeric sandhills and

similar longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Clinton, Barton D.; Vose, James M.; Swank, Wayne T.; and others. 1998. Fuel consumption and fire

characteristics during understory burning in a mixed white pine-hardwood stand in the Southern

Appalachians. Research Paper SRS-12. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 8 p.

The authors characterized fire behavior and fuel consumption resulting from an understory

prescribed burn in a mixed eastern white pine-hardwood stand in the Southern Appalachians.

Three stands were used for the treatment. Flame lengths, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5 meters (in) for

backing fires and from 1.2 to 4.5 in for head fires, reached maximum heights where evergreen

understory was found. Rates of spread ranged from 1.8 to 3.0 in per minute for head fires and 0.3

in per minute for backing fires. Fire intensity, measured with ceramic tiles painted with

heat-sensitive paint, varied across stands. Mean peak flame temperature ranged from 129 to 290°

C. Pre-burn mass totals were similar among stands, except for stand 1, which had substantially

greater humus mass than the other stands. Consumption of litter and humus layers in the forest

floor was positively correlated with flame temperature. Small wood (< 8 cm diameter)

consumption was not correlated with temperature. Over all stands, 50 percent of the mass in

small wood and litter was lost during burning, and 20 percent of the humus layer was consumed.

The losses in the humus layer represent about 40 percent more humus mass consumption than

would have occurred in a fell-and-burn treatment. The humus layer is an important nutrient

reservoir for plant growth. Maintaining this layer through careful selection of burning conditions

will minimize losses during burning and maintain long-term site productivity. (6)

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (7 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Cordell, H. Ken. 1999. Framework for the assessment. In: Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M. and

others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign,

IL: Sagamore Publishing: 31-38.

This chapter of Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and

supply trends details the components of the assessment framework. In this chapter the author

recounts the establishment of the process for assessing the state of the forest and range

resources in this country through passage of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act (RPA) in 1974. He explains that the intention of the RPA assessment was and is to

describe recent trends, current condition, and likely futures for timber, water, wildlife and fish,

range, minerals, and outdoor recreation and wilderness in the United States. Outdoor recreation

in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends represents the fourth of the

outdoor recreation and wilderness studies done to meet the mandates of the 1974 RPA. In this

assessment, the primary approach is to use the expert judgement of the assessment specialists

to examine supply trends across the spectrum of opportunities the public and private sectors

provide in light of demand trends and projections. From this less formal "gap analysis" and based

on knowledge of issues in outdoor recreation and wilderness, authors of the assessment attempt

to identify policy, management, and research implications for the country. It is the authors’ opinion

that this form of qualitative comparison can provide valid insights, just as the more quantitative

econometric gap analysis does.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Cordell, H. Ken; McDonald, Barbara L.; Teasley, R. Jeff; and others. 1999. Outdoor recreation participation

trends. In: Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a

national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 219-321.

As part of the national assessment of outdoor recreation trends, the authors have taken a look at

participation patterns and levels of participation across activities and across segments of our

society. The primary source of data is the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE). The NSRE is the latest in the continuing series of National Recreation Surveys

conducted by the Federal Government since 1960. The NSRE covers participation in over 80

activities, ranging from casual walking outdoors to more challenging activities such as rock

climbing and white water canoeing. This chapter looks at national participation in land-, water-,

and snow-and ice-based recreation activities. Long-term trends are covered, tracking some

activities back to the original national survey done in 1960. To examine geographic patterns,

differences in population percentages across Census regions and divisions are explored, with a

focus on activities with the greatest differences. To further explore geographic patterns, selected

activities are mapped at county scale to show more detailed patterns of participation across and

within regions. Intensity of participation is described using days and trips away from home as the

measure of involvement in outdoor activities. Participation differences among social groups in

American society are examined, and constraints to participation described. The closing sections

of this chapter include descriptions of visits to Federal and State recreation areas, international

tourism in the United States, outdoor recreation consumer spending trends, and economic effects

of outdoor recreationists’ spending.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (8 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Dolloff, C. Andrew. 1995. Impacts of historic land use on trout habitat in the Southern Appalachians. In:

Barnhart, Roger; Shake, Bill; Hamre, R.H., tech. eds. Wild Trout V: wild trout in the 21st century; Proceedings of

the Wild Trout V symposium; 1994 September 26-27; Yellowstone National Park. [Place of publication

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 121-124.

Land use has had a major impact on habitat structure in the Southern Appalachians. One of the

most conspicuous changes has been the loss of large woody debris (LWD). Human use has so

changed the structure and composition of most forested watersheds that is difficult for average

citizens to understand why LWD matters. Research is underway to determine the effect of adding

LWD on trout, trout habitat, and macroinvertebrates in two southwest Virginia streams.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Elliott, Katherine J.; Hendrick, Ronald L.; Major, Amy E.; and others. 1999. Vegetation dynamics after a

prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 199-213.

In April 1995, the USDA Forest Service conducted a prescribed burn along with a south-facing

slope of Southern Appalachian watershed, Nantahala National Forest, western NC. Fire had been

excluded for over 70 years and the purpose of the burn was to create a mosaic of fire intensities

to restore a degraded pine/hardwood community and to stimulate forage production and promote

oak regeneration along a hillslope gradient. Permanent plots were sampled at three locations

along a gradient from 1500 to 1700 m. Plot locations corresponded to three community types:

mesic, near-riparian cove (low slope); dry, mixed-oak (mid slope); and xeric, pine/hardwood

(ridge). Before burning (1994-1995) and post-burn (summer 1995 and summer 1996) vegetation

measurements were used to determine the effects of fire on the mortality and regeneration of

overstory trees, understory shrubs, and herbaceous species. After the burn, mortality was highest

(31 percent) at the ridge location, substantially reducing overstory (from 26.84 pre-burn to 19.05

m 2 ha-1 post-burn) and understory shrub (from 6.52 pre-burn to 0.37 m 2 ha-1 post-burn) basal

area. At the mid-slope position, mortality was only 3 percent, and no mortality occurred at the low

slope. Not surprisingly, percent mortality corresponded to the level of fire intensity. Basal area of

Kalmia latifolia, Gaylussacia baccata, and Vaccinium spp. were substantially reduced after the

fire, but density increased due to prolific sprouting. The prescribed fire had varying effects on

species richness and diversity across the hillslope gradient. On the ridge, diversity was

significantly increased in the understory and herb-layer, but decreased in the overstory. On the

mid slope, no change was observed in the overstory, but diversity significantly decreased in the

understory. On the low slope, no change was observed in the overstory or understory.

View and Print This Publication Now!

English, Donald B.K.; Cordell, H. Ken; Bowker, J.M. 1999. Implications of this assessment. In: Cordell, H.

Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M. and others. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment

of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 433-440.

Outdoor recreation is complex and difficult to summarize fully. It includes a wide variety of

activities and interests, ranging from canoeing to watching wildlife. Many outdoor activities often

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (9 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
occur in a variety of settings. These settings may have different characteristics and thus provide

different kinds of recreation experiences. Similarly, one setting often supports an array of

activities, often at the same time. Having the opportunity to participate in a mix of activities and

settings is important to people as they seek satisfying and varied recreation experiences. On any

given day or recreation trip, a single individual or group may participate in a number of activities

across more than one setting. A further complexity of outdoor recreation is that the meanings of

and benefits from participating can be very different for different people who are doing the same

activity in the same place at the same time. Differences in the benefits recreationists seek can

translate into significant differences in their preferences for setting attributes, their perceptions of

crowding or other conditions at the recreation site, their expectations about resource quality and

service delivery, and their attitudes regarding management goals and methods. Different types of

recreation users do share some of the same concerns about facilities and general perceptions

about the quality of managed sites. However, research has indicated that segmenting user

markets based on setting-specific preferences for recreation experiences, although difficult to do,

may be a managerially useful way to understand recreation site users better. As a result of their

differences in preferences, visitors to the same recreation site are likely to exhibit different

reactions to management prescriptions or resource changes.

Over and above the direct benefits participants get from their recreation experience, there is

mounting evidence of indirect benefits of wild areas, scenic amenities, and recreation itself. There

is an expanding definition of outdoor recreation participation and the scope of people who benefit

from someone else’s participation. Beyond the direct benefits of actual participation, economists

and other social scientists have identified benefits to persons other than the visitor when

measuring the values of the natural resources that support recreation. It also recognized that

visitors benefit not only at the time they are participating in recreation, but also before and

sometimes long after their visit to a recreation area. In addition, maintaining the quality of

[National Wilderness Preservation System-designated] wilderness and other undeveloped or

unique natural or historic resources can provide benefits into the future for those who may make

use of them. A growing class of beneficiaries of recreation, wildlife, and [National Wilderness

Preservation System-designated] wilderness resources includes those who engage in

sightseeing, wildlife viewing, nature study, or other activities in "virtual" settings.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Flebbe, Patricia A. 1997. Global climate change and fragmentation of native brook trout distribution in

the southern Appalachian Mountains. In: Gresswell, Robert E.; Dwyer, Pat; Hamre, R.H., eds. Wild Trout VI:

putting the native back in wild trout. Proceedings of the Wild Trout VI Symposium; 1997 August 17-20; Montana

State University, Bozeman, MT. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 117-121.

Current distributions of native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Southern Appalachians are

restricted to upper elevations by multiple factors, including habitat requirements, introduced

rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown (Salmo trutta) trout, and other human activities.

Present-day distribution of brook trout habitat is already fragmented. Increased temperatures

predicted by various global warming models are likely to further limit suitable brook trout habitat.

Predicted changes in hydrologic cycles may exacerbate temperature effects, and hydrologic

effects on trout may differ across the region. Models of present-day trout guild distribution were

used in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to examine the changes in trout distribution that

might occur with temperature increase. Both suitable area and stream length for trout decrease as

suitable habitat is increasingly restricted to mountaintops. Furthermore, the remaining trout habitat

is likely to be even more fragmented than at present. If trout habitat becomes more fragmented

under warming trends, common local extinctions may become irreversible as avenues for

recolonization are eliminated.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (10 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Foster, G.S.; Rousseau, R.J.; Nance, W.L. 1998. Eastern cottonwood clonal mixing study: intergenotypic

competition effects. Forest Ecology and Management. 112: 9-22.

Intergenotypic competition of seven clones of eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) was

evaluated in a replacement series experiment. A partial diallel competition design was used to

choose pairs (binary sets) of clones for plot type treatments. Two separate treatments were

established for each pair of clones, namely (1) 75 percent clone A: 25 percent clone B and (2) 25

percent clone A: 75 percent clone B. Twenty-one treatments were established in the study: seven

pure clone treatments and 14 mixed treatments (seven pairs of clones each at two ratios). Two

study sites (Vicksburg, Mississippi and Wickliffe, Kentucky) were used. Results are presented for

stand ages two, three, and four years which corresponds to the lower to mid-length rotation for

the species for a short rotation woody crop (either biomass for energy or fiber for pulp and paper).

Average plot height at an age of 4 years was 13.23 m. Plot total yield was affected by

intergenotypic competition. The type and level of response to mixing clones depended on the

specific clones involved and the planting site. Usually, the most predictable opportunity for overor underyielding when in binary mixture occurred for clones which differed substantially in pure

plot growth and yield. The yield of mixtures of clones of more similar growth patterns sometimes

differed significantly from that expected from an additive model, but this was less common. When

significant differences did occur between pure clone yields and the yields of their binary mixtures,

the plot yield was often a linear function of the proportion of the best clone. Overyielding of

mixtures occurred, with additional yields of up to 27 percent of the mixture over the best clone's

pure plot yield.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Greenberg, Cathryn H.; Simons, Robert W. 1999. Age, composition, and stand structure of old-growth oak

sites in the Florida high pine landscape: implications for ecosystem management and restoration.

Natural Areas Journal. 19(1): 30-40.

The authors sampled tree age, species composition, and stand structure of four high pine sites

composed of old-growth sand post oak (Q. margaretta Ashe), old-growth turkey oak (Quercus

laevis Walt.), and young longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in north and central peninsular

Florida. The oldest turkey oak sampled was 123 years old, and the oldest sand post oak was 230

years old. Turkey oak exhibited the greatest diameter variation in relation to age. The median

number of rings found in rotten and/or hollow turkey oaks was 63 and the corresponding number

for sand post oak was 105. Age reconstruction indicated that in 1900 minimum oak tree (m 5 cm

diameter at breast height) density ranged from 10 to 60 trees ha-1 among sites. This study

demonstrates that sandhill oak trees historically were an integral component of at least some

phases of the high pine ecosystem. These data support the hypothesis that spatial patchiness

and variability in fire frequency, season, and intensity historically permitted oaks to reach and

maintain tree size in varying densities over time and across the high pine landscape.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Haag, Wendell R.; Warren, Melvin L., Jr.; Shillingsford, Mahala. 1999. Host fishes and host-attracting

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (11 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
behavior of Lampsilis altilis and Villosa vibex (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist. 141:

149-157.

Suitable host fishes were identified for two species of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from the

Coosa River drainage, Mobile Basin: Lampsilis altilis, the fine-lines pocketbook and Villosa vibex,

the southern rainbow. Suitable hosts are defined as fishes that produce juvenile mussels from

glochidial infestations in the laboratory. Larvae of both L. altilis and V. vibex transformed

successfully on four species of sunfishes (Centrarchidae): Lepomis cyanellus, Micropterus

coosae, M. punctulatus, and M. salmoides. For both mussel species, transformation success on

L. cyanellus was highly variable and generally lower than on Micropterus spp. Gravid female L.

altilis and V. vibex display highly modified mantle margin lures in the early spring. In addition to

displaying mantle lures, L. altilis produce superconglutinates, simliar to those recently described

for three other species of Lampsilis in the Southeastern U.S.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Haywood, James D.; Martin, Alton, Jr.; Pearson, Henry A.; Grelen, Harold E. 1998. Seasonal biennial burning

and woody plant control influence native vegetation in loblolly pine stands. Res. Pap. SRS-14. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.

This paper documents the results of a study to determine the effects of selected

vegetation-management treatments in loblolly pine. Vegetation in precommercially thinned,

6-year-old stands was subjected to five biennial growing season burns in either early March, May,

or July coupled with hand felling of residual woody stems. Using a randomized complete block

design, the authors compared the vegetation-management treatments to an unthinned, unburned,

and unweeded check. By stand age 17, intensive vegetation management increased pine

diameter growth by 2 centimeters (α = .004) and volume growth by 0.04 cubic meters (m3) per

tree (α = .02) when compared to the check. However, this was a small biological gain in growth.

Among the burned treatments, five burns in early March reduced average pine total height by 0.8

m (α = .004), diameter at breast height by 1.5 cm (α = .03), and volume per tree by 0.04 m3 (α =

.06) compared to burning in early May or July. Vegetation management significantly reduced the

height of hardwood trees and shrubs (α = .0001), but the number of trees and shrubs per hectare

was not significantly affected. Vegetation management significantly increased total herbaceous

plant production (α = .003). Pinehill bluestem was not on the check plots, but it was the most

productive herbaceous species on the vegetation- management treatments, composing 49

percent of the average total annual production of 457 kilograms per hectare. (16)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Hemingway, Richard W. 1998. Opportunities to use bark polyphenols in specialty chemical markets. In:

Swanson, James S., ed. Wood residues into revenue: Proceedings, 2nd biennial residual wood conference;

1997 November 4-5; Richmond, BC. Richmond, BC: MCTI Communications, Inc.: 80-85.

Current forestry practice in North America is to transport pulpwood and logs from the harvest site

to the mill with the bark on the wood. Approximately 18 percent of the weight of logs from conifers

such as southern pine is bark. The majority of this bark is burned as hog fuel, but its fuel value is

low. When compared with natural gas at an average of $2.50/MBTU or electricity at 3.5

cents/KWH, burning wet bark has a gross fuel value of about 1.2 cents/lb on a dry weight basis.

Considering the cost of transport, as well as the capital and maintenance costs of boilers,

processing bark for fuel is a costly business and seems to be practiced only to avoid a large solid

waste management problem. One must not lose sight of the fact that one must handle nearly two

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (12 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
lbs of wet bark to recover that 1.2 cents. In addition, concerns about air quality, especially

increasingly stringent limits on particulate emissions, has stressed the ability of hog fuel boilers to

meet regulatory requirements. The author explores options for producing higher value products

from bark.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Johnston, Carol E.; Knight, Charles L. 1999. Life-history traits of the bluenose shiner, Pteronotropis

welaka (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Copeia. 1999(1): 200-205.

Life-history aspects and behavioral ecology of the bluenose shiner (Pteronotropis welaka) were

investigated from May 1993 to June 1994 in a small tributary of the lower Pearl River in Marion

County, MS. Samples were taken monthly or biweekly to provide information about preferred

habitat, reproductive biology, and demography. Observations were made during the breeding

season to determine spawning strategy. Except during peak spawning periods, bluenose shiners

were located in schools of more than 25 individuals in areas of sluggish flow (0-4 cm/sec) near

submerged vegetation. Based on gonadal condition, bluenose shiners have a protracted breeding

season, lasting from May to August and including two major spawning bouts. Although the

spawning act was not observed, aggregations of adults over sunfish nests and the presence of

bluenose shiner eggs and fry in nests indicates that this species is a nest associate. Unlike male

bluehead shiners (Pteronotropis hubbsi), male bluenose shiners show an increase in gonadal

weight and a gradual increase in the development of secondary sexual characteristics with

increased length. Length frequency data and the absence of adults from the study site in the fall

and winter indicate that adults die after the breeding.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Kilgo, John C.; Labisky, Ronald F.; Fritzen, Duane E. 1998. Influences of hunting on the behavior of

white-tailed deer: implications for conservation of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology. 12(6):

1359-1364.

The effects of deer hunting by humans on deer population dynamics and behavior may indirectly

affect the population dynamics and behavior of deer predators. The authors present data on the

effects of hunting on the behavior of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on the Osceola

National Forest, a potential reintroduction site for the endangered Florida panther (Felis concolor

coryi). The authors then use this information to formulate and recommend testable hypotheses to

investigate whether these changes in deer behavior influence panther movements, mortality, and

hunting success. The authors monitored 14 radio-collared deer from June 1990 through July 1991

to compare movement, activity, and habitat-use patterns between the hunting and non-hunting

seasons. Mean distance of deer to the nearest road, mean distance of activity centers of diel

home ranges to the nearest road, and mean nocturnal rate of activity were greater during the

hunting than the nonhunting seasons. During the hunting season, deer avoided clearcuts, young

pine plantations (4-10 years old), and other open habitats and preferred swamp and mature pine

forests, both of which provided cover. These results suggest that deer responded to hunter

disturbance by moving away from roads and increasing nocturnal activity. Although recreational

deer hunting may reduce the prey base for panthers, the changes observed in deer behavior

during the hunting season may benefit panthers in the following ways: (1) an increase in nocturnal

activity and movement away from roads by deer into areas frequented by panthers may increase

prey availability for panthers; (2) the movement of deer away from roads may in turn draw

panthers away from roads, which may decrease the chance of panthers being killed by vehicular

traffic or poachers.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (13 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Knoepp, Jennifer D.; Swank, Wayne T. 1998. Rates of nitrogen mineralization across an elevation and

vegetation gradient in the Southern Appalachians. Plant and Soil. 204: 235-241.

The authors measured nitrogen (N) transformation rates for six years to examine temporal

variation across the vegetation and elevation gradient that exists within the Coweeta Hydrologic

Laboratory. Net N mineralization and nitrification rates were measured using 28-day in situ closed

core incubations. Incubations were conducted at various intervals, ranging from monthly during

the growing season, to seasonally based on vegetation phenology. Vegetation types included

oak-pine, cove hardwoods, low elevation mixed oak, high elevation mixed oak, and northern

hardwoods. Elevations ranged from 782 to 1347 m. Nitrogen transformation rates varied with

vegetation type. Mineralization rates were lowest in the oak-pine and mixed oak sites averaging

<1.2 mg N kg soil− 1 28 day-− 1. Rates in the cove hardwood site were greater than all other low

elevation sites with an annual average of 3.8 mg N kg soil− 1 28 day− 1. Nitrogen mineralization

was greatest in the northern hardwood site averaging 13 mg N kg soil− 1 28 day− 1. Nitrification

rates were typically low on four sites with rates <0.5 mg N kg soil− 1 28 day− 1. However, the

annual average nitrification rate of the northern hardwood site was 6 mg N kg soil− 1 28 days− 1.

Strong seasonal trends in N mineralization were observed. Highest rates occurred in spring and

summer with negligible activity in winter. Seasonal trends in nitrification were statistically

significant only in the northern hardwood site. Nitrogen mineralization was significantly different

among sites on the vegetation and elevation gradient. While N mineralization rates were greatest

at the high elevation site, vegetation type appears to be the controlling factor.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Kreibicha, Roland E.; Steynberg, Petrus J.; Hemingway, Richard W. 1998. End jointing green lumber with

SoyBond. In: Swanson, James S., ed. Wood residues into revenue: Proceedings, 2nd biennial residual wood

conference; 1997 November 4-5; Richmond, BC. Richmond, BC: MCTI Communications, Inc.: 80-85.

The possibility of bonding green wood offers the prospect of substantially increasing high value

product recovery while at the same time reducing drying costs in the manufacture of lumber.

Alkaline hydrolysis of protein-rich fractions from soybeans provides a material that, when

combined with phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde resins, forms a strong gel within seconds and that

further polymerizes at room temperature to provide bonds with the strength and durability required

for use in structural lumber. Because end-jointing randomizes the strength and grain pattern in

wood, this process is especially significant because it offers a way to up-grade plantation grown

timber for use in high-value added lumber products rather than use as pulp chips.

This paper describes some of the more important advantages offered through end-jointing green

lumber, soy protein hydrolysis conditions that have been successfully scaled up from laboratory to

378 liter (100 US gallons) reactions, and adhesive formulations that have been used to end-joint

Douglas fir, Hem fir, and southern pine lumber with only minor alterations of conventional lumber

end-jointing lines used in the U.S. The same adhesive formulation can be used to bond dry, wet,

or green material (and, importantly, wood with widely varying moisture content). No heat is

required to cure the adhesive. Results of both laboratory and mill trial scale tests show that the

strength and durability of the adhesive bonds meet requirements for use in structural lumber for

either dry or wet use applications.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (14 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Kuehler, E.A.; Flagler, R.B. 1998. The effects of sodium erythorbate and ethylenediurea on

photosynthetic function of ozone-exposed loblolly pine seedlings. Environmental Pollution. 105(1999):

25-35.

In an open-top chamber study in east Texas, ozone-sensitive loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)

seedlings were treated with either the antioxidant Ozoban (74.5 percent sodium erythorbate

active ingredient (a.i.)) at 0, 1030, or 2060 mg liter− 1 or ethylenediurea (EDU 50 percent a.i.) at

0, 150, or 300 ppm every 2 weeks while being subjected to a range of ozone exposures beginning

in April 1994. The ozone exposures included sub-ambient ozone levels (CF), approximate

ambient (NF), and 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 times ambient ozone (1.5% , 2.0% , and 2.5% , respectively).

The response variables included net photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (g), chloroplast

pigment concentration, and total foliar N concentration. Foliar injury due to ozone was observed

early in the growing season, but subsided over time. Ozoban did not have any consistent effects

throughout the experiment on the response variables, but did cause changes early in the study on

gas exchange. Both g and A photosynthesis were greater at elevated ozone levels in seedlings

treated with 1030 mg liter− 1 of Ozoban compared to those treated with either 0 or 2060 mg liter−

1 for the first sampling period in June. However, at CF, seedlings treated with 1030 mg liter− 1 of

Ozoban showed signs of reduced A compared to the other antioxidant treatments. This indicates

that sodium erythorbate may have a negative physiological effect on seedlings in a low ozone

environment. For EDU-treated seedlings, no consistent antioxidant treatment effects were

observed, but linear regression analysis indicates that EDU shows promise in providing protection

from ozone injury. At 150 ppm, EDU may retard stomatal closure in younger pine seedlings. No

consistent benefit was afforded to chloroplast pigments for the study by either antioxidant.

Ozoban at 2060 mg liter− 1 appeared to have phytotoxic effects with regards to chlorophyll a and

total carotenoids in the latter stages of the experiment. No significant Ozoban or EDU effects

were observed with respect to total foliar N concentration until the final sampling period in

October, where foliage treated with 300 ppm of EDU displayed higher N concentration at all

ozone levels except 1.5% ambient ozone. Foliage treated with 150 ppm EDU showed the lowest

nitrogen concentration in CF and NF, but the highest in 1.5% . Because of relatively low ozone

exposures during the study year and the closeness with which the seedlings were grown, these

results may not accurately represent the benefits of sodium erythorbate or EDU in reducing ozone

stress in loblolly pine seedlings for field-grown trees.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Lonzarich, David George; Warren, Melvin L., Jr.; Lonzrich, Mary Ruth Elger. 1998. Effects of habitat isolation

on the recovery of fish assemblages in experimentally defaunated stream pools in Arkansas. Canadian.

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 55: 2141-2149.

The authors removed fish from pools in two Arkansas streams to determine recolonization rates

and the effects of isolation (i.e., riffle length, riffle depth, distance to large source pools, and

location), pool area, and assemblage size on recovery. To determine pool-specific recovery rates,

the authors repeatedly snorkeled 12 pools over a 40-day recovery period. Results indicated the

effects of isolation on percent numerical recovery, but no effects of pool area or assemblage size.

Numerical recovery of assemblages in pools separated from neighboring pools by short riffles

occurred by day 30, whereas more isolated pools had not reached 70 percent numerical recovery

by day 40. Recovery also was more rapid in downstream pools and in pools that were closer to

large source pools. Finally, recovery patterns differed among species and size-classes, with large

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (15 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
fish (<100 mm total length) recolonizing pools more rapidly than small fish. This is the first study

to quantify species- and assemblage-level recolonization rates at the scale of individual pools and

the effects of isolation on recovery. The findings of this study have potentially important

implications for research aimed at understanding the ecology of stream fishes and predicting the

consequences of land-use activities.

View and Print This Publication Now!

McMahon, C.K.; Tomczak, D.J.; Jeffers, R.M. 1998. Longleaf pine ecosystem restoration: the role of the

USDA Forest Service. In: Kush, John S., comp. Ecological restoration and regional strategies: Proceedings of

the longleaf pine ecosystem restoration symposium; Society of Ecological Restoration, 9th annual international

conference; 1997 November 12-15; Longleaf Alliance Report No. 3. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Longleaf Alliance:

20-31.

The greater longleaf pine ecosystem once occupied over 90 million acres from southeastern

Virginia, south to central Florida, and west to eastern Texas. Today less than 3 million acres

remain, with much of the remaining understory communities in an unhealthy state. A number of

public and private conservation organizations are conducting collaborative longleaf pine

ecosystem restoration activities throughout the South. The USDA Forest Service has three roles

or program areas which are contributing to a regional restoration/conservation strategy for the

longleaf pine ecosystem, including: (1) expansion of the longleaf pine forest type and

fire-dependent understory communities on the national forests of the South; (2) providing

voluntary, non-regulatory incentives through State and Private Forestry programs; and (3)

expansion of collaborative research programs.

View and Print This Publication Now!

McNab, W. Henry; Browning, Sara A.; Simon, Steven A.; Fouts, Penelope E. 1999. An unconventional

approach to ecosystem unit classification in western North Carolina, USA. Forest Ecology and

Management. 114: 405-420.

The authors used an unconventional combination of data transformation and multivariate

analyses to reduce subjectivity in identification of ecosystem units in a mountainous region of

western North Carolina, USA. Vegetative cover and environmental variables were measured on

79 stratified, randomly located, 0.1 ha sample plots in a 4000 ha watershed. Binary transformation

of percent cover followed by direct and indirect ordination indicated the 185 inventoried species

were associated primarily with soil A-horizon thickness, soil base saturation, and aspect.

Redundant cluster analyses, consisting of divisive and agglomerative methods for multivariate

classification of core plots, followed by selective discriminant analysis of remaining non-core plots,

indicated that the continuum of vegetation and environment could be grouped into five ecosystem

units. Approximately 20 herbaceous, shrubs, and tree species and several soil and topographic

variables were highly significant discriminators of ecosystem units. The authors also

demonstrated that redundant cluster analysis maybe used to subdivide ecosystem units into

subunits of uniform understory composition and associated environment. Validation and

refinement of classification units, linkage with faunal biological components, and arrangement into

landscape areas suitable for resource management is needed before field application.

View and Print This Publication Now!

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (16 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
Miller, J.H. 1997. Basal streamline sprays for hardwood resprout control: herbicides, concentrations,

and streaks per stem. In: Dusky, Joan A., ed. Fifty years of weed science: foundation for the future;

Proceedings, 50th annual Southern Weed Science Society meeting; 1997 January 20-22; Houston, TX.

Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society: 88-94.

Basal streamline sprays were tested to control sweetgum, water oak, and southern red oak that

ranged from 0.5 to 2 inches groundline diameter. Primary test herbicides and mixtures were

triclopyr (Garlon 4) at 20 and 40 percent mixed with 10 percent d-limonene (Cide-Kick) and the

remainder diesel; and imazapyr (Chopper) at 5 and 10 percent mixed in only diesel. Primary

herbicide mixtures were applied with three doses: (a) to one stem side using one streak; (b) to

one side using two streaks; and (c) to two sides using two streaks per side. Secondary test

herbicides were tested only using two streaks to one side. All applications were in April. Individual

rootstocks were the experimental units and assessment was 18 months after application.

Increasing doses of primary herbicides resulted in increasing control. Both triclopyr and imazapyr

at the highest concentrations and doses yielded greater than 80 percent crown volume reduction

for sweetgum and the oaks. Rootstock control was greatest for the highest concentration doses

as well. Treatments to one stem side were most effective with imazapyr at the high concentration.

Southern red oak was the most difficult species to control. In general, the secondary herbicides

were less effective than the primary herbicides.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Miller, James H. 1997. Exotic invasive plants in southeastern forests. In: Britton, Kerry O., ed. Proceedings,

exotic pests of Eastern forests; 1997 April 8-10; Nashville, TN. [Place of publication unknown]: Tennessee

Exotic Pest Plant Council: 97-106.

Invasive exotic plants usurp forest productivity, hinder forest-use activities, and limit diversity on

millions of acres of forest land in the Southeast. Infestations of these plants and their range are

constantly expanding. This paper examines the various aspects of the problem. Outlined are the

biology, origin, range, uses, and herbicide control for 14 of the most prevalent exotic trees,

shrubs, vines, and grasses. Losses on forest lands will continue to increase until importation of

new exotic species is controlled, integrated weed management programs are organized, and

effective control procedures are implemented. Biological control technology using insect and

pathogenic predators from the plant's home country offers the best long-term solution for

subduing exotic invasive species.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Miller, J.H. 1998. Primary screening of forestry herbicides for control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum

sinense), Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), and trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) [Abstract]. In:

Proceedings, 51st annual Southern Weed Science Society meeting; 1998 January 26-28; Birmingham, AL.

Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society: 161-162.

Exotic and native invasive plants increasingly hinder land management, use, and restoration

projects. Chinese and Japanese privet are rapidly becoming major threats to future hardwood

culture and currently hinder ROW management throughout the southeastern region. Chinese

wisteria occurs as severe, dense isolated infestations in forest stands. Native trumpetcreeper can

form dense ground cover under plantations that will require control before reestablishment. The

objective of this research was to perform primary screening of forestry herbicides as foliar sprays

on these three invasive species to identify efficacious active ingredients for further developmental

research and treatment refinement.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (17 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
View and Print This Publication Now!

Rauscher, H. Michael. 1999. Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United

States: a review. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 173-197.

Ecosystem management has been adopted as the philosophical paradigm guiding management

on many Federal forests in the United States. The strategic goal of ecosystem management is to

find a sensible middle ground between ensuring long-term protection of the environment while

allowing an increasing population to use its natural resources for maintaining and improving

human life. Ecosystem management has all the characteristics of "wicked" problems that are

tricky, complex, and thorny. Ambiguities, conflicts, internal inconsistencies, unknown but large

costs, lack of organized approaches, institutional shock and confusion, lack of scientific

understanding of management consequences, and turbulent, rapidly changing power centers all

contribute to the wickedness of the ecosystem management paradigm. Given that ecosystem

management, like human survival and welfare, is a wicked problem, how can we proceed to tame

it? Managers need to use the same tools that people have always used for handling such

problems – knowledge, organization, judicious simplification, and inspired leadership. The generic

theory of decision support system development and application is well developed. Numerous

specific ecosystem management decision support systems (EM-DSS) have been developed and

are evolving in their capabilities. There is no doubt that given a set of ecosystem management

processes to support and adequate time and resources, effective EM-DSS can be developed. On

the other hand, there is considerable doubt that sufficiently detailed, explicitly described, and

widely accepted processes for implementing ecosystem management can be crafted given the

current institutional, educational, social, and political climate. A socio-political climate in which

everyone wants to reap the benefits and no one wants to pay the costs, incapacitates the Federal

forest management decision-making process. Developing a workable ecosystem management

process and the decision-making tools to support it is probably one of the most complex and

urgent challenges facing us today. This paper offers a concise review of the state of the art of

decision support systems related to implementing ecosystem management. A conceptual model

of the context in which ecosystem management is expected to function is presented. Next, a

candidate for an operational ecosystem management process is described and others are

referenced. Finally, a generic ecosystem management decision support system is presented and

many existing systems briefly described.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Reeve, John D.; Rhodes, Douglas J.; Turchin, Peter. 1998. Scramble competition in the southern pine

beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis. Ecological Entomology. 23: 433-443.

The nature of intraspecific competition was investigated in the southern pine beetle,

Dendroctonus frontalis, a highly destructive pest of pine forests in the Southern U.S.A. Data were

analyzed from an observational study of naturally-attacked trees, and from field experiments

where attack density was manipulated by adding different numbers of beetles to caged trees. The

effect of attack density on gallery construction, oviposition, brood survival, and the overall rate of

increase were examined, and a flexible model of intraspecific competition used to classify the type

of competition (contest or scramble) at different points in the life cycle. The results of these

analyses suggest that contest competition occurs during gallery construction and oviposition, in

accord with previous work on D. frontalis. Strong scramble competition occurs later on in

development, however, and the overall competitive process is better characterized as scramble

competition, similar to other bark beetles. Trees with attack densities sufficiently high to produce

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (18 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
significant competition are common in the field.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Rudis, Victor; Thill, Ronald E.; Gramann, James H.; and others. 1999. Understory structure by season

following uneven-aged reproduction cutting: a comparison of selected measures 2 and 6 years after

treatment. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 309-320.

Deciding among cutting practices requires knowledge of forest structure, understory vegetation

change, rates of recovery, and resource impacts. The authors used two field devices (a

screenometer and a density board) and digital images of 35 mm photographs to compare

measures and document the change in understory vegetation structure in forests following

reproduction cutting disturbances. The study area, mostly 70-year old second-growth shortleaf

pine-oak (Pinus echinata-Qercus spp.) had an average basal area of 26 m2 /ha. Treatments

retained 13.8 m2 /ha in pine and three levels of hardwood basal area. The 21 m2 /ha treatment

retained 33 percent hardwood basal area in a scattered condition. One 17 m2 /ha treatment

retained 20 percent hardwoods in a clustered or grouped pattern, and another treatment retained

20 percent hardwoods scattered throughout. A fourth treatment retained no hardwood basal area.

When compared with untreated (control) plots, vegetative screening increased on treated plots

relative to untreated plots by degree of initial cutting disturbance. Both the screenometer and the

density board readings distinguished between control and treated plots, but significant differences

occurred by season, year, and height above ground. Digital information from scanned images

yielded promising results by detecting significant differences in the amount of blue color intensity

and the proportion of line objects. Color intensities were significantly different by season and year

after treatment, that is, lowest in summer and highest in spring, and greater 2 years after

treatment rather than 6 years after treatment. Results indicated that detection of disturbed

conditions and recovery following disturbance varied with the scale and type of measurement.

Each device estimated different structural dimensions. The authors concluded that assessment

and modeling of understory structure, change, and recovery depended strongly on the cell size of

the device used.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Schaefer, Richard R. 1998. First county records of red crossbill in the pineywoods region of eastern

Texas. Bulletin of Texas Ornithological Society. 31(2): 63-64.

The red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) is reported from western Texas as a scarce and sporadic

breeder in the Guadalupe Mountains, and a probable rare or irregular nester in the Davis

Mountains. It is also a rare and irregular winter visitor in many parts of the State. Red crossbills

invaded much of Texas during the 1972-1973 winter. This invasion missed the pineywoods region

east of the Trinity River, with the exception of a single sight record in Polk County. Several

northern, seed-eating bird species, including the red crossbill, are well known for their irregular,

irruptive movements. These movements are believed to coincide with times of food shortages in

the species’ normal range.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Schlarbaum, Scott E.; Hebard, Frederick; Spaine, Pauline C.; Kamalay, Joseph C. 1997. Three American

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (19 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
tragedies: chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch elm disease. In: Britton, Kerry O., ed. Proceedings,

exotic pests of Eastern forests; 1997 April 8-10; Nashville, TN. [Place of publication unknown]: Tennessee

Exotic Pest Plant Council: 45-54.

Three North American tree species, American chestnut (Castanea dentata), butternut (Juglans

cinerea), and American elm (Ulmus americana), have been devastated by exotic fungal diseases

over the last century. American chestnut was eliminated from eastern forests as a dominant

species by chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). Butternut is presently being extirpated, as

butternut canker disease (Sirococcus clavigigenti-juglandacearum) spreads into northern

populations. Urban and forest American elm populations have been decimated by Dutch elm

disease (Ophiostoma ulmi and O. nova-ulmi). A combination of basic and applied research has

been directed toward developing resistant trees of each species. Resistant American elms are

now available for planting in urban settings. The prospects for reintroduction of resistant American

chestnut, butternut, and American elm into eastern forests appear to be promising.

Forest ecosystems are subjected to many biotic and abiotic stresses. Native insects and

diseases, droughts, windstorms, and wildfire periodically impact forests or specific tree species,

leaving dead or weakened trees. The effects of these stresses may be manifested locally or over

a large area, yet they do not cause species extinction. In contrast, exotic pests can threaten the

continued existence of a species. Often host species have not evolved genetic resistance to

exotic pests, as coevolutionary processes have not occurred.

Three prominent North American tree species, American chestnut (Castanea dentata ((Marsh.))

Borkh.), butternut (Juglans cinerea L.), and American elm (Ulmus americana L.) have been

severely impacted by three exotic fungal diseases, chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica

((Murr.)) Barr), butternut canker (Sirococcus clavigigenti-juglandacearum Nair, Kostichka &

Kuntz), and Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma u1mi ((Buis.)) Narruf and O. nova-ulmi). The authors

give a brief account of the impacts of these diseases on their host species, examples of research

approaches for disease control, and a prognosis for the future of each species.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Schmidtling, R.C.; Hipkins, V. 1998. Genetic diversity in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris): influence of

historical and prehistorical events. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28: 1135-1145.

Genetic diversity of allozymes at 24 loci was studied in 23 populations of longleaf pine (Pinus

palustris Mill.), including three seed orchard populations and an old-growth stand. Overall, the

mean number of alleles per polymorphic locus was 2.9, the percentage of polymorphic loci was

92 percent, and the mean expected heterozygosity was 0.105. These values are comparable with

diversity measures found in a similar loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) study. Diversity measures of

the seed orchard sources and the old-growth stand were similar to those in the other natural seed

sources. F statistics indicate very little inbreeding overall (FIS = − 0.002) and low differentiation

among populations (FST = 0.041 ). All measures of genetic diversity were significantly related to

longitude; western sources tended to have more allozyme diversity. Since growth or survival are

not related to longitude, and no important climatic variables are related to longitude within the

natural range of longleaf, it is proposed that the east-west variation in longleaf pine is a result of

migration from a single refugium, in the west (south Texas or northeastern Mexico) after the

Pleistocene.

View and Print This Publication Now!

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (20 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
Schmitt, Christoper J.; Lemly, A. Dennis; Winger, Parley V. 1993. Habitat suitability index model for brook

trout in streams of the Southern Blue Ridge Province: surrogate variables, model evaluation, and

suggested improvements. Biological Report 18: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service. 43 p.

Data from several sources were collated and analyzed by correlation, regression, and principal

components analysis to define surrrogate variables for use in the brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis) habitat suitability index (HSI) model, and to evaluate the applicability of the model for

assessing habitat in high elevation streams of the southern Blue Ridge Province (SBRP). In all

data sets examined, pH and alkalinity were highly correlated, and both declined with increasing

elevation; however, the magnitude of the decline varied with underlying rock formations and other

factors, thereby restricting the utility of elevation as a surrogate for pH. In the data sets that

contained biological information, brook trout abundance (as biomass, density, or both) tended to

increase with elevation and decrease with the abundance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus

mykiss), and was not significantly correlated (P >0.05) with the abundance of most benthic

macroinvertebrate taxa normally construed as important in the diet of brook trout. Using multiple

linear regression, the authors formulated an alternative HSI model – based on point estimates of

gradient, pH, elevation, stream width, and rainbow trout density – which explained 40 to 50

percent of the variance in brook trout density in 256 stream reaches. Although logically

developed, the present U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HSI model, proposed in 1982, seems

deficient in several areas, especially when applied to SBRP streams. The authors recommend

that the water quality component in the model be updated and reevaluated, focusing on the

differential sensitivities of each life stage, the stochastic nature of the water quality variables, and

the possible existence of habitat requirements that differ among brook trout strains.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Simons, T.; Rabenold, K.; Buehler, D.; and others. 1999. The role of indicator species: Neotropical

migratory song birds. In: Peine, John D., ed. Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles and

practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve cooperative. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Lewis

Publishers: 187-208. (Editor’s note: Kay Franzreb, Southern Research Station scientist and project

leader, co-authored this chapter.)

Southern Appalachian forests support some of the richest avian diversity in North America,

including some 75 species of Neotropical migrants, birds that perform the remarkable feat of

making much of the Western Hemisphere their home. This diverse group includes the swallows,

kingbirds, and other flycatchers that feed in the air on flying insects. The Eastern kingbird is a

typical species. It breeds in forested areas, primarily the Eastern U.S. and winters in Central

America and Northern South America. Species such as tanagers glean insects from forest foilage

and also feeds extensively on fruit. Other groups include the vireos, orioles, thrushes, and even

the tiny hummingbirds.

But the largest and most striking members of this group of birds are the wood warblers, some 50

closely related species of what can best be referred to as "quintessential" songbirds. These

brightly colored songsters occupy an astonishing diversity of habitats. The Blackburnian warbler

inhabits the spruce-fir forests as far north as boreal Canada. Black and white warblers glean

insects from branches of the tallest trees in mature deciduous forests but nest on the ground.

Worm-eating warblers are specialists at prying insects out of the protective covering of curled up

leaves, while Chestnut-sided warblers are shrub nesting specialists of disturbed sites and forest

edges.

Neotropical migrants predominate in the breeding bird community of eastern deciduous forests. In

some parts of the Southern Appalachians, up to 80 percent of the breeding bird community is

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (21 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
comprised of these species. These approximately 75 species use ground, shrub, and especially

canopy nests, and about 80 percent of them are insectivores. Recent concern over the status of

these birds has been prompted by surveys showing widespread population declines.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Spetich, Martin A.; Parker, George R. 1998. Plot size recommendations for biomass estimation in a

midwestern old-growth forest. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(4): 165-168.

The authors examine the relationship between disturbance regime and plot size for woody

biomass estimation in a midwestern old-growth deciduous forest from 1926 to 1992. Analysis was

done on the core 19.6 ac of a 50.1 ac forest in which every tree 4 in. d.b.h. and greater has been

tagged and mapped since 1926. Five windows of time are compared—1926, 1976, 1981, 1986

and 1992. The most efficient plot sizes requiring measurement of the least total area range from

0.02 to 1.6 ac. A small plot size was recommended after grazing disturbance, and a large size

was recommended when mortality was high and acceptable error was low.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Stringer, Jeffrey W.; Loftis, David L., eds. 1999. Proceedings, 12th Central Hardwood Forest Conference;

1999 February 28, March 1-2; Lexington, KY. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-24. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 293 p.

There were 32 oral presentations, 11 abstracts, and 22 poster presentations presented at the

12th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Presentation topics included wildlife management,

nutrient dynamics, stand structure, reforestation/reclamation, timber harvesting, modeling and

inventory, silviculture, disturbance effects, and genetics/tree improvement. (38)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Sun, Jianghua; DeBarr, Gary L.; Berisford, C. Wayne; Schauff, Michael E. 1998. Description of new primary

parasitoid, Zarhopalus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), of Oracella Acuta (Homoptera:

Pseudococcidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 130: 793-797.

Zarhopalus debarri Sun sp.nov. reared from the loblolly pine mealybug, Oracella acuta (Lobdell),

in the Southeastern United States is described.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Tarrant, Michael A.; Smith, Erin; Cordell, H. Ken. 1999. Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions

of outdoor recreation setting attributes. In: Tarrant, Michael A.; Bright, Alan D.; Smith, Erin; Cordell, H. Ken.

1999. Motivations, attitudes, preferences, and satisfactions among outdoor recreationists; 403-431. In: Cordell,

H. Ken; Betz, Carter; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of

demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 412-431.

Between 1990 and 1994, a comprehensive national survey was conducted by the USDA Forest

Service (FS), Southern Research Station, to measure visitor preferences for, and perceptions of,

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (22 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
setting attributes at a variety of outdoor recreation sites. Over 11,000 visitors at 31 outdoor

recreation sites across the country were interviewed in this study. The study was entitled

CUSTOMER, which is an acronym for Customer Use and Survey, Techniques for Operations,

Management, Evaluations, and Research. Sites included those managed by the FS, the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). This [chapter] section

presents results of analysis of CUSTOMER data on visitor preferences for, and satisfaction with,

site attributes corresponding to five specific recreation settings (developed, dispersed, water,

roaded, and winter) and one general outdoor setting. This [chapter] section provides an overview

to visitor satisfactions with, and preferences for, attributes of specific and general outdoor

recreation settings using an importance-performance framework. Three objectives were

addressed to determine: (1) specific setting attributes that outdoor recreation managers should

target, i.e., the "concentrate here" quadrant of the importance-performance framework; (2) the

effect of visitor demographic characteristics on their importance and performance ratings; and (3)

the effect of trip characteristics on visitor importance and performance.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Taulman, James F.; Smith, Kimberly G.; Thill, Ronald E. 1998. Demographic and behavioral responses of

southern flying squirrels to experimental logging in Arkansas. Ecological Applications. 8(4): 1144-1155.

This study investigated responses of populations of southern flying squirrels to a range of

experimental even-aged and uneven-aged timber-harvest practices along a gradient of increasing

disturbance intensity. The goals were to determine whether measurable demographic parameters

of squirrels in experimental forests would change after logging; whether a disturbance threshold

existed within the range of harvest practices implemented beyond which squirrels would not nest

on a stand; and whether squirrels would show selection in the use of nest boxes in logged and

unlogged habitats.

Winter nest-box surveys were conducted in the Ouachita National Forest, AR, USA, in 21 15 ha

stands representing three replicated groups of six silvicultural treatments (pine-hardwood

single-tree selection; pine single-tree selection; pine-hardwood shelterwood; pine shelterwood;

pine-hardwood seed tree; and pine seed tree), plus an unaltered control during 1993, prior to

harvest, and after harvest in 1994-1996. Neither densities of nesting squirrels nor use of boxes for

nests or feeding stations differed among treatment groups prior to harvests. Densities declined on

all harvested stands after treatment in 1994; during the same period, population growth was

observed on control stands. A partial rebound in squirrels' use of nest boxes in some harvested

stands occurred in 1995 and 1996. Prior to harvest, squirrels used boxes in all habitats in similar

proportions. After logging, frequency of box use in greenbelt habitat (unharvested buffer strips

along intermittent streams) was significantly greater than in harvested areas. On control stands

the ratio of boxes used to those available did not change throughout the study. The ratio of boxes

used per squirrel increased on harvested stands, even as squirrel densities declined, indicating a

reduction in natural nesting resources after logging. The presence of mature forests adjacent to

harvested stands, as well as retention of greenbelt habitat, overstory hardwoods, and snags

within harvested areas, reduced the severity of logging impacts on flying squirrels. The seed-tree

harvest regime, particularly without retained overstory hardwoods, appears to produce a level of

disturbance and resource depletion that is too severe for flying squirrel persistence.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Teasley, R. Jeff; Bergstrom, John C.; Cordell, H. Ken; and others. 1999. Private lands and outdoor

recreation in the United States. In: Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (23 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore

Publishing: 183-218.

Outdoor recreation on private land is influenced by myriad factors. To provide background and

context on these factors, this chapter first overviews the private land situation in the United States

and provides general information and discussion related to ownership and tenure, land-use

patterns, legal restrictions, and economic conditions, including taxation issues. Implications of

these factors with respect to use of private land for outdoor recreation are also discussed.

Overall, there is little extant information on recreational use and access to private land. To help fill

this information gap, the National Private Landowners Survey (NPLOS) was recently conducted

(1995-1996). A major focus of NPLOS was to obtain data for estimating the amount of private

land open for outdoor recreation in the United States and landowner practices and attitudes

related to access to their lands for outdoor recreation. The NPLOS methodology, results, and the

implications of these results are discussed after a brief review of recreation use of private land.

This chapter ends by offering general conclusions about outdoor recreational use of private lands

in the United States.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Thompson, Michael T. 1998. Forest statistics for Georgia, 1997. Resour. Bull. SRS-36. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 92 p.

This report summarizes a 1997 inventory of the forest resources for the State of Georgia. Major

findings are highlighted in text and graphs; detailed data are presented in 51 tables. (43)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Thompson, Michael T. 1998. Forest statistics for North Central Georgia. 1998. Resour. Bull. SRS-34.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 60 p.

This report summarizes a 1998 inventory of the forest resources of a 32-county area of Georgia.

Major findings are highlighted in text and graphs; detailed data are presented in 51 tables. (44)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Thompson, Michael T. 1998. Forest statistics for North Georgia, 1998. Resour. Bull. SRS-35. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 59 p.

This report summarizes a 1998 inventory of the forest resources of a 21-county area of Georgia.

Major findings are highlighted in text and graphs; detailed data are presented in 51 tables. (45)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Warren, Melvin L., Jr.; Pardew, Mitzi, G. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127: 637-644.

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (24 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
The authors used mark-recapture techniques to examine the effects of four types of road

crossings on fish movement during spring base flows and summer low flows in small streams of

the Ouachita Mountains, west-central Arkansas. The authors assessed movement for 21 fish

species in seven families through culvert, slab, open-box, and ford crossings and through natural

reaches. The authors detected no seasonal or directional bias in fish movement through any

crossing type or the natural reaches. Overall fish movement was an order of magnitude lower

through culverts than through other crossings or natural reaches, except no movement was

detected through the slab crossing. In contrast, open-box and ford crossings showed little

difference from natural reaches in overall movement of fishes. Numbers of species that traversed

crossings and movement within three of four dominant fish families (Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae,

and Fundulidae) also were reduced at culverts relative to ford and open-box crossings and natural

reaches. In spring, retention of fishes was consistently highest in stream segments upstream of

crossings and lowest in downstream segments for all crossing types, a response attributed to

scouring associated with spring spates. Water velocity at crossings was inversely related to fish

movement; culvert crossings consistently had the highest velocities and open-box crossings had

the lowest. A key requirement for improving road crossing designs for small-stream fish passage

will be determination of critical levels of water velocity through crossings.

View and Print This Publication Now!

Wear, David N.; Bolstad, Paul. 1998. Land-use changes in Southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial

analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems. 1: 575-594.

Understanding human disturbance regimes is crucial for developing effective conservation and

ecosystem management plans and for targeting ecological research to areas that define scarce

ecosystem services. The authors evaluate and develop a forecasting model for land-use change

in the Southern Appalachians. The authors extend previous efforts by (a) addressing the spatial

diffusion of human populations, approximated by building density; (b) examining a long time

period (40 years, which is epochal in economic terms); and (c) explicitly testing the forecasting

power of the models. The resulting model, defined by linking a negative binomial regression

model of building density with a logit model of land cover, was fit using spatially referenced data

from four study sites in the Southern Appalachians. All fitted equations were significant, and

coefficient estimates indicated that topographic features, as well as location, significantly shape

population diffusion and land use across these landscapes. This is especially evident in the study

sites that have experienced development pressure over the last 40 years. Model estimates also

indicate significant spatial autocorrelation in land-use observations. Forecast performance of the

models was evaluated by using a separate validation data set for each study area. Depending on

the land-use classification scheme, the models correctly predicted between 68 percent and 89

percent of observed land uses. Tests based on information theory reject the hypothesis that the

models have no explanatory power, and measures of entropy and information gain indicate that

the estimated models explain between 47 percent and 66 percent of uncertainty regarding

land-use classification. Overall, these results indicate that modeling land-cover change alone may

not be useful over the long run, because changing land cover reflects the outcomes of more than

one human process (for example, agricultural decline and population growth). Here, additional

information was gained by addressing the spatial spread of human populations. Furthermore,

coarse-scale measures of the human drivers of landscape change (for example, population

growth measured at the county level) appear to be poor predictors of changes realized at finer

scales. Simulations demonstrate how this type of approach might be used to target scarce

resources for conservation and research efforts into ecosystem effects.

View and Print This Publication Now!

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (25 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
White, David L.; Lloyd, F. Thomas. 1998. An old-growth definition for dry and dry-mesic oak-pine forests.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-23. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. 42 p.

Dry and dry-mesic oak-pine forests are widely distributed from New Jersey to Texas, but

representative old-growth stands are rare. Historical accounts of composition, along with

information from existing old-growth stands, were used to characterize this type. Shortleaf pine

and white oak were the most widely distributed trees across all old-growth stands. Shortleaf was

the primary pine species of the oak-pine type in the Piedmont, Gulf Coastal Plain, and Interior

Highlands, while pitch pine was predominant in the mountainous regions. Scarlet and chestnut

oaks were more prevalent in the Appalachians. Maximum age for pitch and shortleaf pines

exceeded 200 and 300 years, respectively. Forests of this type do not adhere to the steady state

or equilibrium concept of forest dynamics; rather old-growth oak-pine may be ephemeral on a

given site. Disturbance by fire or other agents distributed through space and time is required for

its maintenance on the broader landscape. Characteristics of the living and dead components of

old-growth oak-pine are presented. (48)

View and Print This Publication Now! or Order This Publication

Zutter, Bruce R.; Miller, James H. 1998. Eleventh-year response of loblolly pine and competing vegetation

to woody and herbaceous plant control on a Georgia flatwoods site. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.

22(2): 88-95.

Through 11 growing seasons, growth of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) increased after control of

herbaceous, woody, or both herbaceous and woody vegetation (total control) for the first 3 years

after planting on a bedded site in the Georgia coastal flatwoods. Gains in stand volume index

from controlling either herbaceous or woody vegetation alone were approximately two-thirds that

from controlling both types of vegetation. Pine response through age 11 was approximately equal

for herbaceous control alone and woody control alone, whereas response through age 5 was

greater with control of only herbaceous vegetation. The impact of woody vegetation should

continue to have a strong effect on pine growth through midrotation because of its continued

development. This is in contrast to herbaceous weeds that have greatly decreased in abundance

since age 6.

View and Print This Publication Now!

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (26 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
Please Note: ALL publications listed in this catalog are available for

viewing, printing, and downloading now! Just click on the "View and Print

This Publication Now!" link listed under the abstract.

Publications printed by the Southern Research Station are available upon

request in bound hard copy. Please print a copy of the Publications Order

Form and return it to the Station address on the form via US Postal Mail. (

This file is in the Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF). Click on

the icon if you need to download the Adobe Acrobat Reader used to view and

print PDF files.)

Join our Publications Electronic Mailing List

Return to the Publications Homepage

Return to the Station Homepage

March 1999 - Announcement of Publications 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/9903_publications.htm (27 of 27) [10/5/1999 3:33:23 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Production of Anti-Cancer

Drug, Taxol, Could Get a Boost

By Hank Becker

March 30, 1999

WASHINGTON, March 30–Thanks to new research, taxol, a

powerful but expensive anti-cancer drug, could become more

plentiful in the future, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said

today.

USDA researchers have developed a new process for producing

taxol from lab-cultured cells of its increasingly scarce natural

source, the yew tree. The new process is 100 times more

productive than the original process for deriving taxol, which

was patented by USDA in 1991.

“By learning more about plants, we are helping to speed

production and increase availability of a medicine vital to human

health,” said Glickman.

Taxol is a potent chemotherapy drug for breast, ovarian, lung

and other cancers. About 6,700 pounds of bark from rare yew

trees are needed to produce a pound of the taxol drug. Now,

USDA plant physiologist Donna Gibson and her research

colleagues have invented a new process for using lab-cultured

yew cells to produce the drug.

USDA has applied for patent protection on the new process for

producing taxol. If use of this new source of taxol is approved by

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and proves medically

effective, far less yew tree bark would be required as a source for

the drug. Anti-cancer drugs based on the process could be

available within a few years.

The new process was invented by Gibson, of USDA’s

Agricultural Research Service Plant, Soil, and Nutrition

Production of Anti-cancer Drug, Taxol, Could Get a Boost / March 30, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990330.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:24 PM]
Research Laboratory in Ithaca, N.Y.; Raymond E. B. Ketchum at

Washington State University, Pullman; and Michael L. Shuler at

the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., in Ithaca. Gibson and

colleagues were among the first scientists to show that taxol can

be produced in yew cell cultures.

An article on the research appears in the April issue of the ARS

monthly magazine Agricultural Research and is available on the

World Wide Web at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr99/taxol0499.htm

Scientific contact: Donna M. Gibson, Plant Protection Research

Unit, U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research Laboratory,

Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Ithaca, N.Y., phone (607)

255-2359, dmg6@ cornell.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Production of Anti-cancer Drug, Taxol, Could Get a Boost / March 30, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990330.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:24 PM]
U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Office of the Judicial

Officer

1104 South Building

Washington, D.C. 

20250-9204

202-720-4764

202-205-2959 FAX

Main Page

Personnel

Annual Report

Summary of Decisions

For additional information

please contact Gloria

Derobertis

OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL

OFFICER

The Office of the Judicial Officer was established pursuant to the Act of April 4,

1940 (7 U.S.C. §§ 450c-450g); section 4(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953,

18 Fed. Reg. 3219, 3221 (1953), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. § 4(a) at 1491 (1994);

and section 212(a)(1) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994

(7 U.S.C. § 6912(a)(1)). The Judicial Officer is delegated authority by the

Secretary of Agriculture to act as final deciding officer in United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) adjudicatory proceedings subject to 5 U.S.C.

§§ 556 and 557 and other proceedings listed in 7 C.F.R. § 2.35. The Judicial

Officer's decisions are not reviewable within USDA, but any litigant in a

proceeding, other than USDA, may seek judicial review of the Judicial Officer's

decision. The Judicial Officer's decisions and rulings are published in Agriculture

Decisions and are available on West Publishing Company's computer-assisted

legal research service, WESTLAW, under the database USDA.

The mission of the Office of the Judicial Officer is to review carefully the record in

each proceeding and to issue expeditiously a fair, clear, well-reasoned final USDA

decision, which is consistent with law and USDA policy.

The Office of the Judicial Officer is comprised of three persons: the Judicial

Officer, the Assistant to the Judicial Officer, and a Legal Technician. The Office of

the Judicial Officer operates on a budget of approximately $325,000.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

New Page 3

http://www.usda.gov/da/ojo.htm [10/5/1999 3:33:30 PM]
U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Office of Administrative

 Law Judges

1055 South Building

Washington, D.C. 

20250-9201

202-720-6645

202-690-0790 FAX

OALJ Role in DA

Statutory Procedings

Administrative

Regulations

Judge Bios

How to reach us

The Office of

Administrative Law Judges

Role in Departmental

Administration

The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) presently consists of three

Judges who conduct rulemaking and adjudicatory hearings throughout the

United States in proceedings subject to the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA), 5 U.S.C. ' 551 et seq. There are approximately 40 statutes

administered by agencies within the Department of Agriculture that require

APA hearings. The Judges issue initial decisions and orders in adjudicatory

proceedings which become final decisions of the Secretary unless appealed to

the Secretary's Judicial Officer by a party to the proceedings. Final consent

orders are issued by the Judges following hearings or upon waiver of hearing.

The Judges also decide appeals of debarments and suspensions as required by

regulations implementing a government wide system for nonprocurement

debarments and suspensions (7 C.F.R. '' 3017.100-.515 (1993)).

For purposes of Departmental Administration, the Chief Judge reports to the

Assistant Secretary for Administration. However, the Judges are free from

any Departmental interference in their performance of judicial functions, and

all case assignments are made by the Chief Judge.

The Chief Judge also supervises the Office of the Hearing Clerk. This Office

receives, files, and serves pleadings, briefs, and decisions. It maintains

official records of the Department (including the transcripts of adjudicatory

and rulemaking hearings), and in the event of an appeal, certifies such records

to the Court of Appeals or District Court for subsequent review.

In addition, OALJ is responsible for publication of Agriculture Decisions, the

official compilation of quasi-judicial and judicial decisions issued concerning

regulatory laws administered by the Department.

New Page 4

http://www.usda.gov/da/oalj.htm [10/5/1999 3:33:35 PM]
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM

The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect,

restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration

efforts. The NRCS goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum

wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an opportunity

to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection beyond that which can be

obtained through any other USDA program.

Application Form

Brochure

Maps and Statistics

Fact Sheet

Question/Answer

Document

Regulation 7 CFR Part

1497

Slide Show - Producing

Wildlife Habitat Results

State Programs and

Contacts

Success Stories

Click here for information from the NRCS Wetland Science Institute

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202)720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

WRP

http://www.wl.fb-net.org/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:42 PM]
E-mail questions or comments regarding this web site to leslie.deavers@usda.gov

Date last updated: June 21, 1999 - This website has been changed to include three new photographs of WRP projects in

Wisconsin. To view new photographs click on "State Programs" on this page and "Wisconsin" on the subsequent page.

WRP

http://www.wl.fb-net.org/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:42 PM]
FSIS Process

for

Evaluating the Equivalence

of

Foreign Meat and Poultry Food Regulatory Systems

United States Department of Agriculture

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation

International Policy Division

March 1999
ii

Table of Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

Preface ........................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 2

Scope .......................................................................................................................... 2

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2

SPS Agreement, World Trade Organization................................................................. 2

Codex Alimentarius..................................................................................................... 3

U.S. Laws and Regulations.......................................................................................... 3

CONCEPTS OF EQUIVALENCE.......................................................................................... 5

Sanitary Measures....................................................................................................... 5

Appropriate Level of Protection................................................................................... 6

Food Safety Objective ................................................................................................. 6

THE FSIS FOOD SAFETY EQUIVALENCE EVALUATION PROCESS ............................ 7

Introduction................................................................................................................. 7

Initial System Equivalence .......................................................................................... 8

Verification of Continuing Equivalence....................................................................... 9

Document Analysis.......................................................................................... 9

System Audits.................................................................................................. 9

Port-of-entry Reinspection ............................................................................... 11

Specific Sanitary Measures.......................................................................................... 11

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 13
1

INTRODUCTION

Preface

Meat and poultry products exported from another nation must meet all safety standards

applied to foods produced in the United States. However, under international law, food

regulatory systems in exporting countries may employ sanitary measures1 that differ from those

applied domestically by the importing country. The reasons for such differences include the

absence or very low prevalence of particular food safety hazards,2 the selection of alternative

controls, and national choices about management of food risks. The United States makes

determinations of equivalence by evaluating whether foreign food regulatory systems attain the

appropriate level of protection3 provided by our domestic system. Thus, while foreign food

regulatory systems need not be identical to the U.S. system, they must employ equivalent

sanitary measures that provide the same level of protection against food safety hazards as is

achieved domestically.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) evaluates foreign food regulatory systems

for equivalence through document reviews, on-site audits, and port-of-entry reinspection of

products at the time of importation. Judgments of system equivalence are necessary for FSIS

and the American consumer to develop and maintain trust in imported meat and poultry

products. While consumers increasingly express concern that the worldwide integration of food

production may expose them to disease from imported products, they simultaneously demand

access to the abundant variety of affordable international foods. The degree to which consumers

will trust food from an exporting country is directly related to how effectively food production is

regulated by the foreign system. Thus, trust becomes an equivalence issue with both food safety

and trade implications.

The confidence of consumers in the quality (including safety) of their food supply depends in part

on their perception as to the effectiveness of food control measures. 4

 

1

 Sanitary Measure: Any measure applied: (a) to protect animal life or health from risks arising from the entry,

establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease-carrying organisms or disease-causing organisms; (b) to protect

human or animal life or health from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms

in foods, beverages or feedstuffs; (c) to protect human life or health from risks arising from diseases carried by

animals, or products thereof, or from the entry, establishment or spread of pests; or (d) to prevent or limit other

damage from the entry, establishment or spread of pests. Sanitary measures include all relevant laws, decrees,

regulations, requirements and procedures including, inter alia, end product criteria; processes and production

methods; testing, inspection, certification and approval procedures; quarantine treatments including relevant

requirements associated with the transport of animals, or with the materials necessary for their survival during

transport; provisions on relevant statistical methods, sampling procedures and methods of risk assessment; and

packaging and labeling requirements directly related to food safety.

2 Food Safety Hazard: A biological, chemical, or physical property that may cause a food to be adulterated or

otherwise unsafe for human consumption; must be of such a nature that its prevention, elimination, or reduction to

acceptable levels is essential to the production of a safe food.

3 Appropriate level of protection: A societal judgment of what risk from food safety hazards is acceptable to the

majority.

4

 Codex Alimentarius Commission, Principles for Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification, Guide Line

(CAC/GL) 20-1995, at 1.1.
2

Purpose

This paper presents the evaluation process FSIS now applies to initially determine and

periodically verify whether foreign meat and poultry food regulatory systems provide food safety

protections equivalent to U.S. domestic regulatory programs. The process presented in this

document implements, in part, USDA regulations that require evaluation of a foreign meat and

poultry inspection system to determine whether that country is eligible to import products into

the United States.5 Agency regulations also set forth specific evaluation criteria that are applied

by FSIS during this process to make equivalence determinations.6 The evaluation process

described here represents FSIS’s current thinking as to how equivalence decisions with respect to

food safety measures should be made. This process will evolve and mature as the United States

and its foreign trading partners gain more experience in applying the principles of equivalence

internationally.

Scope

The scope of this paper is limited to equivalence under the “SPS Agreement” as is

explained in the following section. While non-food safety concerns such as misbranding and

economic adulteration are generally not covered by the SPS Agreement, FSIS nevertheless

applies an equivalence process analogous to that described in this paper to evaluate whether

foreign food regulatory systems meet all the equivalence criteria set forth in USDA regulations.

BACKGROUND

SPS Agreement, World Trade Organization

Food safety equivalence evaluations are based upon provisions in the Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which appears in the Final Act of the

Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, signed in Marrakech on April 15, 1994. The

SPS Agreement became effective in January 1995 concurrently with establishment of the World

Trade Organization (WTO), which superseded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT) as the umbrella organization for international trade. The United States, as a signatory to

the Agreement, is a Member of the WTO. The SPS Agreement requires each Member to accept

as equivalent the food regulatory system of another country if it has been demonstrated to furnish

the same level of public health protection as is provided by its own system.

Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent,

even if these measures differ from their own or from those used by other Members trading in the

same product, if the exporting Member objectively demonstrates to the importing Member that its

measures achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary

protection. For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing

Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.7

 

5

 9 CFR 327.2 (a)(2) for meat and 9 CFR 381.196 (a)(2) for poultry

6

 9 CFR 327.2 (a)(2) (i)-(iv) for meat and 9 CFR 381.196 (a)(2) (i)-(iv) for poultry

7

 Article 4.1, “Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.”
3

The burden for demonstrating equivalence rests with the exporting country and the

importing country is free to set any level of protection it deems appropriate to control or

eliminate a food safety hazard. Importing countries have the right to decide whether a foreign

food regulatory system is (1) equivalent to its own, (2) is inadequate to achieve its appropriate

level of sanitary protection, or (3) that inadequate evidence has been provided to demonstrate

equivalence. If the exporting country objectively demonstrates that the appropriate level of

protection has been met, the importing country is obliged to accept its food regulatory system as

equivalent. 8 The recognition of equivalence does not necessarily require importing and

exporting countries to enter into a formal agreement.

Codex Alimentarius

A central purpose of the SPS Agreement is to encourage the development of international

food safety standards that Members will adopt domestically for “harmonization” and the

facilitation of international trade. The fact that a Member’s standard may differ from

international standards does not, in itself, create any adverse presumption that it is failing to meet

its international obligations. In other words, the SPS Agreement preserves each Member’s right

to make independent judgments about food safety risks and to set standards that may be higher or

lower than an international benchmark.

For SPS purposes, this international benchmark is the Codex Alimentarius, a code of

food standards for all nations. Codex was developed by an international commission established

in 1962 when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the

World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the need for universal standards to guide the

world's growing food industry. The purpose of Codex Alimentarius is to promote the elaboration

and establishment of definitions and requirements for foods, to provide harmonization for public

health purposes, and to facilitate international trade.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is responsible for making proposals to the

Directors-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health

Organization (WHO) on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the Joint FAO/WHO

Food Standards Program. The Commission establishes subsidiary bodies in the form of Codex

Committees for the preparation of draft standards for submission to the Commission.

U.S. Laws and Regulations

In 1994, the United States adopted the SPS Agreement with passage of the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act. This legislation provided U.S. administrative agencies a standard that

must be met when determining equivalence.

An agency may not determine that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure of a foreign country is

equivalent to a sanitary or phytosanitary measure established under the authority of Federal law

unless the agency determines that the sanitary or phytosanitary measure of the foreign country

provides at least the same level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection as the comparable sanitary

or phytosanitary measure established under the authority of Federal law.9

 

8

 This decision process is equally applicable to individual sanitary measures.

9

 Sec. 492, “The Uruguay Round Agreements Act,” (P.L. 103-465; December 8, 1994).
4

The Act also amended other legislation to comport with SPS requirements. Among these

were equivalence amendments to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)10 and the Poultry

Products Inspection Act (PPIA).11

The Secretary [of Agriculture] may treat as equivalent to a United States requirement a

requirement described in subparagraph (A) [of this section] if the exporting country provides the

Secretary with scientific evidence or other information, in accordance with risk assessment

methodologies determined appropriate by the Secretary, to demonstrate that the requirement

achieves the level of sanitary protection achieved under the United States requirement. For the

purposes of this subsection, the term ‘sanitary protection’ means protection to safeguard public

health.12

In July 1995, FSIS implemented the FMIA and PPIA amendments cited above with a

direct final rule13 that deleted existing regulatory language requiring foreign food regulatory

systems to be “at least equal to” the system in the United States. In its place, the final rule

substituted the words “equivalent to” as the standard for eligibility. Part 327 (meat) and Part 381

Subpart T (poultry) of 9 CFR pertain to eligibility requirements for imported meat and poultry

products. For example, Section 327.2 describes the standard for eligibility of foreign countries

for importation of meat products into the United States, as follows:

Whenever it shall be determined by the Administrator that the system of meat inspection

maintained by any foreign country, with respect to establishments preparing products in such

country for export to the United States, insures compliance of such establishments and their

products with requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and

all other provisions of the Act and the regulations in this subchapter which are applied to official

establishments in the United States, and their products, and that reliance can be placed upon

certificates required under this part from authorities of such foreign country, notice of that fact

will be given by including the name of such foreign country in paragraph (b) of this section. 14

Agency regulations further specify that determinations of eligibility must be based upon

equivalence evaluations.15 Consequently, FSIS has developed the process described in this paper

to conduct equivalence evaluations of foreign food regulatory systems or of individual sanitary

measures that vary from U.S. requirements. The criteria for evaluating foreign systems are set

forth in Section 327.2 for meat and Section 381.196 for poultry.16 Each of these regulatory

criteria constitutes a sanitary measure as defined by the SPS Agreement.17 The criterion for

evaluating alternative sanitary measures is whether they achieve the same level of sanitary

protection provided under the United States requirement.18 Evaluations of alternative sanitary

measures are made by determining whether they are at least as effective as the U.S. requirements

in controlling food safety hazards. These evaluations employ evolving international concepts of

the linkage between a sanitary measure and the appropriate level of protection it is intended to

achieve. The following section summarizes these concepts.

 

10 21 U.S.C. 620(e)

11 21 U.S.C. 466

12 Amendment to §20(e) FMIA. The PPIA was amended by §431(k) with essentially the same language.

13 60 FR 38667; Friday, July 28, 1995.

14 9 CFR §327.2(a)(1) [emphasis added]

15 Ibid., footnote 5.

16 Ibid., footnote 6.

17 Ibid., footnote 1.

18 Ibid., footnote 12.
5

CONCEPTS OF EQUIVALENCE

Equivalence is the relationship between three interlinking components: sanitary

measures, appropriate level of protection, and food safety objectives. Cumulatively, these

components provide sufficient data to evaluate the equivalence of different food regulatory

systems, parts of systems, or individual sanitary measures.

Sanitary Measures

National food regulatory systems employ sanitary measures to control food safety

hazards in a manner that achieves an appropriate level of protection for consumers. Sanitary

measures are defined by their intent to protect human life or health from risks arising from an

additive, contaminant, toxin, or disease-causing organism in a food or from a disease or pest

carried by an animal or a product thereof. These measures may take many forms, to include: 19

• End product criteria.

• A product-related processing or production method.

• A testing, inspection, certification, or approval procedure.

• A relevant statistical method.

• A sampling procedure.

• A method of risk assessment.

• A packaging and labeling requirement directly related to food safety.

Sanitary measures must (1) be based upon scientific principles and (2) be applied by an

importing country in a manner that is not arbitrary or would unjustifiably discriminate between

its own industry and that of another country. These measures must be based on an assessment of

risk from a food safety hazard, i.e., an evaluation of the potential for adverse affects on human

life or health. The term “risk assessment” as used in the SPS Agreement is not limited to

quantitative risk assessment, which has been described as a particular type of risk assessment

used to evaluate the potential for carcinogenesis.20

To the extent deemed appropriate by each Member, sanitary measures should be

harmonized with those applied in other countries by basing them on relevant international

standards such as Codex. Countries are not, however, required to harmonize “downward” by

accepting a Codex or other international standard that provides a lower level of protection than is

deemed appropriate by society. Similarly, Members may establish and maintain higher standards

 

19 Administrative Action Statement accompanying “The Uruguay Round Agreements Act,” (P.L. 103-465;

December 8, 1994); at A.3.b. (see House Report No. 103-826(II) accompanying H.R. 5110). This statement

describes significant administrative actions proposed to implement the Uruguay Round Agreements. It represents an

authoritative expression by the Administration concerning its views regarding the interpretation and application of

the Uruguay Round Agreements, both for purposes of U.S. international obligations and domestic law. Since this

Statement was approved by the Congress at the time it implemented the Uruguay Round agreements, the

interpretations of those agreements in this statement carry particular authority.

20 Ibid. at A.9.
6

than Codex provides if a greater level of protection is deemed appropriate. For the purposes of

judging equivalence, the sanitary measures that comprise a food safety control system can be

broadly categorized as:

• Infrastructure; including legislative base authority and administrative regulatory systems,

documentation of systems, performance, decision criteria and action, laboratory

capability, and provisions for certification, audit and enforcement.

• Specific Requirements; individual facilities (e.g. construction), equipment (e.g. design

of food contact machinery), processes (e.g. retorting of cans, HACCP plans for a specific

product), procedures (e.g. post mortem meat inspection procedures) and tests (e.g. tests

for microbiological or chemical hazards).

Appropriate Level of Protection

Importing countries may set any level of protection they deem appropriate and establish

sanitary measures accordingly to abate or eliminate food safety hazards. While sanitary

measures are objectively based upon scientific or technical knowledge about controlling food

safety hazards, an importing country’s appropriate level of protection is a societal choice that

may be objective or subjective.

The [SPS] Agreement explicitly affirms the right of each government to choose its levels of

protection, including a “zero risk” level if it so chooses. A government may establish its levels of

protection by any means available under its law, including by referendum. In the end, the choice

of the appropriate level of protection is a societal value judgment. The Agreement imposes no

requirement to establish a scientific basis for the chosen level of protection because the choice is

not a scientific judgment.21

Food Safety Objective

Sanitary measures applied to control food safety hazards are often narrowly focused and

specific while the appropriate level of protection they are intended to achieve may be expressed

as broad regulatory or societal goals relating to food safety risks. Consequently, an FSO may be

developed to explain how a measure attains or contributes to attainment of the public health

protection deemed appropriate. These statements may include quantitative as well as qualitative

descriptions of the intended objective.

FSO's are not SPS components, as the Agreement makes no mention of them. They are,

nonetheless, useful and relevant for equivalence purposes because they facilitate the comparison

of different sanitary measures. An FSO should not, however, be visualized as a standard to be

achieved or by which equivalence is judged—FSO's are appropriate for equivalence purposes

only as elaborative statements of public intent that describe how sanitary measures achieve, or

contribute to the achievement, of a country’s appropriate level of protection.

 

21 Ibid. at A.3.
7

It must be noted that the term “Food Safety Objective” is used within the Codex

international community to describe two separate activities. While these activities are related,

they are particular in purpose and must be distinguished. The Codex Committee on Import and

Export Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) has commissioned a paper from

New Zealand titled “Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary

Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems.” An important

component of this paper is the concept of an FSO as a bridge between sanitary measures and the

appropriate level of protection they are intended to achieve.

Another use of the FSO concept has been proposed in a paper titled “Recommendations

for the Management of Microbiological Hazards for Food in International Trade.” This paper

was prepared by the International Working Group on Management of Microbiological Hazards

as a discussion paper for the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH). The CCFH draft

defines FSO as “a statement based on a risk analysis process which includes an expression of the

level of a hazard(s) in food that is tolerable in relation to an appropriate level of consumer

protection. When justified by the risk assessment, the FSO should include expression of the

level of the hazard as a maximum tolerable concentration and/or frequency.”

The two Codex definitions of FSO have separate intent. The CCFICS definition is

broadly constructed for use by exporting and importing countries in equivalence determinations

under the SPS Agreement. The CCFH definition is more narrowly focused on the management

of a particular food safety hazard, i.e., pathogenic microorganisms, and incorporates the

requirement for a “target” to control these hazards in food. Thus it represents a subset of the

more general CCFICS application of an FSO.

THE FSIS FOOD SAFETY EQUIVALENCE EVALUATION PROCESS

Introduction

Evaluations of equivalence between different sanitary measures require exporting and

importing countries to cooperate in a series of steps that meet mutual international obligations.

The steps that countries choose will depend on circumstances and trading experience between

the two nations. Moreover, where sanitary measures differ, the FSO may still be evident and

understood by both countries, while in other cases the FSO may need to be further explained by

the importing country. A reasonable series of steps that countries may take to determine

equivalence is as follows.

• An importing country provides notice that it will require a particular sanitary measure to

achieve a level of protection it deems appropriate.

• An exporting country requests an explanation of the importing country’s appropriate

level of protection that is achieved by application of an identified sanitary measure.

• The importing country provides that explanation, which may be facilitated by expression

of an FSO for that measure.
8

• The exporting country uses that explanation as a guide to develop sufficient evidence to

demonstrate the equivalence of an alternative sanitary measure, obtains clarification from

the importing country if necessary, and develops a case for equivalence of a different

sanitary measure in terms of achieving the importing country’s appropriate level of

protection.

• The importing country evaluates evidence provided by the exporting country and (1)

recognizes that the exporting country’s alternative sanitary measure achieves the same

level of protection provided by the importing country’s measure or (2) requests more

information to facilitate further consideration of the submission or (3) rejects equivalence

of the alternative sanitary measure and provides appropriate reasons for that decision.

The importing country retains the absolute right to decide whether the exporting

country’s sanitary measure is equivalent to its own. Exporting countries should be rigorous in

seeking importing country determinations of equivalence well before any alternative sanitary

measure is implemented. Unilateral action by an exporting country could lead to serious

equivalence difficulties with importing countries and a possible disruption of trade.

The foregoing steps provide a structure for the three-part process FSIS now employs to

evaluate equivalence. As is explained in the following sections, this process is utilized for initial

evaluations of equivalence wherein an exporting country is found eligible to ship meat and/or

poultry to the United States, for periodic verifications that eligible countries remain equivalent,

and to evaluate individual sanitary measures.

Initial System Equivalence

Applications from foreign countries for an initial determination of equivalence must

contain sufficient technical and scientific evidence for FSIS to evaluate whether sanitary

measures of the foreign food regulatory system are equivalent to the U.S. system. This

evaluation involves a document review and an on-site review.

FSIS does not conduct inspections in foreign countries. After a country is determined to

have an equivalent food regulatory system, FSIS relies on it to carry out daily inspection.

Foreign establishments desiring to export to the United States must apply to their own national

inspection authority, and that country’s chief inspection official must certify to FSIS a list of all

establishments that meet U.S. import requirements. Countries must also be certified periodically

as continuing to operate an equivalent residue control program. FSIS experts review the

country's program to assure that approved analytical methods are used, that foreign officials are

knowledgeable about the use of chemical compounds in their country, and that the country tests

for those compounds with potential for getting into the U.S. food supply.
9

Verification of Continuing Equivalence

Prior to the SPS Agreement, FSIS evaluated foreign food regulatory systems under

provisions in U.S. inspection laws that required them to have programs “at least equal to” the

U.S. system.22 Because the eligibility of countries to export meat or poultry to the United States

was initially evaluated on a case-by-case basis through analysis of applications followed by onsite audits, all “at least equal to” countries that were eligible for export of meat or poultry to the

United States when the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was passed in 1994 were automatically

judged to be “equivalent.”

FSIS utilizes a three-part evaluation process to verify that foreign food regulatory

systems continue to be equivalent.

1. The first part is a recurring document analysis wherein the fundamental laws,

regulations and implementing policies of an exporting country’s food regulatory system

are reviewed in parallel with U.S. government issuances to ensure that an appropriate

legal and regulatory structure remains in place.

2. The second is on-site food regulatory system audits conducted first for initial system

equivalence determinations in each country that applies for export meat or poultry to the

United States and generally repeated annually.

3. The third is continuous port-of-entry reinspection of products shipped from exporting

countries. These reinspections provide evidence of how the foreign inspection system is

functioning; they are not necessarily indicators for specific sanitary measures.

Document Analysis

The purpose of recurring document analysis is threefold: first is to verify that the

fundamental laws, regulations and implementing policies of an exporting country continue to

provide for a food regulatory system with adequate authority and funding to accomplish its

mission; the second is to examine written requirements for food production to determine whether

equivalent sanitary measures have been mandated for the foreign meat and poultry industry; and

the third is to evaluate written regulatory system procedures for foreign industry oversight,

verification and enforcement of requirements.

System Audits

The system audit provides a transparent, collaborative forum with international trading

partners to verify continuing equivalence. These audits are generally conducted annually in

exporting countries by FSIS technical experts. The purpose of a system audit is to evaluate the

foreign inspection program, not to inspect individual foreign establishments.

During the system audits, FSIS, in part, seeks evidence that the exporting country has

instituted sanitary measures adequate to provide the same level of protection for American

 

22 Ibid. The poultry requirement was “same as” rather than “at least equal to” because of different language in the

FMIA and PPIA.
10

consumers that is ensured by our domestic system. The system audit focuses on two essential

components of safe food production: (1) process control, which is an industry responsibility

executed through sanitary measures such as sanitation standard operating procedures, HACCP

and quality assurance systems, and microbial testing programs and (2) oversight, which is a

government responsibility exercised in a form and at an intensity appropriate to verify the

effectiveness of industry process controls, detect noncompliance, and provide necessary

enforcement. Exporting countries must meet this fundamental level of protection to establish

and maintain equivalence.

An FSIS foreign inspection system equivalence audit consists of three phases.

1. First, FSIS conducts a document analysis as described above. Port-of-entry

reinspection data are also reviewed at this time to determine trends and identify areas of

special interest for audit. These documents and data are used by FSIS to develop an audit

plan that is customized to each country. This plan is transmitted to the exporting country

for comments at least 30 days before implementation. The audit protocol is sufficiently

detailed to inform the exporting country of the audit objectives, scope and criteria, who

will be visiting, what they wish to see, where they wish to go, and when they wish to do

so. Special emphasis is given to changes in foreign food regulatory systems that have

occurred since the last audit either through initiative of the exporting country or in

response to new U.S. requirements.

2. Second, FSIS dispatches an auditor (or in some cases an audit team) to the exporting

country’s inspection headquarters and/or to sub-offices as agreed in the audit protocol.

Discussions are held with exporting country auditors and other officials as appropriate to

determine if the exporting country’s system of oversight and compliance is being

implemented as written, and to identify significant trends or changes in establishment

operations, oversight, and compliance. FSIS auditors examine a sample of available

records that document the exporting country’s oversight and enforcement activities, and

accompany exporting country officials on field visits to a representative sample of

establishments that are eligible for export to the United States. Exporting country

officials conduct an evaluation at each selected establishment to verify that it continues to

achieve the level of protection required by the United States. Particular attention is paid

to how the foreign food regulatory system ensures that eligible establishments have

addressed food safety hazards, some of which may be different from those encountered in

the United States. FSIS auditors observe these activities and correlate findings made by

exporting country officials.23 A sample of laboratories and other facilities is also

reviewed in this manner. At conclusion of its visit, the FSIS auditor(s) meets with

exporting country representatives to provide an overview of conditions observed during

the audit and to ensure that observations noted are clearly understood by both parties.

3. Third, FSIS conducts a post-audit evaluation of all data collected on-site and advises

the exporting country in writing of any system equivalence issues to be resolved. When

 

23 Other alternatives may be selected by agreement between FSIS and the exporting country. For example, the

establishment audits could be conducted jointly by FSIS and foreign auditors or FSIS could conduct the audits with

correlation by foreign auditors or supervisory personnel. These variables are resolved collaboratively on a countryby-country basis.
11

evaluating audit data, FSIS will base its equivalence judgments on how sanitary measures

of the foreign inspection system compare and relate to those used in the U.S. and whether

the foreign food regulatory system cumulatively provides the same level of protection.

A draft audit report is sent to the exporting country for review and comment after an onsite visit. An action plan is mutually developed to address any issues raised by the audit. These

issues are tracked by FSIS until resolution and are automatically included as items of special

interest in the next audit.

Port-of-entry Reinspection

FSIS relies on its baseline determination that a foreign country is equivalent coupled with

annual system audits to provide assurance that products shipped to the United States are—and

continue to be—safe as well as wholesome, correctly labeled and properly packaged. As a

further check on the equivalence of a foreign food regulatory system, FSIS randomly samples

meat and poultry products for reinspection as they enter the United States and ensures that

exporting country certificates are authentic and accurate.

Port-of-entry reinspection is directed by the Automated Import Information System

(AIIS), a centralized computer database that stores reinspection results from all ports-of-entry for

each country and for each establishment. Reinspection of products is performance-based in that

better performing foreign establishments have their products reinspected less frequently.

Additionally, FSIS randomly samples products at ports for drug and chemical residues. An

annual import residue plan sets the initial sampling rate for each country based on its volume of

product exported to the United States. Compounds included in the plan reflect testing done in

the U.S. domestic residue program. Decisions about product acceptability are based on U.S.

tolerances.

The AIIS receives and stores daily reinspection results from all ports-of-entry and

continuously updates compliance histories for every establishment exporting to the United

States. If a problem is found at one point, FSIS can quickly locate and hold other shipments

from the same establishment at other entry points. When a shipment is presented for port-ofentry reinspection, the AIIS scans its existing records to determine if the foreign country, the

establishment, and the product are eligible for export to the United States. The AIIS also

determines the type of reinspection based on compliance history of the establishment and

country for that specific product. AIIS data provides a record of how each exporting country

maintains inspection controls.

FSIS has about 75 inspectors who carry out reinspection in approximately 150 official

import establishments. At these establishments, all incoming lots of meat and poultry are

reinspected for transportation damage, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and

accurate count. Products that pass reinspection are stamped with the USDA mark of inspection

and are allowed to enter U.S. commerce for distribution and use as if they were produced

domestically. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they are stamped "U.S. Refused Entry" and

must be exported, destroyed, or converted to animal food.
12

Specific Sanitary Measures

FSIS has successfully used the equivalence evaluation process described in this paper to

ensure that exporting countries establish and maintain a food regulatory system appropriate to

achieve the same level of protection provided by domestic inspection.24 In addition, these

evaluation procedures have proven effective in verifying equivalent foreign implementation of

specific sanitary measures such as those in USDA’s Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems final rule (PR/HACCP final rule).25

For example, in August 1996, FSIS provided a copy of the newly promulgated

PR/HACCP final rule and a summary of its principal sanitary measures to each country listed as

eligible for export of meat or poultry to the United States. FSIS conducted two public hearings

in early October 1996 to brief interested parties on equivalence issues generally and in particular

on implementation of equivalent PR/HACCP sanitary measures by eligible exporting countries.

In late October 1996, FSIS followed-up these meetings with a cable to all exporting countries

restating the need for equivalent implementation of PR/HACCP sanitary measures and

requesting that each country provide information by the end of 1996 as to how it intended to

achieve the same level of protection.

Beginning in January 1997, FSIS sought from each exporting country specific

documentation of what sanitary measures it had implemented to be equivalent with PR/HACCP

final rule requirements for U.S. domestic establishments. Many countries have implemented

measures identical to the U.S. requirements, and equivalence is not an issue. Where alternative

sanitary measures have been offered, FSIS has conducted appropriate scientific and technical

evaluations to determine whether the proffered alternatives are equivalent. In cases where

exporting countries have not adequately demonstrated equivalence, additional information has

been requested. If ultimately, a foreign country’s alternative sanitary measure were deemed not

equivalent, FSIS would be obliged to initiate rulemaking that would terminate its eligibility for

export to the United States. Equivalence decisions based on foreign food regulatory system

documentation of specific sanitary measures are subsequently verified by on-site audits.

 

24 For example, Agency regulations require that foreign countries have an “organizational structure and staffing, so

as to insure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all establishments throughout the system at

which products are prepared for export to the United States.” [9 CFR 327.2 (a)(2) (i)(A) for meat and 9 CFR

381.196 (a)(2)(i)(A) for poultry] This regulatory criterion is a “sanitary measure” under the SPS Agreement, and

would be evaluated for equivalence by (1) document analysis and (2) system audit. Some indications of equivalence

would also be obtained from (3) port-of-entry reinspections of product. Each additional regulatory criterion would

be evaluated in the same manner; cumulatively they provide evidence of system equivalence—and thus eligibility.

All foreign food regulatory system sanitary measures—whether they be for food safety or other consumer

protections—fall within one or more of the regulatory criteria set forth in Sections 327.2 and 381.196 and each must

be evaluated for equivalence using procedures described in this document.

25 61 FR 38806; Thursday, July 25, 1996.
13

Conclusion

FSIS applies a rational evaluation process to determine the initial eligibility of foreign

inspection systems or alternative sanitary measures and to verify annually that equivalence is

maintained. Cumulatively, the evaluation process summarized in this document complies with

international obligations under the SPS Agreement, comports fully with U.S. laws, and

effectively implements FSIS inspection regulations by ensuring that American consumers

receive the same level of protection in imported meat and poultry as is achieved domestically.
U.S. Food Assistance Package for Russia

The U.S. food assistance package for Russia, first announced in

November 1998, includes a combination of donations and

concessional credit sales of grains, meats, oilseeds, and other

U.S. farm and food commodities. The U.S. and Russian

governments signed an agreement for P.L. 480, Title I, credit

sales of various U.S. products and another agreement for Section

416(b) wheat donations. Under separate agreements with USDA,

private voluntary organizations will also be distributing

humanitarian food aid to the elderly, the poor, and other

vulnerable Russian citizens. 

Click on the photo to see more images from the Russia Food

Assistance program.

Status and Distribution of Food Aid

Purchase and Export Status Report

Meat Food Aid Update

Pre-Arrival Report

-- Government to Government Agreements

Post Arrival Report

-- Government to Government Agreements

Private Voluntary Organizations

-- Global Jewish Assistance and Relief Network

-- American Red Cross

-- Project Aid Siberia

-- International Orthodox Christian Charities

-- Feed the Children

Monthly Distribution Plans

Government to Government Agreements

April May June July August

U.S. Food Assistance Package for Russia

http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/pl480/russia.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:54 PM]
September

Press Releases (earlier press releases)

Russia Receives $210 Million in P.L. 480 Purchase Authorizations April 9, 1999

Russia P.L. 480 Purchase Authorizations Amended April 9, 1999

Invitation for Bids (IFB's)

PL 480 Sales

U.S.-Russia Agreements

FAS Food Aid Program Page

Description of Food Aid Programs

Food for Progress and Section 416 (b)

Brief Description of P.L. 480

Commodity Credit Corporation

Commodity Purchase & Sales Invitation Programs and Contract Awards

Last modified: Wednesday, September 22, 1999

U.S. Food Assistance Package for Russia

http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/pl480/russia.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:33:54 PM]
Wheat Yearbook (WHS)

A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

Examines supply, use, demand, price, and trade for all U.S. wheat and for individual wheat classes.

Includes supply and demand prospects in major importing and exporting countries. This is a

supplement to Wheat Outlook.

Help on using these files is available.

● Wheat Yearbook, 03.26.99 [ Summary | Text | Info | PDF ]

● Wheat Yearbook, 03.05.98 [ Summary | Text ]

● Wheat Yearbook, 03.03.97 [ Summary | Text ]

● Wheat Yearbook, 02.26.96 [ Summary | Text ]

● Wheat Yearbook, 02.24.95 [ Text ]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Wheat Yearbook (WHS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/whs-bby/ [10/5/1999 3:33:55 PM]
Several proteins that probably help a biting gnat transmit bluetongue, a virus of cattle and sheep,

have now been pinpointed by ARS scientists.

The gnat, Culicoides variipennis (KOO-lee-coy-deez vary- uh-PENN-uss), is also called a biting fly,

midge or, because of its small size, a no-see-um. The gnat proteins increase blood flow to the bite area,

prevent aggregation of platelets needed to close off the wound, and inhibit immune system cells that

would help a victim fight off the virus. Researchers already knew about similar proteins in other biting

insects and ticks. But the ARS team is the first to show that C. variipennis secretes these specialized

molecules from its salivary glands. The proteins may prove to be a better tool than the virus itself for use

in developing a bluetongue vaccine. That's because the many strains or serotypes of the virus can quickly

develop resistance to a virus-oriented vaccine. This problem wouldn't occur with a vaccine targeted to the

gnats' salivary-gland proteins. Bluetongue annually costs the U.S. livestock industry an estimated $120

million in lost trade. Countries without the disease won't accept some American livestock exports.

Arthropod-borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory, Laramie, WY

Walter J. Tabachnick, (307) 766-3600, tabachni@uwyo.edu

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Animal Production and Protection, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/app498.htm [10/5/1999 3:33:57 PM]
The Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children 

(Released March 25, 1999)

Please Note: High-resolution formats of the above are available on CD-ROM. For information,

please call John Webster, CNPP Director of Public Information, at (202) 418-2312.

News Release 3-25-99

Background Information

Q & A's

The following are PDF files. They look and print like the original paper copies. To view or print

these PDF files, download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader software on your own

computer, if you don't already have it. The graphics files will also be available in TIFF, GIF, and

JPEG formats in the near future. Please check this page periodically.

Tips for Using the FGP for Young Children Booklet (1 MegaByte File) Also available through the

Government Printing Office by calling (202) 512-1800 and asking for stock number 001-00004665-9.

Price is $5.00.

Graphic:

Large -- Poster Size, 25" x 35" Color (400 KiloBytes)

Small -- 81/2" x 11" Color (200 KiloBytes)

Small-- 8 1/2" x 11" Black &White (200 KiloBytes)

PERMISSION TO USE THE FOOD GUIDE PYRAMID FOR YOUNG CHILDREN GRAPHIC

The Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children is in the public domain, and as such is not subject to

copyright or trademark restrictions. Written permission to use the Food Guide Pyramid for Young

Children graphic is not required. We request that the Pyramid graphic be used as originally designed and

that the image not be altered. If used as originally designed, we request that it be credited to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture or USDA. If you have questions about the use of the Food Guide Pyramid for

Young Children graphic, please contact John Webster, Director of Public Information and Governmental

Affairs, at (202) 418-2312 or by e-mail at john.webster@usda.gov. 

● Back to the CNPP Home Page

FGP for Kids

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/KidsPyra/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:33:59 PM]
Sometime in the past 15 years, American farmers crossed an auspicious environmental boundary:

They began reducing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than adding to it. CO2 is one

of the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A new ARS study shows that U.S. farmers

have shifted from being net producers of carbon dioxide to net accumulators of carbon, in the form of

valuable soil organic matter. An ARS soil scientist discovered the difference after a thorough search of

published reports and surveys for several major crops and comparing 1940 to 1990 conditions. The

analysis, aided by other research nationwide, showed the changeover was due largely to farmers'

increasing abandonment of a cherished symbol of past American agriculture, the moldboard plow used to

break up the prairies. By 1993, farmers used moldboard plows on only 6 to 9 percent of wheat, soybean

and corn, according to USDA statistics in the study. The plow inverts soil to a depth of 8 to 12 inches.

The inversion buries recent stubble and other unharvested crop residue deep into the plow layer, where

microbes tend to decompose it into carbon forms easily converted to CO2. This CO2 can escape to the

atmosphere. As farmers put aside the moldboard plow, they leave nearly all of the residue on the soil or

within a depth of 4 inches. For example, corn and grain sorghum farmers are returning twice as much

crop residue to the surface as there was in 1940. Here, the residue readily decays to organic matter, a

more stable carbon compound and a key property of the black, fertile prairie soil.

Soil and Water Management Unit, St. Paul, MN

Raymond R. Allmaras, (612) 625-1742, allmaras@soils.umn.edu

A new and improved tool developed by ARS scientists swiftly measures a field's soil strength,

giving farmers and researchers a quick way to tell if plant roots will have a hard time pushing

down into the soil. This information helps farmers decide what type and depth of tillage is best for their

fields. The new multiple-probe soil cone penetrometer tests soils for compaction or layering that restricts

root growth. Dense, high-strength soil tends to confine root growth. Heavy agricultural equipment can

also cause this condition. Loose, low-strength soil provides the best condition; it lets roots penetrate

downward and reach moisture during summer dry spells. The tractor-mounted probe measures soil

strength across an entire row in about 1 minute—a great timesaver. Manual one-probe devices require

five insertions to obtain the same data and can take 10 minutes per row. Another improvement: The new

version is more sensitive than previous models. It reads depth to the millimeter and penetration force to

within 0.1 pound per square inch. ARS scientists have used the device to measure soil compaction in

several soils throughout the Southeast.

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL

Randy L. Raper, (334) 844-4654, rlraper@eng.auburn.edu

Soil, Water and Air Quality Research, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/swa498.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:08 PM]
A hairy vetch cover crop and corn residue left from not plowing create a double mulch for crop

fields, saving on chemical weed killers and commercial fertilizers. This double mulching keeps soil

moist and smothers grass weeds, the principal weed type in farm fields. Preliminary data from 1998, the

second year of a 3-year study at Beltsville, MD, suggest the practice could reduce the amount of atrazine

used nationally to control grass weeds. American farmers use 250 million pounds of atrazine annually.

Atrazine is a pre-emergent herbicide—that is, it's used as a precaution before planting. It and other

pre-emergent herbicides are potentially more of an environmental hazard than postemergent herbicides,

used when weeds appear after planting. Preliminary results of assessing herbicide fate in no-till corn also

indicate that hairy vetch reduces the loss of herbicides in runoff, but several years' data will be needed

before a quantitative value can be given. The researchers' data also show that nitrogen-producing cover

crops like hairy vetch can reduce nitrogen fertilizer use without sacrificing yields. Similar preliminary

findings from an ARS demonstration project at Beltsville suggest that the hairy vetch system is most

profitable to farmers. The new data show that vetch also reduces downward leaching of metalochlor, a

common herbicide for cornfields. The next phase of the study, to run 5 additional years, is named

CIMASS, for Cover Crop Impact on Nitrogen and Weed Dynamics To Minimize Agrochemical Use in

Sustainable Systems. This phase will lead to detailed recommendations on how farmers can rely more on

postemergent herbicides and apply other cost-effective techniques to control weeds with the least loss of

herbicides to the environment. Commercial herbicide-resistant corn varieties will be tested.

Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Ali M. Sadeghi/Allan R. Isensee, (301) 504-6693/(301) 504-5297, asadeghi@asrr.arsusda.gov/

aisensee@asrr.arsusda.gov

Weed Science Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

John R. Teasdale, (301) 504-5504, teasdale@asrr.arsusda.gov

An ARS-designed rainfall simulator has been setting the stage for what will probably be the largest

outdoor study of the movement of coliform bacteria and Cryptosporidium parvum, a protozoan

parasite, in rain runoff and soil water. The simulator has a boom that flexes as the land's slope

changes, keeping the "rain" the same distance from the soil up and down the slope. The simulator will

help scientists trace water movement to track possible routes for bacterial pathogens and for C. parvum,

which caused an outbreak of illness from drinking water in Milwaukee in 1993. The study uses two of

six lysimeters built by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to study storage options for low-level

radioactive waste. These lysimeters are giant blocks of soil isolated for contained outdoor studies. The

NRC used empty tanks as stand-ins for radioactive waste and turned the sites over to ARS after the

experiments were finished. Each lysimeter is above the water table and lined with plastic to prevent soil

water from leaching in or out. Each is about 70 by 40 feet square and 10 feet deep. ARS scientists are

testing two different soils and two different slopes in the lysimeters. From earlier studies, the ARS

scientists have preliminary data indicating that bacteria are more likely to be a problem in groundwater,

while Cryptosporidium is more likely to contaminate surface waters. Next year, the scientists will begin

adding Cryptosporidium in manure and monitor its movement, along with that of native coliform bacteria

which will be used as surrogates for pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7, which has caused

foodborne illness.

Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Daniel R. Shelton, (301) 504-6582, dshelton@asrr.arsusda.gov

Soil, Water and Air Quality Research, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/swa498.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:08 PM]
A new device called a biosensor will help farmers and regulators detect herbicides in soil and

water. In only minutes, the new invention identifies traces of herbicides residues by using a

chlorophyll-protein reaction center complex that measures oxygen levels. To use the biosensor, the

farmer or regulator passes a soil or water sample through the device. If the sample solution contains an

herbicide, the chemical will react with the biosensor's proteins and inhibit oxygen production. This

information is relayed to a computer, which displays the data in graph form. The biosensor can only

measure herbicides that inhibit photosynthesis, such as diuron, atrazine, simazine, ioxynil, bromoxynil

and dinoseb. This group of herbicides constitutes about 50 percent of all herbicides used in agriculture.

The test is ultra-sensitive. Its detection limits are similar to or slightly better than the more complex,

highly sensitive ELISA test, which is antibody-based. The biosensor works well at room temperature. Its

membrane is stable for up to about 40 hours and can be reused within that period for any number of

measurements. ARS scientists codeveloped the biosensor with scientists from the Czech Republic and

Italy through a grant supported by the North American Treaty Organization. Once commercialized, it

should be economical and easy to use—distinct advantages over currently available herbicide detectors.

Vegetable Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Autar K. Mattoo, (301) 504-7380, amattoo@asrr.arsusda.gov

ARS-designed seed-delivery packages could be an inexpensive, natural way to revegetate

overgrazed and desertified land, such as areas in the Jornada Experimental Range in New Mexico.

The Jornada is in the northern part of the Chihuahuan Desert, one of the driest spots in the country and

the largest desert in North America. In each package, seeds are tucked into three little pipes, which in

turn are set within a larger pipe. The packages, which cost 75 cents each, are staked in rills often less

than 4 inches deep to await a rare event in the Jornada: rain. If enough rain falls, a streamlet with

sufficient force will break through crepe paper covering both ends of the lowest seed pipe. Seeds then

flow out through a mesh screen on the end of the outer, larger pipe. If the rain continues, the streamlet

rises, freeing seeds from the middle pipe—and so on. Seed is released only when rain falls. This ensures

that all the seed is released only when there is enough rain to spread it far downstream. The rain also

ensures that seeds are deposited in moist soil with a mulch cover of grass stem litter naturally carried by

streamlets. The scientists are monitoring results to see if stream-seeded plants eventually spread to cover

large areas of bare ground.

Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM

Jeff Herrick, (505) 646-4842, jherrick@nmsu.edu

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Soil, Water and Air Quality Research, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/swa498.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:08 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

U.S. State Fact Sheets - Data as of September 3, 1999

About the State Fact Sheets

United States summary

Alabama Kentucky North Dakota

Alaska Louisiana Ohio

Arizona Maine Oklahoma

Arkansas Maryland Oregon

California Massachusetts Pennsylvania

Colorado Michigan Rhode Island

Connecticut Minnesota South Carolina

Delaware Mississippi South Dakota

Dist. Columbia Missouri Tennessee

Florida Montana Texas

Georgia Nebraska Utah

Hawaii Nevada Vermont

U.S. State Fact Sheets

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/other/usfact/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:12 PM]
Idaho New Hampshire Virginia

Illinois New Jersey Washington

Indiana New Mexico West Virginia

Iowa New York Wisconsin

Kansas North Carolina Wyoming

You can get the whole set as USFACT.EXE in a 421 KB self-extracting archive file. This set includes

both HTML and TXT versions of the fact sheets, along with a readme file. Just download it and run it.

Contact: Tom Carlin

Updated: September 3, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

U.S. State Fact Sheets

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/other/usfact/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:12 PM]
A sensitive genetic test developed by ARS scientists will enable state and federal regulators to

detect a nasty bacterial disease of citrus—if and when it invades the country. The disease is citrus

variegated chlorosis (CVC), caused by a strain of Xylella fastidiosa bacteria. Some 88 million orange

trees in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil—a major source of orange juice for U.S. consumers—are infected

with X. fastidiosa. Brazilian experiments show the bacteria are capable of reducing yields 37 to 100

percent, depending on the orange variety. ARS scientists developed a genetic test that distinguishes the

CVC pathogen from other strains of X. fastidiosa, including one that infects Brazilian coffee plants. The

test uses PCR—short for polymerase chain reaction—to distinguish one pathogen from another by

comparing unique segments of DNA, similar to tests used by law enforcement agencies. Telling the CVC

pathogen apart from other strains of the bacterium has been one of the chief obstacles to rapid, accurate

detection. Florida and other citrus-growing states are home to leafhoppers and other insects that could

transmit CVC from tree to tree. But the pathogen also hides in dozens of woody plants and trees. The

danger is that it could enter the U.S. undetected in plant species other than citrus. The citrus industry also

needs a good diagnostic procedure to understand how CVC spreads and to develop effective control

procedures. Two or three other PCR tests have been developed since the ARS test.

Fruit Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

John S. Hartung, (301) 504-6374, jhartung@asrr.arsusda.gov

What if a crop plant could defend itself from an insect pest by damaging the pest's ability to make

skin and grow? This defense is now being developed in molecular genetic and biochemical studies by

ARS and cooperating scientists. They've genetically engineered tobacco plants to include an insect

enzyme called chitinase, which breaks down chitin, a key component in insect "skin" and gut tissue.

Chitin fibers play an important role when insects grow and shed their skin. In lab studies, the scientists

found that the genetically engineered plants significantly suppressed the growth of feeding insect larvae.

ARS and Kansas State University researchers are aiming their approach—based on chitinase from the

tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta—to provide a biopesticide alternative to traditional chemical

pesticides such as methyl bromide. Currently, this chemical is sometimes used to protect raw and

processed commodities. The ARS and KSU researchers hold a patent on the only known insect chitinase

gene used in transgenic plants. While insect chitinase targets chitin, its presence in plants is harmless to

humans or animals. The researchers have been collaborating with several agricultural biotechnology

companies to transform other plants including corn, rice, wheat and sorghum with the insect chitinase

gene.

Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS

Karl J. Kramer, (785) 776-2711, kramer@usgmrl.ksu.edu

Peanut crops could benefit from a new strategy that makes life miserable for noxious weeds. ARS

Crop Diseases and Pests, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/cdp498.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:14 PM]
and University of Georgia scientists devised the approach to help peanut farmers avoid the "herbicide

treadmill." This term describes the costly practice of applying up to six different herbicides to keep pace

with multiple weed species that compete with peanut crops—and each other—for space, sunlight and

nutrients. In coastal plains states like Georgia, battling weeds with herbicides can cost peanut farmers

roughly $75 per acre. Texas panicum, yellow nutsedge and Florida beggarweed are among the peanut

crop's most common and aggressive competitors. To even the odds, scientists combined cultural practices

that help frustrate the weeds' germination and growth. One tactic employs the "stale seedbed" concept.

This means preparing a seedbed of soil in an unplanted peanut field, then later plowing the top 3 inches

to control weeds before they become established. A follow-up tactic, in late April to mid-May, calls for

sowing peanut seed in narrow rows so the plants grow closer together. This fosters a quicker-developing

leaf canopy than standard row patterns, and blocks late-season weeds from sunlight. The scientists' field

studies indicate this approach could save peanut farmers an estimated $12 per acre on herbicides. It could

also prevent the need to increase peanut seeding rates. At up to $100 per acre, peanut seed tops the

farmer's list of production expenses.

Nematode, Weeds and Crops Research Unit, Tifton, GA

Carroll Johnson, (912) 386-3172, cjohnson@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu

With a helping hand from science, smut could become the next weapon in the war on weeds.

Smut—more specifically, loose kernel smut—is a natural fungus ARS scientists are experimenting with

to kill Johnson grass, a noxious southern weed. The smut fungus, Sphacelotheca holci, causes a disease

that turns the weed's seed structures into a black, crumbly mass. Scientists hope to encourage the

microbe's mischief by formulating it into a mycoherbicide spray. They're conducting field tests to

evaluate the spray's potential as a natural alternative to conventional chemical herbicides. The chemicals

help prevent Johnson grass from invading farm fields and outcompeting crop plants for space, sunlight,

nutrients and water. But using herbicides is costly and raises environmental concerns. The fungus is an

appealing alternative: It poses no danger of groundwater contamination, is naturally occurring and is very

host specific. So, it poses little or no serious danger to grass crops like sugarcane, wheat and most

sorghum varieties that succumb to other species of smut. In field trials, scientists observed plant infection

rates of 50 to 80 percent after spraying the fungus onto Johnson grass seedlings—good, but not enough to

prevent a noticeable drop in cane yield. Scientists now are contemplating ways to boost the fungus'

virulence, or ability to cause disease in the weed.

Sugarcane Research Unit, Houma, LA

Rex Millhollon, (504) 868-3168, rmillhol@nola.srrc.usda.gov

A hedge against sedge? That's what farmers could call a new chart that identifies 27 sedge species that

are weeds of U.S. crops. Sedges are grasslike plants in the genus Cyperus. Some Cyperus sedges are

useful, the most famous being C. papyrus, from which ancient Egyptians made paper. Generally,

however, sedges cause problems on farms, in forests and in urban and other rural areas. Worldwide, they

cost billions of dollars a year in crop competition and control measures. Botanically, where there's sedge,

there's often confusion. To help U.S. farmers accurately identify these weeds, ARS researchers

developed a reader-friendly table in cooperation with scientists in Arkansas and Florida. The genus

Cyperus contains about 600 sedge species. Many are often misidentified as other weeds in the

Cyperaceae family. This family includes sedges and much more: over 4,000 species in 90 to 115 genera.

Crop Diseases and Pests, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/cdp498.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:14 PM]
Currently, no single publication in the United States addresses these 27 Cyperus sedge weed species,

including 14 native species and 13 exotic ones. One species, purple nutsedge, is considered by some to

be the world's worst weed. The chart also contains information on yellow nutsedge, rice flatsedge and

small flower umbrella sedge, all among the world's 34 worst weeds. Nomenclature, common names,

distribution, ecology, biology and habitat data are presented for each species. Reprints including the

genera key and tables on native and nonnative Cyperus are available from the researcher.

Southern Weed Science Laboratory, Stoneville, MS

Charles T. Bryson, (601) 686-5259, cbryson@ag.gov

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Crop Diseases and Pests, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/cdp498.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:14 PM]
www.foodsafety.gov - Gateway to Government

Food Safety Information

● 

● Food Safety Index links to more food safety and HACCP information.

Foodsafe is an electronic discussion group to link professionals interested in food safety issues.

Subscribe to Foodsafe Unsubscribe from FOODSAFE

Browse Foodsafe Archives Search Foodsafe Archives

● 

USDA/FDA Foodborne Illness Educational Materials Database

Descriptions and ordering information for food safety training materials, including games and teaching

guides for school children; materials for the management and workers of retail food markets, food

service establishments and institutions; audiovisuals; and posters.

● 

USDA/FDA HACCP Training Programs and Resources Database

Listings of HACCP training programs, HACCP resource materials, and HACCP consultants offering

training programs or advice.

● 

● Food Safety Information from the Healthy School Meals Resource System

Foodborne Illness Education Information Center Publications

Bibliographies available from the Center.

● 

● About the Center

Return to the Food and Nutrition Information Center

The URL of this page is http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodborne/foodborn.htm

USDA/FDA Foodborne Illness Education Information Center 

http://www.nalusda.gov/fnic/foodborne/foodborn.htm [10/5/1999 3:34:26 PM]
 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Millennium Discussions on Agriculture

 "Crop Biotechnology"

 [TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FROM A TAPE RECORDING.]

 P R O C E E D I N G S

 MS. KENNEDY: [In progress.] I am Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education

and Economics in USDA. And it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the first in a

series of

millennium discussions on agriculture. We hope that these discussions provide a forum to

delve

into issues facing agriculture as we move into the 21st century.

 Today we open up the discussion on the transformation that is occurring in American

agriculture due to crop biotechnology. This issue has profound implications for

research, for

regulatory, for trade policies in USDA, and I think it is a fitting start to the series.

 I don't think there can be any argument that biotechnology in crop production is

changing

the way farmers farm, it is clearly changing the way consumer perceive the food they eat. 

In just

the past few years we have seen widespread adoption of crop improvements which have led

to

things like simplified herbicide and pesticide applications.

 Just yesterday I was out at a meeting with our RE Advisory Board in Virginia, and we

had a very lively discussion on the implications of biotechnology for nutritional

improvement,

and I think we are going to be seeing more of this. There was a discussion, without

necessarily

any closure on it, on what the implications of biotechnology are for nutrition

improvement and

agriculture in general.

 I think there can be no doubt that we will continue to need improved crop production

technologies as the world population grows past the current 6 billion, and biotechnology

we see

as just one tool, one of many. I think the reason biotechnology has generated some

controversy

is primarily because of its rapid adoption. Concern exists about costs and benefits.

 And that is why we are here today. The Secretary and I, in thinking about this

session,

wanted a session where we would be able to sit here, listen and learn, learn about the

essential

needs for agricultural research, not simply research for research's sake, although that

is part of it,

but also looking at regulatory and trade policies that stem from the adoption of crop

biotechnology.

 It is our feeling that we need an open, honest and transparent way to discuss the

topic,

and that is what we are hoping will happen today. We are delighted to see so many

familiar

faces in the audience, but also lots of new faces, and we have a distinguished panel that

we

believe can help us identify the issues we need to address and give us a more complete

picture of

the debate over crop biotechnology, particularly the debate on biotechnology that is

occurring

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (1 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
outside the beltway.

 Now what I would like to do first is introduce each of our expert panelists, and I

will start

with Terry Medley. Terry has global responsibility for biotechnology regulatory public

policy

and external affairs for DuPont Nutrition and Health. He was formerly the APHIS

administrator

here in USDA, holds a J.D. from the University of Virginia. And might I add, Dr. Medley,

it is

nice to see that there is professional life beyond government. Nice to have you back.

 MR. MEDLEY: Thank you.

 MS. KENNEDY: Roger Pine, who is the current president of the National Corn Growers

Association. He farms 4,200 acres in Lawrence, Kansas, grows corn, soybeans, wheat and

sod. 

Mr. Pine has a B.S. in agronomy.

 Dr. Margaret Mellon is director of the program on agriculture and biotechnology for

the

Union of Concerned Scientists. She holds a doctorate in biology and a J.D. from the

University

of Virginia.

 Dr. Ralph Hardy is president of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council,

which

is a consortium of 26 non-profit and educational research institutions. He holds a

doctorate in

biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin.

 Welcome, panel.

 I would like to talk a little bit about the ground rules this morning. As I have

already

said, the Secretary and I really are here to listen and learn, and what we wanted to do

is structure

a forum where we would have an opportunity for all of us to submit questions to the

panelists.

 And to that end, I think everyone in the audience in coming in should have been

given a

card, and the purpose of that card is to submit questions to the panel. Could be one

specific

individual or the whole panel. And as you write your questions on the cards, if you

could pass

them to the ushers, they will see that they are passed up to us.

 Please, I know people are being very shy. Rather than have anyone sit behind the

curtain,

we are asking people to move up front and take any of the open seats in front. One of

the

advantages today of being a little bit later in coming is you get a nice front-row seat.

 In my ground rules for the panel, the opening question, we are going to ask each of

the

panelists to take about two to three minutes to answer the questions. After that I am

going to

have to be a fairly hard taskmaster and limit the answers to the questions to two

minutes.

 Also, the last 10 to 15 minutes of this morning's session, we will give the

panelists an

opportunity to make some closing statements.

 Now the hard part of what I have to do today. I have been asked to introduce the

Secretary of Agriculture. And what is hard is, I mean, after he has been doing this now

for a

number of years as the Secretary, there are hardly innovative ways to introduce the

Secretary.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (2 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 And I was trying to think about the first time I met Secretary Glickman. This was

last

night I was mulling it over. And Secretary Glickman was then Congressman Dan Glickman,

and

I was wearing a very different hat, no idea that I would be working in Federal

Government. I

was heavily involved in international ag research in sub-Saharan Africa. A lot of the

issues we

are talking about today were very contentious, a la "green revolution" technologies in

both East

and West Africa.

 A delegation of international ag staff, scientists, administrators, were going up to

the Hill

to what we thought was going to be a "meet and greet" scenario, the kinds of comments you

normally expect to get, "Research is important, keep up the good work." And then we ran

into

Congressman Glickman, who not only had very insightful comments but had really tough

questions. I should ask you some of those questions this morning.

 And as the discussion was evolving, it was clear that not only did the Secretary

know a

lot about the issues related to ag research and biotechnology, but it was very clear that

the

Secretary had done a lot more thinking about the issues of biotechnology nested in the

big

picture--biotechnology related to public policy, biotechnology related to bioethics,

biotechnology

related to consumers' perceptions.

 And I know as we as a group came back from that meeting on the Hill, almost to the

last

person the delegation was very impressed, and I have to say a bit humbled. And it was

therefore

not a surprise for me, when we talked about kicking off this millennium discussion, that

the first

topic that the Secretary would pick would be biotechnology, an issue that he has thought

about

and been passionately concerned about for over 20 years.

 And it is with that I have the honor of introducing our Secretary of Agriculture,

Dan

Glickman.

 SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you.

 [Applause.]

 Actually I came out of that same meeting, Eileen, thinking, "Boy, is she smart." 

Boy,

was I impressed. Anyway, I thank you and I thank the panel for appearing.

 And let me just first of all say that this is the first of a series of millennium

lectures that

we are going to be hosting at the Department, try to have perhaps a half dozen this year

on a

variety of somewhat controversial subjects but important subjects for agriculture. And

this is an

appropriate subject to start out with, and I would just like to make a few comments to

set the

agenda and then ask the first question, and then let the panel and the audience have the

rest of the

time dealing with the issues.

 We are in the midst of serious farm problems now. We have falling commodity prices

or

at least weak commodity prices, and we have shrinking incomes and they are putting a

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (3 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
squeeze

on farmers and ranchers in this country. And we spend a lot of time and resources in

this

Department trying to deal with this problem, but even as we are dealing with the

immediate

problems, we can't also--we must keep an eye on the big picture as well.

 Because I am confident that the cycles of the economy will turn and we will see a

rebound take place. I hope it is sooner, but I do believe that the global problems will

give way to

recovery, and I think we are already beginning to see some glimmer of that happening in

Asia

right now.

 And the farm economy will bounce back, and I think it is going to need some help

from

Washington to do that. But then we will still have to answer vitally important questions

about

what agriculture will look like in the next century, and that is what the purpose of this

is, to

figure out what is agriculture like in the new millennium.

 Our subject today is biotechnology, and you would be hard-pressed to find an issue

that

has more far-reaching implications for agriculture in the new millennium. It presents

great

challenges but enormous opportunities as well, and it confronts about everything we face

in this

Department, from research, regulation, global competitiveness, conservation,

concentration, and

inspection.

 Biotechnology is a powerful tool in ensuring global food security. The last 50

years are

replete with stories of revolutionary innovations that increased productivity and helped

fight

world hunger.

 The wheat gene, Norin 10, for example, helped developing countries like India and

Pakistan increase their wheat harvests by 60 percent. At the Wheat Research Center in

Mexico

City that conducted some of this research on Norin 10, there is an inscription on the

wall when

you enter the building that reads, and I quote, "A single gene has saved one hundred

million

lives."

 Today, in a world of growing populations and shrinking farmland and forests,

biotechnology becomes that much more important. We have more and more people to feed,

more and more fiber to produce, and a limited amount of arable land to put into

production.

 Biotechnology can allow us to generate higher yields while putting less of a strain

on our

natural resources, but some people, when they hear the terms "biotechnology" and "genetic

engineering" associated with things that they put in their mouth, they get a little

nervous. And all

of us, public policy leaders, the scientific community and the private sector, have an

obligation to

take their concerns seriously.

 Sound science has demonstrated time and again that many biotechnological advances

are

safe and reliable, but if consumers at home and abroad don't share our confidence, they

will

reject genetically treated products and we won't be able to get a return on the enormous

public

and private investments that have been made in biotechnology.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (4 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 In Europe there has been real reluctance to open their markets to our biotech corn

varieties and other similarly treated products, in part because their people are still

reeling from

"mad cow" disease and other public health crises. We must continue to argue in

multilateral

forums like the WTO that our biotech products have withstood the strictest scientific

scrutiny.

 But we also have to keep this in mind: Market access isn't enough if, when it comes

right

down to it, many European consumers fundamentally don't trust and won't buy the products. 

What we need is some kind of public information and consumer education effort,

domestically

and internationally, that will separate the myths from the realities and reassure people

that our

regulatory process is sound; that bioengineered food products are rigorously tested and

deemed

safe before being brought to market.

 On the other hand, we also need to recognize and understand that biotechnology

raises a

number of policy issues that the agriculture community needs to consider. We must

acknowledge that we are dealing with a new technology, and we must continue to

demonstrate

our vigilance about safety and public health.

 To ensure that there is an open dialogue on all aspects of biotechnology, I am

announcing

today the formation of an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology which will examine the

impact

of biotechnology from every conceivable angle: its creation, application, marketability,

and so

on. My goal is for everyone who has a stake in the future of biotech--research

scientists, social

scientists, farmers and consumers--to be represented on the 25-member panel.

 One of the things the Advisory Committee will explore is the impact of biotech on

the

small family farmer. In an increasingly top-heavy and concentrated farm economy, some

worry

that biotech might further tilt the playing field against the small operator.

 The ownership issues are very tricky. There is a legitimate case to be made that

farmers

own the seeds they buy and are free to replant them as they choose. But those rights

sometimes

are at loggerheads with the legitimate proprietary interest of the company or companies

that has

pumped millions of dollars into the research that developed the seed.

 And while we respect their rights, I think we are all a little concerned when we

read about

agribusinesses filing lawsuits against small farmers, generating such an atmosphere of

mistrust

that small farmers are actually turning each other in. Somewhere there has got to be

some room

for common ground.

 We have to ask, will the next generation of biotechnology products lead to greater

contracting practices between companies and farmers? And should the government have a

role

in ensuring that farmers are treated fairly under those contracts? What is the role of

public

research? Are we doing enough to promote public access to germ plasm and maintaining

seed

diversity?

 Let's remember, too, that there are people who have other food preferences, and USDA

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (5 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
must also be responsive to them as well. Last year we heard from 280,000 organic

consumers

who said they did not want any genetically modified organisms in their food. Are at USDA

doing enough to serve that organic market? As we discuss biotechnology issues, are we

giving

adequate consideration to biodiversity as well?

 I can't possibly answer these questions today, and I doubt the panel can as well,

all of

them. But what we can do is to make sure we raise the right questions and then have a

frank

dialogue, which will continue on our Advisory Committee and well into the new millennium. 

Working together, we can harness the potential of biotechnology to produce the greatest

good for

the greatest number of people, and I think that is our goal, recognizing that science

continues to

march forward.

 Now let me, if possible, kick off the discussion and ask a very general and

open-ended

question, and ask each one of the panelists to respond in the order that--perhaps Eileen

might

want to tick this off, because this will be the only time perhaps I will intervene. And

I just ask

you the general question as, what do you think the biggest challenge is you see in the

future in

biotechnology?

 MS. KENNEDY: Why don't we start with Dr. Medley and move down?

 MR. MEDLEY: Thank you. First of all, Mr. Secretary, Dr. Kennedy, thank you for

inviting me to participate in this forum. I think that it's clearly an issue that will

benefit from

public dialogue, general discussion such as the one here today.

 When we look at your question, I think first of all I would like to reaffirm a

statement that

you made earlier, which is the fact that biotechnology is a tool. The technology is an

enabling

technology with broad application across very diverse industrial sectors, but the

take-home

message from any definition you look at is that it is that: It is a tool. It shouldn't

be viewed as a

panacea nor as a magic bullet, but a very powerful tool that can aid us.

 That leads me directly to responding to your question. I think that when we look at

this

today, clearly there are a number of issues that have been raised about biotechnology. 

There are

issues about public acceptance, gene transfer, mandatory labeling, transparency of

information. 

We could go on and on and on.

 While these issues constitute appropriate questions when we look at biosafety--and

again

I echo your comments, Mr. Secretary, about the safety of the products commercialized here

in

the U.S. under the U.S. system--the global risk management dialogue or global debate

should

also focus on the present and future application of the new technology.

 Ag biotechnology should not be characterized solely by the first generation of

enhanced

products being commercialized today, but rather we need to look at the considerable

challenges

that we face globally and how this tool can be utilized to help us. In that line I think

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (6 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
it is very

clear that this tool has shown its applicability, if we look at health care, if we look

at agriculture

today, if we look at environmental enhancement.

 So I would conclude, Mr. Secretary, by saying that the real challenge for us as it

relates to

biotechnology is to determine how to best utilize the technology to create sustainable

solutions

for existing and emerging global needs in the area of quality of health care,

environmental

enhancement, and food production. The question is, how do we ensure the safe and

responsible

use of the tool, not what are the first products that have been commercialized.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you.

 Mr. Pine?

 MR. PINE: Thank you, Secretary Glickman and Dr. Kennedy. I appreciate the

opportunity to appear before you to discuss the importance of biotechnology to U.S.

agriculture,

and I do that as president of the National Corn Growers Association who represent more

than

30,000 farmers.

 Some of you may know that because of our belief in the benefits of biotechnology,

the

National Corn Growers Association has been at the forefront of efforts to secure Federal

funding

for plant genomics research, and that plant genomics will lay the foundation for

breakthrough

scientific advances.

 While world population continues to expand, there is an expectation of higher

quality,

safer and more nutritious foods. This means that existing land, water and nutrients must

be used

more effectively if the supply of food, feed and fibers is to meet world needs.

 To compete in the global market, U.S. farmers must maximize yield and combat serious

disease, pests and weather, all without harming the environment. Genomics research and

the

application of modern biotechnology hold the key to achieving this goal.

 Last year 11 different versions of biotech corn were produced commercially in the

United

States on approximately 20 million acres. These products have all received the necessary

approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

 Unfortunately, not all of our grain customers accept the U.S. approval process, and

last

year we faced considerable delays in the approval of biotech corn in the European Union,

and

these delays reduced U.S. corn exports to the European Union to less than 3 million

bushels

during the last marketing year. That was compared to about 70 million bushels the

previous

year.

 We support the right of importing countries to regulate biotech products. As long

as

countries or trading blocs conduct timely, predictable, science-based reviews, we are

confident

that trade will not be disrupted. But when science is subverted by politics and

socioeconomic

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (7 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
concerns, U.S. farmers don't stand a chance.

 We expect product registrants who commercialize seed in the United States to fully

comply with the registration requirements of our trading partners. However, we recognize

that a

country-by-country approach becomes unworkable as more nations adopt new standards and

approved procedures. We are convinced that an international approval or mutual

recognition is

absolutely essential to the future of biotechnology.

 One other area of concern is insect-resistant management or IRM. This is one of the

more widely used and successful products of biotechnology, is BT corn. BT is a naturally

occurring soil insecticide that is toxic to the corn borer family of insects, which

causes an

estimated $1 billion worth of damage to the U.S. corn crop each year.

 Incorporating the BT gene into corn seed controls the corn borer without chemical

pesticides and reduces the use of fossil fuel in the process. As a corn grower, I can

assure you

that I want to protect this environmentally friendly technology for as long as possible.

 While this new technology has already yielded tremendous benefits for farmers, it

has

also raised concern about insects becoming resistant to the BT gene. But the competitive

tactics

of the companies have resulted in corn grower confusion about how best to prevent insect

resistance.

 NCGA urged the seed companies to come together and agree on a single workable insect

resistant management for IRM plan. As a result, the companies that produce the majority

of BT

corn recently reached an agreement in principle on key points necessary to move forward

with a

unified IRM plan.

 We believe that the plan will address the interests of corn growers, consumers and

regulators. It provides a practical program that is consistent across the industry, and

was formed

by listening to the views of all stakeholders. These actions will ensure environmental

stewardship and BT product integrity for years to come.

 We need to work together to realize the societal and environmental benefits of

biotechnology, and we need to ensure that the additional value resulting from

biotechnology is

shared throughout the value chain by industry, farmers and consumers alike.

 I thank you for this opportunity to make these views apparent to you.\

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you.

 Dr. Mellon?

 MS. MELLON: Secretary Glickman and Dr. Kennedy, I too am very pleased to be here

as part of a new initiative to establish an open and honest dialogue about a powerful new

technology, not a miraculous technology, I might say, but a powerful new technology that

will

have a lot to say about agriculture in the 21st century.

 I think that it is unfortunately a dialogue that is long overdue. We should have

had it long

in advance of our taking--planting 50 million U.S. acres in genetically engineered crops

and

taking the lead on the international stage in trying to sell it to people, some of whom

want it but

obviously some of whom don't.

 In answer to the question, what is the biggest challenge biotechnology poses to U.S.

agriculture in the future, I would answer as follows: I think the biggest challenge,

perhaps even

threat that it poses, is that it will accelerate and perhaps complete the consolidation

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (8 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
of the control

of our food system in the hands of a very small number of vertically integrated

multinational

corporations.

 It will establish an agriculture that has been called "farming without farmers," an

agriculture in which there will, you know, not be the prosperous middle class farmers

that you

see in the Midwest and other places today, but instead farmers who are at the bottom of

the

economic chain, barely able to kind of creep into the middle class.

 These folks--I mean the landscape of this future agriculture isn't a very pretty

one. It will

not be a Midwest dominated by farms but by swine factories. It doesn't seem to me that

it is an

agriculture that will provide the infrastructure for a vigorous rural economy.

 So I am concerned that this is the direction we are going. I hope that the new

committee

that the Secretary has announced will take up this issue, will look for example at the

Terminator

technology, and will ask whether it is appropriate for U.S. agriculture to be supporting

a seed

sterilization technology that will help complete, as I said, the control of multinational

giant

corporations over the seed system and thereby over our food system.

 I hope that we also are going to be able in that committee to look at some of the

opportunities that might be presented by some of the turmoil that we see in Europe. We

have--I

mean I just read yesterday on the Internet that Zanesbury's, which is a big retail

conglomerate in

Europe, has agreed to set up an international consortium of retailers and food companies

that are

going to sell completely genetically engineered-free food.

 This is going to open up a buying network that will support millions of farmers, it

could,

interested in supplying non-genetically engineered food. The U.S. ought to be--that

ought not be

a market that is available only to the Europeans or to the Brazilians. We ought to step

up to the

plate and try to claim our share of it as well.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Dr. Mellon.

 Dr. Hardy?

 MR. HARDY: Yes. It is certainly a pleasure to join the Secretary and the rest of

you on

this first millennium meeting on biotechnology.

 Let me say in advance, I am a bull on biotechnology. I have been a bull on

biotechnology

for several years. Certainly we have to be cautious about biotechnology, but we are

living in the

area of the life sciences. We can see that as we read our daily newspapers.

 There are laws being developed in the life sciences that are as rigorous as the laws

of the

physical sciences. We have developed a set of tools that have been referred to as

biotechnology

type tools, and we are exploding the amount of information that we have. Probably in the

next

decade we will have 1,000 times as much information as we have at the moment.

 If you put laws and tools and information together, it provides the basis for us to

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (9 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
design

products that will enable farmers to convert themselves from commodity low-profit

producers. 

There is no way in a commodity business that you can be extremely profitable.

 What we need to do is provide farmers the capability of value-added products, valueadded products that in various marketplaces then capture more value, create jobs in rural

communities for people to process those materials, and we broaden the scope of

agriculture.

 I would suggest to you agriculture with biotechnology is not just improved food,

feed and

fiber for the 21st century, which I am convinced it will be, but it will be in fact a

major source of

energy. It could make us energy self-sufficient if we so wished to do. It will be a

major source

of chemicals and it will be a major source of materials. There is a tremendous, I think,

opportunity out there if we make the correct decisions.

 There are major issue problems to deal with, and the panel has been proposed to

address

these issues like structural change, like conflicting public good interests, like

monitoring, like

building trust which is very, very difficult to do, are issues that we definitely need to

deal with. 

But I think biotechnology can be very important for an expanded view for agriculture for

the

future.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you. Keep the questions coming. The ones we have gotten so

far, it is interesting to me and the Secretary that they actually are playing off of some

themes

which have already come up in the opening question, and I will start with one of the

first ones:

 Do the panelists have any opinions about how new seed fertilization technologies

under

development--the question doesn't actually end, but like the Terminator technology

protection

system, or as Margaret has called it, the Terminator--what the effect of broader use of

these

technologies will be?

 And Dr. Mellon has already commented a little bit on that, so I thought, why don't I

start

with you, Terry, your opinion on what you see the potential of this being?

 MR. MEDLEY: I think that this is an excellent example of the challenge we face of

how

do we look at knowledge and look at the appropriate application rather than the

mischaracterization of an application; i.e., the appropriate thing we are talking about

here is

controlling gene expression. Now that is the patent.

 Terminator technology, suicide gene, is a term that was coined by ones that might

oppose

that particular application. When someone says to me that we have acquired knowledge on

how

to best control expression within a plant, I fail to see how that in itself is bad. The

acquisition of

knowledge is never bad. The question here is, how do we apply that?

 And if you look at it, we have made significant advancements from hybrid seed. 

Well, as

you know, you must purchase the hybrid seed each year if you want to continue your same

levels

of yields. So I think the question here is not to characterize this as bad technology,

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (10 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
but rather to

have debates like this about what is the appropriate application of that knowledge, and

how do

we assure that it is utilized in a beneficial way?

 I will end on one example. When one is concerned about potential gene transfer or

gene

dissemination, one might want to have a particular crop that is sterile. Controlling

gene

expression allows you also to deal with biological limitations to avoid or mitigate

potential risk. 

Again, the application of the tool is what is important, rather than trying to say that

it in itself is

an end.

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Hardy or Mr. Pine, do you want to comment on that one?

 MR. PINE: I would just say that first of all, I am not a scientist, but I am

aware--and I

might also add that the gentleman sitting to my right doesn't know it, but as of the

announcement

that you made, I now work for you.

 [Laughter.]

 Indirectly, but I do.

 I would simply like to say--and the reason I work for him is because they have--they

are

in the process of acquiring Pioneer International, and I grow hybrid seed corn for

Pioneer

International.

 And it is not uncommon in that practice, for example, to have male sterile corn that

is an

inbred line, so that when that is crossed with another inbred line to make the hybrid

corn for

commercial production the following year, to have a male sterile product so that it

reduces the

need to do detasseling by hand. So that is something that has gone on for a number of

years and

is not new from that standpoint, just for your information.

 MR. HARDY: Yes, there is certainly utility to the stopping of viable genetic

material. 

One of the major environmental risks that has been looked at in terms of transgenic crops

is the

escape of their genes into wild relatives, wild weedy relatives, and thereby creating, if

its a

herbicide-tolerant gene, weeds that are going to be more tolerant to herbicides, et

cetera.

 And so clearly this is a technology that could be used to reduce that risk aspect. 

There

will be lots of things done like this, that are capable of being done as the laws, the

tools and the

information expand, and it is going to be a question of how we best utilize those to get

to the end

point, which obviously is benefits to society.

 So this can be beneficial. It also can raise some red flags. But, as has been

mentioned, it

really is no different than hybrid corn was, and the debate that is occurring at the

moment is

exactly like the debate, as I understand it, occurred back in the '20s and '30s with

hybrid corn.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (11 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Mellon, do you have anything you want to add to your comments

you made earlier on this question?

 MS. MELLON: You bet. Well, I just want to make sure everyone understands that the

technology we are talking about would sterilize seeds. It would deliver a targeted dose

of poison

to seeds at the very end of seed development, for the purpose of ensuring that farmers

would,

because they would only have dead seeds in their hands, would be forced to go back to

companies to buy seeds.

 This is not a technology that improves crops in any way. It doesn't make them more

nutritious, it does not increase their yields, it does not make them resist pests any

better. It has

one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to force farmers to go back to companies.

 It is also important to know the environment within which this tool is being

developed

and who is developing it. It will redound primarily to the benefit of the private

sector, and yet it

was developed by taxpayers, by the USDA, with my money and with your money. Is that an

appropriate use of the U.S. public--

 SECRETARY GLICKMAN: That was before I got here. I wanted you to know that.

 [Laughter.]

 MS. MELLON: --public research establishment? And what does this say about the

agenda of our public research establishment for the 21st century?

 The other thing to note is that this technology is not--it is not emerging into an

environment in which there are 300 or 400 seed companies, as there might once have been,

seed

companies that need to be encouraged or enabled to kind of get into the business and

ensure

adequate sources of income. This is emerging into an economic environment in which the

seed

industry is dominated by one, two or three very large multinational companies.

 I mean the Monsanto Company at the end of 1998 controlled 87 percent of the U.S.

cotton seed market, 30 percent of the U.S. soy market. Three companies. Pioneer and

DuPont,

as we all know, just yesterday--well, two days ago now?--DuPont announced that it had

completely acquired Pioneer. Monsanto and Novardus control 80 percent of the American

corn

seed market. The number of--I mean currently the top 10 seed companies control 30

percent of

the global seed trade, valued at $23 billion.

 This technology is evolving, is being made available to these big companies so that

they

can simply increase the chokehold they have over the seed industry, and they are going to

control

it pretty much lock, stock and barrel.

 The combination of the market power to, you know, control 80 percent of the retail

cotton

seed market, and the patent for the Terminator technology which Monsanto now has, plus

the

patent that it has over all genetically engineered cotton, means that there isn't going

to be a whole

lot of choice in the market place. It won't be how will we use this tool. The question

is, will

there be any other tool out there to use but genetically engineered seed?

 We all need to step back and ask very, very--I mean these are serious questions. Do

you

want the world's food supply to be in the control of the private sector completely? 

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (12 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
Whoever

controls seeds, controls the food supply. You must ask yourselves, where are the

alternative--

where is the alternative to the private sector seed industry going to come from? Who is

going to

be able to break into this market, and what will their agenda be?

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Dr. Mellon.

 I am going to take a question in a different order, because there was something

which

came in that I think Dr. Hardy is the appropriate person to address. And I think in

answering this

question, Dr. Hardy, you may want to reference some of the comments Dr. Mellon has

already

brought up.

 But it is a question about how much of the negative information on biotechnology,

and in

particular the seed sterilization, is potential negative effects versus actual negative

effects, and

where there have been documented actual negative effects, what are we doing about it? 

Could I

ask you to handle that one?

 MR. HARDY: Okay. The sterilized seed, Terminator, whatever words you want to use,

is fairly recent public information. To my knowledge it has not yet been used in any

commercial

product.

 In fact, Marty indicated that 87 percent of the cotton market is controlled by

Monsanto. 

My understanding is the Pioneer deal has not yet closed, and so Monsanto really doesn't

at this

stage control that piece. It may well control it down the road.

 MS. MELLON: It is trying. Not for lack of trying.

 MR. HARDY: I think Marty is being a little unfair when she indicates to you that

the

only reason people are doing this is to control the seed and the fact that you have to

repurchase

the seed. There are other utilities associated with it.

 There are other ways also, I think, to creatively structure--and this does bother

me. The

consolidation of the agribusiness and agriseed industry into maybe six mega global

companies is

worrisome to me. The playing field is sloped about like this at the moment. 

Farmer-growers are

here and the consolidated seed companies are there.

 Farmer-growers need to restructure so that they have the strength to bargain,

because

after all they are the customer, and if you don't have a customer that is buying then you

are not

going to sell. So we need to look at ways, and we need to look at ways creatively, how

you

restructure this field that has changed very dramatically in just a recent year or two to

a more

level playing field. And I think there are number of ways that, if you think about it,

that could be

done creatively.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (13 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 MS. MELLON: I just want to say that in a vertically integrated system farmers are

not

the customers.

 MS. KENNEDY: Okay. We have a question that now is going to relate to farmers, and

this one to me comes pretty close to home, having for the past 21 years been married to a

British

national, so seeing a lot of the popular press that comes out of Western Europe. Here is

the

question:

 On Wednesday seven major European supermarkets announced that they are joining in a

consortium to source non-GMO foods. These stores represent nearly $100 billion in

sales--this is

a knowledgeable writer of the question--potentially. What should be done to compensate

or

protect American farmers who are losing export markets due to this kind of resistance to

biotech

food?

 I wonder if we could ask our farmer representative to start on that question?

 MR. PINE: Well, I would say this, that if there is going to be a market for non-GMO

products, I think you can rest assured that the farmers in this country are going to find

a way to

meet that market demand. We are in--we like what we are doing but we also have to make a

profit, and those of us that are still in the business have had to change our ways.

 And you talk about growing in size, and I am not growing like a DuPont or some of

the

large companies you are talking about, but if you look over the years, our family

farm--which, by

the way, does include my wife and adult son and daughter. It is a family farm, it may

not meet

the definition of everybody's idea of a small farm. I don't know.

 But anyway, we have had to change our structure and the way we do business to

address

the need to be profitable in our enterprise, to be able to go ahead and do what we enjoy

doing,

and that is farming. And so that is--my answer to that is that, you know, if there is a

demand, we

will find a way to address it. It may be considered a value-added product, and if it is,

we will

find a way to meet that demand.

 MR. MEDLEY: Can I just quickly add onto that, I think that what I said earlier

about not

letting the first generation of products totally characterize the biotechnology debate, I

think this

is a perfect example. The first products that we have on the market now would fall in

the area

really of input traits or production enhancements, whether it is insect, disease

resistant.

 The second generation of products we refer to as output or quality traits are

looking at

enhanced properties, enhanced benefits. The only way that you are able to really achieve

those

benefits is through some system of identity preservation, but it also requires you to

have

partnerships with producers so you can guarantee the integrity of your product throughout

the

chain.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (14 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 I can see this tech...

 [Tape Side A to Side B.]

 ...agriculture. To date, we do have such an identity preserve program. It is a

very small

acreage. It is about $1.5 million. It returns about $7 to $8 million plus to the ag

producers.

 But again, I think to me this is an example of the types of changes that are

occurring with

the technology in a beneficial way.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you. We are going to move on. It is not the intent that each

panelist necessarily has to answer each question, but we are starting to get a flood of

questions.

 This next one really relates to one of the key issues that I have heard in the whole

biotechnology debate, the sort of pro and con of will it help, when one thinks about

investments

in biotechnology, deal with the massive problem of food insecurity and hunger in

developing

countries?

 To that end, the question reads: Key developing countries have expressed misgivings

about the next round of agricultural trade negotiations. Biotech issues will clearly be

on the

agenda. What are the panelists doing, and what will government be doing to assist

developing

countries, policy-makers, research, farmers, to prepare for the WTO discussions on

biotechnology issues?

 MS. MELLON: I would like--

 MS. KENNEDY: Why don't we start with Dr. Mellon, and then maybe Dr. Medley?

 MS. MELLON: Well, I think this is a very, very important question, and often

biotechnology is offered as a savior technology for the world's hungry. I doubt that

that is the

case, but let me flip the question around and say this:

 It is very important that the U.S.--or I would like to see the U.S. develop an

agenda of

action items that it might take to actually address the needs of the world's developing

countries

and the world's hungry people. But it seems to me that that agenda will not be taken

seriously

unless there is something else on it except "develop biotechnology and make the Europeans

buy

it."

 I mean we have to have something more on that agenda if we are to be taken seriously

as

a country who cares about the world's hungry people. Our agenda needs to address our own

trade policies, it needs to develop infrastructure in the rest of the world, it needs to

address the

income needs of the world's poor.

 I encourage us--I mean I am always happy to see the issue of food security brought

up,

but I am disappointed, in many cases profoundly, that our rich country has nothing more

to offer

than the biotechnology that we are selling to the industrialized world.

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Medley?

 MR. MEDLEY: I will make it very quick. First of all, again I think that the

principles

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (15 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
there go much beyond trying to deliver biotech products. There are principles that are

necessary

for ensuring world trade. There are principles such as looking at valid risk, safety

considerations.

 But I think that the industry has looked at this issue of how do we best prepare for

the

next rounds, and we have in fact pulled together a group to develop a complete position

for how

we integrate not only the WTO, the SPS, the TRIPS, but also the Biological Diversity

Convention, so that what we are looking at is meeting these legitimate needs.

 I do believe that as a tool this can be applied to help in sustainability in terms

of feeding

the world, because the advancements are in fact in the seed, can be in the seed, and it

doesn't

require heavy investments or changes in current agriculture practices.

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Hardy, you wanted to comment on this one?

 MR. HARDY: Yes, let me comment re the world food security. I would like to bring

to

your attention a meeting that the National Ag Biotech Council will be having this June

6th and

8th in Lincoln, Nebraska. The title of the meeting is "World Food Security and

Sustainability: 

The Impacts of Biotechnology and Industrial Consolidation."

 The NABC does meetings where we bring together all stakeholders, or as many

stakeholders as we can get, in an open forum and we ask them simply to speak, to listen

and to

learn on a specific issue. I think this is the first meeting that is going to address

industrial

consolidation and world food security, and I think there are some pamphlets outside the

meeting

room if you might like to attend that.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you. Let me, if I could, move into--we have a whole series of

questions a la biotechnology and environmental issues, and let me read a couple because

there

are some similar themes: Are there environmental benefits, considerations, to using

biotechnology in farming? Related to that: What are the potential costs and benefits to

the

environment from the application of biotechnology to agriculture?

 And I think it would be useful to have panelists address both. I wonder again from

a farm

organization, farmer perspective, what are the environmental pros and cons?

 MR. PINE: I would respond to that and give an example of that right now, and that

is BT

corn. We use a lot of crop protectants in areas where corn borer is a serious problem in

the

production of corn, but with the use of BT corn, that eliminates the need for the use of

that crop

protectant. And that is a straightforward example where that is, certainly in my mind, a

positive

step forward in terms of environment, if we don't have to use a crop protectant to

protect that

crop.

 MR. MEDLEY: I just think what has been said, if we look at the benefits, you can

look

at less input cost, you can look at maybe net loss, and pesticide usage, fertilizer

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (16 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
usage. There are

issues of increased yield and quality because you don't have loss from pests. There are

environmental benefits in terms of whether it is no till or limited till or other means.

 I think there are lots of things that you can see benefit. The key, again, is

having this type

of debate where we look at the appropriate utilization of the technology to meet

legitimate needs

and objectives.

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Hardy?

 MR. HARDY: Yes. Clearly in the area of pest management, biotech as you have heard

is already speaking. That is going to be a small part of how biotech is going to speak

environmentally.

 I think if we move in agriculture towards an agriculture that is more than just

food, feed

and fiber, that in fact is energy, is chemicals and is materials, move away from fossil

fuels, the

abundant positive impacts to the environment are very, very significant. You are talking

about

recycling carbon dioxide rather than increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, rather than

global

change, rather than the economic cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

 And so there are a whole array of beneficial things as we move in that direction,

coupled

with the ability to grow a bigger diversity of crops as opposed to the more monoculture

corn and

soybean cropping system that we have at the moment. So there is tremendous potential

here, I

think, for positive on the environment side. We in agriculture have not done a good job

of

visualizing that for the public.

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Mellon, did you want to comment on that?

 MS. MELLON: Well, I think, frankly I think that the technology has spoken on

environmental issues, but it has spoken very softly. Let's go back to who is in control

of

biotechnology and its developments right now. It is big, multinational companies, most

of which

are chemical companies. And not surprisingly, the biggest application of biotechnology

today is

to make agriculture safe for an herbicide, for Round-Up, and to increase the sales of

that

herbicide.

 Now this does offer farmers a new weed control option that they like, and it is very

popular among farmers. But for those folks in the environmental community looking for a

technology that will really move us away from chemicals, this is not a very impressive

application of biotechnology.

 This is shackling agriculture to chemicals for the foreseeable future, and it is

hard for me

to see how a biotechnology company that has a chemical--that sells chemicals is going to

actually take all of the steps that it needs to get us to an agriculture that is no

longer dependent on

them. It is going to do just what it is doing, taking a step to make sure that folks

have to use their

chemical rather than another.

 I would like to also speak to the BT technology. This is one that does have

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (17 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
short-term

benefits for the environment in terms of reducing the need for farmers to apply chemicals

exogenously to control pests, but it is going to be a very short-term benefit, and that

is because

the technology is allowing farmers to use the BT crops over enormous acreages and create

a

pressure on pests that will elicit resistance in a very short period of time.

 Now the only thing that might delay the evolution of resistance is the planting of

very

large, specifically placed refuges, but unfortunately we are, you know, 20 or 30 million

acres into

the application of the technology and the requirements and agreements on refuges are just

being

worked out. Now we got the cart way ahead of the horse here, and I think most

scientists, you

know, doubt that--it is a question of, you know, how long--when will BT be lost, you

know, not

whether it will be lost.

 And unfortunately, the BT gene is a very special one for which there are no obvious

replacements in the pipeline. So I think we might be in a position of watching the

most--this

promising application of biotechnology be very short-lived because of some of the

commercial

pressures that we have already talked about.

 I also want to point out that when the BT goes, it won't just be the conventional

corn

farmers and the biotechnology who will be hurt. It will be the organic farmers, the

integrated

pest management folks, the high value vegetable farmers who have depended on BT for

decades

now, many of whom are only turning to it now under the pressure of the FQPA, but those

people

too will lose the use of this valuable gene.

 This raises important questions about who gets to control BT technology, who gets to

say

who gets to use it up. Is it to be used up by the companies and the conventional

farmers, or

should we have sought a better strategy so that the BT gene could be available to

everybody who

wants to use it over the next number of decades?

 MS. KENNEDY: Dr. Mellon, that leads into a series of next questions related to

appropriate roles related to control of resources, and let me read through several of

these because

there is a common theme here:

 How important is the genetic material held in the gene banks of the National Plant

Germ

Plasm System to the ongoing success of biotechnology?

 What can be done to ensure an adequate balance between public and private ownership

of

germ plasm?

 And then a little bit on the application:

 What structural changes will have to occur to permit farmers to share in economic

gains

of biotechnology?

 Should USDA police contracting, subsidize technology transfer to farmers, or what?

 So really kind of a number of things nested in there, but appropriate roles of

public versus

private, and I wonder, Dr. Hardy, if we could start off with you?

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (18 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 MR. HARDY: Well, certainly the control, we only have to read the newspaper to

realize

that the control has changed pretty dramatically. We also have the ability, and I think

it is an

appropriate ability, to patent living organisms, plants and animals.

 This is not a cheap technology, cheap in the sense of cost. If you look at the

laboratory

operations that one has to do, even though you have a lot of design capability, the

front-end costs

in this technology are very high, and so there has to be a way to attract organizations

to invest the

risk capital to bring those products forward.

 So I think the movement, as we did in the '80s, towards patenting of plants and

animals

was perfectly appropriate. It is going to create a lot of jobs in this country that

might not have

been created, had that not occurred.

 I would simply go back and say we need to creatively look at how to rebalance the

playing field, and there are various ways. I think that any of you sitting out there can

think of

ways to do that. We haven't done any of that because this impact that has occurred is

very

recent.

 But farmers have certain resources to bring to the party, and how can they structure

themselves in negotiations with agri-input people, or agri-input people that become

end-user

people in terms of getting an equitable shake from the technology and the utilization. I

think that

is what we need to seek. How can there be equitableness in the utilization of this

technology?

 We are very early in that game. We are not at that stage at the moment. You know,

here

is the contract, you sign it. You can't replant the crop. You have to use this product. 

You have

to let this company monitor. But maybe all of those don't need to be there. There are

other ways

of negotiating, I think, that might remove some of the more onerous of those.

 MS. KENNEDY: I wonder, Mr. Pine, from a farmer perspective, the question about

USDA's role, should we be policing contracts, subsidizing technology transfer to farmers,

or

what?

 MR. PINE: That is a good question, and I don't have all the answers, I can tell

you.

 I would say that we are, as National Corn Growers and as a farmer individually, I

think,

you know, we are concerned with the continued consolidation that has taken place, and

wonder

just where that is going to end up and how agriculture and farmers are going to fit into

that mix. 

And that is something that we talk about within the National Corn Growers Organization,

as well

as that goes on at the coffee shop too.

 I think that this has been something that has been taking place, and it is not only

in

agriculture but in all businesses, this consolidation, and I think it is something that

we continue

to look at with concern. We do anticipate that USDA looks at these things, monitors

them, and

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (19 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
there are laws of the land that need to be followed. And perhaps maybe there are some

other

laws we need to look at, I don't know for sure, but that is a concern.

 I think that we will adapt. For example, contract farming is not new to many of us. 

I

have contracted. I used to grow potatoes for about 25 years, and contracted that

production for

those 25 years, and that is just one simple example. There is a lot of examples. I have

done

other types of contracting, as have many farmers.

 However, we do feel the concern that we need to be in a position where we can

negotiate

with a large company, and that is something we talk about in our organization, and

perhaps some

of the commodity organizations in agriculture may have a role in that. That is something

that we

are looking at closely.

 In terms of gene banks, I understand the importance of the companies that have

invested

in this having the rights to it, but I also think it is vitally important that we do

maintain those

gene banks for the future.

 MS. KENNEDY: And I, just having gone through an exercise in looking at our

portfolio,

one of the clear areas where there seems to be overwhelming consensus on the uniquely

Federal

role is maintenance of the germ plasm bank, so I think there is across-the-board

agreement on

that.

 I had a list of questions that I had developed, Collice had given me in case we are

short of

questions. This is not the case. We are running out of time. So let me move on to

another

challenging one:

 In dealing with the EU, the United States maintains that labeling won't work because

segregation is impossible, but Dr. Medley talked about the need to segregate now valueenhanced products. Could Dr. Medley and the other panelists comment briefly on this?

 MR. MEDLEY: Well, I made a distinction between segregation and identity

preservation. The issue of segregation goes to the ability to separate out bulk

commodities. 

Identity preservation goes to the need to maintain the identity of a specific enhanced

product.

 I believe that even on the issue of segregation, the question has been at what cost,

but

more importantly, is there a valid risk or safety basis for requiring that when these

products have

gone through an approval system which is a lot more rigorous than similar, like

varieties?

 So again I am talking about the whole idea in quality enhancement of output traits

where

you, in order to achieve the benefit, the desired benefit, you must maintain control and

identity of

the specific product.

 MS. KENNEDY: Let me move on to the next question, because I think this is one that

cuts across some of the issues panelists have already brought up:

 In recent years we have seen some of the value-added impacts of biotechnology: 

increasing yields, lowering input costs. However, there are other ways to increase value

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (20 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
that are

not biotech products. Examples given here, expanding role of organics, non-GMO crops,

information-based technologies. Can these systems coexist? No name on question.

 MS. MELLON: I just want to be clear that there is no evidence yet of any

application of

biotechnology that increases yield, that increases the intrinsic yield of crops. In

fact, there is a

significant, on average, yield drag on the Round-Up Ready soybeans.

 MS. KENNEDY: Could I--

 MS. MELLON: What folks have demonstrated is that farmers have a pest control option

that does increase, in some cases, their bottom line at the end of the year, which is

important. 

But this is a very important point: Biotechnology has not yet demonstrated its

effectiveness in

improving important economic traits.

 MS. KENNEDY: Okay. I would like to give Dr. Hardy a chance to comment on that,

because I think from the point of view of the associations you represent, what your

reading of the

science on that is.

 MR. HARDY: The yield I think is the wrong thing to look at. It is the value of the

crop

that you are producing is the more important thing.

 There are examples in the pipeline of transgenics that are showing increased yield. 

As I

sort of flip through my mind, I am aware I think of a nitrogen efficiency, a utilization

enhancement that may get something like a 30 percent yield enhancement.

 There is some recent evidence of putting C4 capabilities into C3 plants by some

transgenic aspects. There is evidence of taking plants and tenfold increasing their

Vitamin E

content, and certainly Vitamin E I think has been documented to be beneficial at greater

than

amounts that we have characteristically consumed.

 There is work in the pipeline in taking the antigen that many children, many people

have

problems with in peanuts, and creating a peanut that is antigen-free. Just think if you

are a child

and you can't eat peanut butter, the beauty that would be there if we could get peanuts

that in fact

would be antigen-free, and how much relieved the parents would be of those children,

worrying

about those children going to someone else's house.

 So there are a lot of things in the pipeline. We are very early, as Terry

indicated, in the

commercialization area. I would agree with Marty's conclusion 100 percent, that those

products

that are out on the marketplace are not there because of yield enhancement at this stage,

but work

is clearly going on and there is no question in my mind that there will be benefits to

yield, but

even more important, benefits to quality improvement that improves the price.

 I happen to--I happen to come from Canada, I happen to grow soybeans on family farms

up in Canada still, so I have some relationship with the production end of agriculture. 

I would

love to produce non-commodity crops. Commodity crops just do not have a long-term future

in

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (21 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
my mind. It is going to be value-added crops that is going to be important to farmers,

important

to agriculture in this country.

 MS. KENNEDY: I wonder if I could ask either or both of the other two panelists to

comment on a part of that question that I don't think has been addressed, which is,

rather than an

either/or, the coexistence of some of our biotechnology investments with other

approaches: role

of organics, non-GMOs, information transfer. Could you speak to that, those issues?

 MR. PINE: I would like to take a shot at that. Yes, I definitely think those can

co-exist. 

Long before we had biotech, we had good farming practices, best management practices. 

Those

are different things that we can do in our particular farm operation that enhance our

production,

and at the same time protect the environment due to how we handle those things. I don't

see that

as in opposition to the biogenetics. I think that is something that will enhance.

 Another example is something that has been preached for many, many years, rotation,

rotation of crops as a good practice, and I see no reason why that would not continue,

and there

are many other examples I could give.

 MR. MEDLEY: I think that on this response, when you look at our particular company,

people are always trying to characterize you, and we like to say that we are not a

materials

company, we are not a chemicals company, we are not a life science company, we are a

science

company. And what that means is you use the best available technology to meet the

solution.

 One of the largest products that is selling now from our joint venture with Pioneer

of

optimum quality grains is High O corn. High O corn is not a biotech product. It was

produced

through a type of cross-breeding system.

 Another thing I would say is when you look at this, yes, clearly you want to use an

array

of different tools. Biotech is one of them. But if you want to have sustainability, you

must do

that.

 Lastly, I would like to say that I very rarely disagree with my colleague, Dr.

Hardy, but I

would have to say on the whole issue of yield that if you have genetic enhancements where

you

are able to reduce the losses from pests, so that the net yield from the acreage because

of that

prevention is more, I fail to see how you cannot call that increased yield.

 MS. KENNEDY: We clearly have a number of very good, tough questions we are not

going to be able to get to. Before I go into closing remarks from the panel, let me

suggest that if

the panelists can stay around, maybe people in the audience whose specific question has

not been

addressed--there are some to specific panelists--could come up afterwards and have some

conversations with the panelists.

 We need to go into our wrap-up period, and what I would like to do is reverse the

order

from the opening remarks, start with Dr. Hardy, give each panelist two minutes to make

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (22 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
some

summary comments before I turn it over to Secretary Glickman.

 MR. HARDY: Yes. What I would like to do in the summary comments is introduce you

to a document which I believe is out in the vestibule. National Ag Biotech Council, a

consortium

of about 75 percent of the public research dollars in the States and the provinces,

because Canada

is also part of the NABC, decided about a year ago that there really needed to be a

vision for ag

research and development in the 21st century.

 We felt that vision needed to be broader than food, feed and fiber, that it needed

to

broadly relate to society so that we weren't just appealing to the 2 percent of farmers

or so that

are out there, but broad society, on how agriculture of the future could be critical to

them. So we

basically said agriculture of the future will be six-pointed; it will be food, feed and

fiber, but in

addition it will be energy, chemicals and materials.

 We also said that this agriculture will be important to securities for society,

securities that

we think society will see as important in the 21st century. Clearly we will want to have

food

security, but in addition the vision where a significant amount, for example, of our

liquid fuels,

90 percent of our industrial chemicals are made from bio-industrial crops instead of

fossil fuels,

allows us to think of a more healthful environment, allows us to dream about energy selfsufficiency, the benefits to balance of payments, the benefits to the environment. Rural

jobs to

process these materials, to produce these value-added products for domestic and

international

consumption speak to economic security.

 This is only a two-page document. We think it is concise. We think it is

comprehensive. 

We think it is a compelling story. We think we have got to get that message out in front

of the

public, to see that agriculture is going to be much more critical to them in the future

than it has

been in the last century, and biotech is a part of what will make that possible.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Dr. Hardy.

 Dr. Mellon.

 MS. MELLON: Well, I would like to urge in my final remarks that we actually take

somewhat less of a starry-eyed view of biotechnology and ask much harder questions about

whether it is really going to benefit us, who it is going to benefit, and what kind of

changes it is

going to force in our technology--I mean in our society.

 One of the things I take away from Dr. Hardy's remarks is the appreciation of the

fact that

we are already extraordinarily well-fed. We have an abundance of food. We have a

variety of

food. We have actually far more food than we need in our society, and our needs for

biotechnology, our genuine needs for a new technology in our society to produce more food

or

more varied food are really very few.

 But I want to go back to the notion of thanking the Department, thanking Secretary

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (23 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
Glickman for initiating a new, honest and open debate about these issues. I want to be

candid. 

Many will fear that this is essentially a public relations effort, a new way to make the

technology

more acceptable, a new way to reassure the nervousness that people think is unreasonably

out

there in the society so that people will kind of get on with it and buy the products of

biotechnology.

 I really hope that that is not going to be the case, and I trust, Secretary

Glickman, that it is

not going to be. I see stirrings of a new USDA here that I think we can all welcome.

 But as I look forward to that new debate, I would like to offer, you know, a

criterion by

which we might distinguish a public relations effort from a genuine, honest debate about

a new

technology, and that is, will "no" be an acceptable answer as an outcome of this debate?

 Will it be possible for folks to look at the potential applications of biotechnology

and say,

"Yes, that one looks good, it looks like the costs are outweighed by the benefits, but

that one

doesn't look like a good idea and we're going to take a pass."

 I think unless "no" is an answer, the debate we are going to have will not be the

one that

we need.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Dr. Mellon.

 Mr. Pine?

 MR. PINE: Dr. Mellon, I want to thank you for making a comment that I do agree

with,

and that was that we do have plenty of wholesome, healthy food for our consumers in this

country, and I think that is exemplary of what USDA has done, as well as EPA and Food and

Drug, in being able to make darn sure that is the way it is. And that is one of the

reasons that I

feel comfortable with the efforts that are being made at this time in terms of looking at

the

biotech products that are available to us.

 I do think plant genomics and biotechnology will help scientists to use genes from

corn

and other crops to control important traits such as nutritional value, stress tolerance,

and

resistance to pests. Biotechnology allows us to provide raw materials for industrial

uses, and

further, it is important for us to begin supplementing our oil use with renewable

resources. 

Biotechnology will be critical to this effort, as well as providing numerous other

far-reaching

benefits, and some of those are safer, more nutritional food, fuel, fiber, chemical

feedstocks,

pharmaceuticals.

 And being able to grow those in an abundance that even though we do not go hungry in

this country, there are places in the world that do, and our population continues to

grow, and as a

farmer I feel a responsibility to be able to feed the hungry people of the world. I

think this is

something that we have to look at as one of the avenues that will help in that matter.

 I do feel comfortable with our science and regulatory procedure for looking at these

things, and I agree that if there is a product that comes on the market that doesn't look

good, we

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (24 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
should not be putting it out there. I think that is absolutely correct. I am glad we

have a way of

being able to do that.

 I do think that some of the opportunities in biotech will be improved fertilizer

utilization,

and in some instances making their own fertilizer. Reduced environmental problems; an

example of that is in the area of livestock, where we can improve the digestibility of

phosphorus

so that we do not have as big a waste problem as we do now. Animal nutrition and

healthier

meat products. Resistance to fungal infections; less occurrence of mycotoxin in corn,

for

example.

 I think that if we are going to try to maintain the nutrition of our world

population, this

has to be part of that mix, to avoid us having malnutrition. I just thank you for the

time that I

have had to visit with you here today.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Pine.

 Terry?

 MR. MEDLEY: Thank you. It is always good to come home, and of course I think of

this as home, with all the years I spent here. It is also good to be able to say that I

continue to be

an advocate for American agriculture.

 And I say that because if we look at the global challenges, feeding an increasing

world

population, I find it amazing to know that three times the U.S. population on every given

day,

800 million people, are malnourished or starving. We look at not just expanding

populations but

meeting the dietary needs of an aging population, when you look at developed countries,

and it is

irrefutable when you look at the connection between diet and health.

 We look at the whole issue of preserving and protecting our environment and our

biodiversity. We look at ensuring a safe and healthful food supply, and I might also

add, a cheap

food supply in the U.S. We look at creating value in economic viability.

 When I look at all of those global needs, I have to conclude, and I am talking

again--you

will hear it--biotechnology, an enabling technology or a set of tools that have the

potential to

help us deal with these global problems. They have the potential and they are

demonstrated to

cure diseases that we thought incurable and to prevent diseases we don't even know exist

yet.

 For agriculture, biotechnology is demonstrating the ability to increase

productivity,

enhance the environment, improve food safety and quality, and also to bolster economic

competitiveness. On that, if you saw Alan Greenspan's article a few days ago about this

recession that we are going through, and how those farmers that have adopted new

technology

are able to deal with it a little better, I think it highlights the need to have new

technology.

 I think that these tools represent, and responsibly applied, can dramatically

improve the

quality of life for all of us in our global village. They can better harmonize mankind

and the

environment, and help us preserve our plant resources.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (25 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 That is the kind of promise that I think exists with these new tools of

biotechnology. The

real challenge is to determine how to best utilize these tools to address the global

needs. In other

words, can we assure that the promise of using this tool will be fulfilled?

 Thank you.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you.

 And now the last word will go to Secretary Glickman.

 SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Thank you. This has been an outstanding session, and

every panelist has contributed significantly to, I think, our understanding. And as we

move

forward with this Advisory Committee, I think we have got a lot of good themes here to

build on.

 I would just like to mention three things as I look at this issue. One is, you

know, you

can't stop progress, and the fact is that over the last several thousand years there has

always been

questions, and sometimes resistance to progress and change, and it strikes me that this

fits into

that model here. We are entering kind of a new era when we take the gene and maybe

massage it

a bit, is the best way to express it.

 And when it comes to food, we are talking about issues like quality and quantity of

food. 

We are talking about raising incomes. We are talking about, as Dr. Hardy talked about,

energy

and other uses for food producers, environmental and conservation concerns, and

sustainability,

and issues of world hunger. These are all issues that we are talking about this

technology as a

tool to achieve those possible things. And I think that people, legitimately and

illegitimately,

question progress historically all the time.

 So the question is, can you ask good questions and be somewhat suspicious at the

same

time without being part of the "flat Earth society," and how do you manage those two

things? 

And that is what we are trying to do, is to be able to encourage legitimate questions

without

resisting the natural human need to move forward, to get better, bigger. And "bigger"

isn't a term

that I talk about in terms of size of agriculture, but get bigger in terms of our ideas.

 The second question is competition, because whatever we do on the first stage, one

of our

roles in the Department of Agriculture is not to excessively, deliberately or in any

other way

contribute towards consolidation in which there is no competition in agriculture. That

is a very

serious worry for us.

 How do farmers compete in a modern world anyway? How does this technology affect

their ability to compete? How do they have some sort of clout in the bargaining process

for their

product, what they pay for it? What choices do they have?

 You know, our American system was built on choices, competition, the ability, if you

don't like what one person sells you or the price that he is offering you, you can go to

somebody

else and somebody else. And how does this relate to all these kinds of things? I think

that is an

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (26 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
important part of this discussion. I think that is something that will evolve, but I

think that is

something that is going to have to need the help of the Federal Government and perhaps

State

governments as well, to deal with some of these issues that you have talked about.

 The third thing is information. The public in this country I think, as Roger talked

about,

tends to trust its government, the EPA, the FDA, the USDA. I mean, sometimes the public

has

problems, but by and large they tend to think that we are on the level, trying to do the

right thing,

protecting the public interest. That is not true in most other parts of the world.

 So the question is, how do you use sound and objective science in a way so that you

can

try to give the public an informational debate by which they can make their choices on

what the

facts actually are, rather than purely on, let's say, an emotional side of the picture? 

Because there

are a lot of folks around the world that are extremely suspicious.

 And I think that we have an obligation to try to do a better job of making sure that

good,

sound, objective science, arm's length science, is available to people around the world,

particularly as the world is more and more globalized, which it is, and every one of the

issues we

talked about today are issues that we face in the global economy.

 So as we continue to deal with this issue, I don't think that--we are not going to

stop

progress. It never works anyway. Somebody always is able to move forward, even if you

try to

put your finger in to close the hole of the dike in one place, the water spills out

someplace else. 

The greatest advancement in human history is the human mind. The human mind will go

forward no matter what we try to do anyway.

 But what we have got to do is to ensure that that progress is sensible and is sound,

and

people have confidence that the system is on the level and objective in how we regulate

it. And

we have to ensure that we have an agriculture which is competitive, and that these

technologies

don't make it less competitive. That is something that is a really critical part of what

we are

talking about here. And, three, that the information that is out there, whether it is

from consumer

groups or industry or the government, is objective and it is sound and it is believable

and on the

level.

 And if we can do those things, then I think that this whole issue will develop in

the

normal and natural ways, and it will serve us all well, certainly. So from my

perspective, I think

this is probably the most important subject we will be talking about for the next 20 or

30 years. 

And I appreciate the panelists being on here, and I look forward to this committee that

will help

advise us on these things in the years to come.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you all. I think we are off to a great start, and I look

forward to

the continuing discussions.

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (27 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
 SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Thank you.

 MS. KENNEDY: Thank you.

 [Applause.]

 [Whereupon, the meeting concluded.]

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt

http://www.usda.gov/biotech.txt (28 of 28) [10/5/1999 3:34:32 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

User-Fee Financing of USDA Meat and Poultry

Inspection

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document. This format is used to preserve all of the content

and layout used in our hardcopy publication.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

User-Fee Financing of USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection. By James MacDonald, Fred Kuchler, Jean

Buzby, Fitzroy Lee, and Lorna Aldrich, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 775.

Abstract

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) finances about 13.5 percent of its budget outlays

through user fees for overtime and unscheduled meat and poultry inspections. User fees play an

increasingly important role in financing government programs, and FSIS has frequently requested

expanded authority to charge user fees for more of its operations. Congress has consistently rejected the

FSIS requests and has placed important restrictions on fees and the uses of fee revenue at those agencies

that have been granted more extensive user fee authority. This report surveys the application of user-fees

for financing meat and poultry inspection programs in other countries; reviews user-fee systems in other

Federal agencies, particularly those with food and agricultural missions or regulatory responsibilities;

and discusses the relevant economics literature on the use and design of user fees. Finally, we suggest

several elements that should underlie the structure of user fees for meat and poultry inspection, should

such a program be introduced.

Keywords: user fees, meat inspection, public finance

Contents

● Frontmatter (Abstract, Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, Summary); 51 kb

● Introduction; 41 kb

● Meat and Poultry Inspection User Fees in Other Countries; 31 kb

● User Fees in Federal Agencies; 77 kb

ERS Report---User-Fee Financing of USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer775/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:35 PM]
● Economic Analysis and User Fee; 51 kb

● Options for FSIS; 40 kb

● References; 42 kb

● Appendix 1: Glossary of Abbreviations; 15 kb

● Appendix 2: Individual Country Experiences with User Fees; 83 kb

● Entire report; 247 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Cathy L. DeShano

Updated: March 16, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report---User-Fee Financing of USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer775/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:35 PM]
ARS scientists are unraveling a biochemical communication pathway that enables plants to cope

quickly with drought, heat, cold, pests and other environmental stresses. Unraveling the complete

pathway—a complex chain reaction—should help scientists breed plants better able to withstand

environmental stresses. ARS scientists discovered and cloned two genes for an enzyme that seems to

trigger a stress signal. In plants under stress, this enzyme produces GABA, for gamma-aminobutyric

acid, within minutes. The enyzme may function as a thermostat: The more stress, the more GABA is

released. When stress starts to decrease, so does the GABA level. The scientists genetically modified a

plant named Arabidopsis—a "lab rat" of the plant world—to test GABA's role in plant development and

responses to environmental stress.

Climate Stress Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

Frank J. Turano, (301) 504-5527, fturano@asrr.arsusda.gov

The Asian hive bee, Apis cerana, stores a surprisingly large amount of an oily compound in an

unexpected place—its venom sac. Scientists are interested in the compound, called eicosenol, because it

may be an important ingredient in an alarm pheromone. Bees use alarm pheromones to signal other bees

to attack intruders. Until now, pheromones had never been found in bee venom. Other honey bee species

apparently store their pheromones in spongelike tissue at the base of their stingers. ARS scientists

collaborated with British and Brazilian researchers to analyze more than 300 Asian hive bees from Hong

Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, India and Japan. They found that the honey-making Asian hive bee has

50 to 100 times more of the pheromone component than other bees studied so far. Scientists still are not

certain how the A. cerana uses the chemical but suggest the bee might tag potential intruders, thus

alerting hivemates. Further research may uncover the chemical's value to Asian hive bees. Those studies

may also reveal ways the compound might be used in this country to help our domesticated European

honey bee, Apis mellifera, fend off harmful mites that have devastated many U.S. honey bee colonies.

Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, Tucson, AZ

Justin O. Schmidt, (520) 670-6380, ext. 109, joschmid@u.arizona.edu

Using hydroponics, ARS scientists have produced strawberry plants that yield as much fruit as

plants grown in soil fumigated with methyl bromide. That's good news for strawberry growers

worldwide who use the fumigant to control soilborne insects, diseases and weeds. Because the chemical

has been named an ozone depletor, it will be phased out over the next several years. If an effective

alternative isn't found, annual production of field-grown strawberries will be cut dramatically in

California and Florida, the major producing states. One alternative could be hydroponics—growing

plants in a water and nutrient solution without soil. From hydroponically grown plants, ARS scientists

Crop Productivity, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/cp498.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:37 PM]
harvested ripe strawberries twice a week from December to May. Fruit quality and taste were excellent,

and the few foliage pests were controlled with natural agents. Growers may recoup high initial setup

costs for hydroponic farming by producing a higher-value product, increasing yields and spending less

money on pests and diseases. In addition, weather isn't a factor that limits greenhouse crops, and

hydroponically grown berries reduce labor costs.

Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV

Fumiomi Takeda, (304) 725-3451, ext. 212, ftakeda@afrs.ars.usda.gov

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Crop Productivity, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/cp498.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:37 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

USDA Baseline Presentation

Introduction, Contents, and Overview

1999 Baseline Compared With 1998 Baseline

Economic Research Service

February 1999

Introduction -- USDA Baseline Summary Charts

● The USDA Baseline provides long-run, 10-year projections for the agricultural sector.

Many changes have been made in this year's projections that have weakened the global trade

outlook and U.S. agricultural export prospects. In the initial years of the baseline, much of

the U.S. agriculture sector is adjusting to a combination of weak demand and large global

supplies. However, in the longer run, more favorable global economic growth supports gains

in trade and U.S. agricultural exports during the last half of the Baseline.

● 

● The following Baseline charts highlight selected features of this year's long-term projections.

The presentation identifies sources of change in the projections and then shows the effects of

those changes on global trade and the U.S. agricultural sector. Comparisons between the

new 1999 Baseline projections and last year's 1998 Baseline illustrate the changes and their

effects.

● 

Contents

Baseline Overview:

● Summary Aggregate Measures

 -- U.S. agricultural export value

 -- Farm income

Sources of Baseline changes:

navigation bar

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/baseline/usda.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:42 PM]
● Macroeconomic assumptions

 -- Economic growth

 -- Real exchange rates

● China

● Strong competitor exports

Impacts of Baseline Changes on Trade and U.S. Agricultural Sector:

● Global trade

● U.S. crops

● Livestock

● U.S. agricultural export value

● Farm income & financial conditions

Baseline Overview--Summary Aggregate Measures

● U.S. agricultural export value

● Farm income

Looking at two aggregate sector measures -- U.S. agricultural export value and farm income --

provides an overview of the changes made in this year's long-run Baseline.

U.S. Agricultural Exports

Reduced global demand and

large world supplies for many

agricultural commodities

weaken prices and hold down

the value of U.S. agricultural

exports early in the baseline.

After 2000, U.S. agricultural

exports are projected to

strengthen for the remainder of

the Baseline, reflecting more

favorable global economic

performance, particularly in

developing countries.

Nonetheless, towards the end of

the Baseline, the value of U.S.

agricultural exports is nearly

$15 billion lower than in last year's projections.

navigation bar

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/baseline/usda.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:42 PM]
Farm Income

Similarly, net farm income is

projected to decline in the near

term before generally rising for

the rest of the Baseline as global

economies improve.

Near the end of the projections,

net farm income is about $8-$9

billion below last year's

projections.

Presentation Introduction, Contents, and Overview | Macroeconomic Assumptions | China | Competitor Exports |

Global Trade | U.S. Crops | Livestock | U.S. Agricultural Export Value | Farm Income & Financial Conditions |

Baseline Briefing Room

Contacts:

Paul Westcott

Rip Landes

Ed Young

Updated: March 8, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

navigation bar

http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/baseline/usda.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:42 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Contents | Subject Specialists | Next Subject | Previous Subject

Food Publications

Agriculture and Food Economy Briefing Room | Food Safety Briefing Room | Food Market Indicators Briefing Food |

Food Security Briefing Room

● General Interest

● Food Advertising

● Food Assistance Programs

● Food Consumption

● Food Costs

● Food Marketing

● Food Safety

● Food Spending

General Interest

Food Security Assessment: Why Countries Are at Risk. Research report. 32 pp. August 1999. Stock # ERS-AIB-754.

$14.00. Food insecurity in many low-income, developing countries is projected to intensify unless steps are taken to

reverse the performance trend of key contributing factors: agricultural productivity, foreign exchange earnings, and

population growth. For the poorest countries, an increase in agricultural productivity is the key to improving food security.

In these countries, imports play a small role in the domestic food supply because of limited foreign exchange availability.

This study evaluates availability and distribution of food and analyzes their trends through 2008 by projecting food gaps to

maintain per capita consumption, meet nutritional needs, and fulfill requirements stemming from unequal food

distribution. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01049. Contacts: shapouri@econ.ag.gov, slrosen@econ.ag.gov.

Consumer Use of Information: Implications for Food Policy. Research report. 32 pp. July 1999. Stock # ERS-AH-715.

$14.00. Government programs that are designed to improve health by changing diets focus on information: education,

public information campaigns, and regulation of advertising and labeling. Research from several social science disciplines

offers insights for public dissemination and regulation of nutrition information. A review of selected literature in

economics, nutrition education, and marketing highlights several research themes. These are the need to motivate

consumers to use nutrition information, the value consumers place on time, the possibility that information can change the

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (1 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
effects of income on food choices, and the value of enhanced life and health from improved nutrition. ERS AutoFAX

summary document # 01401. Contact: laldrich@econ.ag.gov.

Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid: Implications for U.S. Agriculture. Research report. 36 pp. July 1999. Stock

# ERS-AER-779. $14.00. Recent studies show that average diets differ considerably from Food Guide Pyramid

recommendations. The gap between current consumption and recommendations is particularly large for caloric sweeteners,

fats and oils, fruits, and certain vegetables—notably dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, and dry beans, peas, and

lentils. The change in food consumption needed to meet Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations will result in

adjustments in U.S. agricultural production, trade, nonfood uses, and prices. The net adjustment in crop acreage is

projected to be relatively small, about 2 percent of total cropland in 1991-95. However, this small net adjustment masks

larger anticipated changes for some sectors, particularly sweeteners, fats and oils, and citrus fruits. Contacts:

ceyoung@econ.ag.gov, lkantor@econ.ag.gov. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01259.

Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses. August 1997.

FoodReview. Subscription. 3 issues. Stock # ERS-NFR. $27.00. Highlights of the latest issue. Featuring the latest data

and analyses, FoodReview explores the rapidly changing U.S. food system. Trends in food consumption, food assistance,

nutrition, food product development, food safety, and food product trade are analyzed in depth for those who manage,

monitor, or depend on the food system. Also includes key indicators of the food sector and updates on Federal policies and

programs affecting food.

Latest issue in Adobe Acrobat format.

Archive of past issues.

Current Issues in Economics of Food Markets. A series of issue papers synthesizing economic analyses of the complex

relationships in food markets, of interest to officials responsible for public policy, decisionmakers in the industry, and

researchers.

Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: Lessons From the rbST Experience. Stock # ERS-AIB-747-01.

$10.00. The controversial introduction of rbST, a laboratory version of bST, a growth hormone that stimulates milk

production in cows, may provide hopeful lessons for other foods produced by biotechnology. Milk sales remained

steady after rbST became available to dairy farmers, even though a multitude of public opinion surveys

documented widespread concern about food safety and biotechnology, and some analysts predicted a drop in milk

consumption of up to 20 percent. ERS AutoFAX Document # 01141.

● 

Breastfeeding Promotion Research: The ES/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative and Economic Considerations.

Research report. 15 pp. September 1998. Stock # ERS-AIB-744. $12.00. Educating low-income women about the

advantages of breastfeeding their babies increases the number who breastfeed. This report summarizes the results of four

projects that focused primarily on promoting breastfeeding, which is considered to be the most healthful and beneficial

feeding method for most infants. Research has shown that breastfeeding improves the general health, growth, and

development of infants and significantly reduces the risk of several health problems both during early life and in later

years. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01029.

The Food and Fiber System: Contributing to the U.S. and World Economies. Research report. 18 pp. July 1998. Stock

# ERS-AIB-742. $12.00. Even though farming accounts for only about 1 percent of the total national workforce, it is at the

core of the food and fiber system. The system is one of the largest sectors in the U.S. economy, and is comprised of

industries related to farming, including feed, seed, fertilizer, machinery, food processing, manufacturing, and exporting.

The interrelationships among the sectors of the food and fiber system and the U.S. and world economies are many and

complex. As a result, U.S. and world policies and economic factors--such as interest and inflation rates--play a critical role

in everything from the cost and availability of farm credit to the demand for farm products at home and abroad. The farm

crisis of the 1980's illustrates how specific economic events can impact the food and fiber system. In addition, long-term

changes in the system have occurred in response to shifts in consumer incomes, demographics, lifestyles, and perceptions

of health and diet. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01027.

USDA's Healthy Eating Index and Nutrition Information. Research report. 21 pp. April 1998. Stock # ERS-TB-1866.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (2 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
$14.00. This report deals with a comprehensive model that was developed to measure the extent that nutrition knowledge

and diet-health awareness, among other factors, influence an individual's Healthy Eating Index (HEI), USDA's measure of

overall diet quality. This is the first study that rigorously attempts to examine variation in the index across population

groups by controlling for personal and household characteristics and nutrition information levels, as well as test for the

endogeneity of nutrition information. Results indicate that one's level of nutrition information has an important influence

on one's HEI and that nutrition information and the HEI are simultaneously determined. ERS AutoFAX summary document

# 01716.

The Diets of America's Children: Influences of Dining Out, Household Characteristics, and Nutrition Knowledge.

Research report. 36 pp. December 1996. Stock # ERS-AER-746. $25.50. This report uses data from USDA's 1989-91

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey to examine various aspects

of children's diets. Finds that the share of calories from total and saturated fats in children's diets averaged 4 and 3

percentage points above the recommendations. The sodium intake averaged 23 percent above the 2,400 milligrams

recommended by some authorities. These dietary problems start early in childhood and continue into adulthood. ERS

AutoFAX summary document # 01226.

U.S. Processed Food Imports and Exports 1990-94. Research report. 18 pp. December 1996. Stock # ERS-SB-935.

$23.00. This bulletin complements the Processed Food Trade Concordance (1995, AH-707), which summarizes the

procedures used to convert Bureau of the Census trade data to U.S. processed food industry data. Together, both bulletins

provide the procedure used to compile processed food and beverage trade data for 1990-94. Processed food trade trends

are also discussed for 1990-94. The database was produced from Bureau of the Census CD-ROM data. ERS AutoFAX

summary document # 01513.

Globalization of the Processed Foods Market. Research report. 217 pp. September 1996. Stock # ERS-AER-742.

$51.00. Globalization of the U.S. processed food sector is in many ways more extensive and varied than the market in bulk

commodities, though not as widely recognized. This report describes patterns of international commerce in processed

foods, and is aimed at providing a more complete understanding of patterns of global commerce in the processed foods

sector and the causes and consequences of those patterns. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01222.

Test Your Knowledge: Americans and Food. Quiz. 19 pp. July 1996. Stock # ERS-AIB-725. $23.00. A 50-question

food quiz highlighting some of the trends in food consumption, marketing, prices, and expenditures report in several ERS

publications. This informative quiz is designed to be both entertaining and challenging. A useful classroom tool and

excellent source of general information about food trends in America. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01010.

Conduct of Firms in Dynamic U.S. Food Industries. Staff paper. 21 pp. December 1995. Stock # ERS-AGES-9531.

$23.00.

A Complete System of U.S. Demand for Food. Research report. 69 pp. September 1993. Stock # ERS-TB-1821. $29.50.

Describes a complete U.S. food demand system of 39 food categories and 1 nonfood sector estimated by using annual data

from 1953 to 1990.

From Farming to Food Service: The Food and Fiber System's Links with the U.S. and World Economies. Research

report. 37 pp. January 1992. Stock # ERS-AIB-640. $25.50. This report examines the role of farming in the food and fiber

sector, the interaction between the food and fiber sector and the rest of the U.S. economy, and its linkages through trade

with the world economy.

U.S. Demand for Food: A Complete System of Quantity Effects on Prices. Research report. 60 pp. July 1991. Stock #

ERS-TB-1795. $27.50. Explores a large-scale U.S. demand system, providing empirical estimates based on 39 food

categories and 1 nonfood sector.

Data for Food Demand Analysis: Availability, Characteristics, Options. Research report. 48 pp. April 1990. Stock #

ERS-AER-613. $25.50. Discusses the availability, characteristics, and derivation of time series for food consumption,

food prices, food expenditures, and income for use in food demand analysis.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (3 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
A Glossary of Food and Agricultural Policy Terms, 1989. Research report. 52 pp. November 1989. Stock #

ERS-AIB-573. $25.50.

Food Advertising

Analyses of Generic Dairy Advertising, 1984-97. Technical bulletin. 33 pp. February 1999. Stock # ERS-TB-1873.

$14.00. Generic advertising raised fluid milk sales about 6.0 percent, or 18.1 billion pounds, between September 1984 and

September 1997. Sales of cheese rose by about 6.8 million pounds (milk equivalent) in the same period because of

increased generic advertising. An assessment of 15 cents per hundredweight of milk sold commercially, mandated by the

Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983, funded the advertising. Activities of the National Fluid Milk Processor

Promotion Board also contributed to increased milk sales over the past year. Gross returns to dairy farmers between

September 1984 and September 1997 were estimated to increase by $3.44 for each dollar spent on generic advertising.

This report presents the results of econometric demand models that examined the effect of advertising and other facts on

milk and cheese sales. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01723.

Evaluation of Fluid Milk and Cheese Advertising, 1984-96. Technical bulletin. 35 pp. December 1997. Stock #

ERS-TB-1860. $14.00. Reports that generic advertising expenditures raised fluid milk sales about 6.0 percent, or 16.9

billion pounds, between September 1984 and September 1996. Sales of natural and processed cheese consumed at home

rose by about 63.2 million and 498.7 million pounds, respectively, in the same period, because of increased generic

advertising. An assessment of 15 cents per hundredweight of milk sold commercially, mandated by the Dairy and Tobacco

Adjustment Act of 1983, funded the increase in advertising. Activities of the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion

Board contributed to increased milk sales over the past year. Gross returns to dairy farmers were estimated to increase by

$5.33 for each dollar spent on generic advertising. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01713.

Effects of Advertising on the Demand for Cheese and Fluid Milk. Staff report. 30 pp. October 1991. Stock #

ERS-AGES-9154. $25.50.

Effects of Advertising on the Demand for Cheese, January 1982-June 1989. Staff report. 32 pp. August 1990. Stock #

ERS-AGES-9055. $23.00.

Generic Promotion of Agricultural Products: Balancing Producers' and Consumers' Needs. Research report. 6 pp.

July 1989. Stock # ERS-AIB-565. $12.00.

Food Assistance Programs

The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment.

Research report. 28 pp. March 1999. Stock # ERS-AER-773. $14.00. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportuntiy

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) dramatically transformed and continues to transform the food assistance landscape

in the United States. The Act cut more funds from the Food Stamp Progam than it did from any other program, through

reductions in benefits per person and restrictions in eligibility. Despite these cuts, food stamps now have a more prominent

role in the post-welfare reform social safety net because the largest cash-assistance entitlement prorgam, Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (AFDC), was replaced with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, a

nonentitlement program. This leaves the Food Stamp Program as one of the only remaining entitlement programs available

to almost all low-income households. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01253.

Food Procurement by USDA's Farm Service Agency. Research report. 59 pp. September 1998. Stock # ERS-AER-766.

$16.00. USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) purchases food products for distribution through several of the Department's

food assistance programs. This report describes FSA purchase methods and compares them to procurement strategies used

by other Federal agencies and by private sector firms. It summarizes the principal policy issues faced by FSA in designing

procurement strategies. And it uses a detailed statistical analysis to compare FSA prices to those realized in the private

sector, and to identify the separate effects of agricultural commodity prices, seasonality, client location, purchase volumes,

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (4 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
product characteristics, and competition on FSA product prices. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01246.

Proposed Reforms in the Food Stamp Program: Economic Impacts on Agriculture and the Economy of the Work

Opportunity Act of 1995. Staff paper. 13 pp. September 1995. Stock # ERS-AGES-9520. $23.00.

Proposed Reforms in the Food Stamp Program: Economic Impacts on Agriculture and the Economy. Staff paper. 12

pp. August 1995. Stock # ERS-AGES-9516. $23.00.

The ES/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative: Progress in the First Year. Staff paper. 69 pp. August 1995. Stock #

ERS-AGES-9515. $25.50.

The Economics of Food Assistance Programs. Staff paper. 39 pp. June 1995. Stock # ERS-AGES-9507. $25.50.

Comparing the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Stamp Program: Recipient Characteristics,

Market Effects, and Benefit/Cost Ratios. Research report. 16 pp. June 1994. Stock # ERS-AER-689. $23.00. Finds that

the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), a commodity-based program, and the coupon-based Food Stamp

Program can, for a given level of expenditure, serve more needy households than either program can serve alone.

The Effect of Food Stamps and Income on Household Food Expenditures. Research report. 27 pp. July 1991. Stock #

ERS-TB-1794. $25.50. Reexamines past estimates of the effect of income and food stamp benefits on food expenditures.

U.S. Domestic Food Assistance Programs: Lessons from the Past. Research report. 16 pp. January 1990. Stock #

ERS-AIB-570. $23.00. Describes current domestic food assistance programs, their relationships to each other, effects on

food production and marketing sectors, and cost.

Food Consumption

America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Information bulletin. 484 pp. May 1999. Stock # ERS-AIB-750.

$60.00. Individual chapters in this book provide different perspectives on the nutrition problems in the United States: what

are the economic costs associated with unhealthy eating patterns; how do dietary patterns compare with dietary

recommendations; how do national income and prices, advertising, health claims, and trends in eating away from home

affect nutrient intake; how much do people know about nutrition and how does nutrition knowledge and attitudes affect

intake of fats and cholesterol; how do different government programs and regulations influence food expenditures and

consumption; what are some public and private efforts to improve healthy eating; and what are potential impacts of

healthier eating on domestic agriculture. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01144. Contact: efrazao@econ.ag.gov.

Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97. Statistical bulletin. 155 pp. April 1999. Stock # ERS-SB-965.

$21.00. This annual bestseller presents historical data on food consumption, prices, and expenditures by commodity and

commodity group, supply and use, prices, total expenditures, and U.S. income and population. Includes 29 charts dealing

with food consumption trends, from changes in per capita consumption, to share of income spent for food. ERS AutoFAX

summary document # 01522.

Away-From-Home Foods Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet. Research report. 22 pp. January 1999.

Stock # ERS-AIB-749. $14.00. The increasing popularity of dining out over the past two decades has raised the

proportion of nutrients obtained from away-from-home food sources. Between 1977 and 1995, home foods significantly

improved their nutritional quality, more so than away-from-home foods, which typically contained more of the nutrients

overconsumed (fat and saturated fat) and less of the nutrients underconsumed (calcium, fiber, and iron) by Americans.

Since the trend of eating out frequently is expected to continue, strategies to improve the American diet must address

consumers' food choices when eating out. This report analyzes food intake survey data collected by USDA over the past

two decades to compare the nutritional quality of home and away-from-home foods and examine how the quality has

changed over time. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01143.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (5 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
A Dietary Assessment of the U.S. Food Supply: Comparing Per Capita Food Consumption with Food Guide

Pyramid Serving Recommendations. Research report. 52 pp. December 1998. Stock # ERS-AER-772. $16.00. Find that

most American diets do not meet Federal Food Guide Pyramid dietary recommendations. On average, people consume too

many servings of added fats and sugars and too few servings of fruits, vegetables, dairy products, lean meats, and foods

made from whole grains. This report is the first dietary assessment to use ERS's time-series food supply data to compare

average diets with Federal dietary recommendations depicted in the Food Guide Pyramid. Food Guide Pyramid servings

were estimated for more than 250 agricultural commodities for 1970-96. New techniques were developed to adjust the data

for food spoilage and other losses accumulated throughout the marketing system and the home.

Factors Affecting Nutrient Intake of the Elderly. Research report. 10 pp. October 1998. Stock # ERS-AER-769.

$12.00. This report, an exploratory investigation, provides estimates of the effects of selected characteristics of the

household and its constituents on individual nutrient consumption of elderly heads of households. Formal education was

positively related to nutrient consumption. The elderly who live in households with income below 130 percent of the

poverty level tended to have lower nutrient intakes than those elderly in households with higher incomes. Blacks,

urbanites, and Southerners generally consumed less of the selected nutrients. Neither participation in the Food Stamp

Program nor receipt of surplus foods was a significant factor in nutrient intake of elderly individuals. Possible nutrition

interventions focus on targeted audiences and programs. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01249.

Socio-Economic Determinants of Food Insecurity in the United States: Evidence from the SIPP and CSFII Datasets.

Technical bulletin. 38 pp. November 1997. Stock # ERS-TB-1869. $12.00. This technical bulletin reports empirical

findings on the determinants of food insecurity in the United States using data from the 1989-91 Continuing Survey of

Food Intake by Individuals and the 1992 Survey of Income and Program Participation. Descriptive statistics on food

insufficiency status (a proxy measure for the most food-insecure households) are presented from both surveys. There was

not a one-to-one correspondence between poverty and food insufficiency, with over 40 percent of food-insufficient

households above the poverty line. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01719.

How Economic Factors Influence the Nutrient Content of Diets. Technical bulletin. 38 pp. November 1997. Stock #

ERS-TB-1864. $14.00. This report describes a new research model that estimates how the availability of 28 nutrients

would change as consumers altered their food purchases in response to changes in food prices and income through the

interdependent food demand relationships. The report notes that economic factors such as food prices and consumer

income affect food choices with consequences for the availability of nutrients. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01714.

Validation of a Self-Reported Measure of Household Food Insufficiency with Nutrient Intake Data. Technical

bulletin. 14 pp. August 1997. Stock # ERS-TB-1863. $12.00. To improve understanding of self-reported indicators of

food insecurity and hunger, this study examined the external validity of one such measure using nutrient intake data from

the 1989-91 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). Food-insufficient households were defined as those

reporting that they sometimes or often did not get enough to eat; the rest of the sample households were classified as

food-sufficient. Nutrient adequacy ratios were calculated for 15 nutrients and averaged at the household level. Multiple

regression analysis was used to study the association of food sufficiency with these indicators of nutrient intake, while

controlling for other influences on dietary patterns, such as age, race-ethnicity, and schooling of the household head;

income status, size and composition of the household; and geographic and seasonal influences on diet. ERS AutoFAX

summary document # 01713.

Diet-Health Information and Nutrition: The Intake of Dietary Fats and Cholesterol. Technical bulletin. 45 pp.

February 1997. Stock # ERS-TB-1855. $16.00. Uses diet-health information and nutrient intake data for a sample of U.S.

household meal planners to estimate the effect of information on the intake of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. ERS

AutoFAX summary document # 01710.

Modeling Nutrient Intake: The Role of Dietary Information. Technical bulletin. 23 pp. May 1995. Stock #

ERS-TB-1842. $25.50. Measuring the effect of nutrition information on an individual's intake of dietary fiber is crucial for

understanding and quantifying the linkage between nutrition education programs and actual consumption behavior. Dietary

information and intake data for a sample of U.S. household meal planners are used to estimate the effect of fiber-specific

information on dietary fiber intake.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (6 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
The American Diet: Health and Economic Consequences. Research report. 25 pp. February 1995. Stock #

ERS-AIB-711. $25.50. This report presents an overall picture of what we know about how diet affects chronic disease and

the overall costs associated with seven diet-related health conditions.

Dietary Fiber: Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristics and Knowledge. Research report. 13 pp. December 1994.

Stock # ERS-TB-1840. $23.00. Presents an initial investigation into the relationships between knowledge, attitudes,

awareness, and fiber intake. Looks at the connection between one's fiber knowledge and one's actual intake.

Consumer Concerns About Nutrition: Opportunities for the Food Sector. Research report. 16 pp. October 1994.

Stock # ERS-AIB-705. $23.00. A brief look at the shift in food consumption patterns over the past 20 years. Shows that

although there is still considerable room for improvement in meeting Federal food guidelines, nutrition concerns have

become an important factor in food choices.

U.S. Demand for Food: Household Expenditures, Demographics, and Projections for 1990-2010. Research report. 57

pp. December 1993. Stock # ERS-TB-1818. $27.00. Food expenditure models indicate that higher income households

spend more per person than poorer households on most food groups, especially food away from home, fish, cheese, other

dairy foods, fresh fruit, and processed fruit.

Changes in Food Consumption and Expenditures in Low-Income American Households During the 1980's.

Statistical bulletin. 81 pp. November 1993. Stock # ERS-SB-870. $29.50. Presents information on the quantity and dollar

value of food consumption in 65 major food groups in low-income American households for 1977-78, 1979-80, and

1987-88 by selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.

Food Costs

The Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on Food and Kindred Products Prices: An Analysis of Price

Pass-Through. Technical bulletin. 32 pp. August 1999. Stock # ERS-TB-1877. $14.00. An input-output model is used to

analyze price pass-through effects of a minimum wage increase on prices of the food and kindred products and

food-service industries. These sectors employ a disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, but results suggest a

$0.50 increase in the present minimum wage would increase food prices less than 1 percent for most of the 12 food and

kindred products prices and 1 percent at eating and drinking places. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01727. Contact:

chinlee@econ.ag.gov.

Food Cost Indexes for Low-Income Households and the General Population . Research report. 26 pp. February 1999.

Stock # ERS-TB-1872. $14.00. The results of this study indicate that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has not

systematically overestimated or underestimated the food costs incurred by the general population. "True-cost-of-food"

indexes calculated for the general population tend to be the same as or slightly lower then the CPI except for 1994 and

1995. The true-cost indexes also indicate that there are economies to household size, that black households incur lower

costs than nonblack households, and that the households in the West tend to have the highest costs. True-cost indexes for

low-income households tend to be about the same as the CPI for one-person households, and lower than the CPI for twoand four-person households in all years. This is a significant finding in that components of the CPI for food at home are

indirectly used to adjust benefit levels for food stamp recipients. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01722.

Nonfarm Input Prices, Price Margins, and Consumer Food Prices. Research report. 21 pp. March 1998. Stock #

ERS-TB-1867. $12.00. ERS often bases its analyses of retail food and farm prices on a traditional, fixed-input proportions

framework. This Technical Bulletin reviews the implications of fixed- and variable-proportions production for food and

farm price analysis. Based on this review, one would expect significantly different price predictions, and the empirical

results presented confirm this expectation. This report recommends more consideration be given to price analyses based on

variable-proportions models. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01717.

Food Cost Review, 1950-97. Research report. 60 pp. July 1999. Stock # ERS-AER-780. $16.00. Food prices, as

measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), increased 2.6 percent in 1997. This increase was greater than the overall

increase in the CPI (which rose 2.3 percent) for the third consecutive year. Higher charges for processing and distributing

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (7 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
food, as measured by the farm-to-retail price spread, were primarily responsible for the 1997 increase. The prices farmers

received for commodities, as measured by the farm value of USDA’s market basket of foods, dropped 4.4 percent. The

farm value share of the food dollar spent in grocery stores in 1997 was 23 percent, a decrease of 2 percent from 1996. The

farm-to-retail price spread of USDA’s market basket of foods rose 4.7 percent, partly reflecting higher prices of inputs,

such as labor. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01260. Contact: helitzak@econ.ag.gov.

Food Cost Review, 1996. Data and tables. Research report. 38 pp. December 1997. Stock # ERS-AER-761. $21.00. This

popular annual report presents USDA's findings on the 1996 farm-to-retail price spread. Consumers paid 3.3-percent

higher prices for food in 1996, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This increase was greater than the overall

increase in the CPI (which rose 2.9 percent) for the second consecutive year. The prices farmers received for commodities,

as measured by the farm value of USDA's market basket of foods, rose 8.1 percent. ERS AutoFAX summary document #

01241.

Do the Poor Pay More for Food? Item Selection and Price Differences Affect Low-Income Household Food Costs.

Research report. 32 pp. December 1997. Stock # ERS-AER-759. $14.00. Low-income households may face higher food

prices for three reasons: 1) on average, low-income households may spend less in supermarkets--which typically offer the

lowest prices and greatest range of brands, package sizes, and quality choices; 2) low-income households are less likely to

live in suburban locations where food prices are typically lower; 3) supermarkets in low-income neighborhoods may

charge higher prices than those in nearby higher income areas. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01239.

Changing Consumer Food Prices: A User's Guide to ERS Analyses. Technical bulletin. 8 pp. June 1997. Stock #

TB-1862. $12.00. ERS uses different economic models to estimate the impact of higher input prices on consumer food

prices. This technical bulletin compares three ERS models. In the first two models (referred to as "shortrun" models),

neither consumers nor food producers respond to market prices. In the third model (a "longrun" model), both consumers

and food producers respond to changing prices. The authors simulated the impact of a higher energy price on consumer

food prices. The empirical findings are consistent with expected market responses. In the short run, the effect of an

increase in the price of energy is fully (or nearly fully) passed on to consumers, because neither food producers nor

consumers can immediately respond to changing prices. In the long run, however, the price response of food producers and

consumers serves to mitigate the increase in consumer food prices. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01712.

Food Expenditure Estimates from the 1995 CPS Food Security Supplement: How Do They Compare with the

Consumer Expenditure Survey? Staff paper. 25 pp. September 1996. Stock # ERS-AGES-9617. $25.50.

Forecasting Seven Components of the Food CPI. Technical bulletin. 17 pp. September 1996. Stock # ERS-TB-1851.

$23.00. Explains the price forecasting procedure used by ERS' Food and Consumer Economics Division to users, and

evaluates the quality of the forecasts. FCED's procedure is documented and interpreted, then evaluated using the seven

monthly series of the food Consumer Price Index for which FCED computes forecasts. ERS AutoFAX summary document

# 01706.

Food Costs . . . From Farm to Retail in 1993. Research report. 11 pp. April 1994. Stock # ERS-AIB-698. $23.00.

Shows how much food costs are changing and explores the reasons why. It looks at how much of the consumer food dollar

goes to the farmer and how much to food processors and marketers.

Construction of True Cost of Food Indexes from Estimated Engel Curves. Research report. 40 pp. May 1991. Stock #

ERS-TB-1787. $25.50. Compares estimated indexes of the true cost of food with the Consumer Price Index for

households of differing characteristics.

Retail to Farm Linkage for a Complete Demand System of Food Commodities. Research report. 47 pp. December

1989. Stock # ERS-TB-1775. $27.00.

Supermarket Prices and Price Differences: City, Firm, and Store-Level Determinants. Research report. 68 pp.

December 1989. Stock # ERS-TB-1776. $27.00.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (8 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
Food Marketing

Food Marketing System in 1996. Research report. 15 pp. July 1998. Stock # ERS-AIB-743. $12.00. New food product

introductions fell sharply in 1996. The number of new plants, consumer advertising expenditures, and common stock

prices reached new highs in 1996, as did the number of mergers in the foodservice industry. Profitability from food

manufacturing and retailing was higher due to strong sales, wage and producer price stability, and streamlining of

operations. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01028.

Food Marketing Review, 1994-95. Research report. 137 pp. September 1996. Stock # ERS-AER-743. $36.00. Finds that

the value of food marketing merger transactions rose sharply in both 1994 and 1995. U.S. food marketing sales reached an

estimated $860 billion in 1995. Profits from operations for food manufacturers and retailers rose because of continued

wage and producer price stability. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01223.

From Farmers to Consumers: Vertical Coordination in the Food Industry. Research report. 9 pp. June 1996. Stock #

ERS-AIB-720. $29.50. Vertical coordination refers to the allocation of resources across successive stages of a food supply

system. Methods of coordination include open production, contract production, and vertical integration. This report

examines the various forms of vertical coordination, reviews the recent history of vertical coordination, and looks at its

future, including its implications for market control and environmental protection. ERS AutoFAX summary document #

01005.

Size and Growth of the Nutritionally Improved Food Market. Research report. 41 pp. April 1996. Stock #

ERS-AIB-723. $27.00. This study uses supermarket scanner data for 1989-93 to evaluate the size and growth of the

market for nutritionally improved foods relative to their traditional counterparts. Sales of nutritionally improved foods

grew faster than sales of regular versions in U.S. supermarkets even though nutritionally improved foods generally cost

more. The study covers 37 food categories. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01008.

Grocery Retailing Concentration in Metropolitan Areas, 1954-82. Research report. 47 pp. August 1993. Stock #

ERS-TB-1817. $27.00. Finds that grocery retailing concentration in U.S. cities increased on average in 1982, continuing a

long-term trend.

Rearranging the Economic Landscape: The Food Marketing Revolution, 1959-91. Research report. 165 pp.

September 1992. Stock # ERS-AER-660. $41.00. This report examines the changes in the marketing of farm and food

products since 1950 and the factors that have caused such change.

The Food Marketing Revolution, 1950-90. Research report. 8 pp. August 1991. Stock # ERS-AIB-627. $23.00. Looks at

some of the changes in population, lifestyle, income, and attitudes which significantly changed the food marketing system:

a boom in supermarkets, greater diversity among supermarkets, fewer but larger wholesaling firms, growth in

away-from-home eating, and internationalization of manufacturing.

Food Safety

Estimated Annual Costs of Campylobacter-Associated Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Research report. 29 pp. July 1997.

Stock # ERS-AER-756. $14.00. Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an autoimmune reaction that can cause acute

neuromuscular paralysis. Of an estimated 2,628 to 9,575 new U.S. cases annually, 526 to to 3,830 are triggered by

infection with Campylobacter, the most frequently isolated cause of foodborne diarrhea. This report estimates the annual

cost-of-illness of GBS caused by all Campylobacter infections and by foodborne Campobacter infections in the United

States. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01236.

An Economic Assessment of Food Safety Regulations: The New Approach to Meat and Poultry Inspection. Research

report. 21 pp. July 1997. Stock # ERS-AER-755. $12.00. USDA is now requiring all Federally inspected meat and poultry

processing and slaughter plants to implement a new system called "Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points" (HACCP)

to reduce potentially harmful microbial pathogens in the food supply. This report finds that the benefits of the new

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (9 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
regulation, which are the medical costs and productivity losses that are prevented when foodborne illnesses are averted,

will likely exceed the costs, which include spending by firms on sanitation, temperature control, planning and training, and

testing. Other, nonregulatory approaches can also improve food safety, such as providing market incentives for pathogen

reduction, irradiation, and education and labeling to promote safe food handling and thorough cooking. ERS AutoFAX

summary document # 01235.

Bacterial Foodborne Disease: Medical Costs and Productivity Losses. Research report. 81 pp. August 1996. Stock #

ERS-AER-741. $29.50. This report documents ERS analyses for six bacteria--salmonella, campylobacter jejuni,

escherichia coli O157:H7, listeria monocytogenes, staphylococcus aureus, and clostridium perfringens--providing a

comprehensive, detailed accounting of how the cost-of-illness estimates were calculated and updated to 1993 dollars. ERS

AutoFAX summary document # 01221.

Pesticide Residues: Reducing Dietary Risks. Research report. 36 pp. January 1996. Stock # ERS-AER-728. $25.50.

Consumers' dietary intake of pesticide residues comes from four identifiable sources: onfarm pesticide use, pesticides used

on imported foods, and canceled pesticides (those with canceled registrations for use) that persist in the environment. This

report shows how each of these sources contributes to dietary risk from pesticide residues and ranks pesticides according

to their contribution to dietary risk. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01208.

Tracking Foodborne Pathogens from Farm to Table: Data Needs to Evaluate Control Options. Proceedings. 188 pp.

December 1995. Stock # ERS-MP-1532. $44.00. The proceedings from the January 9-10, 1995 conference in

Washington, DC, held by members of Regional Research Project NE-165, a group of more than 70 economists at

landgrant universities and government agencies conducting research on the food system. Topics covered include human

foodborne disease, susceptibility, and food consumption data; tracking foodborne pathogen data from farm to retail;

integrating data for risk management; and a policy roundtable concerning how food safety data and analysis can help in

program and policy design. ERS AutoFAX summary document # 01430.

Economic Issues Associated With Food Safety. Staff paper. 26 pp. February 1995. Stock # ERS-AGES-9506. $23.00.

Using Historical Information to Identify Consumer Concerns About Food Safety. Research report. 19 pp. July 1994.

Stock # ERS-TB-1835. $23.00. Finds that how the news cover food safety issues could affect consumption patterns,

depending on type of food and risk. Examines coverage of food safety concerns during 1937-91 as an indicator of how risk

was perceived, based on information appearing in Consumer Reports.

A Summary of the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. Research report. 10 pp. December 1993.

Stock # ERS-AIB-680. $23.00. All agricultural employers whose workers perform hand labor operations in fields, forests,

nurseries, and greenhouses treated with pesticides in these locations are covered by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's worker protection standard issued August 21, 1992. This supplement to A Summary of Federal Laws and

Regulations Affecting Agricultural Employers, 1992 (AIB-652) summarizes this regulation.

Pesticide Residues and Food Safety: Aspects of a Changing Structure. Research report. 52 pp. February 1991. Stock #

ERS-AGES-9110. $25.50.

The Economics of Safeguarding the U.S. Food Supply. Research report. 8 pp. July 1989. Stock # ERS-AIB-566.

$12.00.

Economic Analysis of Electron Accelerators and Cobalt-60 for Irradiating Food. Research report. 38 pp. June 1989.

Stock # ERS-TB-1762. $25.50.

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (10 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
Food Spending

U.S. Trends in Eating Away From Home 1982-89: A Survey by Eating Occasion, Type of Foodservice

Establishment, and Kind of Food. Research report. 70 pp. December 1995. Stock # ERS-SB-926. $29.50. Offers

detailed statistics on the types of eating places frequented, the kinds of foods consumed, and whether the foods constituted

a snack or a meal. Finds that Americans are on the verge of spending as much on food away from home as they do on food

prepared at home: 46 percent today of their food dollars today, compared with 34 percent in 1970. ERS AutoFAX summary

document # 01504.

Food Spending in American Households, 1980-92. Statistical bulletin. 74 pp. October 1994. Stock # ERS-SB-888.

$29.50. Presents information on trends in household food expenditures for major food groups by selected demographic

factors for 1980-92.

Food Spending by Female-Headed Households. Research report. 60 pp. July 1992. Stock # ERS-TB-1806. $27.00. The

study analyzes the influence of household type on food expenditure patterns, after controlling for income and other

socio-economic characteristics.

How Did Household Characteristics Affect Food Spending in 1980-88? Research report. 17 pp. February 1992. Stock

# ERS-AIB-643. $23.00. Looks at trends in U.S. per capita consumption of total food, food at home, and food away from

home using the latest data from annual surveys of urban household food spending for 1980 to 1988.

U.S. Food Spending and Income: Changes Through the Years. Research report. 19 pp. January 1991. Stock #

ERS-AIB-618. $23.00. Explores relationships that have contributed to increases in U.S. food spending over the years and

the decline in food spending's share of personal income.

Top of Page | Contents | Next Subject | Previous Subject

Contact: joand@econ.ag.gov

Updated: September 2, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

Publications -- Food 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-fd.htm (11 of 11) [10/5/1999 3:34:47 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Backgrounders

March 9, 1999

One-Year Progress Report on Salmonella Testing for Raw

Meat and Poultry Products

Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is releasing a progress report on its

first 12 months of testing for Salmonella in large meat and poultry plants. The Agency released its first progress

report, covering the first 6 months of testing, in September 1998, and a second covering 9 months in January 1999.

The 12-month progress report, which covers January 26, 1998, through January 25, 1999, presents data for four

product classes: broilers, swine, ground beef and ground turkey.

Although results are still considered preliminary, and the data are insufficient to generalize across the industry,

Salmonella prevalence in each of these four products was lower after Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

(HACCP) implementation than in baseline studies conducted before HACCP implementation. In addition, the

majority of plants are complying with the Salmonella performance standards. The results are encouraging in light of

the Agency's goal to reduce, to the extent possible, pathogens that can cause foodborne illness.

Consumers should continue to properly handle, prepare, and store all meat, poultry, and egg products in order to

guard against foodborne illness.

Background

On July 25, 1996, FSIS published its final rule on Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Systems, which established new

requirements for all meat and poultry products to improve food safety. Under the rule, all slaughter and processing

plants are required to adopt the system of process controls known as HACCP to prevent food safety hazards. In

addition, slaughter plants are required to conduct microbial testing for generic E. coli to verify that their process

control systems are working as intended to prevent fecal contamination, the primary avenue of contamination for

harmful bacteria. FSIS also required plants to adopt and follow written Standard Operating Procedures for sanitation

(SSOPs) to reduce the likelihood that harmful bacteria will contaminate the finished product.

In addition, to verify that HACCP systems are effective in controlling contamination from harmful bacteria, the rule

sets pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella that slaughter plants and plants that produce raw,

ground meat and poultry have to meet. FSIS conducts testing to verify that plants have met the standards by taking

samples of the products and analyzing them for Salmonella in FSIS laboratories.

The requirements contained in the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and HACCP are being phased in. The

requirements for SSOPs in all plants, and generic E. coli testing in slaughter plants, became effective on January 27,

1997. The requirements for HACCP and the Salmonella performance standards are being phased in based on plant

size. All large plants--those with 500 or more employees--were required to implement these requirements on January

26, 1998. Large plants account for approximately 75 percent of slaughter production. Small plants--those with 10 or

more, but fewer than 500 employees--implemented these requirements by January 25, 1999. Very small plants--those

having fewer than 10 employees or annual sales of less than $2.5 million--have until January 25, 2000 to meet these

One-Year Progress Report on Salmonella Testing

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/salmtest3.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:50 PM]
requirements. Thus, this progress report includes data only from large plants.

Salmonella Performance Standards and Testing Program

The performance standards for Salmonella represent the first time USDA has set microbial standards for raw products

on such a broad scale and is the first step towards a greater reliance on performance standards for specific pathogens.

Salmonella was selected as the target pathogen because it is one of the most common causes of foodborne illness, it is

present at varying frequencies on all types of raw meat and poultry products, and it can easily be tested for in a

variety of products.

Separate performance standards apply to each species and class of product and are listed in the final rule on Pathogen

Reduction and HACCP (9CRF, sections 310.25(b) and 381.94(b). Products currently covered by performance

standards are carcasses of cattle, swine, and broilers; and ground beef, ground chicken, and ground turkey. The

pathogen reduction performance standards are based on the prevalence of Salmonella, as determined from FSIS'

nationwide microbial baseline surveys. Thus, the standards are based on industry averages, rather than how much

Salmonella it takes to make someone sick. The reason for this is the Agency does not have solid data on the

relationship between rates of contamination and their association with foodborne illness. FSIS intends to adjust the

standards in the future as new data become available.

The standards are expressed in terms of the maximum number of positive samples that are allowed per sample set

(sample sets are statistically determined and range from 51 samples for broilers to 82 samples for steers/heifers). For

example, in steers and heifers, only 1 out of 82 samples is permitted to be positive. For broilers, 12 out of 51 samples

are permitted to be positive. Samples are either positive or negative-the results are not expressed in terms of number

of organisms found in a sample.

Plants must achieve the standard consistently over time through good process control. If a plant fails to meet the

standard, it must take corrective action, or FSIS suspends inspection services for the product until plant management

provides acceptable written assurances that appropriate action has been taken to correct the problem.

FSIS is not using test results to condemn products. Instead, the results are being used to verify that HACCP systems

are effective in controlling contamination with Salmonella and other pathogens. The presence of Salmonella positives

above the standard is an indication that the plant's system for addressing contamination is not working, and the plant

must take steps to correct the problem.

Progress Report on Salmonella Testing

FSIS is presenting the results of the first 12 months of testing in the 200 large meat and poultry plants for which

sufficient data are available--that is, broilers, swine, ground beef and ground turkey. "Sufficient" is defined as having

completed sample sets from 10 or more establishments.

Table 1 presents the Salmonella summary data for broilers, swine, ground beef and ground turkey. Results indicate

that Salmonella, found on 20 percent of broiler carcasses in pre-HACCP baseline studies, was found on 10.9 percent

of broiler carcasses after implementation. For swine, Salmonella was found on 8.7 percent of carcasses in

pre-HACCP baseline studies, and 6.5 percent of carcasses after HACCP implementation. In ground beef, Salmonella

was found in 7.5 percent of samples in pre-HACCP baseline studies, and 4.8 percent of samples after HACCP

implementation. For ground turkey, Salmonella was found in 49.9 percent in pre-HACCP baseline studies, and in

36.4 percent of samples after HACCP implementation. Caution should be used in comparing these data because the

sampling protocols, seasonal periods, and the number of plants vary among the testing phases. Nevertheless,

summary data indicate a general trend toward lower percentages of products that are positive for Salmonella

compared to the baseline studies.

Table 2 presents the percentage of plants meeting the Salmonella performance standards. Results indicate that most

One-Year Progress Report on Salmonella Testing

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/salmtest3.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:50 PM]
plants for which sample sets have been completed have met standards. Product-specific compliance was 91 percent

for broilers, 71 percent for swine, 90 percent for ground beef and 91 percent for ground turkey. Plants failing to meet

the performance standard were formally notified and required to take immediate action, consistent with the

regulations, to comply with the requirements.

A more detailed report on Salmonella testing data in large plants is available on the FSIS web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/salmdata.htm

Table 1. Prevalence of Salmonella in meat and poultry products: Post-HACCP implementation

results from large plants – January 26, 1998, through January 25, 1999*

Class of Product Pre-HACCP Baseline Studies** Post-HACCP implementation

Salmonella Prevalence (%)

n=no. samples

Broilers 20% 10.9% (n=5697)

Swine 8.7% 6.5% (n=1532)

Ground Beef 7.5% 4.8% (n=1184)

Ground Turkey 49.9% 36.4% (n=748)

*Reflects testing results from products with 10 or more completed sample sets

**Corresponds to Salmonella performance standards, 9 CFR § § 310.25(b) and 381.94(b)

Table 2: Percentage of Large Plants Meeting the Salmonella Performance Standards –

January 26, 1998, through January 25, 1999*

Class of Product Number of

Plants

Number of Plants with

Complete Data Sets

Percent (Number) Meeting

Salmonella Performance

Standard*

Broilers 124 76 91% (69)

Swine 33 17 71% (12)

Ground Beef 25 10 90% (9)

Ground Turkey 17 11 91% (10)

Total 199 114 88% (100)

*Reflects testing results from products with 10 or more completed sample sets

For

Further Information Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education and Communications Staff

Public Outreach and Communications

Phone: (202) 720-9352

Fax: (202) 720-9063

Backgrounders Menu | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

One-Year Progress Report on Salmonella Testing

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/salmtest3.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:34:50 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Snapshot of U.S. Homocysteine

Levels

By Judy McBride

March 15, 1999

A profile of blood homocysteine levels across teenage and adult

age groups in the U.S. confirms findings of earlier,

nonrepresentative studies: This recently recognized risk factor

for heart disease increases with age and is higher in males than

females.

Homocysteine is produced during the conversion of one amino

acid into another. Incomplete conversion causes a buildup of

homocysteine in the blood where it is thought to irritate artery

linings, encouraging formation of plaque--fatty deposits that

cling to artery walls.

Paul Jacques and colleagues at the USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, collaborated on the

study with scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention in Atlanta, Ga., and Hyattsville, Md. The Boston

center is funded by the Agricultural Research Service, USDA's

chief scientific agency.

The researchers used sera from the latest National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey to measure homocysteine for

3,766 males and 4,819 females from age 12 up. Homocysteine

levels between the two genders were closest in the young and

old, diverging around puberty and converging after menopause.

Low intake of folate, vitamin B12 or vitamin B6 can be a cause

for the homocysteine buildup. Orange juice and green leafy

vegetables are good sources of folate, which seems the most

limiting of the three vitamins.

One unexpected finding: Mexican-American females had the

Snapshot of U.S. Homocysteine Levels / March 15, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990315.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:57 PM]
lowest homocysteine levels--significantly lower than

non-Hispanic African-American and white subjects. The

researchers don't have an explanation for this finding yet.

They suspect impaired kidney function may contribute to the

higher homocysteine levels in older people. Body size, estrogen

and vitamin status may explain the difference between genders.

A story about the research appears in the March issue of ARS'

Agricultural Research magazine. The story is also on the World

Wide Web at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar99/snap0399.htm

Scientific contact: Paul Jacques, USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, Mass., phone (617)

556-3322, fax (617) 556-3344, paul@hnrc.tufts.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Snapshot of U.S. Homocysteine Levels / March 15, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990315.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:34:57 PM]
March 1999

Volume XI, No. 3

Features

How Is South Africa Stacking Up?

South Africa’s leaders are taking a second look at their economic picture, fine-tuning

the system that promises to be a showcase for the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

What’s the Scoop on Sub-Saharan Africa?

As Sub-Saharan Africa rises to meet the challenge of the 21st century, the United States stands to gain new trading

partners.

Kenya’s the Market for U.S. Consumer-Oriented

Foods

Joint ventures provide a profitable way for exporters to get in on the ground

floor of this emerging East African export market.

Fact File: Agricultural Exports Set a Slower Pace

U.S. agricultural exports slowed further in fiscal 1998, slipping below $54

billion–but analysts found some plus signs among the minuses.

The Lunch Bunch Drives Convenience Sales in South China

Convenience stores in South China have found a new niche–filling their customers’ lunch bags.

Private Labels Will Wrap Up Success in Uruguay

March 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 3

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/mar99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:02 PM]
On the way to trade liberalization, Uruguay began getting its economic act together

and checking out the world food market.

U.S. Wines Cast a Spell in Jamaica

Though the market is small, U.S. wine is getting anything but a rum deal in Jamaica

these days.

Ethnic Foods Boom in France

Food is a common link between all cultures, and the French are making the most of

this realization.

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Marlene Phillips

Mary Rekas

Eric Van Chantfort

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. 703-605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Thursday, February 25, 1999

March 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 3

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/mar99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:02 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Concentration and Structural Change in U.S. Agriculture

The 1999 Drought

Impacts of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management

Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform

New U.S. Farm Resource Regions

Risk Management

Food Irradiation

Issues Center Archives

Top of Page

Contacts: Kathryn Lipton, Jack Harrison

Updated: July 22, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Issues Center

http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/ [10/5/1999 3:35:07 PM]
Farmers and land managers can now determine—right in the field—whether their soils contain too

much salt or sodium, thanks to a new commercial test kit based on ARS research. Standard salinity

and sodicity tests performed by a laboratory require collection and shipment of soil samples. Getting the

results may take up to 2 months at a cost of $50 per sample. The new test relies on electrode

measurements rather than chemical analysis and gives results in 5 minutes for about $3 per sample. The

kit also includes easy-to-use computer software and a manual to help users take steps to improve their

soil quality. Approximately 30 percent of irrigated land in the United States and 50 percent worldwide is

affected by salt. Soil salinity increases as irrigation or drainage waters evaporate and leave salts behind.

Sodic soils are those with too much sodium relative to their calcium and magnesium content. Both

conditions hinder plant growth and reduce crop yields. The test was developed under a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement between ARS and the Hach Company in Loveland, CO.

U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, CA

James Rhoades, (909) 369-4867, jrhoades@ussl.ars.usda.gov

Guardian, a new peach tree rootstock, has begun helping growers battle the leading cause of peach

tree death in the Southeast. Peach tree short life (PTSL) costs growers about $10 million annually. It

strikes in the spring, usually when the trees are three to seven years old. ARS and Clemson University

scientists codeveloped Guardian, which proved its value during its first field tests from 1989 to 1996 in

South Carolina and Georgia. Scientists planted trees on Guardian rootstock and compared them to trees

grown on two commonly used commercial rootstocks, Lovell and Nemaguard. Lovell has tolerance to

PTSL; Nemaguard resists root-knot nematodes. Guardian has a unique combination of resistance to both

problems. By 1996, no Guardian trees were lost to PTSL in test orchards in South Carolina, and only 20

percent were lost in Georgia. By contrast, 97 percent of the Lovell trees in South Carolina died, and 40

percent died in Georgia. For Nemaguard, 95 percent of South Carolina's trees and 80 percent of Georgia's

succumbed to the disease. ARS and Clemson University have jointly applied for a plant variety

protection certificate on Guardian rootstock, which is available only through licensed nurseries.

Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Laboratory, Byron, GA

Thomas G. Beckman, (912) 956-6436, a03tbeckman@attmail.com.

Charleston Greenpack southernpea is a new, high-yielding, pinkeye-type southern pea developed

for the frozen food industry. Unlike conventional pinkeye peas, Charleston Greenpack is the first

pinkeye-type variety developed that has green cotyledons or first leaves, so dried peas have a persistent

green color. ARS scientists developed the new variety under a Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement with Western Seed Multiplication, Inc., of Oglethorpe, GA. The new pea plants grow low and

Into the Marketplace, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/m498.htm (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:10 PM]
bushy, producing pods in 62 to 69 days. Each pod, about 61⁄2 inches long, holds 14 peas—more than the

two leading southernpea varieties. In the southeastern U.S., Charleston Greenpack can be planted in

spring, mid-season or fall. Dry peas are light olive in color, have a smooth seed coat and are small: 100

weigh about 1/2 ounce. Blanching in boiling water restores the dry peas to a near-fresh green color. The

new pea also proved highly resistant to blackeye cowpea mosaic virus, one of the biggest threats to pea

crops. In 1996, Charleston Greenpack performed well in farm trials in Georgia and Florida conducted by

Western Seed. Western Seed has an exclusive license to market the new cultivar. Its attractive

appearance when frozen has caught the eye of frozen food processors and created a substantial demand

for seed. The new pea is suitable for use by home gardeners. Limited quantities of seed should be

available to them by spring of 2000.

U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, SC

Richard L. Fery, (843) 556-0840, rfery@awod.com

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements

...With Sterling International Inc., of Veradale, WA, to develop the best delivery system for a new

insect attractant. ARS developed the lure, the first to work on German yellowjackets, golden paper

wasps, European hornets and several other species. Commercial traps could be available in a year.

Yellowjackets and wasps can be dangerous to workers and others in fruit orchards during picking season;

as well as around parks, residential yards and other areas. The stings can cause a potentially dangerous

allergic reaction in some people. The new lure could provide a means of monitoring and controlling the

insects. It uses acetic acid and isobutanol, which combine to create an odor desirable to many species of

yellowjackets, at least three species of paper wasp and a hornet. Five of the 17 U.S. yellowjacket species

are considered significant pests. (PATENT APPLICATION 09/041,056)

Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, Wapato, WA

Peter J. Landolt, (509) 454-6551, landolt@yarl.gov

...With ATO-DLO, a Dutch institution in Wageningen, The Netherlands, to develop ways to make

commercial products with high-grade protein gels. ARS scientists produced these gels from chrome

shavings that are waste products of cattle hide tanning. Using alkaline protease, a common laundry

detergent enzyme, the ARS researchers produced a protein gelatin that can be used in making adhesives,

industrial films for packaging, and encapsulating agents for industrial and agricultural chemicals. The

high-grade protein is equal—and in some cases superior—to commercially produced gelatins. Tanners

get only 50 pounds of leather from 100 pounds of cattle hides, leaving 50 pounds of waste. They tan

hides into leather with nontoxic chromium-III sulfate, then shave the bottom sides of the hides to give

them a uniform thickness. As a result, each year about 60,000 metric tons of chrome shavings end up as

waste bound for landfills. Scientists also purified the chromium left over after the proteins were removed

and reused it as an agent in the tanning process. The quality of the leather they produced is comparable to

commercially tanned leather. The scientists have also found a way to recycle the enzyme used to extract

the proteins. A modified version of the process, for which ARS holds two patents, is being used in a

tannery in the Czech Republic. (PATENT 5,094,946 and 5, 271,912)

Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA

William N. Marmer, (215) 233-6585, wmarmer@arserrc.gov;

Into the Marketplace, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/m498.htm (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:10 PM]
Maryann M. Taylor, (215) 233-6435, mtaylor@arserrc.gov;

Eleanor M. Brown, (215) 233-6481, ebrown@arserrc.gov

...With Engelhard Corp. of Iselin, NJ, to develop and commercialize new technology that reduces

the chemicals needed to control plant pests and diseases. In the new process, researchers spray

specially sized and shaped microscopic mineral particles on plants to form a protective film. The coated

plants require less pesticide and may have improved health and better fruit quality. Over time, particle

film technology may also improve soil condition. The technology has been tested against several insects,

mites and fungal diseases. It works on tree fruit crops and has potential on vegetable and field crops.

Engelhard has filed four patents, including foreign patent rights, with ARS as co-owner. Prototype films

are made by modifying kaolin, a naturally occurring mineral that is generally regarded as safe (GRAS).

Approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an indirect food additive, kaolin doesn't harm

earthworms or beneficial insects and doesn't affect crop pollination. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency has approved applications for registration of three prototype products. Products should be

commercially available in 1999 in parts of the United States for use on apples and pears and will be

cost-competitive with conventionally used chemicals.

Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV

D. Michael Glenn/Gary J. Puterka, (304) 725-3451, mglenn@afrs.ars.usda.gov,

gputerka@afrs.ars.usda.gov

...With Artlo Industries, Inc., Perris, CA, to develop, test and commercialize lightweight concrete

products made with a surprising ingredient—wheat starch. ARS scientists will provide samples of

the wheat-based aggregate to make the concrete and will also help develop specifications for commercial

products. Artlo Industries will determine whether the concrete is suitable for making exterior panels for

high-rise office buildings and other precast concrete products for businesses and homes, including

planters, fountains, tables and benches. The company will also test formulations for strength and

durability and determine the most cost-effective ways to use the aggregate. The 35 artisans and others

employed at Artlo Industries design and manufacture precast concrete products for large construction

corporations, as well as architectural, design and engineering firms. (PATENT 5,595,595)

Western Regional Research Center, Albany, CA

Gregory M. Glenn, (510) 559-5677, gmg@pw.usda.gov

...With CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, to publish information on genetically transforming insect

species of agricultural and medical importance. Several authorities in the field of insect

transformation will contribute to the book, which will provide the latest ideas and methodologies in this

field. Genetic modification of insects is accomplished by moving or introducing new genes into the

chromosomes. The publication will present existing and potential methods for various types of insect

transformation so other scientists can understand potentials and pitfalls relevant to insect species they're

studying. ARS scientists contributing to this publication have successfully transformed the

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitat), an economically important worldwide pest that feeds on many

fruits and vegetables. The fly is a quarantine pest on the U.S. mainland. The ultimate goal of ARS'

research is to create transgenic strains for genetic-sexing and male sterilization for sterile release

Into the Marketplace, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/m498.htm (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:10 PM]
programs and monitoring.

Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, FL

Alfred M. Handler, (352) 374-5793, handler@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu.

Patents

A new bait developed by ARS scientists to lure Mexican fruit flies will soon be available to growers.

Improved baits and traps give action agencies new tools to detect fruit fly invasions sooner and prevent

the pests from spreading. Mexican fruit flies, important quarantine pests of citrus and many other crops,

are strongly attracted to the new synthetic lure. It resembles the pests' natural protein food source and has

three chemical components: ammonium acetate, putrescine and methyl butanol. In several years of field

trials in Guatemala, ARS scientists compared sticky cylindrical traps baited with the new lure versus

glass McPhail traps baited with liquid protein currently used to detect fruit flies. The new lure caught

almost twice as many insects as the standard lure. It also was more effective at capturing both males and

females. And compared to the sticky trap, McPhail traps are fragile and cumbersome. Female Mexican

fruit flies lay eggs in at least 36 different fruits. In the U.S., the pests could potentially cost $1.4 billion a

year in export losses, crop yield reductions and treatment expenses. The flies periodically cross the

Mexican border to infest U.S. fruit orchards, most often in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

(PATENT APPLICATION 09/156,625)

Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, FL

Robert R. Heath/Nancy D. Epsky, (352) 374-5735/5761, bheath@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu/

nepsky@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu

ARS plant breeders are a step closer to achieving a longtime dream—producing corn that

maintains its high yields and desirable traits with each generation. Today's hybrid corn only retains

its hybrid vigor and genetic traits for one generation. This means farmers must buy and plant new hybrid

seed each year. The scientists' goal: to transform corn from sexual reproduction that requires pollination

to an asexual form of reproduction called "apomixis." Apomixis would enable corn plants to produce

seed that are exact copies or clones of the parent seed. The ARS scientists are using classical and

molecular breeding to transfer the gene for apomixis from eastern gamagrass (a self-pollinating relative

of corn) to corn. In earlier research, a team of ARS, Russian and Moldovan scientists successfully

transferred a segment of an eastern gamagrass chromosome, carrying the apomixis genes, to an intact

chromosome of maize. The resultant crop looks, grows and tastes like corn. The team has now obtained

the first patent on apomictic corn. In its attempt to isolate genes controlling apomixis, the team has

amassed an extensive genomic library of more than 215,000 clones (or segments of genetic material

called DNA) from both corn and eastern gamagrass. The library covers more than 94 percent of both the

corn and gamagrass genomes. The researchers say there's a high probability of success for isolating the

apomictic genes. Once the scientists have isolated and confirmed these genes, they will seek another

patent on the gene or genes responsible for this trait in corn. Then seed companies will be able to license

these genes and insert them into any line of corn, wheat, sorghum and rice. The achievement would

profoundly change the future of agriculture by significantly reducing the high cost of producing hybrids

as well as the expense of land use, personnel and equipment. (PATENT 5,710,367)

Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward, OK

Into the Marketplace, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/m498.htm (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:10 PM]
Bryan Kindiger, (405) 256-7449, bkindiger@ag.gov

From ARS laboratory "kitchens" comes a new, low-cost way to make sweet potato patties and fries

with improved gelling texture and more flavor. The research could add value to the nation's $213

million sweet potato crop. It might also spell some future competition with Mom's candied sweet

potatoes. Food companies have tried using sweet potatoes to make savory snacks of patties and fries. But

some consumers found the snacks gummy, possibly because of the starch holding them together. A taste

panel found that the new formula yields products with a taste more like that of fresh-baked sweet

potatoes. A taste panel also evaluated three puree methods the industry uses for preparing sweet potato

products. The panel picked slicing and slow-cooking the sweet potatoes before making puree as

preferable to using either flash-cooked or raw sweet potatoes. With the new formula, companies could

use sweet potatoes that have high taste qualities but normally would be discarded due to less than perfect

shape or size. (Patent application pending)

Food Science Research Laboratory, Raleigh, NC

William M. Walter, Jr., (919) 515-2979, wmwalter@ncsu.edu

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Into the Marketplace, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/m498.htm (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:10 PM]
Tomatoes chock full of beta-carotene may soon be available to consumers, thanks to the recent

ARS release of three new tomato breeding lines. The new lines contain about 10 to 25 times more

beta-carotene than typical tomatoes. ARS researchers developed the new lines—97L63, 97L66 and

97L97—for processing into paste, juices and sauces. Soon, ARS will also release high beta-carotene

cherry tomatoes and beefsteak-type tomatoes as specialty varieties for the fresh market. The new

tomatoes are good nutritional news for consumers, because the human body converts beta-carotene into

vitamin A, an essential nutrient that aids in clear vision, bone growth, tooth development and

reproduction. Beta-carotene content averages 57.6, 55.1 and 55.5 micrograms per gram of fresh weight

for 97L63, 97L66 and 97L97, respectively. Typical tomatoes contain only about 2 to 5 micrograms per

gram. Lines 97L63 and 97L66 are adapted for California and the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. These

fruits are firm and crack resistant. Tomatoes that split before harvesting are susceptible to fruit rot, which

can cause large crop losses. Breeding line 97L97 is adapted for Eastern and Midwestern states. The

United States is number two in fresh and processed tomato production worldwide, with Florida and

California the top-producing states.

Vegetable Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

John Stommel, (301) 504-5583, jstommel@asrr.arsusda.gov

Blueberries score highest among 50 fruits and vegetables in their ability to defuse damaging

oxygen free radicals in a test tube assay. Early studies with rats suggest this antioxidant power

translates to protection of cells and tissues. Now the researchers have found a three-fold difference in

blueberries' antioxidant ability, depending on species and maturity at harvest. Using the ORAC assay for

total antioxidant capacity, they analyzed commercial blueberry varieties and less common species from

the United States and Canada. They also analyzed the closely related bilberry from Germany. Overall,

the bilberry scored highest in antioxidant capacity. Lowbush blueberries from Nova Scotia and some

other U.S. cultivars were quite close to the bilberry in antioxidant capacity, depending upon stage of

maturity. Mature berries from two commercial rabbiteye cultivars—Brightwell and Tifblue—scored one

and one-half to more than twice as high as berries picked 7 weeks earlier from the same bush. That's due

to the increase in antioxidant pigments, or anthocyanins, as the berries mature. Ripe berries not only taste

better; they may be more healthful. Region, however, did not affect the antioxidant score, based on

analyses of berries from the northern highbush variety, Jersey, grown in Oregon, Michigan and New

Jersey.

USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts, Boston, MA

Ronald L. Prior/Guohua Cao, (617) 556-3310, prior_us@hnrc.tufts.edu/cao_am@hnrc.tufts.edu.

Human Nutrition, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/hn498.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:35:14 PM]
A new USDA database to be launched on the World Wide Web in 1999 will help scientists pinpoint

which estrogen-like compounds in soy foods are responsible for the lower risk of cancer in

women—especially breast cancer. And it will enable nutritionists and physicians to recommend the

foods with the highest levels of specific estrogen-like compounds, which have also been reported to

improve cardiovascular health and reduce bone loss after menopause. Compiled by ARS scientists, the

database will give values for the major isoflavones in 140 soy foods and ingredients. Soy isoflavones,

such as daidzein, genistein and glycitein, mimic the hormone estrogen. They also have antioxidant

capability and may perform other functions that enhance health. The new soy isoflavone database will be

on the same web site as the USDA Food Composition Database at

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/. While isoflavone values won't be given for individual brand

names, commercial products were analyzed to arrive at average values for each type of food or food

additive. ARS researchers evaluated and compiled some 30 scientific reports of the isoflavone content of

foods. They also relied heavily on analyses done in the laboratory of a collaborator at Iowa State

University in Ames to fill in missing or sparse values.

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD

Gary Beecher, (301) 504-8356, beecher@bhnrc.usda.gov.

Oatrim reduced oxidation of fatty acids in a recent study that turned up more potential benefits of

this ARS-patented fat replacer made from soluble oat fiber. A daily intake of about 1/2 cup of the

powdery substance added to various foods reduced an indicator of fat oxidation by 80 percent. This

means Oatrim helps protect cell membranes and many other components fabricated largely from fatty

acids. And, judging from an increase in the volunteers' breath hydrogen, some of the oat extract was

fermented by bacteria in the volunteers' colons, producing short-chain fatty acids. These are thought to

protect against cancer and reduce the risk of heart disease. The same researchers earlier reported that a

daily diet containing Oatrim reduced body weight and blood lipids, and improved glucose tolerance in

men and women participating in the studies. It also reduced systolic blood pressure in the men. The fat

substitute is in some baked goods and cheeses as Oatrim or hydrolyzed oat flour. It is also in East Coast

markets as an additive for skim milk under the brand name Oatri-Slim. The researchers attribute Oatrim's

antioxidant function to something other than its beta glucans—the soluble fibers known to lower

cholesterol. That's because fat oxidation dropped about equally whether the volunteers consumed Oatrim

with 1 or 10 percent beta glucans.

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD

Judith Hallfrisch/Kay Behall, (301) 504-9014,

hallfrisch@bhnrc.arsusda.gov/behall@bhnrc.arsusda.gov.

Higher blood levels of a hormone called leptin is one possible reason why African-American

teenage girls tend to be heavier and taller and to mature faster than their peers in other ethnic

groups, a pediatric researcher has found. Manufactured only in fat tissue, leptin circulates in the

blood, where scientists know that it acts as a biochemical curb on appetite. Its counterpart,

neuropeptide-Y, is known to trigger hunger. If an individual has higher blood levels of leptin, it may

mean the body requires more leptin to "hear" its biochemical message. Other medical research has

suggested higher leptin levels may also speed sexual maturity and make the body better at conserving

energy. This naturally higher energy efficiency could explain why African-American girls grow faster

Human Nutrition, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/hn498.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:35:14 PM]
than their peers from other ethnic groups. But that same metabolic efficiency could backfire in

adulthood, contributing to obesity and increased health risk. The ARS-funded research adds to the

evidence that all girls can benefit from establishing healthy dietary and physical activity in childhood.

The study was published in the October 1998 issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and

Metabolism. The data helps fill in needed information on human metabolism in the African-American

population.

Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

William W. Wong, (719) 798-7168, wwong@bcm.tmc.edu.

Prolina, a high-protein soybean from ARS, appears to have the right amino acid mix to make soy

infant formula more like mother's milk. The new bean has an unusually high concentration of cystine,

an amino acid that occurs naturally in human breast milk. Prolina has several times more cystine than

regular soybean varieties. Scientists have speculated that cystine is important to brain and eye

development, because the body uses this amino acid to make taurine, a compound highly concentrated in

those organs. As a bonus, Prolina is rich in 11S and 7S proteins that belong to a special class of proteins

with enhanced processing properties. This means it's easier to process these beans into a gel form for a

fat-free whipped cream made from soy—or to blend them into a liquid emulsion like infant formula.

ARS scientists originally bred Prolina as a feed for livestock.

Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory, Raleigh, NC

Prachuab Kwanyuen, (919) 515-2734, prachuab_kwanyuen@ncsu.edu

Last updated: February 23, 1999

Return to: Quarterly Report Table of Contents

Human Nutrition, ARS Quarterly Report, October - December 1998

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/qtr/q498/hn498.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:35:14 PM]
ORGANIC PERSPECTIVES

February 1999

Inside This Issue:

1. New Opportunity on Taiwan for U.S. Exporters

2. Europe's Largest Organic Shopping Center to Open in Germany

3. Accessing Germany's Retail Food Sector

4. Brazilian Organic Vegetables Find a Market in Japan

5. Organics at USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum

6. Iowa's Organic Agriculture Certification Program

7. FAS Food & Agricultural Export Directory Available

8. Upcoming Events

1. New Opportunity on Taiwan for U.S. Exporters

After over a year of market research and business negotiations, Taiwan's leading food company, President

Enterprises Corporation, decided to expand its business to include organic foods. The President Organics

Corporation (POC) was established in early February 1999, with initial capital of $6 million. The first POC

organic specialty story is expected to open in July 1999, and will sell mainly imported organic goods.

According to POC's General Manager Chiu Jing-Tsai, the current organic market is around $9 million and is

expected to grow 30 percent annually, reaching $18 million by 2001. U.S. organic suppliers interested in this

new channel of distribution should contact the Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) on Taipei at

ato@mail.ait.org.tw

In other news, ATO Taipei reports that January/February is always a hot season for gift-giving in celebration

of Chinese New Year, the most important festival on Taiwan. The New Year gift pack market is estimated at

over $300 million, and the most popular packs consist of dried foods, wine/spirits, candies, crackers, canned

food, fresh fruit, coffee, and tea which sell for $15-$60 per pack. Organic gift packs, a new-to-market item,

have become popular this year, and for the first time ever, the Taipei Farmers' Association offered organic

fruit and vegetable gift packs which sold for approximately $15 each.

Source: Attache report TW9012.

2. Europe's Largest Organic Shopping Center to Open in Germany

Rommelmuehle, the first organic shopping center in Germany, recently opened in the town of

Bietigheim-Bissingen, about 30 kilometers outside of Stuttgart. This one-of-a-kind attraction contains

approximately 6,500 square meters of retail space, and features a broad spectrum of organic, natural, and

environmentally-friendly products under one roof, thus qualifying itself as the largest organic shopping center

in Europe.

Rommelmuehle counts among its tenants a large natural foods supermarket and adjoining organic wine store;

feb99

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/1999/feb99.htm (1 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:17 PM]
retailers featuring fashions, gifts, books, toys, and home furnishings; a natural home improvement store with

building materials and information for environmentally-minded, do-it-yourself projects; and an organic

micro-brewery and restaurant.

Project organizers are targeting both the traditional "green" customers and upscale consumers interested in

buying high-quality, environmentally-friendly products. They hope that the location, combined with the

broad selection of natural products, will create a unique shopping experience that attracts loyal customers

from throughout the region.

In other news, Globus group, a major German food retailer, announced plans to begin carrying its own line of

organic food and beverage products in 31 of its warehouse stores. The products--fruit, vegetables, eggs, dairy

products, and bakery goods, among others--will be marketed under the name Terra Pura. Globus is the latest

of Germany's major retailers to dedicate shelf space to organic products.

Source: Attache report GM9301

3. Accessing Germany's Retail Food Sector

Germany is the largest market in Europe for food and beverages, and one of the world's leading

food-importing countries. German consumers purchase more than $200 billion in food and beverages

annually, two-thirds of which is spent in retail markets.

Many German consumers, having visited the United States, are interested in buying U.S. products at home,

prompting some German retailers to set up special food displays and sponsor periodic promotions

showcasing American foods. Consumers are attracted to "ethnic" cuisine and products that offer health,

convenience, and novelty. Best prospects for U.S. exports to Germany include snack foods, fitness foods and

drinks, selected fresh produce, nuts, dried fruit, organic products, alcoholic beverages, and premium pet

foods. Products that the European Union (EU) either does not produce at all or cannot supply in sufficient

quantities, out-of-season fresh produce, and products unique to the United States or to a U.S. region may be

particularly favored.

A 1996 survey indicated that 17 percent of German consumers buy organic products on a regular basis; 51

percent, sometimes; and 32 percent, never. About half of all organic products in Germany are imported.

Although other EU countries supply the largest share, the United States is probably the largest non-EU

supplier. Currently, U.S. organic exports to Germany consist of bulk items for further processing or

packaging by German companies.

Source: "Accessing Germany's Retail Food Sector," Spring 1998. See Attache Report GM8055 for a

summary. Although the report is not specifically about organics, it contains many insights about German

consumers, the German food market, and practical tips for successful exporting.

4. Brazilian Organic Vegetables Find a Market in Japan

Kirin International, a subsidiary of Kirin Brewery, has announced plans to import organic vegetables from

Brazil beginning this summer. The firm is reportedly close to signing contracts for a total of 741 acres of

farmland in three locations in central Brazil. Vegetables will be processed in Brazil and shipped to Japan.

Kirin expects sales in the first year to reach nearly $2 million.

Source: FAS Tokyo.

5. Organics at USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum

On February 22 and 23, USDA hosted its Agricultural Outlook Forum, an annual conference to review the

status of and future outlook for U.S. agriculture. At the session titled "New Approaches to Direct Marketing

by Farmers," Monika Roth of the Cornell Cooperative Extension Service provided an overview of farm

feb99

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/1999/feb99.htm (2 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:17 PM]
direct-marketing industry trends. She noted that further concentration and globalization of food supply and

distribution systems will create more opportunities for local producers. Small farmers unable to compete in

the homogeneous, concentrated national and international markets have turned to satisfying the needs and

niches of local and regional markets which are under-served by large-scale food and supply networks. A key

challenge is to identify under-served markets and help small-scale farmers and direct marketers access them.

Implementation of the recommendations of the Small Farm Commission Report are one way to make

USDA programs responsive to such needs.

Steve Gilman, president of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, discussed the growing presence of

organic products at farmers markets, restaurants and in community-supported agriculture (CSA). (CSA refers

to a farmer/consumer arrangement wherein the consumer pays the farmer a one-time fee in exchange for a

weekly share of crops grown on the farm.) Mr. Gilman operates a 15-acre, certified organic farm producing

about 140 specialty herb and vegetable varieties for top restaurants in Saratoga Springs, NY, and a 75-family

CSA project.

Mr. Gilman pointed out that consumer demand for organic products has continued to grow at a sustained rate

of over 20 percent annually for the past decade. He noted that the small-scale local organic farm is a primary

link for consumers seeking certified organic produce and specialty foods, and that the consumer-direct,

fresh-picked quality of such products is highly competitive with produce provided through the global

distribution system. Results of a 1995 study indicated the following top five reasons CSA shareholders chose

to participate in a CSA: source of organic products, source of fresh produce, concern for a healthy

environment, support of local food sources, and support for the small farmer. Price ranked as Number 12. Mr.

Gilman cited another study indicating CSA shareholders pay close to wholesale prices for their weekly

supply of produce.

Note: Full text of some Agricultural Outlook Forum 1999 speeches will be made available on the web in the

near future.

6. Iowa's Organic Agriculture Certification Program

In May 1998, the Organic Agricultural Products Act became law in Iowa, replacing previous legislation

enacted in 1988. The new law mandates that the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

(IDALS) establish and administer a program to certify producers, handlers, and processors of agricultural

products labeled, sold, or advertised as organic. The Iowa Organic Standards Board and the IDALS Organic

Certification Program staff are currently working to develop organic standards which may be filed in the

Iowa Administrative Rules during the summer of 1999.

The IDALS anticipates continued growth in the organic industry, as interest on the part of producers and

consumers continue to escalate in the state. In 1997 there were approximately 62,000 certified organic acres

in production in Iowa and 175 certified farms. Following is a breakdown by crop and percentage of total

acreage: soybeans (37 percent), pasture (25 percent), small grains (19 percent), corn (16 percent), horticulture

crops (0.5 percent), and other (2.5 percent). It is estimated that certified organic acreage increased to nearly

120,000 acres in 1998, while the number of certified farms increased to nearly 700.

Source: Maury Wills, Organic Agriculture Program, IDALS.

7. FAS Food & Agricultural Export Directory Available

FAS just updated this useful resource of contacts for exporters. Entries include USDA agencies, state

international and marketing offices and trade associations, FAS foreign market development and market

access programs, other U.S. government organizations, multilateral organizations, and foreign embassies in

feb99

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/1999/feb99.htm (3 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:17 PM]
the United States. Hard copies of the directory are available (see the FAS directory web site for ordering

information.)

8. Upcoming Events

TRADE SHOWS & CONFERENCES

International - 1999

● March - BIOCULTURA, Seville, Spain

● Mar. 9 -12 - FOODEX, Tokyo*

● Mar. 12-15 - ANTAD '99, Guadalajara, Mexico*

● June 9-11 - EXPHOTEL, Cancun, Mexico

● Sept. 10-13 - SANA, Bologna, Italy

● Sept. 14-16 - Food Ingredients Europe, Paris

● Oct. 9-14 - ANUGA 1999, Cologne, Germany*

● Oct. 16-18 - DIETEXPO '99, Paris*

International - 2000

● February - International Food & Drink Exhibition, Athens, Greece

● Feb. 18-21- BIOFACH, Germany

● Mar. 7-10 - FOODEX, Tokyo

● Oct. 18-22 - SIAL, Paris

Domestic - 1999

● Mar. 5 & 6 - Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference, Sinsinawa, WI

● Mar. 9-14 - Natural Products Expo West, Anaheim, CA*

Apr. 30-May 3 - Specialty Coffee Association of America, Annual Conference & Show, Philadelphia,

PA (section devoted to organic coffee)

● 

● May 1-5 - 1999 U.S. Food Export Showcase, Chicago, IL *

● May 19 & 20 - Summit on Organic Food Technology, (SOFT '99), Gilroy, CA

● Aug. 1-3 - Organic Farming Research Foundation Conference, Oakland, CA

● Oct. 12-15 - National Small Farm Conference, St. Louis, MO

● Oct. 20-24 - Natural Products Expo East, Baltimore, MD

Domestic - 2000

● May 7-9 - U.S. Food Export Showcase, Chicago, IL

*Indicates a USDA-sponsored show. For more information and a complete listing of food and trade shows

including those for conventional products, visit the FAS Trade Show site.

FAS OVERSEAS PROMOTIONS - 1999

● September - European Organic/Natural Food Trade Mission, Germany

● Sept. 9 - U.S. Celebrates Mexico's Independence, ATO, Mexico City, Mexico

feb99

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/1999/feb99.htm (4 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:17 PM]
This newsletter was compiled by HTP's Organics Staff:

Janise Zygmont - Analysis, zygmont@fas.usda.gov Tel: (202) 720-1176 Fax: (202) 720-3799

Kelly Strzelecki - Marketing, strzelecki@fas.usda.gov Tel: (202) 690-1341 Fax: (202) 690-3346)

Last modified: Tuesday, April 27, 1999

feb99

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/organics/1999/feb99.htm (5 of 5) [10/5/1999 3:35:17 PM]
THE U.S. - EU HORMONE DISPUTE

For the past 15 years, the United States and the European Union (EU) have been disputing the safety of growth promotants used

in cattle. The disagreement over the use of hormones in cattle peaked in 1989 when the EU banned the import of beef from cattle

treated with growth promotants, effectively cutting off U.S. exports of beef. The United States has always maintained that U.S.

beef from cattle treated with certain approved growth hormones poses no public health risk, and therefore, the EU’s hormone ban

is unjustified. Numerous scientific studies and evaluations, including those conducted by the EU and CODEX, the international

food safety standard setting body, have supported the U.S. position.

Recent Activities

July 19, 1999

July 12, 1999

July 12, 1999

May 14, 1999

May 14, 1999

May 14, 1999

May 10, 1999

USTR Announces Final Product List in Beef Hormones Dispute

WTO Finds U.S. Trade Damaged by EU Beef Import Ban

WTO Fact Sheet

Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman

Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the EU’s Failure To Comply with WTO

Rulings on the Beef Hormone Ban

Canadian Department of Agriculture statement

USTR Press Release

Talking Points for Timothy J. Galvin, FAS Administrator, before the National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association Press Conference on the EU Beef Ban

Overview

Chronology

A Primer on Beef Hormones

USDA Press Releases

May 14, 1999 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the EU’s Failure To Comply with WTO

Rulings on the Beef Hormone Ban

May 3, 1999 Joint Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and United States Trade Representative

Charlene Barshefsky on the EU Hormone Report

April 19, 1999 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Beef Hormone Issue

May 28, 1998 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Regarding the WTO's Decision on the EU

Beef Hormone Ban

March 13, 1998 Statement of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Regarding EU Compliance with the WTO

Decision on the Hormone Ban

Jan. 15, 1998 Appellate Body Finds EC Hormone Ban Inconsistent with WTO Obligations Under SPS Agreement

Aug. 19, 1997 WTO Hormones Report Confirms U.S. Win

May 20, 1996 Glickman and Barshefsky Announce WTO Panel to Review EU Hormone Ban

May 10, 1996 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman After Conclusion of Talks in Vienna, Austria

With Franz Fischler, Commissioner for Agriculture for the European Union

April 26, 1996 U.S. Requests WTO Review of EU Ban on U.S. Beef

THE US-EU Hormone Issue

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/hormone.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:20 PM]
Jan. 26, 1996 Statement by Secretary Glickman on the U.S.' Request for Consultations Under the

World Trade Organization About the European Union's Hormone Ban

Jan. 11, 1996 Statement by Secretary Glickman on his Conference Call with Commissioner Fischler

Dec. 1, 1995 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Results of the EU Scientific

Conference on Growth Promotants in Meat Production

Congressional Testimony

May 8, 1997 Statement of Paul Drazek Special Assistant to the Secretary for Trade

Before the House Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry

Other Links

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)

 -- Summary and Conclusions of the Fifty-second Meeting, Rome, 2-11 February 1999.

 Veterinary drug residues. (pdf file)

Last modified: Thursday, July 29, 1999

THE US-EU Hormone Issue

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/hormone.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:20 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Natural Plant Extracts Could Be

Methyl Bromide Substitute

By Doris Stanley Lowe

March 3, 1999

A chemical in peaches could become an alternative to methyl

bromide for controlling certain soil-dwelling pathogens. Methyl

bromide, a chemical now used worldwide on more than 100

crops, has been linked to ozone depletion and will be banned in

the United States in 2005. Methyl bromide is critical to

agriculture as a soil fumigant, a postharvest storage treatment,

and a quarantine treatment to control many pests on various

crops.

In preliminary studies, Agricultural Research Service scientists

are studying natural plant chemicals as alternatives. One that

looks promising is benzaldehyde. Found in peaches and other

fruit, benzaldehyde is a naturally occurring colorless, nontoxic,

aromatic liquid used in perfumes, flavorings, pharmaceuticals

and dyes.

ARS plant pathologist Charles Wilson at the ARS Appalachian

Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, W.Va., found that

benzaldehyde controls several soil pathogens, including

Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium

aphanidermatum and Sclerotinia minor. Wilson is working with

Debra Fravel of the ARS Biocontrol of Plant Diseases

Laboratory, Beltsville, Md. ARS is USDA’s chief scientific

research agency.

Benzaldehyde is inexpensive and breaks down into products that

aren’t harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Wilson

and colleagues found that soil fumigated with benzaldehyde

initially had significantly lower pH values. But within two

weeks, the pH returned to nonfumigated levels. This showed that

Natural Plant Extracts Could Be Methyl Bromide Substitute / March 3, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990303.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:22 PM]
changes in soil pH are readily reversed and shouldn’t interfere

with crop production.

The scientists have applied for a patent on a time-release formula

of benzaldehyde to fumigate fruit, grain and soil. Wilson and

collaborators from the Volcani Center in Bet Dagan, Israel and

the Fruit, Vine and Wine Research Institute, Agricultural

Research Council, Stellenbosch, South Africa, have also found a

number of other compounds that are effective against soilborne

pathogens.

A story on this research is featured in the March 1999

Agricultural Research magazine. It can be accessed on the

Internet at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar99/meth0399.htm

Scientific contact: Charles A. Wilson, ARS Appalachian Fruit

Research Station, Kearneysville, W.Va.; phone (304) 725-3451,

X330; fax (304) 728-2340; cwilson@afrs.ars.usda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Natural Plant Extracts Could Be Methyl Bromide Substitute / March 3, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990303.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:22 PM]
Completed Crop Profiles, by State/Territory

[Click Here to Access a Searchable Database of Completed Crop Profiles]

Alabama

● Peanuts

American Samoa

● Bananas

● Taro

Arizona

● Cotton

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (1 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
California

● Almonds

● Apples

● Artichokes

● Lettuce (Iceberg)

● Lettuce (Leaf )

● Nectarines

● Olives

● Peaches

● Plums

● Prunes

● Rice

● Tomatoes (Processing)

● Walnuts

Delaware

● Beans (Lima)

● Beans (Snap) (Draft)

● Spinach (Draft)

● Watermelons

Florida

● Carrots

● Citrus

● Corn (Sweet)

● Ornamentals

● Peppers (Bell)

● Potatoes

● Strawberries

● Tomatoes

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (2 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
Georgia

● Blueberries

● Peppers (Bell)

Idaho

● Barley

● Sugar beets

Indiana

● Cantaloupes

● Tomatoes

Iowa

● Corn (Field)

● Soybeans

Kansas

● Corn

● Wheat

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (3 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
Kentucky

● Alfalfa

● Apples

● Corn

● Soybeans

● Tobacco

● Wheat

Louisiana

● Peppers (Bell)

● Strawberries

● Sugarcane

● Tomatoes

Maine

● Blueberries (Wild)

Maryland

● Corn (Sweet)

● Squash

● Tomatoes

● Watermelons

Michigan

● Asparagus

● Beans (Snap)

● Blueberries

● Broccoli

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (4 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
● Brussels Sprouts

● Cabbage

● Carrots

● Cauliflower

● Celery

● Cucumbers (Fresh Market)

● Cucumbers (Processing)

● Peaches

● Tomatoes

Micronesia

● Cucumbers

Mississippi

● Corn

● Rice

● Soybeans

● Sweetpotatoes

● Wheat

Montana

● Canola

● Chickpeas (Garbanzo beans)

New Hampshire

● Blueberries (Highbush)

● Raspberries

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (5 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
● Strawberries

New York

● Beans (Dry)

● Beans (Snap)

● Beets

● Cabbage

● Carrots

● Corn (Sweet)

● Cucumbers

● Lettuce

● Onions

● Peas

● Peppers

● Potatoes

● Pumpkins

● Squash

● Tomatoes

North Carolina

● Apples

● Blueberries

● Cabbage

● Christmas trees (Mountains)

● Christmas trees (Piedmont & Coastal Plain)

● Corn (Field & Sweet)

● Cotton

● Cucumbers

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (6 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
● Grapes

● Peaches

● Peanuts

● Potatoes (Irish)

● Poultry

● Residential & Structural Pests

● Sorghum

● Sweetpotatoes

● Tobacco

● Tomatoes

Ohio

● Cucumbers (Fresh Market)

● Cucumbers (Processing)

● Grapes

● Peppers (Sweet)

● Pumpkins

● Squash (Summer & Winter)

● Strawberries

● Tomatoes (Fresh Market & Processing)

Oklahoma

● Greenhouse crops

● Watermelons

Oregon

● Beans

● Blackberries

● Cherries (Sweet)

● Christmas trees

● Cranberries

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (7 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
● Hazelnuts

● Mint

● Potatoes

● Raspberries

● Strawberries

● Sugar beets

● Wheat

Pennsylvania

● Cherries (Tart) (Draft)

● Mushrooms

● Peaches (Draft)

● Potatoes

● Pumpkins

● Tomatoes

Rhode Island

● Apples

● Blueberries (Highbush)

Tennessee

● Cotton

● Soybeans

● Tobacco

● Tomatoes

● Wheat

Texas

● Cotton

● Peanuts

● Spinach

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (8 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
● Sweetpotatoes

United States

● Carrots

● Cranberries

Vermont

● Corn (Field)

Washington

● Christmas trees

● Cranberries

● Ginseng

● Hops

● Raspberries (Red)

West Virginia

● Alfalfa

● Apples

● Dairy

● Tobacco

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (9 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
Wisconsin

● Cabbage

● Carrots

● Cranberries

● Mint

● Onions

Last Modified September 24, 1999

Crop Profiles for U. S. States and Territories

http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap/proindex.htm (10 of 10) [10/5/1999 3:35:50 PM]
Equine

National

Agricultural

Statistics

Service

USDA

Washington, D.C.

Released March 2, 1999, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

For information on "Equine" call Chris Cadwallader at 202-720-4751,

office hours 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.

 U.S. Equine Inventory Up 1.3 Percent

Inventory of equine in the United States as of January 1, 1999 totaled

5.32 million head, up 1.3 percent from the 5.25 million head on January

1, 1998. Equine includes horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys.

Texas ranked first in equine inventory with 600,000 head followed by

California, and Tennessee with 240,000 and 190,000 head, respectively.

Florida, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania tied for fourth with an inventory of

170,000 head. Ohio ranked seventh with 160,000 head, followed by

Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, and Washington with 155,000 head. An

additional fifteen States had equine inventories of 100,000 head or

more.

The January 1, 1998 total equine inventory was 5.25 million head. Equine

located on farms totaled 3.20 million head. Equine located on non-farm

places were 2.05 million head or 39.1 percent of the total.

Equine sold totaled 558,000 head in 1998, an increase of 3.3 percent

from the 540,000 head sold in 1997. Texas had the most equine sold in

1998 at 60,000 head followed by Kentucky with 28,000 head, Michigan with

21,000 head, and Florida, Oklahoma, and Tennessee each with 18,000 head.

Value of Sales from equine sold in 1998 was $1.75 billion, up 6.9

percent from of $1.64 billion in 1997. The top ten States were Kentucky,

Florida, Texas, California, Virginia, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York,

Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

This release is the first NASS publication of U.S. equine statistics. Please

see Survey Procedures on page 3 of this release for details concerning data

collection.

Eq 1 (3-99)

 Equine: Inventory, 1998-99; Number Sold and Value of Sales, 1997-98

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:35:52 PM]
 : Inventory : Number Sold : Value of Sales

 State :------------------------------------------------------------------------

 :Jan 1, 1998 : Jan 1, 1999 : 1997 : 1998 : 1997 : 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 : -------------- 1,000 Head -------------- ---- 1,000 Dollars ----

 :

AL : 130.0 130.0 13.0 14.0 18,200 19,600

AK 1/ : 2.4 2.4 0.1 0.1 176 176

AZ : 135.0 135.0 7.0 8.0 14,000 15,000

AR : 68.0 70.0 11.0 12.0 12,000 13,000

CA : 235.0 240.0 15.0 17.0 55,000 60,000

CO : 140.0 145.0 13.0 13.0 21,000 21,000

CT : 25.0 26.0 2.0 2.0 10,400 10,400

DE : 10.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 4,000 4,000

FL : 170.0 170.0 18.0 18.0 108,000 111,600

GA : 69.0 70.0 9.0 9.0 20,700 20,700

HI : 7.0 7.0 0.4 0.4 800 900

ID : 145.0 145.0 11.0 12.0 14,500 15,000

IL : 99.0 100.0 12.0 13.0 18,000 19,000

IN : 140.0 140.0 14.0 15.0 21,000 22,000

IA : 99.0 100.0 11.0 11.0 16,000 16,000

KS : 104.0 105.0 10.0 11.0 19,000 21,000

KY : 150.0 155.0 27.0 28.0 570,000 650,000

LA : 65.0 65.0 12.0 12.0 15,000 15,000

ME : 16.0 17.0 1.0 1.0 1,600 1,600

MD : 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 40,000 40,000

MA : 35.0 35.0 2.0 2.0 4,000 4,000

MI : 130.0 130.0 20.0 21.0 34,000 36,000

MN : 155.0 155.0 14.0 15.0 17,000 18,000

MS : 74.0 75.0 7.0 7.0 9,000 9,000

MO : 140.0 140.0 16.0 16.0 24,000 24,000

MT : 130.0 130.0 12.0 12.0 12,000 12,000

NE : 74.0 75.0 8.0 8.0 9,600 9,800

NV : 70.0 70.0 7.0 7.0 10,500 10,000

NH : 7.0 8.0 0.5 0.5 1,200 1,200

NJ : 45.0 45.0 12.0 13.0 55,000 58,500

NM : 64.0 65.0 5.0 5.0 9,000 9,000

NY : 157.0 155.0 15.0 15.0 45,000 45,000

NC : 138.0 140.0 10.0 10.0 30,000 30,000

ND : 40.0 40.0 6.0 6.0 5,400 5,400

OH : 155.0 160.0 15.0 15.0 27,000 27,000

OK : 165.0 170.0 18.0 18.0 30,000 30,000

OR : 120.0 120.0 11.0 10.0 15,000 14,000

PA : 165.0 170.0 15.0 15.0 44,000 44,000

RI : 2.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 620 620

SC : 64.0 65.0 4.5 5.5 9,000 9,400

SD : 74.0 75.0 10.0 11.0 11,000 12,000

TN : 185.0 190.0 19.0 18.0 49,400 48,600

TX : 595.0 600.0 58.0 60.0 86,000 90,000

UT : 74.0 75.0 9.0 10.0 10,800 12,000

VT : 19.0 20.0 2.0 2.0 3,000 3,000

VA : 145.0 150.0 12.0 12.0 58,000 60,000

WA : 155.0 155.0 13.0 14.0 16,800 18,000

WV : 43.0 43.0 8.0 8.0 11,000 11,000

WI : 115.0 120.0 14.0 15.0 18,500 20,200

WY : 61.0 62.0 5.0 5.0 6,000 6,300

 :

US : 5,250.4 5,317.4 539.6 557.6 1,641,196 1,753,996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/ On-farm data only from the 1997 Census of Agriculture.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:35:52 PM]
 Procedures for January 1 Equine Estimates

Survey Procedures: The 1998 U.S. equine estimates were based on the 1997

Census of Agriculture and two additional surveys. The 1997 Census of

Agriculture, adjusted for coverage, was utilized to provide an on-farm estimate

of equine inventory and sales. An area frame sample of 16,000 randomly

selected segments of land, measuring approximately one square mile was screened

to locate places with equine. These places were asked to report inventory and

sales information. This sample produced an indication of total equine

inventory and a measure of completeness of the coverage of the 1997 Census of

Agriculture and commercial operations. A list survey of larger commercial

operations was also conducted. Operations found in the area frame sample were

compared to names from the list of commercial operations to remove duplication.

The sample from the list of commercial equine operators included approximately

20,000 places.

Information collected during the area frame and commercial list surveys was

used to determine if sampled places were represented in the Census of

Agriculture. Data from the two surveys were combined with the Census of

Agriculture to provide a complete picture of the U.S. equine inventory and

sales.

The 1999 U.S. equine estimates made use of the 1997 Census of Agriculture and

two additional surveys. As in 1998, an area frame sample of approximately

16,000 segments was used to collect equine data. A survey of 20,000 larger

farm and commercial operations was also conducted. Estimates were calculated

using data from the two surveys. Survey procedures ensured that all equine

places, regardless of size had an opportunity to be included. The samples

resulted in over 37,000 places contacted for the January 1999 inventory

estimate. Useable positive data were obtained from over 30,000 reports.

Administrative data available from auction houses, slaughter data, and other

published equine surveys were during the estimation process.

The relative sampling error for the U.S. inventory was 2.7 percent.

The next "Equine" report will be released at 3 p.m. ET on January 28, 2000.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in

all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital

or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's

TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C., 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:35:52 PM]
 ACCESS TO REPORTS!!

For your convenience, there are several ways to obtain NASS reports, data

products, and services:

 INTERNET ACCESS

All NASS reports are available free of charge on the worldwide Internet. For

access, connect to the Internet and go to the NASS Home Page at:

http://www.usda.gov/nass/. Select "Today's Reports" or Publications and then

Reports by Calendar or Publications and then Search, by Title or Subject.

 E-MAIL SUBSCRIPTION

All NASS reports are available by subscription free of charge direct to your

e-mail address. Send an e-mail message to:

usda-reports@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. In the body of the message type the

word: list.

 AUTOFAX ACCESS

NASSFax service is available for some reports from your fax machine. Please

call 202-720-2000, using the handset attached to your fax. Respond to the

voice prompts. Document 0411 is a list of available reports.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 PRINTED REPORTS OR DATA PRODUCTS

 CALL OUR TOLL-FREE ORDER DESK: 800-999-6779 (U.S. and Canada)

Other areas, please call 703-834-0125 FAX: 703-834-0110

(Visa, MasterCard, check, or money order acceptable for payment.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 ASSISTANCE

For assistance with general agricultural statistics or further information

about NASS or its products or services, contact the Agricultural Statistics

Hotline at 800-727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail:

nass@nass.usda.gov.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/equine/eqinan99.txt (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:35:52 PM]
Farm_Numbers_and_Land_in_Farms_(ZFL-BB)

A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description:

This annual full-text file presents data on the number of farms in operation, land in farms, and average

size (acreage) of farms for individual states and the U.S.; includes economic sales class estimates for

number of farms, land in farms, and average of farms for U.S. and selected states.

See also: Farms and Land in Farms-Final Estimates 1993-97

Help on using these files is available.

● Farm and Land in Farms 02.26.99 [ Text| .pdf]

● Farm and Land in Farms 02.11.98 [ Text]

● Farm and Land in Farms 07.30.97 [ Text]

● Farm and Land in Farms 07.30.96 ] Text]

● Farm and Land in Farms 07.28.95 ] Text]

USDA Economics and Statistics System

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University

Comments and questions to help@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Farm_Numbers_and_Land_in_Farms_(ZFL-BB)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/zfl-bb/ [10/5/1999 3:35:54 PM]
Agricultural Research Magazine

March 1999 - Vol. 47, No. 3

You'll find Agricultural Research magazine full text articles on this server in HTML (HyperText Markup

Language) or in PDF (Portable Document Format). If you need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader for pdf

files, click here: 

Table of Contents

Forum - CRADAs—Partnerships That Speed Technology to Users (html) or (pdf)

From Sky to Earth . . . Researchers Capture "Ground Truth" (html) or (pdf)

Understanding Sugar Transport in Plants (html) or (pdf)

Premier Bacteria Suppress Wheat Take-All (html) or (pdf)

Fast Tests for Campylobacter (html) or (pdf)

Natural Plant Extracts Might Sub for Methyl Bromide (html) or (pdf)

Foiling Watermilfoil (html) or (pdf)

Vaccinating Hens at the Right Time Saves Eggs (html) or (pdf)

UNMASKED: A Karnal Bunt Fungus Look-Alike (html) or (pdf)

Delta MSEA Benefits Local Ecology (html) or (pdf)

Seeking New Controls for Costly Nematodes (html) or (pdf)

Moms' Low Copper Could Harm Newborns (html) or (pdf)

A Snapshot of Blood Homocysteine Levels (html) or (pdf)

Trap Crops Prove Irresistible to Diamondbacks (html) or (pdf)

Science Update: (html) or (pdf)

New Soft Wheat Fights Powdery Mildew;

Nature-Based Weapon Against Salmonella Is a Top Product of '98;

Baiting the Mexican Fruit Fly;

More Dietary Kudos for Oatrim?;

Agricultural Research Magazine

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar99/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:57 PM]
Subscription Information

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

Government System Usage Policy

Commercial Endorsement Disclaimer

For questions or comments, contact the Editor

Back to the: Agricultural Research Magazine Page

Back to the: News and Information Page

Back to the: ARS Home Page

Last Update March 3, 1999

Agricultural Research Magazine

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar99/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:57 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Some Starchy Foods May

Contribute to Overeating

By Judy McBride

March 1, 1999

WASHINGTON, March 1--Meals high in carbohydrates that

are rapidly digested and absorbed appear to trigger a series of

hormonal and metabolic changes that promote overeating in

obese people, according to a new study at a U.S. Department of

Agriculture research center. The study findings are published in

the March issue of Pediatrics.

“These findings provide the first solid evidence that

carbohydrates are one piece of the puzzle in determining what

makes some people overeat,” Agriculture Secretary Dan

Glickman said.

Scientists use the term “high glycemic index” (GI) to describe

carbohydrates that are rapidly digested and absorbed. The

Boston researchers conclude that high GI meals set off a chain of

actions that cause people to overeat.

On three separate days, a week or more apart, researchers fed a

group of obese teenage boys breakfast and lunch with a high,

medium or low glycemic index. Then they measured changes in

the boys’ blood glucose, fatty acids and insulin and other

hormones for five hours after breakfast. Blood glucose and

insulin rose highest and fastest after the high GI breakfast.

Within a few hours, however, blood glucose and fatty acids

dropped significantly, triggering a stress response, indicated by a

rise in the hormone adrenalin.

After the boys consumed an identical lunch, they were

encouraged to select what they wanted from a platter of foods

when they felt “very hungry.” The subjects ate nearly twice as

much after a high GI meal than after a low-GI meal.

Some Starchy Foods May Contribute to Overeating / March 1, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990301.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:58 PM]
About one-fifth of U.S. children and one-third of adults are now

significantly overweight, despite a significant drop in fat intake

in recent years. Researchers David S. Ludwig at Children's

Hospital of Boston and physiologist Susan B. Roberts at the

USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts

University believe that the results likely apply to the

middle-aged and elderly as well.

According to Roberts, high GI foods include refined grain

products and potatoes, as well as sources of concentrated sugars,

such as sodas and fruit juices. Some starchy foods have higher

GIs than table sugar. Moreover, many of the low-fat foods that

have flooded grocery shelves are also high in calories.

Vegetables and fruits generally have a low GI.

Roberts said the findings do not support weight-loss diets based

entirely on the glycemic index because many low-GI foods,

including steak, butter and ice cream, are high in calories. These

low-GI foods trigger overeating because they are palatable and

calorically dense.

Ludwig, who directs the obesity program at Children’s Hospital,

said GI has a role in weight regulation along with genetics,

physical activity, psychological factors and other dietary

variables.

Scientific contact: Susan B. Roberts, PhD, Energy Metabolism

Laboratory, USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging

at Tufts, Boston, Mass., phone (617) 556-3238,

roberts_em@hnrc.tufts.edu; or David S. Ludwig, M.D., PhD,

The Children’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., phone (617) 355-4878,

ludwigd@hub.tch.harvard.edu.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Some Starchy Foods May Contribute to Overeating / March 1, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990301.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:35:58 PM]
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Hog Relief Information

The following Agricultural Marketing Service information may be of interest to pork producers.

● Some Hog Farmers to Receive Expedited Tax Return Processing

● Daily Livestock (including Hog) Prices

● Recent Pork Purchases (for School Lunch and other Federal Feeding Programs)

Additional information can be obtained from USDA's hog relief web page at http://hogrelief.fsa.usda.gov

Return to AMS Home Page

Hog Relief Information

http://www.ams.usda.gov/hogrelief.htm [10/5/1999 3:36:02 PM]
Fact Sheet

Production Flexibility Contracts,

Marketing Loss Assistance Payments,

and Marketing Assistance Loans

February 1999

continues Ø

1

Production Flexibility

Contracts (PFCs)

Eligibility for Payments

Producers enrolled in 7-year PFCs

during the one-time sign-up held in

1996 are eligible to receive contract

payments. All contracts -- except

those executed after the expiration of

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

contracts, as discussed below --

began with the 1996 crop and extend

through the 2002 crop. A farm was

eligible for enrollment if it had a wheat,

corn, sorghum, barley, oats, upland

cotton, or rice acreage base

established for 1996. Once the farm

was enrolled, the crop acreage base

became contract acreage.

Farms not enrolled during the one-time

sign-up period are ineligible for

program participation, unless they are

currently under a CRP contract with an

associated crop acreage base

reduction. The land under an expiring

CRP contract may be added to an

existing PFC or enrolled as a new

contract from October 1 through

April 3 in the year following the fiscal

year in which the contract expires.

If land currently under a PFC is

transferred to another producer or

operator, or if there is a change in

interest in the operation, the contract

may be transferred to the new

producer or operator, who assumes all

obligations under the original contract.

An owner or producer must inform the

local Farm Service Agency (FSA)

county office of changes in interest by

August 1 of the current fiscal year, if

producers remain the same but the

shares change, or if a new producer is

being added to the contract.

Producer Requirements

Producers must:

 Comply with the conservation and

wetland protection requirements on

all of the producers farms;

 Comply with the planting flexibility

requirements;

 Use the contract acreage for an

agricultural or related activity;

 Obtain at least the catastrophic

level of crop insurance for each crop

of economic significance or provide a

written statement that waives any

eligibility for emergency crop loss

assistance for the crop; and

 File annual acreage reports to

maintain eligibility for loans, and

report any fruit and vegetable

plantings on contract acreage.

Payment Dates

1996-1998; 2000-2002

Annual payments will be made no

later than September 30 of each

fiscal year through 2002. Producers

may elect to receive a 50-percent

advance payment on December 15

or January 15 of the fiscal year, and

may change that date from year to

year.

To receive an advance payment on:

 December 15: The advance

payment must be requested by

November 30 of that fiscal year.

 January 15: The advance payment

must be requested by December 31

of that fiscal year.

A producer who does not request

advance payments by those dates

cannot receive advance payments for

that fiscal year.

1999 Only

The Emergency Farm Financial

Relief Act, signed into law August

1998, gives producers the option of

receiving either one full PFC

payment at any time during fiscal

year 1999 or two payments of 50

percent each at any time during the

fiscal year. Farmers should call or

visit their FSA county offices to select

payment options. Those who do not

choose a payment option will receive

their full payment towards the end of

Fiscal Year 1999.

Payments

Total estimated spending levels

(before any adjustments) are

specified below:

FY 1996 $5.570 billion

FY 1997 $5.385 billion

FY 1998 $5.800 billion

FY 1999 $5.603 billion

FY 2000 $5.130 billion

FY 2001 $4.130 billion

FY 2002 $4.008 billion
Fact Sheet

Production Flexibility Contracts,

Marketing Loss Assistance Payments,

and Marketing Assistance Loans

2

Crop shares of contract payments:

Wheat 26.26%

Corn 46.22%

Grain Sorghum 5.11%

Barley 2.16%

Oats 0.15%

Upland cotton 11.63%

Rice 8.47%

Adjustments

Each crops share of the total spending level for a particular fiscal year is

adjusted by:

 Adding total repayments of advance deficiency payments for the

1995 crop of the commodity;

 Adding refunds of contract payments received during the preceding

fiscal year for the commodity;

 Subtracting total remaining deficiency payments for the 1994 and

1995 crops of upland cotton, feed

grains, or wheat; and

 Adding $8.5 million for rice for each

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

Payment Formula

 For each contract, the payment

quantity of a contract commodity for

each fiscal year equals 85 percent of

the contract acreage multiplied by

the farm program payment yield.

 The annual contract payment rate

for each commodity equals the total

spending level for each commodity

(after adjustments) for the fiscal year

divided by the sum of payment

quantities for each commodity for all

contracts for the fiscal year.

 The annual payment amount

equals the payment quantity for each

of the contract commodities multiplied by the respective annual

contract payment rate.

In the case of wheat, cotton, barley,

and oat crops, the final 1996 annual

payment amount was immediately

offset by the amount of any outstanding unearned advance deficiency

payments for the 1995 crop.

continues Ø

Table 1: Payment Rates

Commodity

A e ctual Estimat

1 7 996 199 1 8 998 199

MLA 1/

1 0 999 200 2 2 001 200

Wheat 87.4 2/ 63.1 6 9 6.3 32. 6 0 3.7 57. 4 0 6.0 44.

Corn 2 6 5.1 48. 2/ 3 3 7.7 18. 3 0 6.3 33. 2 0 6.0 25.

Grain Sorghum 3 4 2.3 54. 2/ 4 5 5.2 22. 4 0 3.5 39. 3 0 1.0 30.

Barley 33.2 2/ 27.7 2 1 8.4 14. 2 0 7.1 24. 1 0 9.0 18.

Oats 3.3 2/ 3.1 3 6 .1 1. 3 7 .0 2. 2 0 .0 2.

Upland Cotton

(cents/lb.) 8.88 2/ 7.62 8 6 .17 4.0 7 0 .88 7.0 5 0 .60 5.4

Rice ($/cwt.) 2 1 .77 2.7 2 5 .92 1.4 2 0 .82 2.6 2 0 .10 2.0

Note: Cents per bushel unless noted otherwise.

2000 - 2002 are estimated. Actual rates may vary.

1/ Marketing Loss Assistance Payments

2/ Includes the following payment rates based on the amount of the 1995 deficiency payments required to be repaid:

Wheat: 24.3; Corn: 13.4; Grain Sorghum: 11.8; Barley: 9.0; Oats: 0.8; Upland Cotton: 1.19; Rice: not applicable
Fact Sheet

Production Flexibility Contracts,

Marketing Loss Assistance Payments,

and Marketing Assistance Loans

For corn and grain sorghum, the 1997

payment was offset by outstanding

unearned advances for the 1995 crop.

1998 Marketing Loss

Assistance Payments

The Omnibus Consolidated and

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 1999, signed into

law October 1998, requires the

Secretary to make $2.857 billion in

marketing loss assistance payments

to crop producers. Payments were

issued November 1998 to producers

who were eligible for fiscal year 1998

payments. The payments were

required to be proportional to the

amount of payments received by

producers in fiscal year 1998. A

person may not receive more than

$19,888.

Payment Rates

Actual payment rates for 1996

through 1999 and estimated payment

rates for 2000-2002 are found in

Table 1.

Payment Limitations

The total amount of contract

payments made to a person under

one or more PFCs during any fiscal

year may not exceed $40,000.

Marketing loan gains and loan

deficiency payments are limited to

$75,000 per person. A person can

directly and indirectly receive contract

payments, and loan deficiency

payments through no more than three

entities. Producers may assign

contract payments and must share the

payments on a fair and equitable

basis.

Any payments redistributed to eligible

owners or producers that came from

repayments of 1995 advance

deficiency payments were not subject

to the $40,000 payment limit. However,

such payments that were earned for

1996 and 1997 could not exceed

$50,000 per person for the term of

the contract.

Contract Violations

Contracts of owners or producers

who violate their contractual

requirements are terminated on each

farm in which the owner or producer

has an interest. Once terminated, the

owner or producer forfeits all rights to

future contract payments on each

farm and must refund all contract

payments received during the period

of the violation. However, the

Secretary of Agriculture may

determine that the violation does not

justify termination, in which case the

Secretary may require the owner or

producer to refund part of the

contract payments during the period

of the violation, or to accept a

reduction in the amount of future

contract payments in proportion to

the severity of the violation.

An owner or producer who has been

foreclosed upon is not required to

make contract repayments, if the

Secretary determines that forgiving

the repayments would be fair and

equitable. However, the producer is

not eligible for contract payments in

subsequent years unless he or she

regains control of the contract

acreage. The provisions of the

contract continue to apply if and

when the owner or producer resumes

control of the contract acreage which

was foreclosed upon.

Marketing Assistance

Loans

Producers may obtain a marketing

assistance loan for eligible crops --

wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats,

rice, upland cotton, Extra Long Staple

(ELS) cotton, soybeans, and minor

oilseeds. Upon harvest, a producer

may store the crop and obtain a loan

for 9 months, beginning the first day of

the month following the month in which

the loan is made.

Loan Rates for Contract

Commodities

Wheat and corn loan rates are tied to

historical market prices and current

stocks-to-use ratios. However, loan

rates for these crops for 1996 through

2002 may not exceed their 1995

levels.

Grain sorghum, barley and oat loan

rates are set using historical price

relationships to corn.

Rice loan rates are frozen at the 1995

level of $6.50 per hundredweight.

continues Ø

3

Table 2: Loan Rates

C s rop U 6 nit 1 7 99 1 8 99 199

W u heat $ 8 /b 2 8 .5 2 8 .5 2.5

C u orn $ 9 /b 1 9 .8 1 9 .8 1.8

S u oybeans $ 7 /b 4 6 .9 5 6 .2 5.2

Sorghum

$ 1 /bu 1 6 .8 1 4 .7 1.7

c 3 /cwt 3 4 .2 3 1 .1 3.1

B u arley $ 5 /b 1 7 .5 1 6 .5 1.5

O u ats $ 3 /b 1 1 .0 1 1 .1 1.1

U b pland Cotton c 2 /l 5 2 1.9 5 2 1.9 51.9

E b LS Cotton c 5 /l 7 5 9.6 7 5 9.6 79.6

R t ice $ 0 /cw 6 0 .5 6 0 .5 6.5

M b inor Oilseeds c 1 /l 8 0 .8 9 0 .3 9.3
Fact Sheet

Production Flexibility Contracts,

Marketing Loss Assistance Payments,

and Marketing Assistance Loans

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of

program information (braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.,

20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Upland cotton loan rates are tied to

historical prices, but the loan rate may

not be less than $0.50 per pound or

more than $0.5192 per pound (the

1995 level).

Loan Rates for Oilseeds and

ELS Cotton

Soybean and minor oilseed loan

rates are tied to previous years

market prices. The loan rate for

soybeans must be between $4.92

and $5.26 per bushel, and that for

minor oilseeds must be between

$8.70 and $9.30 per hundredweight.

ELS cotton loan rates are also tied to

previous years market prices, but may

not be more than 0.7065 cents per

pound.

Loan Eligibility

Producers are eligible to receive

loans and marketing loan benefits on

all production of contract

commodities on the farm with a

Production Flexibility Contract, even if

produced on non-contract acres.

However, they must report the acres

planted of loan-eligible crops to be

eligible for marketing assistance loans

and loan deficiency payments.

Contract farms cannot be combined

with non-contract farms to increase

loan eligibility. All producers are

eligible for loans and marketing loan

benefits on any production of

soybeans and designated minor

oilseeds. All producers are eligible for

loans (but not marketing loan

benefits) on any production of ELS

cotton.

Interest Rates

Interest rates on commodity loans

are increased by one percentage

point above the Commodity Credit

Corporations cost of borrowing from

the U.S. Treasury. Prior to the 1996

Farm Bill, the interest rate was equal

to the Commodity Credit

Corporations cost of borrowing.

For additional data about the

Contract Commodities Program,

including figures on enrollment and

payment amounts for the current

Fiscal Year, see the FSA fact sheet

entitled Production Flexibility

Contract Data -- Fiscal Year 1998.

For more information, contact your

local USDA Farm Service Agency

office.

4
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Good News!

Welcome to the redesigned FNCS web.

Click here to proceed to our new home page.

Our URL addresses are new, too.

Please, update your bookmarks.

Transition from G1 to G2

http://www.fns.usda.gov/newsite.htm [10/5/1999 3:36:13 PM]
[Federal Register: February 24, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 36)]

[Proposed Rules] 

[Page 9089-9105]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr24fe99-9]

========================================================================

Proposed Rules

 Federal Register

________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 

the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 

notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 

the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

[[Page 9089]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 317, 318, and 381

[Docket No. 97-076P]

RIN 0583-AC50

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to 

amend the meat inspection regulations to permit the use of ionizing 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (1 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
radiation for treating refrigerated or frozen uncooked meat, meat 

byproducts, and certain other meat food products to reduce levels of 

food borne pathogens and to extend shelf-life. FSIS is proposing this 

action in light of the Food and Drug Administration's recent final rule 

which amended its food additive regulations to provide for the safe use 

of ionizing irradiation sources to treat these same meat food products. 

FSIS also is proposing to revise the regulations governing the 

irradiation of poultry so that they will be as consistent as possible 

with the proposed regulations for the irradiation of meat food 

products.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit one original and two copies of written comments to 

FSIS Docket #97-076P, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and 

Inspection Service, Room 102, Cotton Annex, 300 12 St., SW, Washington, 

DC 20250-3700. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule 

will be available for public inspection in the Docket Clerk's Office 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph.D., Director, 

Regulation Development and Analysis Division, Office of Policy, Program 

Development, and Evaluation, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (202) 720-5627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

 Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to high levels of 

radiant energy. Forms of radiant energy include: microwave and infrared 

radiation that heat food during cooking; visible light or ultraviolet 

light used to dry food or kill surface microorganisms; and ionizing 

radiation, resulting from cobalt-60, cesium-137, x-ray machines, or 

electron accelerators, that penetrates deeply into food, killing insect 

pests and microorganisms without raising the temperature of the food 

significantly. Food is most often irradiated commercially to extend 

shelf-life, eliminate insect pests, or reduce numbers of pathogenic 

microorganisms. Food irradiation for these purposes is practiced in 

many countries, including the United States.

 Section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

defines sources of radiation used to treat food as ``food additives.'' 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and 

Human Services has the primary responsibility for determining whether 

or not food additives are safe for particular uses. FDA lists uses of 

food additives it has concluded are safe in 21 CFR parts 172 through 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (2 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
180.

 On August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43848), FDA announced that it had 

received a petition from Isomedix, Inc., requesting that FDA amend the 

food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 179 (Irradiation in the 

Production, Processing and Handling of Food). The petition requested 

that FDA authorize the safe use of sources of ionizing radiation to:

control microbial pathogens in raw, fresh-chilled, and frozen intact 

and comminuted edible tissue of the skeletal muscle and organ meat 

of domesticated mammalian food sources; with concomitant control of 

infectious parasites, and, extension of acceptable edible/marketable 

life of chilled/refrigerated and defrosted meat through the 

reduction in levels of spoilage microorganisms.

The petition further specified that the proposed foods were to be 

``primarily from bovine, ovine, porcine, and equine sources.'' Also, 

Isomedix requested that a maximum dose of 4.5 kiloGray (kGy) be 

established for the irradiation of fresh (chilled, not frozen) meat, 

and that a maximum dose of 7.0 kGy be established for the irradiation 

of frozen meat.

 On December 3, 1997, FDA published a final rule (FDA Docket No. 

94F-0289; 62 FR 64107) granting this petition. In that publication, FDA 

expanded the list of products (21 CFR 179.26(b)) for which ionizing 

irradiation may be safely used to control food borne pathogens and 

extend shelf life to include: refrigerated and frozen uncooked meat; 

meat byproducts (e.g., edible organs, such as the liver and the 

kidneys); and certain meat food products (e.g., ground beef and 

hamburger). Specifically, the foods that may be irradiated are: meat, 

as defined by FSIS in 9 CFR 301.2(rr); meat byproducts, as defined by 

FSIS in 9 CFR 301.2(tt); and other meat food products within the 

meaning of 9 CFR 301.2(uu), with or without nonfluid seasoning, that 

are otherwise composed solely of intact or ground meat or meat 

byproducts, or of both.

FDA's Evaluation of the Safety of Irradiation

 Under Sec. 409(c)(3)(A) of the FFDCA, a food additive cannot be 

listed for a particular use unless a fair evaluation of the evidence 

establishes that the additive is safe for that use. In response to the 

Isomedix petition, FDA identified the various effects that could result 

from the irradiation of meat food products and then assessed whether 

any of these effects could pose a human health risk. FDA did not 

consider whether irradiation of meat would bring about health or other 

benefits for consumers.

 FDA examined the data and studies submitted by Isomedix, as well as 

other information in its files relevant to the safety and nutritional 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (3 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
adequacy of meat treated with irradiation. Specifically, FDA evaluated:

 <bullet> Studies of the radiation chemistry of food components 

and whole foods, including flesh foods (``radiation chemistry'' 

refers to the chemical reactions that occur as a result of absorbing 

radiation);

 <bullet> Toxicity studies of irradiated beef, pork, chicken, and 

fish;

 <bullet> Studies of the nutritional adequacy of irradiated 

products derived from livestock and poultry, in light of the dietary 

consumption patterns for these products; and

[[Page 9090]]

 <bullet> Studies of the effects of irradiation on both 

pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms.\1\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \1\ Because Clostridium botulinum spores are very resistant to 

the effects of irradiation and would be more likely to suvive 

irradiation than other pathogens and most spoilage bacteria, and 

because the illness associated with botulinal toxin is so severe, 

FDA, in its evaluation, focused particularly on the effects of 

irradiation on the probability of significantly increased growth of, 

and subsequent toxin production by, C. botulinum. FDA detrmined that 

irradiation of meat food products under the conditions set forth in 

its regulation will not result in any additional health hazard from 

C. botulinum or from other common pathogens.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Based on its evaluation of available data, FDA concluded that 

irradiation of meat, meat byproducts, and certain other meat food 

products under the conditions requested in the petition would not 

present toxicological or microbiological hazards and would not 

adversely affect the nutritional adequacy of these products. FDA 

therefore granted the petition and added meat, meat byproducts, and 

certain other meat food products to the list in 21 CFR 179.26(b) of 

foods that may be treated with ionizing radiation to reduce levels of 

food borne pathogens and to extend shelf-life.

 Under Sec. 318.7 of the meat inspection regulations, FSIS may 

approve a substance for use in the preparation of meat food products if 

the substance has been previously approved by FDA and if FSIS has 

determined that:

 <bullet> Its use is in compliance with applicable FDA 

requirements;

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (4 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
 <bullet> The use of the substance will not render the product in 

which it is used adulterated or misbranded or otherwise not in 

compliance with the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act; 

and

 <bullet> Its use is functional and suitable for the product and 

it is permitted for use at the lowest level necessary to accomplish 

the stated technical effect as determined in specific cases. FSIS 

has made these determinations and therefore, in this document is 

proposing to amend its meat inspection regulations to provide for 

the safe use of ionizing radiation for the treatment of meat, meat 

byproducts, and certain other meat food products. FSIS also is 

proposing labeling requirements for these same products.

Irradiation as a Food Additive in Meat and Poultry

 Pathogenic microorganisms are the most significant cause of food 

borne illness. Ionizing radiation will reduce, and in some 

circumstances eliminate, pathogenic microorganisms in or on meat and 

poultry. FSIS therefore recognizes irradiation as a important 

technology for helping to ensure the safety of meat and poultry. FSIS 

already has listed ionizing radiation as an approved additive in pork 

carcasses or fresh or previously frozen cuts of pork carcasses that 

have not been cured or heat-processed for the control of Trichinella 

spiralis (9 CFR 318.7); and as an approved additive in fresh or frozen, 

uncooked, packaged poultry products and mechanically separated poultry 

for the purpose of reducing pathogenic microorganisms (9 CFR 381.147). 

In fact, FSIS originally petitioned FDA to allow the irradiation of 

poultry.

 Available scientific data indicate that ionizing radiation can 

significantly reduce the levels of many of the pathogenic 

microorganisms of concern in meat food products, including various 

species of Salmonella; E. coli O157:H7; Clostridium perfringens; 

Staphylococcus aureus; Listeria monocytogenes; Campylobacter jejuni; 

and the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii. The available reports and 

published articles establish that the radiation dose necessary to 

reduce the initial population of many of the bacterial pathogens by 90 

percent (the ``D value,'' which is equivalent to 1-log<INF>10</INF>) 

ranges from 0.1 kGy to just under 1 kGy. The following chart lists the 

approximate D values for some of the pathogens of concern in meat food 

products.\2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \2\ These approximate D-values are from: ``Irradiation of red 

meat: A compilation of technical data for its authorization and 

control,'' International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, 

August 1996.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (5 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
 Pathogen Irradiation D values

C. jejuni................................. 0.18 kGy (in refrigerated

 product) to 0.24 kGy (in

 frozen product).

C. perfringens............................ 0.586 kGy (in refrigerated

 product).

E. coli O157:H7........................... 0.25 kGy (in refrigerated

 product) to 0.45 kGy (in

 frozen product).

L. monocy- togenes........................ 0.4 kGy to 0.64 kGy.

Salmonella spp............................ 0.48 kGy to 0.7 kGy.

S. aureus................................. 0.45 kGy.

T. gondii................................. 0.4 kGy to 0.7 kGy.

T. spiralis............................... 0.3 kGy to 0.6 kGy.

 These approximate ranges of D values are all well beneath the 

maximum dosages of irradiation authorized by FDA and proposed by FSIS 

for refrigerated and frozen meat food products (4.5 kGy and 7 kGy, 

respectively). Treating product with a maximum dose of irradiation, 

therefore, could result in a significant reduction or even the 

elimination of certain pathogens. For example, given the highest 

approximate D value for E. coli O157:H7 from the table above, 

irradiation of a frozen meat food product at 7 kGy could achieve an 

approximate 15 log<INF>10</INF> per gram reduction of E. coli O157:H7. 

That is, approximately 99.9999999999999 percent of the pathogen could 

be eliminated from the product. Considering that E. coli O157:H7 is 

usually found at levels of 3 log<INF>10</INF> per gram or lower in 

ground meat products \3\, there is a high probability that irradiation 

of frozen ground meat products with a 7 kGy dose could eliminate E. 

coli O157:H7 from the product.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \3\ National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for 

Foods, Meat and Poultry Subcommittee Report, November 20, 1997.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 It is important to remember, however, that the D value for any 

individual pathogen varies depending on such factors as the type of 

food to be irradiated, the physical state (frozen versus nonfrozen) of 

the food, product temperature, and ambient oxygen level. For example, 

higher radiation doses are needed to achieve the same antimicrobial 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (6 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
effect in a frozen food versus a nonfrozen food of the same type (hence 

the two different maximum doses for refrigerated and frozen product 

approved by FDA and proposed in this document by FSIS). Further, the 

load of pathogens on incoming product can vary widely, due to animal 

husbandry and sanitation practices, as well as other factors. 

Regardless, it is apparent that irradiation would be a highly effective 

antimicrobial treatment for meat food products.

 Finally, as mentioned in footnote 1, the pathogen C. botulinum is 

very resistant to irradiation. Spores have D values of approximately 

3.45 to 3.6 kGy in refrigerated product and 3.73 to 3.85 kGy in frozen 

product.\4\ However, in its microbiological assessment of irradiation, 

FDA determined that the probability for significant growth of, and 

toxin production by, C. botulinum in irradiated meat stored under 

adequate temperature control (properly refrigerated or frozen) is 

extremely remote for several reasons. First, C. botulinum spores occur 

with extremely low frequency and in extremely low numbers in meat, and 

these numbers will be further reduced by irradiation at the permitted 

doses. Second, most strains of C. botulinum that have been found in 

meat do not grow and produce toxin under refrigeration conditions 

appropriate for transport and storage of

[[Page 9091]]

flesh foods. Third, various species of other microorganisms commonly 

found on meat, particularly spoilage bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus spp. 

and others), survive irradiation in sufficient numbers to grow and 

inhibit growth of, and toxin production by, C. botulinum in both 

refrigerated and temperature-abused irradiated meats. FDA concluded, 

therefore, that irradiation of meat food products under the conditions 

set forth in its regulation will not result in any health hazard from 

C. botulinum additional to that which may be found in non-irradiated 

product.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \4\ ``Irradiation of red meat: A compilation of technical data 

for its authorization and control,'' International Consultative 

Group on Food Irradiation August 1996.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irradiation and HACCP

 On July 25, 1996, FSIS published a final rule that requires every 

meat and poultry establishment to develop and implement Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control Point (HACCP), a science-based process control 

system designed to improve the safety of meat and poultry products 

(FSIS Docket No. 93-016F, ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (7 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems''; 61 FR 38806). Under this 

final rule, meat and poultry establishments are responsible for 

developing and implementing HACCP plans incorporating the controls 

determined by the establishment to be necessary and appropriate to 

produce safe products. HACCP is a flexible system that enables 

establishments to tailor their control systems to the needs of their 

particular plants and processes. In the paragraphs that follow, FSIS 

outlines how irradiation could be used within a HACCP system by poultry 

establishments and, if FSIS finalizes this rule, by meat 

establishments.

 To meet the HACCP requirements, establishments must first conduct a 

hazard analysis to identify and list the food safety hazards reasonably 

likely to occur in a production process, as well as the preventive 

measures necessary to control the hazards. A food safety hazard is any 

biological, chemical, or physical property that may cause a food to be 

unsafe for human consumption. Establishments that identify microbial 

pathogens as hazards within their processes could choose irradiation as 

a method to reduce or even eliminate such pathogens.

 Next, establishments must establish critical control points 

(CCP's). A CCP is a point, step, or procedure at which control can be 

applied so that a food safety hazard can be prevented, eliminated, or 

reduced to an acceptable level. Meat and poultry establishments 

choosing to irradiate product would integrate irradiation into their 

HACCP systems as a CCP.

 Establishments then must establish critical limits for their CCP's. 

Critical limits are most often based on process parameters such as 

temperature, time, physical dimensions, humidity, moisture level, water 

activity, pH, and survival of target pathogens. Establishments that 

irradiate product probably would have as some of their critical limits 

radiation dosage, product temperature, and ambient oxygen level. By 

ensuring that specific limits for each of these parameters were met, 

establishments could be reasonably sure that a predetermined reduction 

in pathogens had been achieved within the irradiated product. 

Establishments would be free to establish any critical limits 

appropriate for their HACCP systems, as long as they remain in 

compliance with the FSIS and FDA regulations governing irradiation, 

such as the regulatory limits on maximum dosage.

 The remaining HACCP requirements include monitoring of CCP's, plans 

for corrective action in the event of processing deviations, record 

keeping, and HACCP plan verification. It is likely that establishments 

that irradiate product would meet these requirements no differently 

than other official establishments. Establishments that irradiate meat 

or poultry product should keep in mind, however, that their HACCP plans 

must address all processing, from receiving to shipment. Therefore, an 

establishment that ships product to a separate facility for irradiation 

would need to address the conditions of shipment (handling, packaging, 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (8 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
refrigeration, etc.) within its HACCP plan. Similarly, the irradiation 

facility would need to address shipment and receiving of the product, 

as well as the irradiation treatment itself, in its HACCP plan. 

Controlling the conditions of product from initial processing through 

irradiation and packaging will be necessary to ensure and preserve the 

intended antimicrobial effects of irradiation.

 There are numerous possible scenarios involving the use of 

irradiation within a HACCP system and FSIS could not enumerate them all 

in this document. There is available from FSIS, however, a generic 

HACCP model for irradiation developed by the International Meat and 

Poultry HACCP Alliance. The model, entitled ``Generic HACCP Model for 

Irradiation,'' is available from the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES 

above) and from the Texas A&M University World Wide Web site at http://

ifse.tamu.edu/alliance/haccpmodels.html.

 To account for the numerous possible processing situations and to 

allow for maximum flexibility and innovation in developing HACCP 

systems incorporating irradiation, FSIS is proposing only those 

requirements necessary to ensure product safety. For example, FSIS is 

proposing no minimum dose for the irradiation of meat products. FDA did 

not establish a minimum irradiation dose for meat food products in its 

final rule, although they stated that FSIS could establish a minimum 

dose without petitioning FDA. FDA concluded that different doses could 

be appropriate, in different circumstances, for achieving a desired 

technical effect and that its regulation should allow for flexibility 

in this regard. FSIS agrees. FSIS also is proposing to eliminate the 

minimum dose that it currently requires for poultry. The minimum dosage 

for poultry was intended to ensure a certain reduction of pathogens. 

Under the HACCP requirements, FSIS wants to allow poultry 

establishments, like meat establishments, to determine what level of 

irradiation (subject to a maximum level) and consequent reduction of 

pathogens is appropriate within their HACCP systems.

 Furthermore, FSIS is proposing no specific handling or packaging 

requirements for the irradiation of meat food products. Under this 

proposal, establishments will be responsible for determining, within 

their HACCP systems, what sort of handling and packaging is appropriate 

for ensuring that irradiated product is not adulterated. FSIS also is 

proposing to revise the packaging requirements for irradiated poultry 

to maximize processing flexibility and innovation. The proposed 

revisions are explained in detail below under ``Revision of the 

Requirements for Irradiated Poultry.''

 Finally, FSIS is proposing no restrictions on the specific function 

of irradiation as a CCP within a HACCP system. If this proposal is 

finalized, some establishments may choose to irradiate packaged ground 

product at high dosages to achieve maximal pathogen reduction 

throughout the product. Other establishments may choose to irradiate 

only a few millimeters into whole muscle products to control pathogenic 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (9 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
bacterial contamination on the surface. These types of pathogen 

reduction treatments and others will be allowed under the proposed 

regulations.

 FDA did approve irradiation of meat food products as a means to 

extend product shelf-life, as well as a means to reduce pathogens. FSIS 

is proposing to allow irradiation for this purpose too. Were an 

establishment to irradiate meat food products solely for the purpose of

[[Page 9092]]

extending shelf-life, it is conceivable, although highly unlikely, that 

the establishment could disregard any amount of pathogen reduction 

achieved by the irradiation and therefore not list irradiation as a CCP 

in it HACCP plan. However, such an establishment still would have to 

meet the other requirements for irradiation facilities promulgated by 

FSIS and other Federal and State agencies, such as requirements for 

dosimetry and documentation. FSIS does not anticipate that any 

establishment will irradiate product solely to extend shelf life and 

not account for the antimicrobial effects of irradiation in its HACCP 

plan.

Products Affected by the Proposed Rule

 FSIS worked with FDA during its review of the Isomedix petition, 

primarily to identify the various types of meat food products suitable 

for irradiation, in light of the petitioner's request and FDA 

restrictions concerning the irradiation of ingredients (e.g. water, 

brine, spices) contained in certain meat products. FSIS also consulted 

with FDA regarding which forms of comminuted meats (e.g. lowtemperature rendered meat, advanced meat recovery system meat, finely 

textured meat) would be suitable for irradiation. As a result of those 

consultations, FDA approved ionizing irradiation as an additive for the 

following types of uncooked, refrigerated or frozen meat food products:

 <bullet> Meat, as defined in 9 CFR 301.2(rr):

 (1) The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or 

goats, which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, or in the 

diaphragm, or in the heart, or in the esophagus, with or without the 

accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, 

sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle 

tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of 

dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, 

or ears. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a 

meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect 

to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats.

 (2) The product derived from the mechanical separation of the 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (10 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock using the 

advances in mechanical meat/bone separation machinery and meat 

recovery systems that do not crush, grind, or pulverize bones, and 

from which the bones emerge comparable to those resulting from handdeboning (i.e., essentially intact and in natural physical 

conformation such that they are recognizable, such as loin and rib 

bones, when they emerge from the machinery) which meets the criteria 

of no more than 0.15 percent or 150 mg/100 gm of product for calcium 

(as a measure of bone solids content) within a tolerance of 0.03 

percent or 30 mg.

 <bullet> Meat byproducts, as defined in 9 CFR 301.2(tt):

 Any part capable of use as human food, other than meat, which 

has been derived from one or more cattle, sheep, swine, or goats. 

This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning 

comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to 

cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. (This category of byproducts would 

include blood and blood plasma.)

 <bullet> Meat food products within the meaning of 9 CFR 

301.2(uu), with or without nonfluid seasoning, that are otherwise 

composed solely of intact or ground meat and/or meat byproducts 

(e.g., ground beef as in 9 CFR 319.15(a); hamburger as in 9 CFR 

319.15(b); certain defatted beef or pork products as in 9 CFR 

319.15(e) and 9 CFR 319.29(a), respectively; mechanically separated 

(species) as in 9 CFR 319.5).

FSIS's proposed irradiation requirements would be applicable to these 

same meat food products.

 It has come to the attention of the Agency that several 

establishments may wish to irradiate ``hot-boned'' meat. Hot-boned meat 

is meat carcasses or parts that are deboned immediately following 

slaughter and then chilled. It is likely that an establishment wishing 

to irradiate hot-boned meat would irradiate between the deboning and 

the chilling of the carcasses or parts. The meat, therefore, would not 

have been refrigerated prior to irradiation and FDA has listed ionizing 

irradiation as an additive only for refrigerated or frozen, uncooked 

meat products.

 FSIS believes that the irradiation of hot-boned meat poses no 

unique risks and further, that the assessment conducted by FDA 

regarding the safety of irradiating refrigerated meat is completely 

applicable to hot-boned meat. In the proposed regulatory text, FSIS has 

specified only refrigerated and frozen meat food products as products 

that may be irradiated in Sec. 318.7(c)(4). However, FSIS currently is 

consulting with FDA to determine what action is necessary and 

appropriate in regard to the possible irradiation of hot-boned meat. 

FSIS requests public comment on this issue as well. Depending upon 

these consultations with FDA and other information submitted by the 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (11 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
public, FSIS may specifically provide for the irradiation of hot-boned 

meat in the final rule that succeeds this document.

Addition of Irradiation to the Table of Substances Approved for Use in 

the Preparation of Meat Food Products

 FSIS is proposing to amend the table in Sec. 318.7(c)(4) of its 

meat inspection regulations by adding ionizing radiation as a substance 

suitable for controlling food borne pathogens in the meat, meat 

byproducts, and other meat food products described above. In accordance 

with the FDA final rule, FSIS is proposing a maximum absorbed dosage of 

4.5 kGy for refrigerated products and 7 kGy for frozen products. As 

explained above, FSIS is proposing no minimum dosage.

 This addition to the table would supercede the current entry 

allowing the use of ionizing radiation from gamma rays for the control 

of Trichinella spiralis in pork. Current FSIS regulations permit the 

use of ionizing irradiation from cobalt-60 and cesium-137 for control 

of Trichinella spiralis in specified pork products. Additionally, the 

regulation specifies minimum and maximum dosages. Under this proposal, 

establishments could continue to irradiate pork for the control of 

trichinae, but could employ higher doses, as well as ionizing radiation 

from machine sources. In its recent final rule, FDA did not remove the 

entry allowing the use of ionizing radiation for the control of 

Trichinella spiralis in pork from the table in 21 CFR 179.26(b). 

However, FDA's addition of sources of radiation as a treatment for meat 

food products seems to supercede the entry for Trichinella spiralis. 

FSIS will consult with FDA to clarify the intent of its new rule on 

this issue.

Processing Requirements for the Irradiation of Meat Food Products

 FSIS is proposing to amend Sec. 318.11 (currently reserved) by 

establishing processing requirements specific to the irradiation of 

specified meat food products. Of primary importance is that the 

irradiation of meat food products be conducted only in accordance with 

written procedures. Absorbed radiation dosage cannot be measured in 

treated product. Only through adherence to written procedures can 

establishments ensure that product receives doses of radiation within 

the regulatory limits.

 To this end, FSIS is proposing to require that establishments 

conduct irradiation of meat and meat products only in accordance with 

either a HACCP plan, as defined in Part 417 of the FSIS meat and 

poultry inspection regulations, or a process schedule validated for 

efficacy by a processing authority (proposed Sec. 318.11(a)). Written 

irradiation procedures must describe the specific, sequential 

operations employed by the establishment in the irradiation and 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (12 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
associated processing of meat food products, including the control, 

validation, monitoring, and corrective action activities.

 Because the smallest meat and poultry establishments will not be 

required to implement HACCP until January 25, 2000, it is possible that 

there will be establishments ready to irradiate meat food products 

before they have

[[Page 9093]]

implemented HACCP. FSIS would prefer that establishments develop and 

implement HACCP plans sooner than required. The Agency is proposing 

however, that establishments desiring to irradiate meat food products 

before they have implemented HACCP, have on file a written process 

schedule describing the specific operations employed by the 

establishment to accomplish the objectives of irradiation. FSIS is 

proposing to require that this process schedule contain the control, 

validation, monitoring, and corrective action activities associated 

with the establishment's irradiation procedures (proposed 

Sec. 318.11(a)(2)). These activities are the safety, sanitation, and 

basic good manufacturing practices generally regarded as essential 

prerequisites for the production of safe food. Further, these 

activities are likely to be similar, if not identical, to the control, 

monitoring, validation, and corrective action activities developed by 

the establishment as part of its HACCP plan.

 Under this proposal, the process schedule will have to be evaluated 

and approved for safety and efficacy by a process authority. A 

``process authority'' is defined in Sec. 301.2 of the regulations as 

``A person or organization with expert knowledge in meat production 

process control and relevant regulations.'' The process authority will 

evaluate the establishment's prospective irradiation and related 

processing procedures using appropriate validation methods such as 

laboratory challenge studies or comparison to peer-reviewed and -

accepted procedures. The process authority must approve in writing the 

safety and efficacy of the irradiation procedures. The process 

authority must have access to the establishment in order to evaluate 

the safety of that establishment's planned production processes.

 FSIS is proposing to sunset these proposed process schedule 

requirements after all establishments have been required to develop and 

implement HACCP plans. These requirements will be duplicative of what 

is required by HACCP and an establishment would not need both an 

approved process schedule and a validated HACCP plan for the same 

process. FSIS anticipates that if an establishment develops a process 

schedule for irradiating meat food products prior to implementing 

HACCP, it would incorporate elements of that process schedule into its 

HACCP plan.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (13 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Dosimetry

 FSIS also is proposing to require in Sec. 318.11(b) that any 

establishment irradiating meat food products have in place a dosimetry 

system. Dosimetry is the process of measuring an absorbed dose of 

radiation. FSIS is proposing to require establishments to implement a 

dosimetry system to ensure that each lot of treated product has 

received the dose defined in the process schedule or HACCP plan.

 FSIS is proposing dosimetry requirements for the irradiation of 

meat food products that are almost identical to the dosimetry 

requirements currently in place for the irradiation of poultry food 

products. Under current and proposed requirements, establishments that 

irradiate poultry or meat food products must have in place: procedures 

for determining the absorbed radiation dose value from the 

dosimeter(s); procedures for calibrating dosimeters and other means of 

measurement (e.g., time clocks and weight scales); procedures for 

ensuring specific absorbed dosages of irradiation by product unit and 

product lot; and procedures for verifying the integrity of the 

radiation source and the processing procedure. The current and proposed 

dosimetry requirements are based upon standards promulgated by the 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

 It is likely that establishments will incorporate many dosimetry 

procedures into their HACCP plans. For example, procedures for 

verifying routine dosimetry (i.e., ensuring each product lot receives 

the total absorbed dose) could be incorporated into an HACCP plan as 

critical limits for the irradiation process. Also, calibration of 

dosimeters and other instruments could be incorporated as ongoing 

verification activities.

Documentation Requirements

 Finally, FSIS is proposing to require that any establishment 

irradiating meat food products have on file, along with its validated 

process schedule or HACCP plan, the following documents that relate to 

its compliance with other Federal requirements concerning irradiation. 

These are almost identical to the documentation requirements currently 

in place for the irradiation of poultry products.

 <bullet> Documentation that the irradiation facility is licensed 

and possesses gamma radiation sources registered with the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the appropriate State government 

acting under authority granted by the NRC (proposed 

Sec. 318.11(c)(2)).

 <bullet> Documentation that the machine radiation source 

irradiation facility is registered with the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) or the appropriate State government 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (14 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
acting under authority granted by OSHA, and that a worker safety 

program addressing OSHA regulations is in place (proposed 

Sec. 318.11(c)(3)).

 <bullet> Citations or other documents that relate to the 

instances in which the establishment was found not to comply with 

Federal or State agency requirements for irradiation facilities 

(proposed Sec. 318.11(c)(4)).

 <bullet> Certification by the operator that the irradiation 

facility personnel are operating under supervision of a person who 

has successfully completed a course of instruction for operators of 

food irradiation facilities (proposed Sec. 318.11(c)(5)).

 <bullet> Certification by the operator that the key irradiation 

personnel have been trained in food technology, irradiation 

processing, and radiation health and safety (proposed 

Sec. 318.11(c)(6)).

 <bullet> Guarantees from the suppliers of all food-contact 

packaging materials that may be subject to irradiation, that those 

materials comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and with regulations in 21 CFR 179.45 for food 

irradiation processing (proposed Sec. 318.11(c)(7)).

Labeling Requirements for Irradiated Meat Food Products

 FSIS is proposing to amend Sec. 317.14 by establishing requirements 

for the labels and labeling of irradiated meat and meat products. For 

meat and meat products irradiated in their entirety (as opposed to a 

multi-ingredient product that merely contains an irradiated 

ingredient), FSIS is proposing to require that package labels contain 

the radura symbol and a statement indicating that the product was 

treated with irradiation. The symbol must be placed prominently and 

conspicuously in conjunction with the required statement. The statement 

must appear as a qualifier contiguous to the product name. Further, 

FSIS is proposing to require that for unpackaged meat food products 

irradiated in their entirety, the required logo and a statement must be 

prominently and conspicuously displayed to purchasers either through 

labeling on a bulk container or some other appropriate device. These 

proposed requirements are consistent with those promulgated by FSIS for 

poultry and by FDA for meat and poultry.

 Under this proposal, establishments could use irradiated meat food 

products as ingredients in multi-ingredient meat food products. FSIS is 

proposing to require that the ingredient statement on such products 

reflect the inclusion of irradiated meat food product ingredients. For 

example, an ingredient statement for a sausage product containing 

irradiated pork would be required to include an entry such as, 

``irradiated pork'' or ``pork, treated by

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (15 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
[[Page 9094]]

irradiation.'' Consumers and consumer advocacy groups have requested 

that such information be disclosed in the labeling of multi-ingredient 

food products.

 Further, disclosure of processing is consistent with current FSIS 

labeling policy. For example, Sec. 317.2(e) of the meat inspection 

regulations requires that ``Product which has been prepared by salting, 

smoking, drying, cooking, chopping, or otherwise shall be so described 

on the label unless the name of the product implies, or the manner of 

packaging shows that the product was subjected to such preparation.'' 

Unlike the effects of these other forms of processing, the effects of 

irradiation processing upon meat usually would not be detectable by the 

consumer. However, some of the effects brought about by irradiation, 

such as antimicrobial effects and certain changes to product quality, 

are similar to the effects of other forms of processing, especially 

cooking. Furthermore, the use of treatments has been considered part of 

the common or usual name for various ingredients in meat food products, 

such as ``dehydrated onions'' and ``reconstituted potatoes.''

 Because FDA has not promulgated a similar requirement, and because 

FSIS anticipates opposition from certain sectors of the meat industry, 

FSIS specifically requests comment on this proposed labeling 

requirement. Notably, in a recently published Advance Notice of Public 

Rulemaking, FDA has requested public comment on this same issue and 

other issues related to the labeling of irradiated food products. FDA's 

labeling requirements and this recent notice are further discussed 

below under ``Other Labeling Issues.''

Incentive Labeling for Irradiated Meat Food Products

 FSIS would consider for approval labeling statements for meat food 

products indicating the elimination or reduction of certain pathogens. 

Under 9 CFR 381.135(c), FSIS already allows qualifiers on labels of 

irradiated poultry, e.g., ``Treated by irradiation to reduce Salmonella 

and other pathogens.'' The prerequisite for such labeling statements on 

meat and poultry products would be a HACCP plan or process schedule 

validated as achieving, through irradiation, the specific elimination 

or reduction in pathogens indicated by the labeling. FSIS is proposing 

to require that labeling statements indicating a specific reduction in 

microbial pathogens be substantiated by processing documentation. 

Further, FSIS is proposing to require that such labeling meet all other 

applicable labeling requirements contained in Sec. 317.

 Several representatives of the meat and poultry industries have 

stated to FSIS that they would like to label product as being free of 

certain pathogens as a result of irradiation, e.g., ``Free of E. coli 

O157:H7.'' It may be possible for an establishment to determine the 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (16 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
pathogen load on incoming product, irradiate the product to completely 

eliminate those pathogens with an appropriate margin of safety, and 

ensure that the product remains free of that pathogen until it reaches 

the consumer. FSIS requests comment on whether to allow this type of 

incentive labeling. Specifically, FSIS is interested in whether it 

should establish performance standards for labeling statements that 

reflect a specific reduction of pathogens. For example, FSIS could 

require that to use such labeling, establishments must achieve, through 

a validated HACCP system incorporating irradiation, a specific 

reduction of a pathogen of concern (e.g., an x-log<INF>10</INF> 

reduction of E. coli O157:H7). FSIS requests comment on this regulatory 

option, as well as any others, concerning the truthful labeling of 

irradiated meat and poultry products.

 Currently, FSIS does not have the scientific data necessary to 

propose regulations that specifically address the necessary 

preconditions for an ``E. coli O157:H7 free'' label or similar labels 

indicating the elimination of other pathogens. Based upon comments and 

other data FSIS receives, FSIS would consider a modified version of the 

proposed labeling requirements in Sec. 317.2(c) that would allow the 

labeling of meat products as being free of E. coli O157:H7 or other 

pathogens. Following an evaluation of submitted comments and data, FSIS 

will determine whether to provide for such labeling.

Other Labeling Issues

 On November 21, 1997, President Clinton signed into law the FDA 

Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 306 

(Disclosure of Irradiation) of FDAMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) by adding a new section 403C, as follows:

 (a) No provision of section 201(n), 403(a), or 409 shall be 

construed to require on the label or labeling of a food a separate 

radiation disclosure statement that is more prominent than the 

declaration of ingredients required by section 403(i)(2).

 (b) In this section, the term ``radiation disclosure statement'' 

means a written statement that discloses that a food has been 

intentionally subject to irradiation.

FDA's regulations currently do not specify how prominent a radiation 

disclosure statement must be. However, FDA believed that there was 

merit to amending 21 CFR 179.26 to include the prominence specification 

of the new statutory provision. Accordingly, FDA has amended its 

labeling provisions for irradiated foods in 21 CFR 179.26 to reflect 

that a radiation disclosure statement is not required to be any more 

prominent than the declaration of ingredients required under the 

applicable regulation promulgated under section 403(i)(2) of the FFDCA. 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (17 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
The labeling requirements proposed in this document for irradiated meat 

and poultry products are consistent with these FDA provisions.

 Also, the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 

Conference that accompanied the FDAMA directed FDA to publish for 

public comment proposed changes to current regulations relating to the 

labeling of foods treated with ionizing radiation. In response, on 

February 17, 1997, FDA published an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking concerning possible revisions to the labeling requirements 

for irradiated food (64 FR 7834). In keeping with the FDAMA joint 

statement, FDA is specifically requesting comments on two issues: (1) 

Whether the wording of the current radiation disclosure statement 

should be revised and (2) whether such labeling requirements should 

expire at a specified date in the future. FDA also is requesting 

comments on other possible revisions to other labeling requirements for 

irradiated food, including the possibility of requiring disclosure of 

irradiated ingredients in multi-ingredient food products. FSIS will 

continue to consult with FDA on their labeling requirements and will 

also review the comments submitted in response to their notice. As is 

necessary and appropriate, FSIS will make any final labeling 

requirements for irradiated meat and poultry products that are 

consistent with the labeling requirements promulgated by FDA.

 Finally, in the course of developing this proposal, FSIS received a 

petition from the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) regarding 

labeling requirements for irradiated food. Specifically, NFPA requested 

that FSIS address whether labeling requirements concerning the 

disclosure of irradiation are warranted for meat and poultry, and how 

such labeling affects consumer acceptance of irradiation. FSIS is 

reviewing this petition and will respond following its review of 

comments on this proposed rule.

[[Page 9095]]

Other Requirements

 Establishments that irradiate meat food products are ``official 

establishments,'' as defined by Sec. 301.2(zz) of the regulations. 

Consequently, irradiation facilities will have to comply with all of 

the applicable regulatory requirements governing the processing of meat 

food products, including requirements concerning grants of inspection, 

sanitation, and the development and implementation of Sanitation 

Standard Operating Procedures and HACCP plans.

Revision of the Requirements for Irradiated Poultry

 FSIS's regulations governing the irradiation of meat and poultry 

products must be based upon FDA's requirements for the use of ionizing 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (18 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
radiation as an additive in those products. FDA's requirements for the 

use of ionizing radiation as an additive in poultry are far more 

restrictive than their recently issued requirements for the use of 

ionizing radiation as an additive in meat food products. Therefore, 

until FDA changes certain requirements concerning ionizing radiation as 

an additive in poultry, FSIS will be unable to make its requirements 

for irradiated poultry entirely consistent with those for irradiated 

meat. For example, FSIS cannot propose to change the restrictions on 

the maximum irradiation dose for poultry, the types of poultry products 

allowed to be irradiated, and certain packaging requirements. However, 

FSIS is proposing other permissible changes to the poultry regulations 

to make them as consistent as possible with the meat regulations and 

with HACCP.

 First, FSIS is proposing to eliminate the requirements in 

Secs. 381.19 and 381.149 that establishments irradiate poultry only in 

accordance with Partial Quality Control programs (PQC's). Instead, FSIS 

is proposing to require that, like meat establishments, poultry 

establishments irradiating product develop and implement process 

schedules or HACCP plans that account for the irradiation treatment. 

PQC's contain all or most of the elements required in a process 

schedule or HACCP plan, and all poultry establishments eventually will 

be required to implement HACCP. Consequently, FSIS anticipates that 

this conversion, if this proposal is finalized, will be relatively 

simple and pose no significant burden.

 FSIS also is proposing to eliminate the requirement that only 

packaged poultry may be treated with irradiation. FSIS adopted this 

requirement to ensure that the antimicrobial effects of irradiation 

would be maintained throughout the processing and distribution of the 

poultry:

To best ensure a reduction of the microbial load on poultry product, 

FSIS believes that all irradiated poultry would be packaged, in 

compliance with 21 CFR 179.25 and 179.26, prior to irradiation and 

remain in the same package through the distribution in commerce to 

the point of purchase.

(57 FR 19463; May 6, 1992)

Because FSIS is requiring all poultry establishments to develop and 

implement HACCP plans, this prescriptive packaging requirement is no 

longer necessary. Under the HACCP requirements, poultry establishments 

have both the responsibility and the flexibility to determine the best 

means for reducing hazards within a specific processing environment. A 

poultry establishment with irradiation as a CCP within its HACCP plan 

may choose whatever means is appropriate to preserve the antimicrobial 

effects of irradiation throughout processing and distribution. One 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (19 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
result of this proposed revision will be that, as with irradiated meat 

food products, irradiated poultry products can be used as ingredients 

in further processed products.

 FSIS cannot, however, propose to rescind the FDA requirement in 21 

CFR 179.26(b)(6) which mandates that if packaged poultry product is 

irradiated, that packaging be air permeable: ``* * * any packaging used 

shall not exclude oxygen.'' FSIS originally requested that FDA 

establish this requirement for control of the pathogen C. botulinum. 

FDA agreed, noting that ``use of air-permeable packaging materials 

provides an extra margin of safety from C. botulinum toxin production 

and spoilage in chicken incubated both aerobically (with oxygen) and 

anaerobically (without oxygen)'' (57 FR 19463; May 6, 1992). In light 

of the new HACCP requirements, FSIS believes that this prescriptive 

requirement is no longer necessary. Under HACCP, poultry establishments 

have both the responsibility and the flexibility to determine the best 

means for controlling any hazards resulting from the irradiation of 

product in anaerobic packaging. FSIS plans to petition FDA to eliminate 

this packaging requirement.

 FSIS is proposing to eliminate the minimum dose requirement for 

irradiated poultry contained in Sec. 381.147(f)(4). FSIS adopted this 

requirement to ensure that the irradiation of poultry, which may occur 

only after the product is packaged for retail sale, does in fact 

achieve a specific reduction in pathogens. However, as stated above, 

FDA and FSIS have concluded that different doses of ionizing radiation 

can be appropriate, in different circumstances, for achieving different 

technical effects and, therefore, that to continue to require a minimum 

dose of irradiation for poultry would limit the flexibility needed for 

the successful implementation of HACCP. FSIS considers irradiation to 

be just one of many treatments that could be used within a HACCP system 

to achieve a compounded reduction in pathogens.

 The optional labeling statements currently allowed for irradiated 

poultry in Sec. 381.135(c) are premised upon an establishment employing 

the minimum dose. As with meat food products, FSIS is proposing instead 

to approve qualifiers based upon whether a poultry establishment has in 

place a HACCP plan or process schedule validated as achieving, through 

irradiation, the elimination or reduction of pathogens indicated on the 

label (proposed Sec. 381.135(c)).

 FSIS cannot propose to revise the FDA limits on the maximum 

absorbed radiation dose for poultry. However, it is possible that 

poultry may be safely treated with higher doses of radiation than that 

which are currently allowed. Higher doses could achieve greater 

reductions in pathogens. FSIS intends to petition FDA to reconsider and 

raise the limit on the maximum absorbed dose of radiation in poultry.

 FSIS is proposing to eliminate two of the labeling requirements in 

Sec. 381.135(a): the requirement that the radura logo on irradiated 

poultry labels must be colored green and the requirement that ``letters 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (20 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
used for the qualifying statement shall be no less than one-third the 

size of the largest letter in the product name.'' The elimination of 

these requirements will make FSIS requirements consistent with FDA 

requirements and provide more flexibility for labeling irradiated meat 

and poultry products, without affecting the information content of such 

labels.

 Because FSIS is proposing to allow irradiated poultry products to 

be used as ingredients in further processed products, FSIS also is 

proposing to require that the ingredient statement on such products 

reflect the inclusion of irradiated poultry products (Sec. 381.135(b)). 

For example, an ingredient statement for a sausage product containing 

irradiated poultry would be required to include an entry such as, 

``irradiated poultry'' or ``poultry, treated by irradiation.'' 

Consumers and consumer advocacy groups have requested that such 

information be disclosed in the labeling

[[Page 9096]]

of multi-ingredient food products. This proposed disclosure requirement 

is identical to the requirement proposed in this document for 

irradiated meat used as an ingredient. Because FDA has not promulgated 

a similar requirement for irradiated meat or poultry, and because FSIS 

anticipates strong opposition from certain sectors of the meat and 

poultry industries, FSIS specifically requests comment on this proposed 

labeling requirement.

 Further, because FSIS is proposing to allow unpackaged poultry 

product to be irradiated, it is proposing labeling requirements for 

unpackaged, irradiated poultry product sold at the retail level 

(proposed Sec. 318.135(b)). The proposed labeling requirements are 

consistent with those proposed for unpackaged, irradiated meat food 

products and with FDA labeling requirements for irradiated products 

sold in bulk (21 CFR 179.26(c)(2)).

 Finally, to further streamline and clarify the regulations 

governing the irradiation of poultry, FSIS is proposing to remove the 

``Definitions'' section from those regulations (current 

Sec. 381.149(a)). These definitions serve as general references for the 

PQC requirements that FSIS is proposing to remove from the regulations. 

Further, these definitions are already acknowledged and understood by 

irradiation facilities, as they are a paraphrase of those provided by 

ASTM.

Combination Meat and Poultry Products

 Under the proposed requirements, FSIS will allow products composed 

of both meat and poultry to be irradiated. Such products would have to 

meet the requirements in proposed Sec. 318.7(c)(4) and in existing 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (21 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Sec. 381.147(f)(4) concerning the types of meat and poultry products 

that may be irradiated. Furthermore, establishments that irradiate 

combination product in its entirety will be required to meet the more 

restrictive requirements of the FSIS poultry irradiation regulations, 

namely the maximum radiation dose requirement in 9 CFR 381.147(f)(4) 

and the air-permeable packaging requirement in 9 CFR 381.149(c)(7). 

FSIS anticipates that establishments producing low-fat products, such 

as pepperoni or salami composed of both meat and poultry, will be 

especially interested in irradiation as an antimicrobial treatment.

Risk Analysis

 Section 304 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-354) requires any 

regulation published by USDA concerning human health, safety, or the 

environment, and having an annual economic impact of at least $100 

million in 1994 dollars, contain a risk assessment and cost-benefit 

analysis. The risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis must be 

``performed consistently and use reasonably obtainable and sound 

scientific, technical, economic, and other data.'' The USDA Office of 

Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis (ORACBA), also established by 

the 1994 Act, must ensure that major rules include such analyses.

 ORACBA and FSIS have agreed that FDA has already conducted a 

definitive risk analysis concerning the safety of meat food products 

treated with ionizing radiation in developing their final rule, 

``Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food'' (62 

FR 64107; December 3, 1997). Therefore, FSIS and ORACBA are adopting 

the FDA finding as their risk assessment. Further, FSIS and ORACBA also 

have agreed that the cost-benefit and economic impact analyses that 

FSIS has performed for this proposed rule, as required by E.O. 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, satisfy the cost-benefit analysis 

requirements of the Reorganization Act. Consequently, FSIS, with 

assistance from ORACBA, has produced only an analytical literature 

review addressing existing research and risk assessments on the safety 

of food irradiation for consumers and the related risks posed by 

irradiation, including worker safety and environmental concerns. This 

literature review is available from the FSIS Docket Clerk's Office (see 

ADDRESSES above).

 In this document, FSIS is proposing revisions to the current 

regulations governing the irradiation of poultry to make them more 

consistent with the proposed regulations for meat and with HACCP. These 

proposed revisions to the poultry regulations would pose no new risks 

to human health, the environment, or worker safety. Therefore, FSIS has 

not addressed these changes in a separate risk assessment or in the 

above mentioned literature review.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (22 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Executive Order 12988

 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are preempted by 

the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA) from imposing any marking, labeling, packaging, 

or ingredient requirements on federally inspected meat and poultry 

products that are in addition to, or different than, those imposed 

under the FMIA and PPIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, 

exercise concurrent jurisdiction over meat products that are outside 

official establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution 

of meat and poultry products that are misbranded or adulterated under 

the FMIA and PPIA, or, in the case of imported articles, that are not 

at such an establishment, after their entry into the United States.

 This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

 If this proposed rule is adopted, administrative proceedings will 

not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this 

rule. However, the administrative procedures specified in 9 CFR 306.5 

and 381.35 must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge of the 

application of the provisions of this proposed rule, if the challenge 

involves any decision of an FSIS employee relating to inspection 

services provided under the FMIA or PPIA.

Compliance With Executive Order 12866--Preliminary Analysis

 This action has been reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 

12866. As this action is determined to be economically significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 

has reviewed it.

 On December 3, 1997, FDA granted a petition from Isomedix, Inc. 

requesting that FDA permit the use of ionizing radiation to treat the 

fresh or frozen raw edible tissue of domesticated mammalian human food 

sources for purposes of reduction of parasites and microbial pathogens 

and extension of product shelf-life. Accordingly, in this document, 

FSIS is proposing to amend its meat inspection regulations to allow for 

the safe use of ionizing radiation for the treatment of meat, meat 

byproducts, and certain other meat food products. FSIS also is 

proposing to revise the existing regulations governing the irradiation 

of poultry so as to render them more consistent with the proposed 

regulations for meat.

 FSIS has endeavored to propose regulations for the irradiation of 

meat food products that set forth performance objectives, rather than 

prescribe specific processing methods. For the irradiation of meat food 

products, and where possible for the irradiation of poultry products, 

FSIS has proposed requirements that allow for significant flexibility 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (23 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
in integrating irradiation into the processing environment. It is 

possible that FSIS will be able to provide for even greater flexibility 

based upon the comments received in response to this proposal.

[[Page 9097]]

 If this proposal is made final, the use of ionizing irradiation as 

a treatment for meat food products will be voluntary. Although FSIS 

recognizes the capability of irradiation treatment to reduce pathogens 

below current performance standards for pathogen reduction, the 

proposed rule does not change the performance standards. With standards 

unchanged, the primary benefit of the proposed rule to establishments 

is the increased flexibility they are allowed with this rule.

Alternatives

 Executive Order 12866 requires that FSIS identify and assess 

alternative forms of regulation. FSIS considered two alternatives to 

this proposed regulation: (1) not proposing to allow for the 

irradiation of meat food products and (2) proposing to allow the 

irradiation of meat food products only under very limited conditions, 

similar to those currently prescribed for the irradiation of poultry 

products. FSIS rejected these two alternatives for reasons explained 

below.

No Action

 Central to the FSIS food safety strategy are efforts to reduce the 

level of microbiological pathogens in raw meat and poultry products. 

Irradiation has been shown to be a highly effective method for reducing 

the levels of microbiological pathogens in raw meat food products. 

Further, FDA has concluded that irradiation of meat food products, 

under the conditions requested by Isomedix, Inc. and granted by FDA, 

would not present toxicological or microbiological hazards and would 

not adversely affect the nutritional adequacy of these products. FSIS, 

therefore, sees compelling reasons to propose regulations providing for 

the irradiation of meat food products and has rejected the option of 

disallowing irradiation.

 Notably, the irradiation of meat food products would be voluntary. 

Although it is an effective antimicrobial treatment, irradiation may 

not be appropriate, feasible, or affordable in certain processing 

environments. Also, in certain situations, other antimicrobial 

treatments may be more effective. FSIS, therefore, is not requiring 

that raw meat food products be irradiated.

Irradiation of Meat Food Products Under Limited Conditions

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (24 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
 The existing requirement for the irradiation of poultry are fairly 

prescriptive in that they mandate a minimum dosage and require that 

only packaged product be irradiated. FSIS could have proposed similar 

requirements for the irradiation of meat food products. However, as 

explained above, FSIS believes that the minimum dosage and packaging 

requirements for irradiated product, intended to ensure that the 

effects of irradiation are maintained, are no longer necessary in light 

of the new HACCP requirements. Therefore, FSIS is proposing no minimum 

irradiation dose and no specific packaging requirements for meat food 

products and is proposing to rescind the minimum dose requirements for 

irradiated poultry and to revise the packaging requirements, where 

possible.

 Furthermore, such an action would not meet FSIS' goal to propose 

regulations for the irradiation of meat food products that set forth 

performance objectives, rather than prescribe specific processing 

methods. For the irradiation of meat food products, and where possible 

for the irradiation of poultry products, FSIS has proposed requirements 

that allow for significant flexibility in integrating irradiation into 

the processing environment. It is possible that FSIS will be able to 

provide for even greater flexibility based upon the comments received 

in response to this proposal.

Benefits

 An establishment's decision to irradiate will be based on whether 

the net return on an investment in irradiation is positive. If an 

official establishment chooses to irradiate its meat food products, it 

can be assumed from the establishment's decision to incur the expense 

of irradiation that it expects the economic benefits of the investment 

in irradiation to exceed the costs of that investment. In that sense, 

the rule could have favorable economic consequences for firms that 

choose to irradiate.

 The meat industry may accrue numerous qualitative benefits from the 

use of irradiation. For example, slaughter establishments will gain 

added flexibility in treating products so as to meet pathogen reduction 

performance standards. Similarly, processors may use irradiated meat in 

further processed products. Product shelf life could be increased, the 

market for meat products could expand, and exports of irradiated 

products could increase. These benefits and others are discussed more 

fully under the section ``Net Benefits.''

 In its final rule requiring that official meat and poultry 

establishments to develop and implement HACCP, the Agency estimated a 

range of public health benefits that could result from the consequent 

reduction of food borne microbial pathogens (61 FR 38858). Society may 

realize further benefits from this proposal if the use of irradiation 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (25 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
results in a reduction of illnesses beyond what could be achieved by 

the implementation of HACCP alone. Several types of microbial pathogens 

can be present in meat food products, including E. coli O157:H7, 

Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, and the protozoan parasite 

Toxoplasma gondii. Irradiation at the dose levels proposed in this 

action can reduce the levels of these pathogens substantially. The 

economic benefits associated with these reductions would be decreases 

in the diseases associated with these pathogens, as well as 

productivity losses associated with them that would not have occurred 

with the implementation of HACCP. The reductions in the disease rates 

would translate into a reduction in the number of visits to physicians 

and hospitals.

 This analysis focuses on the irradiation of ground beef. FSIS 

believes that ground beef is likely to be the first meat product 

irradiated in great quantity. Furthermore, ground beef constitutes a 

significant proportion of beef consumption. For example, according to 

an industry source, of the per capita consumption of beef at 68 pounds 

(in 1998), ground beef comprised of 40 percent and another 5 to 10 

percent was consumed as hamburger or other ground products. FSIS is 

aware, however, of industry plans to irradiate other types of raw meat 

and poultry products, including vacuum-packed primal cuts of meat, 

steaks, prime ribs, and bulk poultry. If, during the comment period, 

FSIS receives data concerning the types and volumes of meat and poultry 

products to be irradiated under the proposed regulations, FSIS will be 

able to develop an expanded cost-benefit analysis for inclusion in a 

final rule.

 Following a 1993 outbreak of food borne illness associated with E. 

coli O157:H7 in hamburger, FSIS implemented a policy under which it 

considers raw ground beef containing E. coli O157:H7 to be adulterated. 

Currently, establishments can distribute ground beef containing E. coli 

O157:H7 only after they have thoroughly cooked it, so as to eliminate 

the pathogen. If irradiation is permitted, establishments will have a 

means to effectively eliminate E. coli O157:H7 from raw ground beef 

without cooking it. Establishments, therefore, would likely benefit 

from the availability of irradiation as an additional treatment for 

rendering adulterated raw ground beef product safe.

 To give some sense of the potential benefit from the reduction of 

illnesses

[[Page 9098]]

that may occur as a result of the irradiation of ground beef, an USDA 

Economic Research Service (ERS) study on the use of irradiation to 

reduce E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in ground beef, conducted before 

the implementation of HACCP, is instructive. Morrison, et al. (1997), 

of ERS estimated the annual pre-HACCP economic value of the health 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (26 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
costs and productivity losses attributable to E. coli O157:H7 to be 

between $196 million and $441 million.\5\ These figures are also 

reported in Table 1 (row 1). ERS calculated the annual, pre-HACCP 

medical costs and productivity losses associated with salmonellosis to 

range from $30 million to $111 million (Table 1, row 2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \5\ Morrison, R.M., et al., ``Irradiating Ground Beef to Enhance 

Food Safety,'' Food Review, January-April 1997, pp. 33-37.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Irradiation of ground beef is unlikely to completely eliminate the 

diseases associated with consumption of ground beef because not all 

ground beef is likely to be irradiated; initially acceptance of 

irradiated ground beef may be slow. After consumers are informed about 

the safety of irradiated ground beef, however, acceptance is likely to 

increase. Morrison, et al., 1997 assumed that market acceptance, the 

associated reductions in pathogens, and the decrease in the incidence 

of associated diseases would be 25% over the next 20 years. It was also 

assumed that the reduction in the incidence of the number of illnesses 

would be directly proportional to the acceptance of irradiated ground 

beef, i.e., 25%. Based on these assumptions, Table 1 (row 3 and 4) 

reports the extent of pre-HACCP health and economic benefits associated 

with reductions of E. coli O157:H7 and salmonellosis. (The higher 

number of cases of salmonellosis, but lower economic benefits of their 

reduction relative to that of E. coli O157:H7, is due to the fact that 

the former is less severe compared to the latter.) The last row of 

Table 1 shows that the total pre-HACCP economic benefits of reduction 

in these two diseases would range from $56.5 million to $138 million.

 Table 1.--Health and Economic Benefits of Irradiating Ground Beef Pre-HACCP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Low High

 estimate of estimate

of

 Low High health health

 estimate of estimate of costs in costs

in

 annual annual col. (1) in col. (2)

in

 illnesses illnesses 1995$ 1995$

 million million

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Annual Incidence of E. coli O157:H7 due to consumption 4,900 9,800 $196.0 

$441.00

 of ground beef.............................................

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (27 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Total Annual Salmonellosis cases due to consumption of 24,000 120,000 30.0 

111.00

 ground beef................................................

Estimated benefits of 25% reduction in E. coli O157:H7 cases 1,225 2,450 49.0 

110.25

 due to irradiation.........................................

Estimated benefits of 25% reduction in Salmonellosis cases 6,000 30,000 7.5 

27.75

 due to irradiation.........................................

Total benefits from reductions in E-coli and Salmonellosis.. 7,225 32,450 56.5 

138.00

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Because these estimates were developed prior to the implementation 

of the HACCP requirements, and due to the lack of data on benefits 

resulting from HACCP implementation so far, these estimated benefits 

are most likely higher than the benefits that would actually occur in 

the current HACCP environment.

 FSIS, like Morrison, et al., (1997), is assuming that 25% of 

consumers will accept irradiated ground beef products. This assumption 

is conservative in light of a 1993 survey, conducted by the American 

Meat Institute Foundation, which reported that 54 percent of 

respondents said that they would buy irradiated beef rather than nonirradiated beef after being told that irradiation can kill pathogens in 

raw meat.\6\ This survey also reported that 60 percent of respondents 

said that they were willing to pay ten cents more per pound for 

hamburger sold at $2/lb. if bacteria levels were ``greatly reduced by 

irradiating the meat.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \6\ American Meat Institute Foundation, ``Consumer Awareness, 

Knowledge, and Acceptance of Food Irradiation,'' November, 1993.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The experience with poultry irradiation also indicates that the 

benefits from poultry irradiation have been slow in being realized 

because only about 1% of poultry production has been irradiated since 

the final rule was published. One reason that only a small percentage 

of poultry has been irradiated is that poultry primarily is sold 

through product differentiation, that is, brand names of major 

producers (Perdue, Holly Farms, etc.), and most of these major 

producers have not irradiated their products. In the case of beef in 

general and ground beef in particular, there are hardly any brand 

names, so that lack of brand loyalty is likely to accelerate acceptance 

of irradiated beef.

 Furthermore, it is likely that the current restrictions governing 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (28 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
the irradiation of poultry (packaging and minimum dosage requirements) 

have limited the cost-effectiveness of irradiation. FSIS is proposing 

to repeal these restrictive requirements, where possible, in this 

document. FSIS anticipates that numerous establishments, if granted the 

processing flexibility proposed in this rule, will choose to employ 

irradiation as an antimicrobial treatment for their raw poultry 

products.

Incremental Costs

 As explained above, if an official establishment chooses to 

irradiate its meat food products, it can be assumed from the 

establishment's decision to incur the expense of irradiation that it 

expects the economic benefits of the investment in irradiation to 

exceed the costs of that investment. Irradiation of meat food products 

will be voluntary. The meat industry will not be required to have their 

products irradiated, nor will consumers be forced to purchase 

irradiated meat and products.

 This analysis assumes that meat and poultry plants would contract 

out their irradiation requirements to centralized plants. Therefore, 

the costs would include fees or prices charged by these facilities. 

Since irradiation of meat food products is not currently permitted, 

information on prices of irradiating meat food products is not 

available. If prices of irradiation were available, one would add other 

incidental costs to meat establishments such as the costs of marketing, 

labeling, and transportation to and from irradiation facilities to 

estimate comprehensive costs of irradiation. In the absence of prices 

for irradiation, one has to estimate annualized costs (in cents per 

pound of meat or poultry) of irradiation to the irradiating facility.

 The annualized cost of irradiation depends on fixed costs, such as 

the cost

[[Page 9099]]

of Cobalt-60 irradiators and variable costs of electricity to power the 

electron accelerators. The latter costs vary by throughput rate 

(quantity of meat to be irradiated), the dose (kilograys or kGy), the 

amount of the beam power actually absorbed by the product or the net 

utilization efficiency, and the number of workers employed in a plant. 

The number of workers employed in these plants is small because the 

processes are highly automated.

 Assuming a dosage of 2.5 kGy, Morrison (1989) estimated the 

annualized per pound cost of irradiating poultry and ground beef (the 

annual average of fixed and operating costs) to range from 1.2 cents/

lb. for a plant having the capacity to irradiate 52 million pounds 

annually to 0.51 cents/lb. for a plant that irradiates 416 million 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (29 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
pounds annually.\7\ Morrison, et al. (1997), updated these annualized 

cost estimates and concluded that the annualized costs for a plant that 

irradiates 52 million pounds would be 1.6 cents/lb. in 1995 dollars. 

This estimate assumes an annualized, constant charge after initial 

costs are incurred.\8\ The 1.6 cents/lb. estimate does not include 

costs of marketing the irradiated products such as labels or the costs 

of transporting the product from the slaughter houses/processing 

establishments to an irradiating facility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \7\ Morrison, R.M., ``An Economic Analysis of electron 

accelerators and Cobalt-60 for Irradiating Food,'' ERS Publication 

No. 1762, June 1989.

 \8\ Morrison, et al., (1989) p. 28.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 To estimate the cost of labels, FSIS assumes that about 50 beef 

plants would participate in the irradiation program with about 10 

labels each. The cost of making the initial labeling plate would be 

$800 per label, if the label were without any color, and printing costs 

in the out years. Therefore, the initial cost of these labels would 

amount to $400,000 (50 x 10 x $800 = $400,000). If FSIS were to 

continue to require that the labels be green, the cost of making the 

initial labeling plate would be $1,500, and the estimated total cost 

would be $750,000 (50 x 10 x $1500 = $750,000). These costs would 

be distributed over 1.7 billion pounds of ground beef (7 billion pounds 

of ground beef were sold in 1995; twenty-five per cent would be 1.7 

billion pounds). FSIS assumed that the labeling costs would add about 

0.2 cents/lb. to the irradiation costs. Such an addition would increase 

the irradiation cost from 1.6 to 1.8 cents/lb. (in 1995 dollars).

 FSIS is proposing to require that single ingredient meat or poultry 

products irradiated in their entirety be labeled with a radura and a 

statement indicating that the product was irradiated. FSIS also is 

proposing to require disclosure, in the ingredients statements, that 

multi-ingredient products contain irradiated meat or poultry 

ingredients. FSIS also is considering the possibility of allowing 

irradiated meat or poultry products to be labeled as being free of 

certain pathogens, under certain circumstances. FSIS requests comments 

on these estimated labeling costs, as well as comments on the economic 

effects of changes to the proposed labeling requirements and the 

possible use of incentive labeling for irradiated meat and poultry 

products.

 FSIS conservatively assumes the costs of transporting ground beef 

from slaughter houses/processing plants to and from irradiating 

facilities at 0.2 cents/lb. Therefore, the incremental cost of 

irradiation would amount to 2.0 cents/lb. (1.6 + 0.2 + 0.2). These 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (30 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
costs are shown in Table 2. The last column of Table 2 reveals that the 

cost of irradiating 1.7 billion pounds of ground beef at 2 cents/lb. 

would amount to $35 million. It must be noted that these costs refer to 

a dose of 2.5 kGy and hence are underestimated compared to the costs of 

irradiating at 4.5 or 7 kGy as permitted under the proposed rule. 

Information on extrapolating costs for irradiation at these levels is 

not available. FSIS requests comments on the costs of transporting meat 

to and from irradiation facilities.

 A second estimate of the cost of irradiating meat was available 

from an engineering consulting firm. This estimate was developed as a 

conceptual design by this firm for one of their meat processing 

clients. The assumptions included an average dose of 3 kGy, a 

production rate of 2.4 million lbs./week, a product configuration of 

boxed frozen ground beef patties, employment of 20 workers and 4 

supervisors, capital cost of $14.2 million, and operating cost of $1.9 

million/year. The resulting cost estimate, determined by estimating 

discounted present value of future costs, amounted to 2.2 cents/lb. An 

addition of 0.2 cents/lb. for labeling and another 0.2 cents/lb. for 

transportation would increase this cost to 2.6 cents/lb. It must be 

noted that the plant size assumption of 2.4 million lbs./week 

translates to a plant size of 124.8 million lbs./year. This plant is 

more than double the size assumed by Morrison et al., (1997) at 52 

million lbs./year. The cost estimates in Table 2, therefore, relate to 

different plant sizes with different levels of utilization of capacity. 

It also must be noted that these costs refer to a dose of 3kGy and 

hence are lower than the costs of irradiating at 4.5 or 7 kGy, as 

permitted under the rule. Information on extrapolating costs for 

irradiation at these levels is not available.

 A third estimate of cost can be developed from the current 

approximate cost of irradiating poultry, obtained from an industry 

source. For this estimate, it is assumed that the cost of irradiating 

meat food products would be the same as the cost of irradiating 

poultry, since the irradiation method is the same. The current cost of 

irradiating poultry, for an establishment operating at only 5% of 

capacity, is approximately 6 cents/lb. Any increase in utilization of 

capacity would spread the costs over a larger volume of production and 

hence tend to reduce irradiation costs. This high cost scenario, 

reported in Table 2, suggests that the incremental cost of irradiating 

1.7 billion pounds of ground beef would amount to $105 million (in 1995 

dollars).

 The preceding cost estimate is higher than the costs FSIS 

originally estimated for irradiating poultry--about a penny a pound. In 

estimating the cost of irradiating poultry, ERS had assumed that 10% of 

all poultry products would be irradiated. The current costs are higher 

because only around one percent of poultry is being irradiated. The 

lower volume of irradiation results in higher costs. Since FSIS is 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (31 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
proposing to remove many of the restrictions governing the irradiation 

of poultry and is not proposing any similar restrictions on the 

irradiation of meat, and because the demand for irradiated meat and 

poultry may increase, it is very unlikely that such high costs will 

continue to be incurred by the industry. FSIS anticipates that the 

lower cost estimates are more likely to reflect the true future costs.

[[Page 9100]]

 Table 2.--Estimated Costs of Irradiating Ground Beef

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Quantity

 of ground

 beef

 Irradiation irradiated Irradiation

 Cost scenario cost cents/ (25% of costs $

 lb total million

 sales) (1995$)

 billion

 pounds

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low cost.......................... 2.0 1.75 $35

Midrange cost..................... 2.6 1.75 $46

High cost......................... 6.0 1.75 $105

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Benefits

 Executive Order 12866 requires the proposed action maximize net 

benefits to society, including potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety benefits, distributional impacts and equity. 

FSIS believes that the net benefits of the proposed action are 

positive. However, the current lack of quantification of both benefits 

and costs would make comparison meaningless at this time. As discussed 

above, the benefit estimates are incomplete. First, several indirect 

benefits have been excluded. As mentioned above, the meat industry may 

accrue qualitative benefits from the use of irradiation. Slaughter 

establishments will gain added flexibility in treating products so as 

to meet pathogen reduction performance standards. Similarly, processors 

may use irradiated meat in further processed products. Non-quantified 

industry benefits would also include a decrease in the number of 

potential court cases for product liability from avoidance of illnesses 

associated with pathogens in their products. Also, the market for meat 

products could expand; consumers desiring meat products with reduced 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (32 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
numbers of pathogens could increase the demand for irradiated products. 

Market expansion could also take place via increased exports, 

especially to numerous European and Asian countries, where irradiation 

of poultry products already is permitted and practiced. The potential 

increase in exports cannot be estimated for a lack of data. Only one of 

the meat products, ground beef accounting for about one-half of the 

beef industry, is analyzed. Inclusion of other meat products would tend 

to increase the estimated benefits. The analysis also does not account 

for the indirect benefits to consumers that include the avoidance of 

costs of pain and suffering associated with the diseases. These costs 

are generally greater than the direct costs of treatment of illnesses 

and productivity losses. Second, FSIS has not calculated the benefits 

from the reduction in illness that might occur with the use of ionizing 

irradiation in meat products within the context of HACCP 

implementation. Though the ground beef example discussed above is 

informative, FSIS expects that substantial reductions in these 

pathogens will be made with HACCP without the use of irradiation. 

Therefore, any analysis of benefits from this action must account for 

those reductions in illnesses and the associated costs that would have 

occurred without this action.

 Finally, another important economic benefit to industry, as well as 

to consumers, is the extended shelf life of irradiated products. 

Andrews, et al. (1998), reviewed five studies encompassing shelf lives 

of different types of red meat products.\9\ Their results suggest that 

shelf life of products treated with irradiation increase considerably 

(d log extension) compared to untreated products These results are 

reported in Table 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \9\ Andrews, L.S., et al. ``Food Preservaton Using Ionizing 

Radiation,'' Review of Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, Vol. 

154, 1998, pp. 1-53.

 Table 4.--Shelf Life Extension of Irradiated Red Meat

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Untreated Irradiated

 Meat product Dose (kGy) shelf Shelf life

 life (d) (d)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beef................................. 2.5 2-3 9

Beef top round....................... 2.0 8-11 28

Beef burgers......................... 1.54 8-10 26-28

Beef cuts............................ 2.0 1X 2X

Beef cuts irradiated under vacuum.... 2.0 NA 70

Corned beef.......................... 4.0 14-21 35

Lamb, whole and minced............... 2.5 7 28-35

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (33 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Andrews et al., (1998), p. 26.

 As with the estimates of benefits, the cost estimates also are 

incomplete. The costs estimated in this analysis of the potential 

irradiation of ground beef are likely to be overestimated for three 

reasons. First, the cost estimates are based on the assumption that 

irradiation of ground beef would take place in the smallest, and hence 

the least efficient, plant having the capacity to irradiate only 52 

million pounds per year. An increase in capacity to, for instance, 416 

million pounds per year would reduce annualized operating costs to less 

than half the estimated costs (from 1.2 cents for 52 million pounds 

size to 0.51 cents for 416 million pounds). Second, the cost estimation 

assumes that all beef

[[Page 9101]]

slaughtering/processing plants would ship their products to an 

independent irradiating facility. To save the shipping costs, it is 

possible that large slaughter/processing plants might set up their own 

on-line irradiating facilities, using electron accelerators instead of 

Cobalt 60. These on-line irradiation facilities are likely to have 

lower operating costs. For example Morrison (1989) notes that electron 

accelerators or machine irradiators have significantly declining unit 

costs at annual throughput between 50 and 100 million pounds, and even 

between 100 and 200 million pounds. Third, this analysis assumes that 

only 25 percent of ground beef would be irradiated. Any increase in the 

irradiation quantity would tend to reduce costs considerably.

 Furthermore, because this proposal will allow for the irradiation 

of numerous meat food products other than ground beef and numerous 

poultry products which previously could not be irradiated, it is 

possible that the social and economic benefits of the proposed 

regulations have been underestimated in this analysis. As stated above, 

FSIS is aware of industry plans to irradiate several other types of raw 

meat and poultry products. Again, FSIS requests comments specific to 

this analysis, as well as any additional relevant data. Using such 

data, FSIS will develop an expanded cost-benefit analysis for inclusion 

in a final rule.

Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1996

 The Administrator has determined that, for the purposes of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.

 Data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, Survey of Industries, 1994, 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (34 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
indicate that the beef industry is predominated by small firms and 

establishments. For example, based on the U.S. Small Business 

Administration definition of small business by the number of employees 

(fewer than 500), 96% of 1,226 firms comprising this industry are 

small. Similarly, 90% of individual meat establishments or plants in 

this industry are small. In 1994, these small businesses accounted for 

19% of total employment in the industry. Their share of payroll was 18% 

of the total payroll of $2.8 billion and their revenues were 16% of the 

total revenues of $55.8 billion. FSIS believes that these small 

businesses would not be affected adversely by the proposed irradiation 

requirements since the use of irradiation would be voluntary; no meat 

establishments, large or small, would be required to irradiate their 

product under this rule.

 In the long term, however, these small establishments may start 

irradiating their products to keep their market shares. In so doing, 

they may be affected relative to large size establishments because of 

economies of scale in irradiation. For example, bulk discounts provided 

by irradiating facilities would be realized mainly by the large size 

establishments. FSIS requests comment and data regarding the impact of 

the proposed regulations on small businesses.

 Purchase of irradiated ground beef also is voluntary for consumers. 

Moreover, the estimated impact of the incremental cost of 2 to 6 cents 

per pound of irradiated ground beef is an insignificant proportion of 

the approximate price of ground beef, $2 per pound. Above all, the 

industry would be able to pass through the cost of irradiation to 

consumers without losing its market share significantly because demand 

for beef products is very inelastic. Huang (1993) analyzed a group of 

meats and other animal proteins consisting of products including beef 

and veal, pork, other meats, chicken, turkey, fresh and frozen fish, 

canned and cured fish, eggs and cheese. He concluded that price 

elasticity of demand for this group of products was (-0.3611), i.e., a 

one percent increase in price for one of these products would reduce 

demand by only 0.3611 percent.\10\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \10\ Huang, Kao S., A Complete System of U.S. Demand for Food, 

ERS Technical Bulletin No. 1821, 1993, p. 24.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Review of about a dozen recent studies annotated by William Hahn of 

the Economic Research Service reveals that estimates of price 

elasticity of demand for most beef products (ground beef, steak, chuck 

roast, etc.) is less than one.\11\ This implies that demand for beef 

products is price-insensitive because an increase in price of any one 

of these products by one percent would result in a decrease in its 

demand by less than one percent. In short, consumers are unlikely to 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (35 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
reduce their demand for beef significantly when beef price is increased 

by a few pennies a pound. In fact, some consumers may demand irradiated 

product, even at higher prices per pound. Therefore, the small 

businesses in this industry are unlikely to be impacted adversely by an 

increase in price associated with irradiation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 \11\ Hahn, William F., An Annotated Bibliography of Recent 

Elasticity and Flexibility Estimates for Meat and Livestock, Staff 

Paper, Commercial Agriculture Division, Economic Research Service, 

July 1996, pp. 1-19.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The supply of beef products also is likely to be very price 

elastic. The high elasticity of supply is attributable to the presence 

of over 1,200 firms in this industry, 96 percent of whom are small 

businesses. Any single producer cannot raise prices of its products 

without losing its market share significantly.

 The proposed action would have a negligible economic impact on 

other small organizations or entities that are not engaged in the 

business of processing meat and meat products. To the extent that these 

entities purchase irradiated meat products, they could be impacted 

somewhat by an increase in price.

 Finally, FSIS is proposing to revise the regulatory requirements 

concerning the irradiation of poultry for consistency with HACCP and 

with the requirements proposed for meat food products. Significantly, 

FSIS is proposing to eliminate the minimum dosage requirements, certain 

packaging requirements, and the requirement that poultry establishments 

develop and implement PQC's addressing irradiation. All poultry 

establishments are required to develop and implement HACCP; the costs 

of HACCP will probably offset any benefits from the elimination of the 

PQC requirements. However, FSIS assumes that large and small poultry 

establishments will realize benefits from the reduction in the cost of 

compliance with some of the packaging requirements and the minimum 

dosage for irradiated poultry. In addition, the industry will also 

benefit from the expansion in its market for other poultry products 

that could be irradiated under this proposal. Consumers also could 

benefit from the availability of a wider variety of irradiated poultry 

products.

Executive Order 12898

 Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,'' FSIS has considered potential impacts of this proposed 

rule on environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (36 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
communities.

 This proposed rule would allow the use of ionizing radiation for 

treating fresh or frozen uncooked meat, meat byproducts, and certain 

meat food products to reduce levels of pathogens. As explained in the 

economic impact analysis above, the proposed regulations should 

generally benefit FSIS, the regulated industry, and consumers. The 

proposed regulations would not require or compel meat or poultry 

establishments to relocate or alter their

[[Page 9102]]

operations in ways that could adversely affect the public health or 

environment in low-income and minority communities. Further, this 

proposed rule would not exclude any persons or populations from 

participation in FSIS programs, deny any persons or populations the 

benefits of FSIS programs, or subject any persons or populations to 

discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin.

 Establishments choosing to irradiate meat or meat products would be 

required to comply not only with FSIS and FDA requirements regarding 

the safety of irradiated product, but also with NRC, EPA, OSHA, DOT, 

and State and local government requirements governing the operation of 

irradiation facilities. Compliance with these requirements would ensure 

the maintenance of appropriate environmental, worker safety, and public 

health protections, thus further reducing the probability that this 

rule would have any disparate impact on low-income or minority 

communities. FSIS currently is investigating the possibility of 

developing stronger partnerships with these Federal, State, and local 

agencies so as to better ensure the maintenance of environmental, 

worker safety, and public health protections.

Paperwork Requirements

Title: Irradiation of Meat and Poultry Products

Type of Collection: New

 Abstract: FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and record keeping 

requirements in this proposed rule in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Under this proposed rule, FSIS is requiring several 

information collection and record keeping activities. FSIS is proposing 

to require that establishments conduct irradiation of meat and meat 

products only in accordance with either an HACCP plan, as defined in 

Part 417 of the FSIS meat and poultry inspection regulations, or a 

process schedule validated for efficacy by a processing authority 

(proposed Sec. 318.11(a)). Written irradiation procedures must describe 

the specific, sequential operations employed by the establishment in 

the irradiation and associated processing of meat food products, 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (37 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
including the control, validation, monitoring, and corrective action 

activities. FSIS also is proposing to require that establishments 

implement a dosimetry system to measure the dosage of radiation 

absorbed by product. FSIS also is requiring that any establishment 

irradiating meat food products have on file a number of documents as 

identified in the section ``Documentation Requirements.'' Finally, 

products irradiated by establishments would need to be properly 

labeled.

 FSIS inspection personnel would initially, and periodically as 

required, review the records from the process schedule or HACCP plan, 

the required documentation, and the product labels. FSIS personnel 

would not evaluate the procedures for efficacy.

 Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that the development of a HACCP 

plan or process schedule would take an average of 2 days (16 hours) and 

5 minutes to file. FSIS estimates that an establishment will spend 

about 5 minutes a day developing an average of 8 monitoring records, 

per HACCP plan or process schedule, and 2 minutes a day filing each 

record. These monitoring records are highly likely to include records 

of dosimetry measurements, since establishments that irradiate product 

will probably select dosimetry as the monitoring step for an 

irradiation CCP. FSIS estimates that it would take an establishment 30 

minutes for the preparation of each of the necessary documents 

discussed in the ``Required Documentation'' section of this preamble 

and about 5 minutes to file each document. FSIS estimates that an 

establishment would develop about 10 new product labels and each label 

would be developed in about 2 hours. Because of the elimination of the 

partial quality control requirements for poultry irradiation, FSIS 

would request OMB to delete the 60 hours of burden approved for poultry 

irradiation under the OMB approval number 0583-0090.

 Respondents: Meat and poultry product establishments and 

irradiation facilities.

 Estimated Number of Respondents: 10 (this number represents the 

current number of facilities with the capability to irradiate meat and 

poultry products).

 Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 4009.

 Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,730 hours.

 Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained 

from Lee Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA, 112 Annex, 300 12th St., SW, Washington DC 20250.

 Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 

the Agency, including whether the information will have practical 

utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used: (c) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (38 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology.

 Comments may be sent to Lee Puricelli, see address above, and the 

Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

 Comments are requested by April 26, 1999. To be most effective, 

comments should be sent to OMB within 30 days of the publication date.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 317

 Food labeling, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 318

 Food additives, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.

9 CFR Part 381

 Food labeling, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.

 Accordingly, title 9, chapter III, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 317--LABELING, MARKING DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS

 1. The authority citation for part 317 would continue to read as 

follows:

 Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

 2. Section 317.14 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 317.14 Irradiated meat food products.

 (a) The labels on packages of meat food products irradiated in 

their entirety, in conformance with Sec. 318.7(c)(4) of this chapter, 

must bear the following logo along with a statement such as ``Treated 

with radiation'' or ``Treated by irradiation.'' The logo must be placed 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (39 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
prominently and conspicuously in conjunction with the required 

statement. The statement must appear as a qualifier contiguous to the 

product name. Any label bearing the logo and any wording of explanation 

with respect to this logo must be approved as required by Sec. 317.4. 

This

[[Page 9103]]

requirement applies only to meat food products irradiated in their 

entirety, not to multi-ingredient products that merely contain an 

irradiated ingredient. The logo is as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE99.000

 (b) For meat food products irradiated in their entirety, but not in 

package form, the required logo and a statement such as ``Treated with 

radiation'' or ``Treated by irradiation'' shall be displayed to the 

purchaser with either the labeling of the bulk container plainly in 

view or a counter sign, card, or other appropriate device bearing the 

information that the product has been treated with radiation. In either 

case, the information must be prominently and conspicuously displayed 

to purchasers. This requirement applies only to meat food products 

irradiated in their entirety, not to multi-ingredient products that 

merely contain an irradiated ingredient.

 (c) The inclusion of an irradiated meat food product ingredient in 

any multi-ingredient meat food product must be indicated in the 

ingredient statement on the finished product labeling.

 (d) Optional labeling statements about the purpose for radiation 

processing may be included on the product label in addition to the 

stated requirements elsewhere in this section. Such statements must not 

be false or misleading. Statements indicating a specific reduction in 

microbial pathogens must be substantiated by processing documentation.

PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND 

PREPARATION OF PRODUCT

 3. The authority citation for part 318 would continue to read as 

follows:

 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 

CFR 2.18, 2.53.

 4. Section 318.7(c)(4) would be amended by removing the entry for 

``Sources of radiation'' in the chart of substances and adding an entry 

for ``Radiation sources'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (40 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Sec. 318.7 Approval of substances for use in the preparation of 

products.

* * * * *

 (c) * * *

 (4) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Class of

 substance Substance Purpose Products Amount

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 * * * * * *

 *

Radiation Ionizing radiation For control of food Refrigerated or frozen, No more than

4.5

 sources. sources approved in 21 borne pathogens and the uncooked meat, as kiloGrays

(450

 CFR 179.26(a). extension of shelf- defined in 9 CFR kilorads) for

 life.. 301.2(rr); meat refrigerated

 byproducts, as defined products and

no

 in 9 CFR 301.2(tt); and more than 7

 other meat food kiloGrays

(700

 products within the kilorads) for

 meaning of 9 CFR frozen

product.

 301.2(uu), with or

 without nonfluid

 seasoning, that are

 otherwise composed

 solely of intact or

 gound meat and/or meat

 byproducts.

 * * * * * *

 *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

 5. Section 318.11 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 318.11 Irradiation of meat food products.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (41 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
 (a) General requirements. (1) Meat food products may be treated to 

reduce food borne pathogens by the use of ionizing radiation as 

identified in Sec. 318.7(c)(4). Official establishments may irradiate 

meat food products for food uses only in accordance with 

Sec. 318.7(c)(4) and the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) system requirements in part 417 of this chapter or, if not yet 

operating under HACCP, in accordance with a process schedule, as 

defined in Sec. 301.2 of this chapter.

 (2) Each process schedule must be approved in writing by a process 

authority for safety and efficacy. A process authority must have access 

to the establishment in order to evaluate and approve the safety and 

efficacy of each process schedule. Under the auspices of a processing 

authority, an establishment must validate new or altered process 

schedules by scientifically supportable means, such as information 

gleaned from the literature or by challenge studies conducted outside 

the plant.

 (b) Dosimetry. Official establishments that irradiate meat food 

products must have the following procedures in place:

 (1) Laboratory operation procedures for determining the absorbed 

dose value from the dosimeter.

 (2) Calibration criteria for verifying the accuracy and consistency 

of any means of measurement (e.g., time clocks and weight scales).

 (3) Calibration and accountability criteria for verifying the 

traceability and accuracy of dosimeters for the intended purpose, and 

the verification of calibration at least every 12 months. To confirm 

traceablility, establishments must relate, through documentation, the 

end point measurement of a dosimeter to recognized standards.

 (4) Procedures for ensuring that the product unit is dose mapped to 

identify the regions of minimum and maximum absorbed dose and such 

regions are consistent from one product unit to another of like 

product.

 (5) Procedures for accounting for the total absorbed dose received 

by the product unit (e.g., partial applications of the absorbed dose 

within one production lot).

 (6) Procedures for verifying routine dosimetry (i.e., assuring each 

production lot receives the total absorbed dose). Each production lot 

must have at least one dosimeter positioned at the regions of minimum 

and maximum absorbed dose (or at one region verified to represent such) 

on at least the first, middle, and last product unit.

 (7) Procedures for verifying the relationship of absorbed dose as 

measured by the dosimeter to time exposure of the product unit to the 

radiation source.

 (8) Procedures for verifying the integrity of the radiation source 

and processing procedure. Aside from expected and verified radiation 

source activity decay for radionuclide sources, the radiation source or 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (42 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
processing procedure must not be altered, modified, replenished, or 

adjusted without repeating dose mapping of

[[Page 9104]]

product units to redefine the regions of minimum and maximum absorbed 

dose.

 (c) Documentation. Official establishments that irradiate meat 

products must have the following documentation on premises, available 

to FSIS:

 (1) The validated process schedule, if the establishment is not 

operating under HACCP.

 (2) Documentation that the irradiation facility is licensed or 

possesses gamma radiation sources registered with the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the appropriate State government acting 

under authority granted by the NRC.

 (3) Documentation that the machine radiation source irradiation 

facility is registered with the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) or the appropriate State government acting under 

authority granted by OSHA, and that a worker safety program addressing 

OSHA regulations (29 CFR chapter XVII) is in place.

 (4) Citations or other documents that relate to incidences in which 

the establishment was found not to comply with Federal or State agency 

requirements for irradiation facilities.

 (5) A certification by the operator that the irradiation facility 

personnel would operate under supervision of a person who has 

successfully completed a course of instruction for operators of food 

irradiation facilities.

 (6) A certification by the operator that the key irradiation 

personnel have been trained in food technology, irradiation processing, 

and radiation health and safety.

 (7) Guarantees from the suppliers of all food-contact packaging 

materials that may be subject to irradiation that those materials 

comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

seq.) and with regulations in 21 CFR 179.45 for food irradiation 

processing.

PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

 6. The authority citation for part 381 would continue to read as 

follows:

 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.18, 

2.53.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (43 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Sec. 381.19 [Removed and Reserved]

 7. Section 381.19 would be removed and reserved.

 8. Section 381.135 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 381.135 Irradiated poultry product.

 (a) The labels on packages of poultry food products irradiated in 

their entirety, in conformance with Sec. 381.147(f)(4), must bear the 

following logo along with a statement such as ``Treated with 

radiation'' or ``Treated by irradiation.'' The logo must be placed 

prominently and conspicuously in conjunction with the required 

statement. The statement must appear as a qualifier contiguous to the 

product name. Any label bearing the logo and any wording of explanation 

with respect to this logo must be approved as required by subparts M 

and N of this part. This requirement applies only to meat food products 

irradiated in their entirety, not to multi-ingredient products that 

merely contain an irradiated ingredient. The logo is as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE99.001

 (b) For poultry food products irradiated in their entirety, but not 

in package form, the required logo and a statement such as ``Treated 

with radiation'' or ``Treated by irradiation'' shall be displayed to 

the purchaser with either the labeling of the bulk container plainly in 

view or a counter sign, card, or other appropriate device bearing the 

information that the product has been treated with radiation. In either 

case, the information must be prominently and conspicuously displayed 

to purchasers. This requirement applies only to poultry food products 

irradiated in their entirety, not to multi-ingredient products that 

merely contain an irradiated ingredient.

 (c) The inclusion of an irradiated poultry food product ingredient 

in any multi-ingredient poultry food product must be indicated in the 

ingredient statement on the finished product labeling.

 (d) Optional labeling statements about the purpose for radiation 

processing may be included on the product label in addition to the 

stated requirements elsewhere in this section. Such statements must not 

be false or misleading. Statements indicating a specific reduction in 

microbial pathogens must be substantiated by processing documentation.

Sec. 381.147 [Amended]

 9. In Sec. 381.147(f)(4), the entry for ``Radiation Sources'' in 

Table 1 would be amended by removing the phrase ``, packaged'' from the 

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (44 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
sentence under the ``Products'' column; and, by revising the sentence 

under the ``Amount'' column to read ``A maximum absorbed dose of 3.0 

kiloGray (300 kilorads).''.

 10. Section 381.149 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 381.149 Irradiation of poultry products.

 (a) General requirements. (1) Poultry products may be treated to 

reduce food borne pathogens by the use of ionizing radiation as 

identified in Sec. 381.147(f)(4). Official establishments may irradiate 

poultry product for food uses only in accordance with 

Sec. 381.147(f)(4) and the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) system requirements in part 417 of this chapter, or if not yet 

operating under HACCP, in accordance with a process schedule, as 

defined in Sec. 381.1(b).

 (2) Each process schedule must be approved in writing by a process 

authority for safety and efficacy. A process authority must have access 

to the establishment in order to evaluate and approve the safety and 

efficacy of each process schedule. Under the auspices of a processing 

authority, an establishment must validate new or altered process 

schedules by scientifically supportable means, such as information 

gleaned from the literature or by challenge studies conducted outside 

the plant.

 (b) Dosimetry. Official establishments that irradiate poultry 

products must have the following procedures in place:

 (1) Laboratory operation procedures for determining the absorbed 

dose value from the dosimeter.

 (2) Calibration criteria for verifying the accuracy and consistency 

of any means of measurement (e.g., time clocks and weight scales).

 (3) Calibration and accountability criteria for verifying the 

traceability and accuracy of dosimeters for the intended purpose, and 

the verification of calibration at least every 12 months. To confirm 

traceability, establishments must relate, through documentation, the 

end point measurement of a dosimeter to recognized standards.

 (4) Procedures for ensuring that the product unit is dose mapped to 

identify the regions of minimum and maximum absorbed dose and such 

regions are consistent from one product unit to another of like 

product.

 (5) Procedures for accounting for the total absorbed dose received 

by the product unit (e.g., partial applications of the absorbed dose 

within one production lot).

 (6) Procedures for verifying routine dosimetry (i.e., assuring each 

production lot receives the total

[[Page 9105]]

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (45 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
absorbed dose). Each production lot must have at least one dosimeter 

positioned at the regions of minimum and maximum absorbed dose (or at 

one region verified to represent such) on at least the first, middle, 

and last product unit.

 (7) Procedures for verifying the relationship of absorbed dose as 

measured by the dosimeter to time exposure of the product unit to the 

radiation source.

 (8) Procedures for verifying the integrity of the radiation source 

and processing procedure. Aside from expected and verified radiation 

source activity decay for radionuclide sources, the radiation source or 

processing procedure must not be altered, modified, replenished, or 

adjusted without repeating dose mapping of product units to redefine 

the regions of minimum and maximum absorbed dose.

 (c) Documentation. Official establishments that irradiate poultry 

products must have the following documentation on premises, available 

to FSIS:

 (1) The validated process schedule, if the establishment is not 

operating under HACCP.

 (2) Documentation showing that the irradiation facility is licensed 

and/or possesses gamma radiation sources registered with the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the appropriate State government acting 

under authority granted by the NRC.

 (3) Documentation showing that the machine radiation source 

irradiation facility is registered with the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) or the appropriate State government acting 

under authority granted by OSHA, and that a worker safety program 

addressing OSHA regulations (29 CFR chapter XVII) is in place.

 (4) Citations or other documents that relate to incidences in which 

the establishment was found not to comply with Federal or State agency 

requirements for irradiation facilities.

 (5) A certification by the operator that the irradiation facility 

personnel would operate under supervision of a person who has 

successfully completed a course of instruction for operators of food 

irradiation facilities.

 (6) A certification by the operator that the key irradiation 

personnel have been trained in food technology, irradiation processing, 

and radiation health and safety.

 (7) Guarantees from the suppliers of all food-contact packaging 

materials that may be subject to irradiation that those materials 

comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

seq.) and with regulations in 21 CFR 179.45 for food irradiation 

processing and that the food-contact packaging material is airpermeable, but does exclude moisture and microorganisms from 

penetrating the package barrier.

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (46 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
 Done in Washington, DC on: February 18, 1999.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-4401 Filed 2-18-99; 3:37 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/99-4401.htm (47 of 47) [10/5/1999 3:36:20 PM]
Food Safety and Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

News and Information

Updated September 23, 1999

Irradiation of Meat and Poultry Products

Petitions to Food and Drug Administration

Ionizing Radiation as an Additive in Unrefrigerated, Refrigerated,

and Frozen Poultry Products (August 19, 1999)

Ionizing Radiation as an Additive in Unrefrigerated Meat Food

Products (August 19, 1999)

Rulemaking

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products: Notice; reopening of

comment period (June 2, 1999) [Also available in PDF]

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products: Proposed Rule (February

24, 1999) [Also available in PDF]

FSIS Docket 97-067P: "Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products" --

Review of Risk Analysis Issues [Also available in PDF]

Food and Drug Administration, HHS: Irradiation in the Production,

Processing, and Handling of Food: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (February 17, 1999) [Also available in PDF]

News Releases and Public Statements

USDA Publishes Details of Irradiation Proposal (February 19,

1999)

Statement by Catherine Woteki, USDA Under Secretary for Food

Safety, on FDA Approval for Irradiation of Meat for Pathogen

Control, December 2, 1997

FDA Approves Irradiation of Meat for Pathogen Control (Press

Release from FDA)

Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food:

Meat and Poultry Final Rules, December 3, 1997 (FDA/CFSAN

Announcement)

Backgrounders and Educational Materials

USDA Issues Meat and Poultry Irradiation Proposal

(Backgrounder, February 1999)

For Further Information, Contact:

FSIS Food Safety Education Staff

Room 2932-S, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250

Food Irradiation Information from FSIS

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/irrmenu.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:36:37 PM]
Phone: (202) 720-7943

Fax: (202) 720-1843

News and Information Page | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page

Food Irradiation Information from FSIS

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/irrmenu.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:36:37 PM]
404 ERROR : FILE NOT FOUND

404 File Not Found [IMAGE by JCC]

You tried to retrieve:

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/pubafrs/er/index.html

(source URL: http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm )

Possible reasons why you are getting this message:

Page Relocated: On October 4, 1999, the RMA WebSite

underwent a major overhaul. Many directory structures have

been changed and locations reorganized.

Please use the navigation bar available on every content

page, starting from our Home Page.

You might examine the search engine to help find the

information you are looking for.

1. 

Spelling: Remember that being one letter off or having a space

where no space is called for is enough to throw things off.

Also, lower case and upper case letters are different.

2. 

Page Deleted: File may have been removed as mandated by a

disposal or expiration directive.

3. 

Our Problem: No web site is flawless. It is possible the

problem is on our end. If you are confident the page really

exists, please contact us with details.

4. 

RMA

Logo

Privacy & Security | Nondiscrimination Statement | Document Accessibility

Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may

be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-474) and the

National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

404, Page Not Found

http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/quarterly/1999/feb-con.html [10/5/1999 3:37:22 PM]
February 1999

Volume XI, No. 2

Features

Global Wine Competition Slugs It Out

Hard Times, Good Wine Keep Company for U.S. Producers

Chilean Vines Recover From Drought

Australia Plants Premium Varietals

South Africa Adjusts to Free Market

Norwegian Consumers Will Pay for Quality

Norway heeds its WTO commitments, but reserves the right to protect domestic

agricultural sectors.

Making It in Mexico–Business Customs

and Practices

Thinking about closing that big Mexican deal over

lunch? Think again. You’d be wiser to do business over

breakfast. Attend to cultural nuances and watch your odds improve.

Mexico Fields U.S. Cotton Exports

Both U.S. cotton exporters and Mexican textile and apparel producers are benefitting from NAFTA-sponsored

trade liberalization policies.

February 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 2

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/feb99.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:29 PM]
The Neighbors Are Cooking Fish! (But Nobody’s

Complaining)

To the contrary, it’s a whiff of bliss for seafood producers, who are enjoying record

profits these days.

U.S. French Fries Heat Up China’s Fast Food Industry

The new-found popularity of fries in China has created a booming market for U.S. exporters of frozen potatoes.

Are You Ready To Export?

Then take our quick quiz. Follow up with a quick trip to the FAS home page!

Editor

Jeanne McLaughlin

Tel.: (202) 720-0061

Writers

Glenn Kaup

Jeanne McLaughlin

Marlene Phillips

Mary Rekas

Text of this magazine may be reprinted freely. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply

approval or constitute endorsement by USDA or the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction of public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing AgExporter has been approved by

the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Subscriptions are available from the National Technical Information Service (tel. 703-605-6060) and can be charged to VISA, MasterCard or American

Express. Subscriptions are also sold by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15350-7954. Call for prices (Tel: (202)

512-1800).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA=s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Last modified: Tuesday, February 23, 1999

February 1999 -- Volume XI, Number 2

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/feb99.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:29 PM]
ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

Away-From-Home Foods Increasingly Important to

Quality of American Diet

This publication is in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 PDF format. You can download and get help using the

Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this document.

To order this or any other ERS report, visit the ERS-NASS sales desk.

Away-From-Home Foods Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet. By Biing-Hwan Lin

and Elizabeth Frazão, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, and Joanne Guthrie, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 749

Abstract

The increasing popularity of dining out over the past two decades has raised the proportion of nutrients

obtained from away-from-home food sources. Between 1977 and 1995, home foods significantly

improved their nutritional quality, more so than away-from-home foods, which typically contained more

of the nutrients overconsumed (fat and saturated fat) and less of the nutrients underconsumed (calcium,

fiber, and iron) by Americans. Since the trend of eating out frequently is expected to continue, strategies

to improve the American diet must address consumers’ food choices when eating out.

Keywords: Food, away-from-home food, nutrients, eating out

Contents

● Entire report; 174 kb

Top of Page

Page editor: Deana Kussman

Updated: January 27, 1999

ERS Home | What's New | Publications | Data | Briefing Rooms | About ERS | Search

www.econ.ag.gov

ERS Report--Away-From-Home Foods Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet 

http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aib749/ [10/5/1999 3:37:31 PM]
This article originally appeared in the May-June 1998 FDA Consumer.

The version below is from a reprint of the original article and contains revisions made in June 1998.

Irradiation:

A Safe Measure for Safer Food

by John Henkel

Beef is one of the U.S. food industry's hottest sellers--to the tune of 8 billion pounds a year, according to

trade figures. Whether at a fast-food meal, a dinner on the town, or a backyard barbecue, beef is often

front and center on America's tables.

But in recent years, beef, especially ground beef, has shown a dark side: It can harbor the bacterium E.

coli O157:H7, a pathogen that threatens the safety of the domestic food supply. If not properly prepared,

beef tainted with E. coli O157:H7 can make people ill, and in rare instances, kill them. In 1993, E. coli

O157:H7-contaminated hamburgers sold by a fast-food chain were linked to the deaths of four children

and hundreds of illnesses in the Pacific Northwest.

In 1997, the potential extent of E. coli O157:H7 contamination came to light when Arkansas-based

Hudson Foods Inc. voluntarily recalled 25 million pounds of hamburger suspected of containing E. coli

O157:H7. It was the largest recall of meat products in U.S. history.

Nationally, E. coli O157:H7 causes about 20,000 illnesses and 500 deaths a year, according to the federal

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Scientists have only known since 1982 that this form of E.

coli causes human illness.

To help combat this public health problem, the Food and Drug Administration, in December 1997,

approved treating red meat products with a measured dose of radiation. This process, commonly called

irradiation, has drawn praise from many food industry and health organizations because it can control E.

coli O157:H7 and several other disease-causing microorganisms. As with other regulations governing

meat and poultry products, irradiation will be authorized when the U.S. Department of Agriculture

completes its implementing regulations.

Though irradiation is the latest step toward curbing food-borne illness, the federal government also is

implementing other measures, which include developing new technologies and expanding the use of

current technologies.

A Long Safety Record

FDA's red meat approval added another product category to the already lengthy list of foods the agency

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (1 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
has approved for irradiation since 1963. These include poultry, fresh fruits and vegetables, dry spices,

seasonings, and enzymes.

As part of its approval, FDA requires that irradiated foods include

labeling with either the statement "treated with radiation" or "treated by

irradiation" and the international symbol for irradiation, the radura.

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For

example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When

used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food

does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation

labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

FDA has evaluated irradiation safety for 40 years and found the process

safe and effective for many foods. Before approving red meat irradiation,

the agency reviewed numerous scientific studies conducted worldwide. These included research on the

chemical effects of radiation on meat, the impact the process has on nutrient content, and potential

toxicity concerns.

In this most recent review and in previous reviews of the irradiation process, FDA scientists concluded

that irradiation reduces or eliminates pathogenic bacteria, insects and parasites. It reduces spoilage, and

in certain fruits and vegetables, it inhibits sprouting and delays the ripening process. Also, it does not

make food radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change food taste, texture or

appearance as long as it's applied properly to a suitable product.

Health experts say that in addition to reducing E. coli O157:H7 contamination, irradiation can help

control the potentially harmful bacteria Salmonella and Campylobacter, two chief causes of food-borne

illness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that Salmonella--commonly found in

poultry, eggs, meat, and milk-- sickens as many as 4 million and kills 1,000 per year nationwide.

Campylobacter, found mostly in poultry, is responsible for 6 million illnesses and 75 deaths per year in

the United States. A May 1997 presidential report, "Food Safety from Farm to Table," estimates that

"millions" of Americans are stricken by food-borne illness each year and some 9,000, mostly the very

young and elderly, die as a result.

FDA officials emphasize that though irradiation is a useful tool for reducing food-borne disease risk, it

complements, but doesn't replace, proper food handling practices by producers, processors and

consumers.

Limited Success So Far

Though irradiation would appear to have much going for it, retail outlets have been slow to carry

irradiated foods. This, experts say, is partially because many store owners and food producers fear

consumers won't buy the products based on misgivings about radiation in general.

But some stores have plunged in anyway--with limited success. Carrot Top, a Chicago-area grocery

market, was one of the first to carry irradiated fruits (see "Berry Successful Irradiation"). Owner Jim

Corrigan says the products have been selling steadily since 1992. Other stores--mostly small,

independent markets--have followed suit, offering irradiated vegetables, fruits and poultry to a modest,

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (2 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
but loyal, group of irradiation-savvy customers.

Because irradiated red meat is not yet on the market, it remains to be seen if consumers will buy products

such as irradiated ground beef--or if large food processors will even offer it. Irradiated products sold to

date have cost slightly more than their untreated counterparts because of the extra step irradiation adds to

food processing. But in the future, these costs could be offset by improved shelf life and increased

consumer demand, according to food trade groups.

Major food companies such as poultry processors, meat packers, and grocery chains have yet to embrace

irradiation, not only because of perceived consumer attitudes, but also due to logistics. Food Technology

Service Inc., in Mulberry, Fla., is the only irradiating facility dedicated solely to treating agricultural

products. More than 40 other facilities nationwide primarily handle sterilization of medical supplies,

though these plants also can irradiate food products. In fact, it was a New Jersey-based medical

irradiation company, Isomedix Inc., that petitioned FDA to approve red meat irradiation.

Beyond physical distances and lack of facilities, sheer product volume makes it unlikely that irradiation

will be widespread anytime soon. The domestic poultry trade, for instance, processes about 25 billion

pounds per year, according to industry figures. Says Kenneth May, spokesman for the National Broiler

Council, which represents poultry producers: "We think [irradiation is] a process that will work. But for

practical purposes, we just don't see anything happening with it in the near future." He adds, however,

that if the public really wants an irradiated product, the poultry industry will find a way to deliver it.

Will Consumers Accept It?

Before irradiation can really take off, the public must "warm up" to a method associated with nuclear

energy, a source that carries its share of negative perceptions. George Pauli, Ph.D., FDA's food

irradiation safety coordinator, compares irradiation to milk pasteurization, another decontaminating

process that dramatically curbed disease but took decades before achieving public acceptance. "When the

public finally sees a need for irradiation and realizes its value, I think people will accept it, maybe even

demand it," Pauli says. "But you have to give them time."

A Louis Harris poll released in 1986 found that 76 percent of Americans considered irradiated food a

hazard. But later studies have shown that consumer attitudes can be changed through education.

In 1995, researchers at the University of Georgia reported that 87.5 percent of consumers had heard of

irradiation but knew little about it. So the university set up a "simulated supermarket setting" and labeled

irradiated products, put posters at the point of sale, and developed a slide show explaining irradiation.

"Our goal was to see which one of those techniques was most effective in changing people's attitudes,"

says Kay McWatters, agricultural research scientist and one of the study authors.

The study found that any kind of education helps convey the benefits of irradiation, McWatters says.

"But the one that turned out most effective was the slide show, because visual images and [narration] are

much more attention-getting than just a static label or poster."

After the study's education strategy, about 84 percent of participating consumers said irradiation is

"somewhat necessary" or "very necessary." Fifty-eight percent said they would always buy irradiated

chicken if available, and 27 percent said they would buy it sometimes.

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (3 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
Another study in 1997 by the Food Marketing Institute had similar results. After receiving education

about the process, 60 percent of those in the study said they would buy irradiated foods.

Carrot Top owner Corrigan also discovered this on a small scale after sending his regular customers

information about irradiation in periodic newsletters.

Luggage and Milk

Other studies, however, show that many consumers still question if irradiation is safe. They wonder if the

process transfers radiation to the product or if it causes chemical changes in the food that might be

hazardous. Even the word "irradiation" is scary to some, carrying images of atomic explosions or nuclear

reactor accidents. But as long as radiation is applied to foods in approved doses, it's safe, says FDA's

Pauli. Similar to sending luggage through an airport scanner, the process passes food quickly through a

radiation field--typically gamma rays produced from radioactive cobalt-60. That amount of energy is not

strong enough to add any radioactive material to the food. The same irradiation process is used to

sterilize medical products such as bandages, contact lens solutions, and hospital supplies such as gloves,

sutures and gowns. Many spices sold in this country also are irradiated, which eliminates the need for

chemical fumigation to control pests. American astronauts have eaten irradiated foods since 1972.

Irradiation is a "cold" process that gives off little heat, so foods can be irradiated within their packaging

and remain protected against contamination until opened by users. Because a few bacteria can survive the

process in poultry and meats, it's important, Pauli says, to keep products refrigerated and to cook them

properly.

Irradiation interferes with bacterial genetics, so the contaminating organism can no longer survive or

multiply. Although chemicals called radiolytic products are created when food is irradiated, FDA has

found them to pose no health hazard. In fact, the same kinds of products are formed when food is cooked.

Praises and Protests

Though irradiation has its share of detractors, many prestigious organizations endorse it, including the

World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the American Medical

Association, and the American Dietetic Association. Trade groups such as the National Meat

Association, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the National Food Processors Association also

support irradiation.

However, some groups have given irradiation a thumbs down. Consumer activist Jeremy Rifkin,

president of the Pure Food Campaign, says more attention should be placed on raising healthier

livestock, which he says would reduce pathogens and make irradiation unnecessary. The Center for

Science in the Public Interest calls irradiation "expensive" and "an end-of-the-line solution to

contamination problems that can and should be addressed earlier."

But with so many influential organizations backing irradiation, along with concerns about rising numbers

of disease cases, the stage is set for the process to pick up momentum, despite negative sentiments,

supporters say. First, however, says FDA's Pauli, the food industry needs to get more irradiated products

into the marketplace. "Most people in this country haven't even seen an irradiated food," he says. "When

products start appearing, then the public can make up its mind."

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (4 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
John Henkel is a staff writer for FDA Consumer.

Radiation's Positive Side

Scientists first studied radiation as a way to improve food products in the 1930s, but research didn't begin

in earnest until just after World War II. At that time, the U.S. Army was seeking a means to lessen

dependence on refrigeration and replace K rations and other preserved products that troops used in the

field.

In the early 1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission (now part of the U.S. Department of Energy)

explored food irradiation as part of President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. This research

differed from the Army's in that it examined the effects smaller radiation doses had on certain fruits and

vegetables. The end result was not a sterile product but one where insects would be killed or sterilized.

Because this produce still could spoil, refrigeration was needed. But at least potentially harmful insects

would not cross state or national borders.

Such research, augmented by studies from other countries, established that the most important benefit

from irradiation could be the control of disease-causing pathogens and that the maximum practical and

effective dose depended on the food and the purpose for irradiating.

--J.H.

Berry Successful Irradiation

The huge sign hanging over the rows of boxed strawberries left little doubt for Chicago-area grocery

shoppers that the produce before them was something new and unusual.

Not that the berries looked any different. But the massive poster above them bore a message in mammoth

letters that might as well have been neon: "Treated by irradiation for freshness and health." To the store

owner's surprise, patrons flocked to the new product, buying nine times more of it than of standard

strawberries.

That scene took place in 1992 at Carrot Top, one of the first retail stores to venture into the

then-uncharted realm of irradiated foods. The decision to stock radiation-treated berries in the store,

however, came slowly. Owner Jim Corrigan spent about a year reading up on the irradiation process and

passing details to his regular customers through periodic newsletters. He says informing customers

before the store actually stocked the new products helped allay possible fears.

When the Florida-grown strawberries finally arrived, along with irradiated oranges and grapefruits,

shoppers were well acquainted with the process and responded with sales.

Today, Corrigan remains enthusiastic. He says irradiation ensures that strawberries will be free of insects

and will keep longer--in some cases, up to three weeks, versus three to five days for conventional berries.

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (5 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
"One of our ways of rating the freshness of strawberries is to examine the small hairs that grow by the

seed," he says. "If they are standing up and plentiful, the strawberries are still fresh. [With irradiated

strawberries] we see a lot of that after three weeks."

The products remain steady sellers, and Corrigan has since added irradiated onions and papayas to his

stock.

--J.H.

Approved Uses of Irradiation

FDA approved the first use of irradiation on a food product in 1963 when it allowed radiation-treated

wheat and wheat flour to be marketed. In approving a use of radiation, FDA sets the maximum radiation

dose the product can be exposed to, measured in units called kiloGray (kGy). The following is a list of all

approved uses of radiation on foods to date, the purpose for irradiating them, and the radiation dose

allowed.

Food Approved Use Dose

Spices and dry vegetable

seasoning

decontaminates and controls insects and

microorganisms 30 kGy

Dry or dehydrated enzyme

preparations controls insects and microorganisms 10 kGy

All foods controls insects 1 kGy

Fresh foods delays maturation 1 kGy

Poultry controls disease-causing microorganisms 3 kGy

Red meat (such as beef, lamb

and pork)

controls spoilage and disease-causing

microorganisms

4.5 kGy (fresh), 7

kGy (frozen)

Publication No. (FDA) 98-2320

How to Subscribe | Back Issues | FDA Home Page

Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html (6 of 6) [10/5/1999 3:37:38 PM]
The Y2K Challenge

Getting Ready for

Y2K

Solutions and Tools

USDA & Y2K

Y2K Information

Gateways

Contact Us

Site Map

Home

 

The Food Supply Working Group

Assessment of Year 2000 Readiness of the

International Food Industry as it Affects the

United States

Introduction

At the request of the Food Supply Working Group, tThe

Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service

(FAS) prepared the following assessment of the potential for

disruptions to the international food industry which might affect

U.S. food exports and imports.

Food exports play a vital role in the U.S. agricultural and

national economy. Much of the food that is produced in this

country is eventually consumed overseas–after all, 98 percent of

the world’s population lives outside our borders. One of every

three acres produced goes into export markets. Because of this,

American agriculture is very sensitive to trade and any

significant disruption in exports could adversely affect

producers in this country through lower prices.

At the same time, Americans today are consuming imported

food products at a record pace. Imports provide variety to the

diet of American consumers, especially during the winter

months when year 2000 problems are most likely to occur.

The food supply sectors in foreign countries vary significantly

in their reliance on computerized systems and date sensitive

embedded chips and therefore their vulnerability to mission

critical year 2000 problems. These nations and, especially their

food supply sectors, also vary greatly in their awareness and

actions on the year 2000 problem.

Summary

FAS overseas offices assessed the food supply sector in 81

countries, typically accounting for 97 percent of U.S. food

imports and 95 percent of U.S. food exports during the January

to March time period.

Overall, the assessments show that the key markets for U.S.

food products will likely have a relatively low risk of year 2000

disruptions to their import, processing, distribution, and retail

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (1 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
chains. However, some countries and their domestic food

supply industries have not yet shown significant progress.

As appears to be the case in the United States, large companies

overseas, especially profitable multinationals, are usually the

best prepared for the millennium. They have the awareness, the

resources and the technical wherewithal to deal with the

problem. This is significant because these companies generally

control a very large percentage of trade.

The continuing Asian Financial Crisis is draining resources

from certain market sectors, prompting them to not fully engage

in year 2000 conversion, despite apparent vulnerability. Smalland medium-sized companies in Hong Kong are an example of

this situation. In Western Europe, the Euro (European Monetary

Unit) conversion has diverted resources from Y2K

preparedness, although some companies took the opportunity to

address both issues. Some European countries, despite the use

of automated systems in the food supply chain, have a low level

of awareness or interest in year 2000 conversion.

There appears to be some risk of year 2000 disruptions to U.S.

imports of foreign food, especially perishable commodities.

However, should there be a disruption, fresh fruit and

vegetables are likely to continue to be available, with less

variety and at higher prices, due to domestic production. This

situation may be ameliorated, as Mexico (which supplies a

significant share of the fresh tomato market in winter) is now

undertaking a major Y2K conversion effort. The highly

automated fresh produce growers are already in the assessment

and remediation stages of conversion. Transportation of fresh

produce from Mexico relies largely on trucks, which generally

have been found Y2K compliant.

Methodology

The Food Supply Working Group (FSWG) of the President’s

Council on Year 2000 Conversion has identified the well-being

of the American consumer and the U.S. food industry as the

main areas of it’s concern. The international aspect of the

FSWG mission is the Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness assessment of

foreign countries as markets for U.S. agricultural products and

as suppliers of food products to the United States. Through this

analysis, the FSWG can identify potential disruptions to supply

and markets. The export market plays a vital role in the health

of the U.S. agricultural economy, while food imports fill

important needs of U.S. consumers and add variety, especially

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (2 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
during the winter months.

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) tasked FAS

overseas offices in over 70 countries to assess the Y2K

preparedness of the local food supply sector as a market for U.S.

food products and as a supplier of food to the United States. The

study concentrated on five broad subsectors: Grains; Oilseeds

and Products; Dairy; Meat, Poultry and Eggs; Fruits and

Vegetables; and Consumer Ready Products. Agricultural

Attaches were instructed to provide both readiness and

vulnerability ratings of the supply chain for each applicable

subsector and market relationship with the U.S.

For export markets for U.S. agricultural products, the

assessment took into account foreign port facilities, inspection

agencies, discharge, transportation, processing, distribution and

retail. For suppliers to the U.S. market, the analysis included

production, transportation, processing, and port facilities. The

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service provided a separate Y2K

assessment of international transportation and distribution of

agricultural products. The Farm Service Agency provided vital

technical assistance in database management for the

international assessment.

As background information, FAS provided to our Agricultural

Attaches the Gartner Group’s October 7, 1998, Testimony to the

Senate Special Subcommittee on the Year 2000 Technology

Problem and the USDA Cooperative Research, Education and

Extension Service material on Y2K problems. Detailed

instructions and an assessment worksheet were also provided.

FAS overseas offices provided reports to the FSWG on the Year

2000 readiness of the food supply sector in 78 countries,

accounting for over 90 percent of U.S. food imports and exports

in January to March. FAS also provided a separate preliminary

assessment on these countries for the International Working

Group’s Y2K Database.

While the assessment instructions originally included a dollar

value "potential magnitude" of Y2K failures based on the

average dollar value of trade in affected commodities, it quickly

became apparent that there was a great deal of inconsistency in

the data. Instead, a proxy value of the three-year average

(1996-1998) of January/March U.S. exports (for market

relationships) and U.S. imports (for supplier relationships) was

used. Readers should note that the average dollar value of trade

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (3 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
from January to March most likely vastly overstates the

potential affect of Y2K disruptions. The Gartner Group

specifies that even in the least prepared countries, shortages of

certain foods are likely to be "isolated and severe" while

interruptions to imports/exports are likely to be "moderate and

severe." For the majority of countries in their database, Gartner

Group forecasts that interruptions to imports/exports are likely

to be "isolated and severe."

The food supply sectors of many developing and even middle

income countries have a very limited dependence on mission

critical computerized or automated systems which might be

dependent on year dates. Where these systems exist, they are

often owned by multinational companies which have taken an

active approach toY2K issues. Therefore, analysis of the

combination of vulnerability and readiness ratings is used in this

report to determine a relatively high or relatively low risk of

significant Y2K problems for a commodity subsector. Low risk

subsectors are those with low vulnerability or medium

vulnerability which have at least begun remediation (a readiness

rating of 3.5 or above), or high vulnerability with mission

critical systems in remediation (a readiness rating of 4 or

above). By contrast, a relatively high risk of significant Y2K

disruptions exists in those subsectors with high vulnerability

which are not yet fully engaged in remediation (a readiness

rating of less than 4) or medium vulnerability which have not

yet begun remediation (a readiness rating of 3 or less). This

methodology contrasts with that utilized by the Gartner Group

which relies mainly on the readiness status of a sector.

In the following sections, we report on the findings of the

Agricultural Attaches and other research on major markets and

suppliers during January to March. We also include a brief

summary on the Y2K status of ocean shipping, a key to moving

food products worldwide.

Top-Ten U.S. Export Markets

Japan (Average January/March Exports $3.0 billion): Overall,

it is our assessment that Japan will make the necessary

adjustments and be prepared for year 2000. Even in sectors

where Japan may be slow in completing Y2K realignments,

Japan is expected to make necessary adjustments in order to

continue its steady importation of food items. The response

received from industry was mixed with most indicating that

they have already prepared/ modified their systems, or that they

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (4 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
are currently assessing and preparing their systems. The Grain,

Oilseeds and Products ($1.4 billion) and Meat, Poultry and Egg

($660 million) sectors are in the remediation stage of addressing

the Y2K problem. More worrisome is the Fruit and Vegetables

sector ($470 million) which is only in the awareness stage.

Consumer Ready Products ($1.2 billion which includes items

also counted in the other sectors) is in the assessment stage.

Distribution and transportation have been identified as the

weakest link in Japan’s vulnerability for importing U.S.

products. All sectors are judged as moderately vulnerable to

year 2000 problems. Japanese companies indicate that the use of

the indigenous "year reign" system for specifying dates will

help to isolate some systems from Y2K problems.

Canada ($1.5 billion): Canada is widely acknowledged to be

among the most advanced countries in their preparations for the

year 2000. While all of the commodity subsectors are rated

either medium or high vulnerability, private industry and

government institutions are either fully engaged in remediation

or testing of their systems, including embedded chips, and

interfaces with other parts of the supply chain. In the key Fruits

and Vegetables market ($660 million), industry is working with

the Canadian Customs Service to introduce new Y2K compliant

customs forms for imports. Feed millers and oilseed processors,

reliant on U.S. corn, soybeans and products, are implementing

Y2K embedded systems remediation. Grains, Oilseeds and

Products are a $400 million market.

Mexico ($1.2 billion): Mexico has launched an aggressive year

2000 conversion program which is positively impacting the

readiness of the food supply sector. The key Grains, Oilseeds

and Products ($720 million, corn, sorghum and soybeans) and

Meat, Poultry and Eggs sectors ($210 million, mainly red meat

and poultry) are rated as medium vulnerability, but are in the

assessment and remediation stages. Consumer Ready Products

($407 million, which includes items in the other sectors) is

judged as the most advanced of all sectors in recognizing and

resolving the Y2K problem. The National Association of

Self-Service Stores (ANTAD), Proctor and Gamble Latin

America, and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) jointly

published and distributed a FMI study which includes detailed

strategies and solutions which businesses may use to deal with

Y2K. While the vulnerability of this sector is rated medium to

high, active remediation efforts should limit the risk of serious

disruptions.

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (5 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
Republic of Korea ($650 million): The Government of the

Republic of Korea (ROKG) and trade associations are actively

engaged in outreach efforts to bring companies into Y2K

compliance. The Grains, Oilseeds and Products sector ($450

million) is judged to have medium vulnerability, but active

remediation and testing programs. Port operations are on target

to be Y2K compliant by early spring. Main commercial storage

facilities will be Y2K compliant by the end of 1998. Port

facilities, flour mills and oilseed crushing facilities are rated at

in testing or implementation. Feed mills are rated between

assessment and testing. Consumer Ready Products ($140

million), which includes some Meat and Poultry imports ($75

million), is rated as highly vulnerable, but the major companies

are in remediation and testing and most small companies use

post-1996 PCs. The ROKG is actively assisting trade

associations to bring their members into Y2K compliance. The

domestic distribution system is the weak link, being made up of

many small companies. Some are still using the ultimate Y2K

contingency tool, paper ledgers. The majority are managing

with post-1996 PCs which, given aggressive outreach, should be

relatively easy to bring into compliance.

Taiwan ($570 million): The Taiwan Y2K Crisis Committee,

established in September 1997, has instructed agencies involved

in the clearance of imported food, including customs, health,

and plant and animal quarantine agencies, to complete

remediation by January 1999 and testing by June 1999. Grains,

Oilseeds and Products ($449 million), consisting mainly of

wheat, corn, soybeans and vegetable oil is the main market for

the United States. Y2K readiness of port facilities, customs

operations, and finance systems is at testing level. About 50%

of the flour/feed consumed is processed in large, computerized

wheat/feed mills. They have completed assessment and are

initiating remediation and intend to replace hardware/revise

software as necessary. The other 50% are not computerized and

should not be significantly inconvenienced by the Y2K

problem. The Consumer Ready Products sector ($110 million),

which includes imports of U.S. fresh and processed fruits, tree

nuts, and confectionery items, is well on its way to compliance.

About 85% of the 30-plus major food wholesalers and the

50-plus retail chains with 500 outlets are computerized. Most of

these wholesale/retailers are currently reprogramming and will

begin testing by 6/99. The 20-30 largest food import companies

are computerized and will be Y2K compatible by the year 2000.

Port facilities, customs, and finance systems are at the testing

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (6 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
level of readiness. Taiwan is an important market for Fruits and

Vegetables ($68 million, which is also reflected in Consumer

Ready Products). The Agricultural Produce Marketing

Corporation, which manages daily fresh produce auctions,

product distribution, and product pricing, will change hardware

and revise software. Most fresh produce cold storage and

transportation equipment is not computerized. Overall, Taiwan

is rated with a medium vulnerability to Y2K problems, but

companies and government institutions appear well on their way

to remediation and testing.

The Netherlands ($610 million): According to a recent report

issued by the Millennium Platform, less than 50% of all Dutch

companies and local governments in the Netherlands will

completely solve the Y2K problem before January 1st, 2000.

The Dutch Government made this a high profile issue since it

started working on the problem in 1997. Multinational

companies in the food supply sector are spending significant

amounts of money to resolve the Y2K bug, not only in the

Netherlands, but also in countries where they have subsidiary

companies. Cross border issues are also being addressed as

trade is so important to the Netherlands. According to the

Millennium Platform, countries like Germany and Belgium,

which are major trading partners, lag behind in resolving this

problem as compared to the Netherlands and hence trade could

be distorted. In order to assess cross border issues, the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs is coordinating with other countries to help

resolve Y2K problems. In spite of the Ministry’s efforts, Dutch

industry is still concerned that adequate coordination does not

exist within the European Union on this critical issue.

The Netherlands is an important importer of U.S. Grains,

Oilseeds and Products ($490 million), mainly soybeans and

corn gluten meal and has the largest crushing industry in

Western Europe. According to the Product Board for Margarine,

Fats and Oils (MVO), the majority of the companies dealing

with soybean imports from the U.S. are aware of the Y2K

problem. The Product Board does not foresee a distortion of

soybean exports from the U.S. to the Netherlands. Large

multinationals dominate both the oilseed crushing and feed

industries and have active Y2K programs. This sector is rated as

medium vulnerability and is in remediation and testing. Fruits

and Vegetables ($77 million) are also an important sector. The

Rotterdam Fruit Pier, which receives a large share of U.S.

perishable exports, claims that they are ready with the Y2K

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (7 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
problem. Their major concern is the proper functioning of

cooling equipment. However, during winter, it might not be a

problem if a short-term malfunction occurs. This sector is rated

as medium vulnerability and in remediation. Albert Heijn, the

leading supermarket chain, expects to be ready by April 1 of

1999. As Albert Heijn depends heavily on suppliers of foods

and beverages, they contracted accountants to audit the

computer systems of 20 of their most important domestic and

foreign suppliers. The Port of Rotterdam plays a vital role in the

importation of U.S. agricultural products. The Port has an active

program of Y2K remediation, testing, and contingency

planning.

Spain ($400 million): Government agencies, traders, and food

processors have begun to adapt their systems to minimize the

Y2K problem. Problems with trading and transportation firms

are expected to be negligible. Spain is predominately a market

for U.S. Grain, Oilseeds and Products ($348 million). This

sector is dominated by multinational firms, who have made

significant progress in Y2K preparedness. Vulnerability to Y2K

problems is rated as high, but firms are already in the testing

stage, thereby minimizing potential disruptions.

Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region ($330 million):

There appears to be cause for concern on the year 2000

preparedness of Hong Kong, a major market for U.S. Fruits and

Vegetables ($120 million), Meat, Poultry, and Eggs ($120

million), and Consumer Ready Products ($250 million, which

includes the other two sectors). The Asian Financial Crisis is

negatively impacting the private sector’s attention to the

problem and ability to deal with it. Many businesses are

preoccupied with survival before tackling problems such as

Y2K. With that said, many larger companies are on top of the

issue and continue to make good progress. The general food

distribution system should be able to meet compliance.

Vulnerability of these key sectors is rated as medium while

readiness is in the range of awareness and assessment. The

situation in Hong Kong will bear watching and reassessment.

Germany ($320 million): German companies are addressing the

Y2K problem in concert with the adjustment to the Euro. This

may address software problems, but will not necessarily solve

embedded chip issues. However, major multinational companies

which dominate the Grains, Oilseeds and Products import sector

($190 million) will be in the testing and implementation stages

by mid-1999. This sector is rated as medium vulnerability and

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (8 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
in the assessment stage, although remediation may be a more

accurate assessment, based on the typical Y2K status of large

multinationals . Fruits and Vegetables ($100) and Consumer

Ready Products ($110, which includes products in the other

categories) are regarded as highly vulnerable, but well into

remediation. The main retailers are convinced that they have

solved the software problems and will start testing next year.

Major retailers and producers seem to exercise sufficient

pressure on suppliers and importers to ensure that the Y2K

problem is properly addressed.

Russia ($300 million): The Russian Food Supply Sector

presents a dichotomy between firms having non-digital

technology or having high levels of new Y2K compliant

systems. Some of the larger and more efficient flour and feed

mills use computer equipment that is vulnerable to a Y2K-based

disruption. At the port of St. Petersburg, many of the cargo and

container handling facilities are either pre-digital or very new

systems. Many customs facilities still use pencil and paper.

Y2K failures in food importing will be more the exception than

the rule. However, any place where there is Y2K-vulnerable

technology still extant will get hit very hard because awareness

in such places is very low. Most of the transportation and

distribution system is not computerized and there is almost no

use of embedded chips. Meat and Poultry ($260 million) is the

key U.S. export and is judged to have low vulnerability. Some

processors and cold storage facilities may use computer

equipment vulnerable to a Y2K-based disruption. Y2K

problems occurring in winter could cause losses from freezing.

Top-Ten U.S. Import Markets

Canada ($1.7 billion): As noted above, Canada is widely

acknowledged to be among the most advanced countries in their

preparations for the year 2000. All of the commodity subsectors

are rated either medium or high vulnerability. Canada is an

important supplier of food to the U.S. for virtually all sectors,

except dairy. All sectors, except Meat, Poultry, and Eggs, are

rated in the testing phase of readiness. The Meat sector is in the

implementation stage. Food transport between Canada and the

U.S. is mainly by truck, which is rated as low vulnerability. We

therefore conclude there is little risk of Y2K-based interruptions

of food supplies from Canada.

Mexico ($1.4 billion): As noted above, Mexico has launched an

aggressive year 2000 conversion program which is positively

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (9 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
impacting the readiness of the food supply sector. Mexico is

primarily a supplier of Fruits and Vegetables ($1.0 billion)

during this period. The vulnerability of the sector is rated

medium to high and readiness as between awareness and

remediation. This sector is highly aware of the Y2K issue.

Highly mechanized processors in northern Mexico, as well in

some regions of Southern and Central Mexico, export

significant quantities of fruits and vegetables to the United

States. Transportation relies largely on trucks which are less

vulnerable to Y2K problems.

Thailand ($400 million): Generally, the situation is marked by

a high level of awareness, but a low level of readiness except

among multinational firms. The Asian Financial Crisis will

likely impact remediation efforts. Vulnerability is rated at low

or medium depending upon the sector. The Stock Exchange of

Thailand reports that 19 of 25 agribusiness companies and 17 of

25 food and beverage companies had informed the Exchange of

their plans to inspect and upgrade computer systems. Thailand

mainly supplies processed Fruits and Vegetables ($60 million)

and rice (Grain, Oilseeds and Products - $50 million) to the

United States.

Chile ($380 million): Chile is a key supplier of fresh fruit to the

United States during the winter (Fruits and Vegetables - $290

million). This is the heart of the fresh fruit harvesting, packing

and exporting season. Irrigation systems have manual back up

so production should not be affected. During the past two

months, Chile has been experiencing daily electric power

interruptions because the drought has cut availability of

hydroelectric power. These unexpected interruptions are causing

all kinds of problems for farmers and processors. In essence,

Chile's business community is getting valuable experience in

learning how to cope with potential Y2K problems. In addition,

some fruit exporters are just beginning to investigate the use of

bar code technology (electronic data interfaces) to manage their

shipments.

France ($330 million): The structure of the French food

industry, with many small firms and a few large ones, may

lower the overall risk of Y2K disruptions as large companies

tend to be most advanced in readiness while the smaller

companies, especially in France, tend to be less automated and

better able to fall back on manual operations. Those that are,

have usually only recently computerized. Information

technology efforts are mainly directed toward Euro conversion

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (10 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
and there is a marked lack of concern about Y2K. The Fruits

and Vegetables ($180 million) industry is rated as low

vulnerability, but only in the awareness to assessment stages of

readiness. Dairy ($200 million) is moderately vulnerable, but

readiness ranges from assessment through implementation.

Italy ($280 million): An estimated 70% of the public sector is

Y2K compliant. Many small to medium businesses, however,

are just now becoming aware of the problem, but no major

problems are expected because their computer equipment is

fairly new and they are not as dependent on computers as other

countries. Despite the low level of awareness, problems should

be limited to individual companies with no major disruptions in

food trade expected. Italy is mainly a supplier of Consumer

Ready Products ($190 million) and while many companies are

just in the awareness stage, vulnerability is rated as low.

Ecuador ($270 million): The banana industry (Fruits and

Vegetables - $110 million) is viewed as having medium

vulnerability, but a high level of readiness. Internally, the

industry, dominated by multinationals, has implemented Y2K

solutions. The main concern appears to be the ports where

readiness is at a low level. This may create some shipment

delays.

Brazil ($270 million): The Brazilian food industry appears to

have a significant risk of Y2K disruptions due to a lack of active

remediation efforts. Brazil supplies Fruits and Vegetables ($90

million) and Consumer Ready Products ($120 million to the

United States. Frozen Concentrate Orange Juice is the key food

commodity which is rated as medium vulnerability to Y2K

problems. Failures in the export/import infrastructure appear

possible, including problems in ports, refrigerated storage, and

inspection agencies. While such disruptions might also affect

coffee and sugar supplies to the U.S., these are nonperishable

commodities and adequate stocks would protect against

short-term disruptions.

Ocean Transportation

U.S. food exports and imports, except those to/from Canada and

Mexico, generally move by ocean transport. Container ships and

grain ships, both US-flag and foreign flag, are vulnerable to

Y2K problems because of the more sophisticated computer

systems that assist in navigation, propulsion, stabilization, and

other necessary functions that are totally apart from the cargo

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (11 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
they carry. One estimate puts automated or semi-automated

functions of a ship at more than 1,000 per ship. Ship owners,

lessors, insurance companies, parts suppliers, and other groups

are actively cooperating on identifying Y2K-suspect systems.

But, of the 80,000 merchant vessels in service today, one

"loose" estimate is that only 80 percent of vessels will be

compliant by January 1, 2000. In addition, the Global

Positioning System’s time cycle is due to "roll over" on August

21, 1999, and ship navigation systems will be affected. Some

shipping companies are considering keeping even

Y2K-compliant vessels in open seas or laid up during critical

dates. The Coast Guard has also initiated an "outreach" program

to all ships entering U.S. ports and in mid-1999 will not allow

ships which are not Y2K compliant to enter U.S. waters. Grain

and container shipping rates are at their lowest levels given the

excess supply of ships and the dearth of grain and other

agricultural products being traded globally. Ship availability

should not be a problem even if some vessels are not Y2K ready

in time.

Entire Text of the President’s Council on Year 2000

Conversion First Quarterly Summary of Assessment

Information, January 7, 1999. 

FSWG Report to President's Council on Y2K (USDA Foreign Section)

http://www.usda.gov/aphis/FSWG/report-foreign.html (12 of 12) [10/5/1999 3:37:47 PM]
USDA Forest Service Interim

Roads Rule Web Site

National Forest Road

System and Use

Report

(PDF format)

Attitudes Toward

Roads on the

National Forests: An

Analysis of the News

Media.

External Site

News Release

Rule

Environmental

Assessment

Fact Sheet

Statistics

Questions & Answers

Chief Mike Dombeck

Biography & Photo

Exemptions to

Interim Rule

DRAFT Roads

Analysis Procedure

External Site

DRAFT Forest

Service Roads: A

Synthesis of

Scientific Information

Links

Last Updated

19 July 1999

1350

Interim Rule

Background of Forest Roads

" There are few more irreparable marks we can leave on the land than to build a

road... Our overriding objective is to work with local people to provide a forest road

system that best serves the management objectives and public uses of national

forests and grasslands while protecting the health of our watersheds."

-- Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, 1998

The interim rule and the corresponding new roads policy now under development are

critical elements in the agency's strategy for overhauling current road management policies

thereby improving watershed health. Roads are one of the four basic components of the

Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda. Almost all visitors to the national forests use forest roads. Roads not only

make our Nation's wildlands accessible, but also shape the wildland experience for most forest visitors by determining

where they will go and what they will see. Even wilderness areas on our national forests would be generally inaccessible

without roads leading to trailheads.

Changing Forest Road Uses

Our job as resource professionals is to advance science-based proposals, analyze their effects in a public forum and

move issues forward. The interim moratorium is needed to safeguard the significant ecological values of unroaded areas

from the potentially adverse effects often associated with road construction until a new, permanent road policy is in

place. The long-term policy will guide decisions of where, when and if new roads should be constructed in unroaded

portions of the National Forest System.

Much of the existing forest access was built over the last 50 years for timber harvest and log removal. In the decades

after World War II, logging traffic tripled, peaking in 1990. But when timber harvests on the national forests declined in

the 1990's, logging traffic plunged to 1950 levels. Logging now accounts for only one-half of 1 percent of all forest road

use. By contrast, recreational forest road use has soared to 13 times its 1950 rate, dwarfing logging traffic. Driving for

pleasure is the single largest recreational use on Forest Service-managed lands, constituting 35.8 percent of all

recreation in 1996. In summer, recreational drivers on the national forests account for 13.6 million vehicle-miles per day.

The outlook is for recreational road use to grow by an additional 64 percent by the year 2045.

Forest Road Issues

Few natural resource issues in recent years have attracted as much public scrutiny as the management of the forest

road system. Though less costly to build and maintain than most public highways, forest roads can have adverse

impacts on watersheds, especially if poorly maintained. Few marks that are made on the land are more lasting than

roads. Yet roads are needed for the goods and services that Americans expect from their national forests. Managers

today must wrestle with several complicated forest road issues:

- Funding shortfalls. Roads that were originally built to accommodate logging trucks are increasingly carrying people

seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. An $8.4 billion reconstruction backlog exists for the most highly-traveled roads.

Sixty percent of all forest roads are currently not maintained to the public safety and environmental standards for which

they were built.

- Environmental damage. Poorly maintained roads can promote or cause erosion and landslides, degrading riparian and

wetland habitat through sedimentation and changes in streamfiow and water temperature. Roads can also block fish and

wildlife passage, modifying animal behavior and preventing healthy regeneration.

- Substandard roads. Many roads on the national forests do not meet current standards for safety and environmental

protection. A complete inventory of stubstandard roads has been completed.

- Unroaded areas. Building a road in an unroaded area has an irreversible impact. Of the 62 million acres of national

forest land classified as unroaded in the 1970's, 22 million acres have been designated as wilderness, 6 million are

recommended for wilderness, and the remaining 34 million are designated for other uses. Oniy 9 million acres in

unroaded areas are designated as suitable for timber harvest, and about 1 million of these have been entered for timber

harvest.

Vehicles per Day on Forest Roads by Use 

1950 1990 1996

Timber harvest 14,000 42,000 15,000

Recreation 137,000 1,315,000 1,706,000

Welcome to the USDA Forest Service Transportation Policy Web Site

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:52 PM]
A New Forest Road Agenda

Clearly, the Forest Service needs a new approach to managing forest roads. We need sufficient funding to restore

necessary roads to a safe, environmentally sound condition and to close and stabilize unnecessary roads so that clean

water and healthy wildlife habitat are provided for future generations. The agency needs to protect and manage

cautiously the relatively few remaining unroaded lands. A new forest road policy in the Forest Service Natural Resource

Agenda will improve access for all forest road users while protecting healthy ecosystems.

Contact Information

E-mail: jkrause@fs.fed.us Quote Line: 202-205-1134

Website designed and maintained by

USDA Forest Service Office of Communication

201 14th St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250

 

Welcome to the USDA Forest Service Transportation Policy Web Site

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:52 PM]
404 ERROR : FILE NOT FOUND

404 File Not Found [IMAGE by JCC]

You tried to retrieve:

http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/pubafrs/pr/index.html

(source URL: http://www.usda.gov/whatsnew.htm )

Possible reasons why you are getting this message:

Page Relocated: On October 4, 1999, the RMA WebSite

underwent a major overhaul. Many directory structures have

been changed and locations reorganized.

Please use the navigation bar available on every content

page, starting from our Home Page.

You might examine the search engine to help find the

information you are looking for.

1. 

Spelling: Remember that being one letter off or having a space

where no space is called for is enough to throw things off.

Also, lower case and upper case letters are different.

2. 

Page Deleted: File may have been removed as mandated by a

disposal or expiration directive.

3. 

Our Problem: No web site is flawless. It is possible the

problem is on our end. If you are confident the page really

exists, please contact us with details.

4. 

RMA

Logo

Privacy & Security | Nondiscrimination Statement | Document Accessibility

Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may

be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-474) and the

National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

404, Page Not Found

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm [10/5/1999 3:37:56 PM]
The Latest News

News Archive

Questions? Comments?

Search ARS News & Information

ARS News by E-mail

Scientists Find New Clue to

Treat Lethal Horse Disease

By Jill Lee

February 5, 1999

A disease that destroys brain cells in horses, equine

leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM), is currently a death sentence.

But promising new research findings may someday improve the

odds.

ELEM is caused by corn contaminated with the

fumonisin-producing fungus, Fusarium moniliforme. The toxin

is insidious--only a small amount makes horses sick. While the

animals appear healthy, they suffer irreversible damage.

Scientists at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service, in collaboration with Emory

University, found that the fungi’s toxin interrupts the way a

horse’s liver, kidney and lungs make a special kind of fat known

as sphingolipid. The toxin also causes an inappropriate fat

intermediate (sphinganine) to accumulate and other necessary

fats to be depleted.

The ARS researchers are based at the agency’s Richard B.

Russell Agricultural Research Center in Athens, Ga. They found

that another fungus, Isaria sinclairii, produces a compound

called ISP-I or myriocin that temporarily reduced the

sphinganine accumulation in mice with no ill effects. If

confirmed by other studies, the myriocin discovery might lead to

treatments.

Animals exhibiting neurological effects of fumonisin poisoning

can’t be saved. But for other members of the herd exposed to

contaminated food, the downward spiral of sphinganine

overproduction could be stopped. The results of the preliminary

studies in mice are being published in Environmental Toxicology

Scientists Find New Clue to Treat Lethal Horse Disease / February 5, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990205.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:57 PM]
and Pharmacology.

ARS and Emory scientists have received a patent on a technique

to detect fumonisin poisoning in an animal’s tissue, serum and

urine. It’s based on changes in sphinganine.

Fumonisin poisoning is not common in the United States, but it

does happen. In 1995, 38 horses in Kentucky and Virginia died

from it. The Food and Drug Administration is considering

setting guidance amounts to protect both humans and livestock,

following long-term exposure studies.

ARS is the chief research agency of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

Scientific contact: Ronald Riley, Toxicology and Mycotoxin

Research Unit, ARS Richard B. Agricultural Russell Research

Center, Athens, Ga. Phone (706) 546-3377, rriley@ars.usda.gov.

Agricultural Research Service / News Staff / Photo Staff / ARS News & Information

Scientists Find New Clue to Treat Lethal Horse Disease / February 5, 1999 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990205.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:37:57 PM]
NUTRIENT DATA

LABORATORY

Search the USDA Nutrient Database for

Standard Reference

This interface allows simple searches. Enter one keyword which best describes your food item or the NDB No and

press the enter or return key. If you don't get a match, check your spelling or try a related term. If you get too many

items, try a more specific keyword. If you enter two or more keywords, the program will search for items which

contain all of the keywords. They do not have to be adjacent or in the same order you entered them.

For more information , including documentation and files for downloading, on SR12.

Nutrient Data Laboratory

Agricultural Research Service

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center

10300 Baltimore Blvd

Bldg. 005, Rm.107, BARC-West

Beltsville, MD 20705

E-mail: ndlinfo@rbhnrc.usda.gov

Phone: 301-504-0630, FAX: 301-504-0632

Return to NDL Home Page

Search the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl [10/5/1999 3:37:59 PM]
Unified Export Strategy

Information at this web-site will assist you in preparing and submitting recommendations and requests for

funding assistance under programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Program recommendations and funding requests may be submitted by

completing the 1999 Unified Export Strategy (UES) application. All applications must be received in FAS

by 5:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time, March 26, 1999.

Organizations may submit applications directly to FAS through specially designed data entry screens at the

UES application Internet site identified in step 2, below. FAS highly recommends applying via that

Internet site. It will virtually eliminate paperwork and enable FAS to expedite its processing and review of

applications. Also, by using that site, organizations which submitted UES applications last year will not

need to enter certain historical information, as it will appear automatically in the data entry screens. Follow

these steps to prepare and submit your applications over the Internet:

1. Contact the Marketing Operations Staff at (202) 720-4327 or FAX (202)

720-9361 to obtain your UES application log-on ID and password. Do this as

soon as possible.

2. Using your Internet browser, go to URL address:

http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html

3. Using your mouse, select the Unified Export Strategy Application icon and

click on it.

4. The title screen for the application will appear. Enter your ID and password in

the appropriate boxes and click the "View Application" button. You should now

be able to access the application instructions and begin completing your UES

application over the Internet.

In addition to the UES application Internet site, word processing documents (WordPerfect and Word

versions) of the 1999 UES application and related appendices are available and may be downloaded

below. UES applicants may find these word processing documents useful for preparing some of the text

portions of their UES applications. For example, to take advantage of the superior editing capabilities

found in word processing software versus those available on the UES application Internet site (and to

minimize the time you spend logged onto the Internet), it is advisable that large (more than one page) text

portions of the UES application be drafted and finalized in a word processing document and then copied

into the data entry screens at the UES application Internet site.

If you need assistance, or experience any difficulty in using the UES application Internet site or the word

processing documents, please contact the Marketing Operations Staff at (202) 720-4327.

1999 Unified Export Strategy Application Formats & Appendixes

Please be patient. The following files may take several minutes to download.

Unified Export Strategy

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/ues/unified.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:38:04 PM]
WordPerfect version 6, 7 and 8

Application Format file download

(115 KB)

MS Word Office 97

Application Format file download

(109 KB)

uesv7.wpd* uesv7.doc

WordPerfect version 6, 7 and 8

Appendix file download

(122 KB)

MS Word Office 97

Appendix file download

(138 KB)

instrc2.wpd ** instrc2.doc**

* Please note: The downloading process may assign the

WordPerfect with an extension of .exe (usev7.exe). Before saving

the file to your local directory please change the file extension

from .exe to .wpd.

** Appendix includes the application instructions, country codes, and the commodity aggregate codes

For more information: For more information on the Unified Export Strategy, contact the Marketing

Operations Staff , AG Box 1042, USDA, Washington DC 20250-1042 -- (202) 720-5521 FAX (202)

720-9361 or EMAIL mosadmin@fas.usda.gov

Last modified: Wednesday, March 10, 1999

Unified Export Strategy

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/ues/unified.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:38:04 PM]
 Women in Agriculture 

Welcome to our new Women in Agriculture website

We created the Women in Agriculture (WIA) website to follow-up on the First and Second

International Conferences for Women in Agriculture (ICWA), and to prepare for the Third

International Conference that will be held in Spain in 2002.

Our dialogue with women during the second conference -- recently held in Washington, D.C. --

made it clear that it is vitally important for women in agriculture to have an ongoing

communications network. We want to help you make connections with other women in the

agriculture community to share information, trade ideas, and increase your opportunities and

resources.

Order Audio Tapes from the Second International Conference

Click Here to go to our Electronic Order Form. To place an order, you can fill out this form while

it is on your computer screen, print out the completed form, and fax or mail the hard copy.

News Flash: For information on the Training Summit on Grassroots Community Building for

the 21st Century, check the WIA newsletter or go to complete descriptions of plenary sessions

and workshops here.

Click here for press releases on the Training Summit.

Para información en Español en sesión en Entrenamiento Cumbre en Pueblo Comunidad

Edificio Para 21ro Siglo, hacer clic aquí.

● um dieses website in Deutsches zu übersetzen, klicken Sie hier

● Pour traduire ce website en français, cliquetez ici

● Per tradurre questo website in italiano, scattarsi qui

● Para traduzir este website no português, estale aqui

● Para traducir este website a español, haga clic aquí

Translation of the WIA website into Other Languages:

The AltaVista TM Internet Search Service, developed by Digital Equipment Corporation, translates

text on the World Wide Web.

For your convenience, our website includes a link to AltaVista Translations. However, we are not

Women in Agriculture Home Page

http://www.wia.usda.gov/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:38:30 PM]
responsible for the accuracy of the translated version of our website. The link to the AltaVista

Translations site should not be taken as our endorsement of AltaVista of any of its services.

To use the translations service, enter our World Wide Web address -- http://www.wia.usda.gov --

where indicated. Select a translation format (English to Spanish, English to French, etc.) and then

click the button labeled Translate.

Go to AltaVista Translations

Contact AltaVista if you have any problems using its service.

We think our Women in Agriculture website and network will help you. We hope you'll visit us

often.

Please contact Leanne Powell if you have any questions about the WIA network, or if you

have an idea or submission for the WIA newsletter.

Go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture ... Go to USDA Rural Development

WIA Website Questions/Comments

WIA webmaster: Jean Carter, USDA Rural Development

Original site design by Anne Todd, USDA

Visitors since February 23, 1999: 

Latest revisions: February 23, 1999

Women in Agriculture Home Page

http://www.wia.usda.gov/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:38:30 PM]
Find out more about the Cooperative Extension System's

National Child Care Initiative!

USDA

nondiscrimination policy 

 NNCC webmaster:

nncc@exnet.iastate.edu

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Children, Youth and

Families Education and

Research Network

Extension programs are available to all without regard to race, color,

national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.

NNCC home page

http://www.nncc.org/ [10/5/1999 3:39:19 PM]
United States Department of Agriculture

Office of the Secretary

Washington, D.C. 20250

 

February 1,1999

 STRENGTHENING THE FARM SAFETY NET:

 The Administration s Principles and Preliminary 

 Proposals for Reforming Crop Insurance

 

 

In his State of the Union message, President Clinton pledged to work with

Members of Congress of both parties to create a farm safety net that includes

an improved federal crop insurance program. This commitment builds upon many

steps the President has taken to strengthen the farm safety net: In 1994, the

Administration proposed, and Congress passed, groundbreaking crop insurance

reform legislation; when he signed the 1996 farm bill, and on many occasions

since, the President expressed his interest in strengthening the farm safety

net; and in 1998, the President worked hard to secure congressional approval

for emergency funding to help farmers and ranchers hit by natural disaster

and low prices in 1998 and who endured successive years of losses.

 

The Administration is committed to working with Congress to develop and

enact crop insurance reform legislation that is based on the following

principles: maximum participation in the programs, comprehensive coverage,

flexibility, use of market mechanisms, and lowest cost to both farmers and

ranchers and taxpayers.

In response to recent experience, the Administration offers the

following preliminary proposals that meet these principles for crop insurance

reform: bringing new, more flexible risk management tools to farmers; making

the basic program more financially worthwhile by raising the floor on basic

crop insurance coverage; increasing the incentives for farmers to purchase

higher levels of coverage; covering multi-year disasters; covering livestock;

making farmers in designated disaster areas eligible for NAP assistance once

such a designation occurs; and providing better information and risk

management education to farmers.

These proposals are discussed in more detail following background on

the crop insurance program, a summary of its weaknesses, especially those

revealed by recent experience, and the Administration s principles for crop

insurance reform.

 Background

Prior to 1994, the crop insurance program served some farmers, but

never achieved sufficient participation to become the primary source of

federal assistance for farmers stricken by economic losses from natural

disasters. As a result, Congress passed a series of ad hoc disaster payment

programs in the 1980 s and early 1990 s and farmers relied on historic farm

programs to support their incomes.

In 1994, the Administration proposed legislative reforms to merge crop

insurance with ad hoc disaster payment assistance. Offered to farmers on a

crop by crop basis, the government provides farmers premium-free basic

coverage to cover catastrophic losses, known as CAT coverage, and farmers

have the opportunity to purchase higher levels of coverage at subsidized

premium rates, known as buy-up coverage. The legislation also created a noninsured assistance payment (NAP) program for crops for which an insurance

program is not yet developed.

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:39:25 PM]
In its proposals to Congress for the 1996 farm bill, the Administration

recommended that the legislation enhance crop insurance by providing the

Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority to offer revenue insurance --

insurance to protect against price declines, not just losses from natural

disasters. Congress adopted the recommendation, and also established a

program by which USDA offers risk management education to farmers. At the

same time, that legislation weakened the historic farm safety net by doing

away with much of the counter cyclical income support programs that had been

the heart of traditional farm policy.

In 1998, farm income fell precipitously. Commodity prices plummeted as

world markets softened, and other farmers struggled with the effect of

natural disasters that hit many parts of the country. Neither the crop

insurance program nor the 1996 farm bill were able to ameliorate the dramatic

losses the farm economy suffered. Ultimately, the Administration worked with

the Congress to provide nearly $6 billion in emergency funding in the fiscal

year 1999 omnibus legislation as compensation for market and production

losses.

Consistent with its commitment to an adequate crop insurance program,

the Administration supported a provision requiring that uninsured recipients

of the emergency assistance obtain insurance over the next 2 years. More

significantly, to encourage greater participation in crop insurance and as a

down payment on crop insurance reform, USDA earmarked $400 million from the

emergency aid program to provide farmers a 30 percent reduction of their crop

insurance premiums on 1999 crops.

 Weaknesses in the Crop Insurance Program

In spite of improvements made to the. program, through legislation and

administrative actions, the Administration believes the crop insurance

program still suffers major shortcomings; they are:

 Basic CAT coverage is not sufficient to provide farmers an adequate

safety net in times of severe stress, and not enough farmers buy higher

levels of coverage - only two-thirds of the farmers who have crop insurance

purchase buy-up coverage.

 Farmers generally only obtain insurance based on expected market prices

established at the start of the year, and which may vary significantly from

actual prices at the time of harvest. Also, current insurance products do not

protect them against low prices that carry over year to year.

 Farmers who experience several years of adverse weather may be unable to

obtain enough insurance to cover their costs of production, because the

coverage they can buy is linked to and limited by their actual production

history. In many cases, farmers find their insurable yields declining as their

premium rates increase, a problem especially acute in the Great Plains.

 Participation in revenue insurance which protects against falling

prices while growing, remains relatively limited; only about 16 percent

of the corn and soybean farmers who buy up to the higher levels of

coverage also take revenue insurance.

  Measured in value of sales, the livestock industry represents the

biggest segment of American agriculture, but the current crop insurance

statute does not permit USDA to extend coverage for livestock losses; the

private sector only insures against livestock mortality and this coverage is

used only sparingly.

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:39:25 PM]
 Crop insurance programs have not yet been developed for many important

and economically significant crops. Thus, these growers are protected only

through the limited coverage offered by the non- insured assistance payment

(NAP) program.

 Principles for Strengthening the Farm Safety Net

 through Reforming Crop Insurance

 

To strengthen the farm safety net, the Administration believes

legislation to improve the crop insurance program should satisfy the

following principles:

  Maximize participation: The farm safety net, and the crop

 insurance program, should cover as many farmers and ranchers as

 possible.

  ComprehensIve coverage: Insurance coverage and risk management

 tools should be as comprehensive as possible, covering as much

 agricultural production crops and livestock and as many risks to

 economic and production loss as possible.

  Use market mechanisms: The farm safety net and crop insurance

 should make maximum use of market mechanisms.

  Flexibility: The crop insurance program should be 

 flexible enough to meet the diverse demands posed

 by the varied risks farmers and ranchers face.

  Lowest cost to taxpayers: These programs should be

 delivered at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers

 and farmers and ranchers.

 The Administration's

 Preliminary Proposals for

 Reforming Crop Insurance

To achieve its principles for strengthening the farm safety net

by improving crop insurance, the Administration offers the following

proposals to Congress:

  Speed new, more flexible risk management tools to market: To meet

the changing needs of farmers and ranchers, crop insurance reform should

include providing farmers more flexible products to cover their diverse needs,

including more revenue- based, insurance products and coverage of a whole

farms production and revenue. Crop insurance reform should permit USDA to work

more creatively with private companies to develop and bring to market new risk

management tools and give USDA more flexibility to use pilot projects and

expand them.

  Raise the floor: Because the CAT and NAP programs only cover less

than one-third of the value of a crop, crop insurance reform legislation

should increase both the amount of the crop covered and the market price at

which a crop is insured thus making these basic programs more financially

worthwhile.

  Increase incentives for higher-level coverage: Crop insurance

reform should improve the incentives for farmers to buy more comprehensive 

insurance at higher buy up levels. It should also provide farmers similar

incentives for all insurance plans, including revenue insurance.

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:39:25 PM]
  Cover multi-year disasters: To address the special concerns raised

by multi-year crop losses and losses not severe enough to trigger current loss 

requirements, crop insurance reform should authorize USDA to offer a new

multi-year insurance umbrella product to complement single-year policies.

  Cover livestock: Because the current crop insurance program does

not cover livestock producers, who make up the largest single sector of

American agriculture in terms of value of production, crop insurance reform

should include provisions to enable USDA to offer coverage of livestock. 

  Improve the NAP program: Because many farmers rely

on the NAP program as their primary protection from losses from natural

disasters, crop insurance reform should change the trigger that makes NAP

assistance available so the farmers become eligible for NAP assistance at the

same time USDA designates areas natural disaster areas that makes farmers and

ranchers eligible for emergency loans.

  Provide better information and service to farmers: Crop insurance

reform should increase farmer education about risk management to enable them 

to assume more responsibility for and better manage their risks, through crop

insurance and the agricultural futures and options markets.

While the crop insurance program is a mainstay of the farm safety net, the

Administration also wants to work with Congress to examine other USDA programs

that assist farmers and ranchers suffering from natural disasters to improve

their performance in meeting specific needs that cannot be fully addressed

through crop insurance.

 Next Steps 

 

Having laid out these principles and preliminary proposals, the Administration 

is committed to discussing them and other options with farmers, ranchers, and

Congress, developing a comprehensive package to achieve our objectives, and

agreeing on the most appropriate way to finance it. 

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman will conduct at least 3 regional forums

around the country on improving crop insurance, at places and on dates that

will be announced in the next few weeks. Through these forums and discussions

with Congress, the Administration intends to build upon the proposals laid out

in this document to forge a bipartisan agreement on crop insurance reform.

 #

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/02/crop (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:39:25 PM]
text only

 Help 

While the availability of government services on-line is just

beginning, there are a number of things you can do right now... 

 

In his introduction to the February 1997 Report "Access

America: Reengineering Through Information Technology," Vice

President Gore described his vision of the government of the

future: It will be a government where all Americans have the

opportunity to get services electronically and where, aided by

technology, the productivity of government operations will be

soaring.

Access America for Seniors - Home Page 

http://www.seniors.gov/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:39:49 PM]
Social Security Administration Launches New Internet Services

as part of Access America for Seniors.

Access America for Seniors is a government-wide initiative

to deliver electronic services from government agencies and

organizations to seniors.

National Partnership for Reinventing Government

and the Government Information Technology Services Board.

| Home | Introduction | About us | FAQs | Ask us tell us | Site map | Search | Privacy |

Access America for Seniors - Home Page 

http://www.seniors.gov/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:39:49 PM]
Civil Rights

It May Not Be Too Late For Your Complaint!

Notice of Class Certification and Proposed Class Settlement

Hot Off the Press: Latest Civil Rights Forum from the Department of Justice

Visitors since 2.9.98

This site was last updated June 22, 1999.

Civil Rights

http://www.usda.gov/da/cr.html [10/5/1999 3:40:27 PM]
Scroll to complete questionnaire then click on SUBMIT.

Department of Agriculture Agency

Search

The results of this job search will be compiled specifically for employees of the agency or department

shown above. Some of the jobs displayed may be restricted to agency and/or department employees only.

Please be sure to review the job entries and announcements carefully. Applications from outside of the

area of consideration may not be evaluated or acknowledged.

Select from the box below

Geographic Area

Select the state or region where you would like to work

or select ALL for worldwide opportunities.

USOPM - Agency Agriculture

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/a9ag.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:40:46 PM]
Status Employee

Are you a current Federal employee, a former Federal employee with

reinstatement eligibility, or a person with special appointment eligibility?

 No

 Yes

Limit by Date

You can limit your search to jobs that have opened in the last week.

Please select one of the options below.

Geographic Area

Geographic areas are broken down into states, regions, or ALL.

All Southeast States include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

All Central States include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

All Southwest States include Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana,

Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

All Western States include California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and

USOPM - Agency Agriculture

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/a9ag.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:40:46 PM]
Washington,.

All Northeast States include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, and Vermont.

TOP

Status Employees

Status employees are career or career-conditional employees in the competitive service or

former career or career-conditional competitive service employees eligible for

reinstatement. Typically employees serving in temporary or term position; in the excepted

service; or in the Legislative or Judicial branches of the Federal government do not have

the competitive status required to apply under announcements restricted to status

employees.

TOP

Pull by Date

You can limit your search to jobs that have opened in the last week.

Please select one of the options.

TOP

AS OF: 09-01-1998

USOPM - Agency Agriculture

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/a9ag.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:40:46 PM]
[text version]

The U.S. Government's official site for jobs and employment information

provided by the United States Office of Personnel Management.

CURRENT JOB OPENINGS | GENERAL INFORMATION / VETERANS' PREFERENCE | ON-LINE APPLICATION

JOB ENTRY FOR EMPLOYERS

US Mint, Personnel Management Specialist

GS-13

US Mint, Human Resources

Analyst GS-13

NPR, Systems Administrator GS-9/13 Navy, Personnel Management

Specialist, Supervisory GS-12

National Park Service, Police Officer SP-01 Careers at the National Credit

Union Administration (NCUA)

Dept. of Education, Institutional Review Spec.,

GS-11/12

Dept. of Education,

Institutional Review Spec.,

GS-9

Labor, Economist GS-7 Positions with United States

Capitol Police

Border Patrol Agent On-Line Application

USAJOBS - United States Office Of Personnel Management

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:23 PM]
 To create a resume for consideration for "Year 2000" compliance jobs, please

visit America's Talent Bank and access the Job Seeker Registration area. Use the

USAJOBS Year 2000 Job Search to look for current postings.

Information on career transition assistance can be obtained through the U.S.

Department of Labor. The website is titled "Planning Your Future -- A Federal

Employee's Survival Guide".

Information on the agencies of the Federal Government can be obtained from the

White House home page.

NOTICE: This site requires support for tables and other HTML 2.0 and browser-specific

extensions. As such, this site may not be viewable from services such as America Online, or

when using certain older browser software. For proper and complete presentation, please

access this site using:

Netscape Navigator Version 2.0 (or higher), or

Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 2.0 (or higher)

A text version of the site is available.

Send comments to usajobs_webmaster@opm.gov

Job information last updated on 10/05/1999

USAJOBS - United States Office Of Personnel Management

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:23 PM]
 Nonprofit Gateway

Business

❍ Business Loans & Grants

Community Development

❍ Community Facilities Loans

❍ Computers for Learning Organizations

❍ Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZEC)

❍ Fund for Rural America

❍ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

❍ Rural Economic Social Development

❍ Rural Housing Loans, Grants & Assistance

❍ Water and Waste Loans & Grants

Research & Education

❍ Children, Youth and Family Information

❍ Distance Education - Technical Assistance for Nonprofits

❍ Distance Learning & Telemedicine Grants

❍ Food & Ag Sciences Graduate Fellowship Grants

❍ Forestry and Natural Resources Grants & Scholarships

❍ Higher Education Grants

❍ National Research Initiative Grants

❍ Teachers Aides - Coloring Books

Volunteers

❍ Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE)

❍ Earth Team

❍ USDA Gleaning and Food Recovery Home Page

❍ U.S. Forest Service

❍ 4-H Youth Development Opportunities/References

USDA/Nonprofit Gateway Page

http://www.usda.gov/nonprofi.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:24 PM]
USDA/Nonprofit Gateway Page

http://www.usda.gov/nonprofi.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:24 PM]
DEPARTMENTAL

ADMINISTRATION

What's New At This Site

Office of Procurement, Property &

Emergency Preparedness (OPPEP) TDD

Line: (202) 401 4133

USDA Acquisition Toolkit

The USDA Acquisition Toolkit is designed to provide

USDA employees with a single point of access to various

online applications and resources. (Background

information about the toolkit)

 PROCUREMENT TOOLS

● CBD Net (Commerce Business Daily)

List of Parties Excluded from Federal

Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs

● 

Davis Bacon Wage Rates

❍ User's Guide

● 

Service Contract Wage Determinations

❍ User's Guide

● 

● Treasury List of Approved Sureties

OFCCP Registry of Contractors in Compliance

with EEO Regulations

● 

NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS)

❍ NIH CPS Training Module - On-Line

❍ NIH CPS Training Guide

Assigning Performance Evaluation to a Project

Officer/COTR

❍ 

❍ Project Officer/COR Evaluation Process

● 

Federal Supply Schedules Program Information

Website - Schedules E Library

● 

● GSA Advantage

● SBA's PRO-Net

● UNICOR - Federal Prison Industries

COMMITS - Commerce Information Technology

Solutions

● 

 REFERENCE TOOLS

 

USDA Purchase Card

Program

Purchase Card Management

System (PCMS)

Frequently Asked Questions

(FAQs)

● 

Purchase Card Information

● Under Construction

Other Links:

o AARC

o AGCAS Updates

o Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI)

o Federal Acquisition Jumpstation @ NASA

o General Accounting Office (GAO)

o General Services Administration (GSA)

o Government Information Locator Service (GILS)

o Government Printing Office (GPO)

o GPO Access

o Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD)

o NISH

o National Industries for the Blind (NIB)

o Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

o Office of Government Ethics (OGE)

o Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

o Small Business Administration (SBA)

Privacy & Security Notice

 Please email us with any

comments, suggestions or questions.

USDA Procurement Information - 9/27/99

http://www.usda.gov/da/procure.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:42 PM]
Return to:

USDA Home Page

USDA Departmental Administration Home Page

Last updated: September 27, 1999

Visitors since 1.30.98

USDA Procurement Information - 9/27/99

http://www.usda.gov/da/procure.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:41:42 PM]
Department of Agriculture

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

USDA Home Page |Contract Opportunities|Business Support Programs

Useful Links|Contacts|Marketing Information|What's New?

SDB PROGRAM-An Open Lettet to Prime Contractors 

October 13 Hispanic Heritage Month Symposium 

USDA Vendor Outreach Program 

Attention Small Businesses!!

What you need to know about Hubzone legislation and

how it may affect your business.

Ordering JWOD Office Products and Supplies on the

Internet

Disclaimer

As a public service we have provided this link that will

transfer you from OSDBU's website to a site that contains

 information you may find helpful. We make no

representations, guarantees, or warranties as to the

accuracy or completeness of information on the accessed

website. We do not endorse any products, services or

views referenced on the site. Go to JWOD Website.

About OSDBU

OSDBU Calendar of Events

Small Disadvantaged Business Certification Program

Links to USDA Regional and State Offices

SBA Regional and State Offices

Guestbook

USDA Strategic Plan

Freedom of Information Act

Sitemap

You are the Visitor to OSDBU Online

Since February 23,1998

This page last update 5/20/1999

Front Cover

http://www.usda.gov/da/smallbus.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:06 PM]
Comments and suggestions about content of OSDBU's Home Page to mike.green@usda.gov.

 

Go to Top

Front Cover

http://www.usda.gov/da/smallbus.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:06 PM]
 An interagency project in collaboration with Vice President Al Gore's

National Partnership For Reinventing Government

Information by Topic:

Administrative Management

Communities/Commerce

Disasters/Emergencies

Education

Environment/Energy

Families/Children

Health

Housing

Money Matters

Public Safety

Transportation/Infrastructure

Workforce Development

Partners:

CSG (States)

ICMA (City Management)

NACo (Counties)

NCSL (Legislatures)

NGA (Governors)

NLC (Cities)

USCM (Mayors)

Information by Type:

Funding

Best Practices

Tools

TA/Training

Laws/Regulations

Contacts

Frequently Asked

Current Issues:

Brownfields

Performance Measures

Sustainable Communities

Welfare Reform

Year 2000

Plain Language

Department of the Interior's

Office of Intergov.

Affairs

"Year 2000"

For reports, definitions, news,

and contacts, please follow the

"Year 2000" link in the "Current

Issues" section.

Hot Links:

Fed One-Stops

State/Local Links

Federal Agencies

Reference Room

News

This web site was developed to give state and local government officials and employees easy

access to federal information in ways that make sense to you.

Please let us know how we are doing!!

Privacy Statement Guest Book

Last Modified: June 22, 1999

U.S. State & Local Gateway

http://www.statelocal.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:42:33 PM]
Farm and

Foreign Agricultural Services

Mission

updated September 20, 1999

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area is responsible for administering agricultural

price and income support programs, production adjustment programs, and the Conservation Reserve

Program. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation programs are administered here, as are the farm lending

programs for agricultural producers and others engaged in production of agricultural commodities.

Programs that support exports of agricultural products are administered in this mission area including

initiatives to combat unfair competition, that develop new markets for U.S. suppliers, and that provide

food assistance to food-deficit countries.

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area is organized into three agencies, the Farm

Services Agency and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) helps stabilize farm income, aids farmers in conserving land and water

resources, provides credit to new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and helps farm operations

recover from the effects of disaster.

FSA administers commodity loan programs for wheat, rice, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, oilseeds,

tobacco, peanuts, upland and extra-long-staple cotton, and sugar.

The Agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which

supports the prices of some agricultural commodities through loans and purchases. This provides farmers

with interim financing, and helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of farm commodities, and their

orderly distribution, throughout the year and during times of surplus and scarcity.

CCC loan rates are designed to keep crops competitive in the marketplace. A producer must have entered

into a production flexibility contract to be eligible for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat,

feed grains, rice and upland cotton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has

entered into a production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.

Nonrecourse loans are also available for oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, extra-long-staple cotton, raw cane

sugar, and refined beet sugar, regardless of whether the producer has entered into a production flexibility

contract.

Under the dairy price support program, CCC buys surplus butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk from

processors at announced prices to support the price of milk. These purchases help maintain market prices

at the legislated support level.

CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relief both in the United States and in foreign countries. FSA

employees purchase and deliver foods for the National School Lunch and other domestic feeding

programs. And, donated to "Food for Peace" and programs administered by voluntary organizations, these

U.S. farm products and foods help USDA fight hunger worldwide.

USDA Agency Mission: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ffas.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:42:35 PM]
Catastrophic crop insurance coverage compensates a farmer for crop losses greater than 50 percent of the

operation's average yield, at 60 percent of the expected market price. CAT can be obtained at local FSA

offices in most States or from private crop insurance agents for a nominal processing fee. This fee may be

waived for limited-resource farmers.

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program protects growers of crops grown commercially for

food and fiber for which Federal crop insurance is not available. In addition, any losses resulting from

natural disasters not covered by the crop insurance policy may also be eligible.

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, FSA makes available a variety of emergency assistance programs to

farmers in counties that have been designated or declared disaster areas. The Agency can offer cost-share

assistance to producers who do not have enough feed to maintain their eligible livestock because of a loss

of a substantial amount of their normal feed production. Emergency loans are available to eligible farmers

who suffer qualifying losses as a result of a natural disaster. And, to help rehabilitate farmland damaged by

a natural disaster, FSA can often share the cost of some emergency conservation practices. In the event of

a national emergency, FSA is responsible for assuring adequate food production and distribution, as well

as the continued availability of feed, seed, fertilizer, and farm machinery.

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan programs to farmers who are

temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit. Often, these are beginning farmers who can't

qualify for conventional loans because they have insufficient net worth. The Agency also helps established

farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limited to

maintain profitable farming operations.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends directly. To qualify for a direct farm

ownership or operating loan, the applicant must be able to show sufficient repayment ability and pledge

enough collateral to fully secure the loan.

FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program which protects our most fragile farmland by

encouraging farmers to stop growing crops on highly erodible and other environmentally- sensitive

acreage. In return for planting a protective cover of grass or trees on vulnerable property, the owner

receives a rental payment each year of a multi-year contract. Cost-share payments are also available to

help establish permanent areas of grass, legumes, trees, windbreaks, or plants that improve water quality

and give shelter and food to wildlife.

FSA works with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and other agencies to deliver other

conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps

farmers and ranchers improve their property to protect the environment and conserve soil and water

resources.

FSA's aerial photographs of U.S. farmlands are used extensively by government and private organizations

and the public. Order forms and an index are available from FSA county offices.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) represents the diverse interests of U.S. farmers and the U.S.

food and agricultural sector abroad. It also collects, analyzes, and disseminates information about global

supply and demand, trade trends, and emerging market opportunities. FAS seeks to improve market access

for U.S. products and implements programs designed to build new markets and to maintain the

competitive position of U.S. products in the global marketplace. FAS also carries out food aid and

USDA Agency Mission: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ffas.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:42:35 PM]
market-related technical assistance programs, as well as operates a variety of Congressionally mandated

import and export programs. FAS operates worldwide with personnel located in more than 80 posts

covering more than 100 countries.

Risk Management Agency improves the economic stability of agriculture by providing producers a sound

system of crop insurance. Federal crop insurance covers losses due to unavoidable causes of loss such as

drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insect, and disease. Currently 62 major crops are insurable.

Crop insurance is available from crop insurance agents or certain Farm Service Agency offices. Insurance

protection must be purchased prior to sales closing dates that vary by crop and region.

Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Mission: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ffas.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:42:35 PM]
Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services Mission

green line The mission of Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services (FNCS) is to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all

Americans. Through food assistance and nutrition education for consumers, FNCS encourages consumers to make

healthful food choices. Today, rather than simply providing food, FNCS works to empower consumers with knowledge of

the link between diet and health, providing dietary guidance based on research.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the 15 nutrition assistance programs of USDA. These programs,

which serve 1 in 6 Americans, represent our nation's commitment that no one in our country should fear hunger or

experience want. They provide a safety net to people in need.

The programs' goals are to provide needy persons with access to a more nutritious diet, to improve the eating habits of the

nation's children, and to help America's farmers by providing an outlet for distributing foods purchased under farmer

assistance authorities.

FNS works in partnership with the states in all its programs. States determine most administrative details regarding

distribution of food benefits and eligibility of participants, and FNS provides funding to cover most of the states'

administrative costs. State and local agencies administer the programs.

Many of the food programs administered by FNS originated long before its creation as an agency in 1969. The Food

Stamp Program, now the cornerstone of USDA's nutrition assistance, was begun in its modern form in 1961, but it

originated as the Food Stamp Plan to help the needy in the 1930's. The National School Lunch Program also has its roots

in Depression-era efforts to help low-income children. Today, the mission encompasses working to teach children about

nutrition and to improve the nutrition standards of school meals. The Needy Family Program, which has evolved into the

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, was the primary means of food assistance during the Great

Depression.

FNS administers the following food assistance programs:

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of the USDA nutrition assistance programs, and served an average of

22.9 million people each month in 1997. The program issues monthly benefits through coupons or Electronic

Benefits Transfer (EBT), using a plastic card much like a credit card. Benefits are redeemable at retail food stores.

● 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations provides monthly food packages for Native Americans

who live on or near Indian reservations. In 1997, about 123,000 people participated in the program each month.

● 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) improves the health of

low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and infants and children up to 5

years old. WIC served a monthly average of 7.4 million women, infants, and children in 1997.

● 

The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides WIC participants with increased access to fresh produce.

WIC participants are given coupons to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables at authorized local farmers markets.

Thirty five state agencies and about 1 million people participated in this program in 1997.

● 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is a direct food distribution program with a target population

similar to WIC's, and it also serves the elderly. In 1997, about 370,000 participated.

● 

In 1997, the National School Lunch Program served about 26 million children in 94,000 schools. More than half

of these children received the meal free or at a reduced price.

● 

USDA Agency Missions: Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

http://www.usda.gov/mission/fncs.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:53 PM]
Some 6.9 million children participated in the School Breakfast Program in 1997. Some 72 percent of schools

participating in the National School Lunch Program offer a school breakfast. About 80 percent of school breakfasts

are served free.

● 

The Special Milk Program provides milk for children in those schools, summer camps, and child care institutions

that have no federally supported meal program.

● 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program provides cash and commodities for meals served in child and adult day

care centers, and family and group day care homes for children. In 1997, some 2.3 million children and over 58,000

adults participated in this program.

● 

In 1997, over 2 million low-income children received free meals during school vacation periods through the

Summer Food Service Program.

● 

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program reimburses providers for nutritious meals served to homeless

preschool-age children in emergency shelters. First established as a demonstration project in 1989, the Homeless

Children Nutrition Program was made permanent in 1994.

● 

The Nutrition Education and Training (NET) Program supports nutrition education in the food assistance

programs for children. Through its Team Nutrition, FNS also provides schools with nutrition education materials

and other support for children, technical assistance for food service professional staffs, and nutrition education

materials for other food assistance programs such as food stamps and WIC.

● 

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly provides cash and commodities for meals served to senior citizens. In

1997, over 20 million meals a month were served under this program.

● 

Alternative Nutrition Assistance Programs for Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas Islands

provide benefits through a block grant program. These territories provide cash and coupons to participants rather

than food stamps or food distribution.

● 

In 1997, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provided states with more than $80 million worth

of USDA commodities -- for home use by needy people and for soup kitchens and food banks.

● 

The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion coordinates nutrition policy in USDA and provides overall leadership

in nutrition education for consumers. The Center is the link between basic science and the consumer. The Center

coordinates with the Department of Health and Human Services the review, revision, and dissemination of the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, the Federal Government's statement of nutrition policy, formed by a concensus of scientific

and medical professionals.

The Office of Consumer Affairs encourages consumer involvement in USDA policymaking decisions and coordinates

consumer education and outreach activities.

Back to: green line

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

http://www.usda.gov/mission/fncs.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:53 PM]
Food Safety

Mission

Assuring that the nation's meat and poultry supply is safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled

and packaged -- that is the mission and responsibility of USDA's Food Safety organization.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts specific activities to ensure the safety of meat

and poultry products consumed in this country:

USDA inspectors and veterinarians conduct slaughter inspection of all carcasses at meat and poultry

slaughtering plants for disease and other abnormalities and sample for the presence of chemical

residues.

● 

USDA also conducts processing inspection for sanitation and cleanliness, labeling, and packing at

facilities where meat and poultry is cutup, boned, cured, and canned.

● 

Scientific testing in support of inspection operations is performed by USDA/FSIS laboratory

services to identify the presence of pathogens, residues, additives, disease, and foreign matter in

meat and poultry.

● 

Inspection systems in countries exporting meat and poultry products to the United States are

reviewed by USDA as part of the import-export inspection system.

● 

USDA is placing increased emphasis on pathogen reduction and hazard analysis and on critical

control points (HACCP) in the entire meat and poultry production chain. This involves developing

new methods for rapid detection of pathogenic microorganisms, new production and inspection

practices to reduce bacterial contamination, and educating consumers on safe food handling

practices.

● 

USDA's Meat and Poultry Hotline is a toll-free service where consumers, educators, researchers,

and the media can speak with experts in the field of food safety.

● 

Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Food Safety

http://www.usda.gov/mission/fs.htm [10/5/1999 3:42:55 PM]
Marketing and

Regulatory Programs

Mission

The mission of Marketing and Regulatory Programs is to facilitate the domestic and international

marketing of U.S. agricultural products and to ensure the health and care of animals and plants while

improving market competitiveness and the economy for the overall benefit of both consumers and

American agriculture.

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) programs enhance marketing and distribution of agricultural

products and assure a competitive, fair, and cost-effective marketplace by:

● disseminating market news,

developing grade standards and providing commodity inspection, grading, classing, and

certification,

● 

● random testing of commodities for pesticide residues,

● overseeing of federal research and promotion programs and marketing agreements and orders,

● developing organic standards,

● improving direct marketing by farmers to consumers,

● providing technical assistance on rural transportation issues,

● prohibiting unfair business practices in the perishable agricultural commodities industry, and

● providing patent-type protection for new plant varieties.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) protects U.S. animal and plant resources

from diseases and pests by:

defending U.S. borders against entry of foreign pests and diseases...USDA's Beagle Brigade is an

important part of the agricultural quarantine inspection program,

● 

controlling and eradicating certain domestic animal diseases and plant pests...Plant pest programs

emphasize biological control and integrated pest management,

● 

● controlling wildlife damage and protecting endangered species,

● enhancing the humane care of animals used in research, exhibition, and the wholesale pet trade,

● making sure veterinary biologics are safe, pure, potent, and effective, and

● ensuring the safety of agricultural biotechnology products.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is charged with:

● administering a nationwide system to inspect and weigh U.S. grain at interior and export locations,

● maintaining U.S. grade standards for grain,

● preventing unfair, deceptive, discriminatory and monopolistic practices at livestock markets, and

● requiring reasonable care and handling of livestock at stockyards.

USDA Agency Missions: Marketing and Regulatory Programs

http://www.usda.gov/mission/mrs.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:57 PM]
Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Marketing and Regulatory Programs

http://www.usda.gov/mission/mrs.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:57 PM]
Natural Resources

and Environment

Mission

USDA plays a critical role in the sound stewardship of the Nation's land and natural resources. The USDA

Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service)

share responsibility for fostering sound stewardship on 75 percent of the country's total land area.

Both agencies apply sustainable ecosystem principles in the management of soil, water, forests, and

wildlife. Each agency's respective strengths and expertise demonstrate that sound environmental policy

and agricultural productivity are not mutually exclusive.

The Forest Service (FS) provides leadership in the management protection, and use of the Nation's forests

and rangelands. The agency is dedicated to multiple- use management of these lands for sustained yields

of renewable resources such as wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation to meet the diverse needs of

people.

The Forest Service carries out its mission by:

using an ecosystem approach to managing the National Forest System NFS) -- the lands, wildlife

and fisheries, recreational facilities, forest and rangeland, watersheds and air, and minerals and

energy on the 191 million acre NFS,

● 

● advising and assisting State and private foresters,

● conducting research in forestry, forestry resources, and forest products utilization, and

● supporting resource conservation and sustainable development abroad.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the Federal agency that works hand-in-hand

with the American people to conserve, improve, and sustain natural resources on private lands. To carry

out this mission, NRCS has:

a nationwide network of conservation specialists who work through some 3,000 locally organized

and locally run conservation districts to help individual land users and rural and urban communities.

● 

● programs for technical assistance and cost-sharing,

a strong technology base that includes:

❍ a national cooperative soil survey

standards for conservation systems that address such areas as erosion control, animal waste

management, irrigation water management, wetlands conservation and restoration, and flood

control and streambank stabilization

❍ 

a plant materials program that introduces new ways to use plants for revegetation, land

stabilization, and landscape enrichment

❍ 

computer "models" for predicting soil erosion by wind and water, agricultural

nonpoint-source pollution of water, the effects of grazing practices on rangeland health, and

the effects of management decisions on farm and ranch economics

❍ 

❍ the National Resources Inventory - the Nation's most comprehensive and statistically reliable

● 

USDA Agency Missions: Natural Resources and Environment

http://www.usda.gov/mission/nre.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:59 PM]
source of data on natural resource conditions and trends on non-Federal land, and

❍ a snow survey and water supply forecasting program for the western mountain states.

Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Natural Resources and Environment

http://www.usda.gov/mission/nre.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:42:59 PM]
Research, Education,

and Economics

Mission

The Research, Education and Economics mission strives to develop cutting edge technologies that

improve food and fiber production and enhance the safety of the national food supply. USDA research

finds many new uses for the nation's agricultural bounty, improves crop varieties and prevents crop losses

and animal diseases caused by various pests and pathogens. The CSREES mission area joins this effort in

partnership with land-grant institutions and private sector firms in science, technology and education

activities relating to food and agriculture.

The Research, Education and Economics mission also provides economic, statistical information and

analysis for public and private sector decisions on agriculture, international trade, food, natural resources

and rural America. USDA economists and statisticians report on the supply of and demand for hundreds of

farm products. They gather and report information on current supplies and yield prospects to help growers

decide what crops to plant and harvest, which livestock to raise and how much of each to produce.

The Research, Education and Economics analyses are focused in four agencies that report to the Under

Secretary for Research, Education and Economics.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides access to agricultural information and develops new

knowledge and technology needed to solve technical agricultural problems of broad scope and high

national priority. The goal is to ensure an adequate supply of high quality, safe food and other agricultural

products to meet the nutritional needs of consumers, sustain a competitive food and agricultural economy,

to enhance quality of life and economic opportunity for rural citizens and society as a whole, and to

maintain a quality environment and natural resource base. The agency maintains a network of

geographically dispersed national and overseas laboratories and the National Agricultural Library

(NAL). Research objectives include the following:

● reducing the degradation of the soil, air and water

● enhancing plant and animal productivity

● improving the processing of agricultural commodities

● improving human nutrition and well-being

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) works with partners

and customers to advance research, extension and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences

and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people, communities and the Nation.

CSREES programs are administered through two interactive divisions. The first division, Scientific

Programs, houses research and education efforts in Plant and Animal Production, Protection, and

Processing; Natural Resources and Environment; Rural, Economic and Social Development; and Children,

Youth, Family, Nutrition, and Health. The second division, System and Policy Concerns, includes

Partnerships; Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management; Science and Education Resources

Development; and Communication, Technology and Distance Education.

USDA Agency Missions: Research, Education and Economics

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ree.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:05 PM]
CSREES unifies the research functions of the former Cooperative State Research Service and the

education/outreach functions of the former Extension Service. Research, education, and extension

professionals now function more closely, providing better customer service and an enhanced ability to

respond to national crises. The new CSREES is positioned for the 21st century as a dynamic change agent

and national research and education network.

CSREES strives to:

● Establish national priorities in research, extension, and higher education

● Secure and administer funds for research, education, and extension

Provide national leadership, analysis, and administrative and financial oversight in research and

education

● 

● Assure scientific and programmatic quality and focus

Represent and broker partner needs, interests, and capabilities to the Executive branch, Congress,

and other organizations

● 

Empower people and communities to solve problems and improve their lives through advanced

research and educational technologies

● 

Maintain and enhance interactive communications networks linking people, communities, states,

and federal partners to address critical issues

● 

Strengthen the Agency's scientific, educational, managerial, and leadership capacity to meet current

and future human resource needs

● 

Maintain and enhance a diverse, pluralistic, well-trained workforce within CSREES to maximize

productivity and effectiveness

● 

CSREES also focuses on the practical education Americans can use in dealing with the critical issues that

affect their daily lives and the Nation's future. Current issues addressed as national initiatives include:

● communities in economic transition

● decisions for health

● food safety awareness

● water quality

● children, youth, and families

● sustainable agriculture

The Economic Research Service (ERS) produces economic and other social science information to serve

the general public and to help Congress and the Administration develop, administer, and evaluate

agricultural and rural policies and programs. The wide range of topics covered by ERS includes:

U.S. and world agricultural production and demand for production resources, agricultural

commodities, and food and fiber products,

● 

● Costs of and returns to agricultural production and marketing,

● Economic performance of U.S. agricultural production and marketing,

Effects of Government policies and programs on farmers, rural residents and communities, natural

resources, and the public, and

● 

USDA Agency Missions: Research, Education and Economics

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ree.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:05 PM]
Organization and institutions of U.S. and world agricultural production and marketing systems,

natural resources, and rural communities.

● 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) serves the Nation, its agriculture, and its rural

communities by providing meaningful, timely, accurate, and objective statistical information and services.

Through its Washington, DC, headquarters and 45 field offices serving all 50 states, NASS publishes

hundreds of reports which include:

● production and prospects for crops, livestock, dairy, and poultry annually, and

other reports that focus on stocks, prices, labor, weather, chemical use, and similar items that

concern farmers, ranchers and others involved in, or affected by, agriculture.

● 

The information is geared toward producers and can help them plan their planting, feeding, breeding, and

marketing programs. The data are also used by agricultural organizations, services, and businesses; trade

groups; and financial institutions to determine demand for inputs, resources, transportation, and

storage-related crop and livestock products.

Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Research, Education and Economics

http://www.usda.gov/mission/ree.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:05 PM]
Rural Development

Mission

Improving the Quality of Life for Rural Americans

USDA has the unique responsibility of coordinating Federal assistance to rural areas of the Nation. The

Rural Development mission is to help rural Americans improve the quality of their lives.

To do this, USDA is working closely with the private and nonprofit sectors and with state, tribal, and local

governments to fundamentally change the way government works. With this new philosophy of public

partnership...this new relationship among Government, industry, and communities...many positive

outcomes for rural Americans are realized daily.

Now, and in the future, prosperity in rural America depends on ensuring that residents have a wide range

of economic opportunities. Rural America's historic strengths -- agriculture and forestry -- will continue as

one part of the picture.

USDA works to make sure that rural citizens can participate fully in the global economy -- with technical

assistance and programs that help rural Americans build strong economies to improve their quality of life.

USDA also helps rural communities meet their basic needs by:

● Building water and wastewater systems,

● Financing decent, affordable housing,

● Supporting electric power and rural businesses, including cooperatives, and

● Supporting community development with information and technical assistance.

A new and sharper focus on rural development took shape with passage of the Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994. Rural development work is focused in three new organizations reporting to

the Under Secretary for Rural Development:

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) includes cooperative development and technical

assistance, plus other business development programs, and the Alternative Agricultural Research

and Commercialization Center.

● 

The Office of Community Development (OCD) provides support for the community development

programs of the Rural Development mission area within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

● 

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) includes rural housing programs as well as rural community

loan programs.

● 

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) offers telecommunications and electric programs along with

water and sewer programs.

● 

Back to:

USDA Agency Missions

USDA Agency Missions: Rural Development

http://www.usda.gov/mission/rd.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:43:07 PM]
USDA.... Home Page

USDA Agency Missions: Rural Development

http://www.usda.gov/mission/rd.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:43:07 PM]
News Releases

[Latest releases] [1999 releases][1998 releases] [1997 releases] [1996 releases] [Comunicados de prensa] [Search]

To receive national news releases via e-mail or to unsubscribe from

this service.

For additional news releases by agencies:

Agricultural Marketing Service Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Agricultural Research Service National Agricultural Statistics Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Natural Resources Conservation Service

Economic Research Service Office of the Chief Economist

Farm Service Agency Risk Management Agency

Food and Nutrition Service Rural Development

Food Safety and Inspection Service Rural Utilities Service

Foreign Agricultural Service Staff Offices

Forest Service

National releases cleared and issued by OC are distributed as follows: posted to in-house news media and

messenger pick-up racks; made available through AgNewsFAX; USDA's Home Page; and additional

methods as appropriate.

Office of Communications, News Distribution

Room 460-A, Washington, DC 20250-1300

Phone: (202) 720-9035 - Internet: News@usda.gov

AgNewsFAX: (202) 690-9044

USDA's News Release Index

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:43:37 PM]
USDA's News Release Index

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:43:37 PM]
 Speeches 1997

updated December 16, 1997

0443 Remarks of Secretary Glickman on Proposed Organic Standards

0435 Remarks of Dan Glickman Professional Agricultural Workers Conference

0428 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the American Chamber of Commerce in Argentina

0426 Testimony before the Surface Transportation Board: Remarks by Michael Dunn Assistant Secretary

for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

0424 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman 'Statement of Intent' Signing Ceremony for U.S./Argentine

Consultative Committee on Agriculture, Buenos Aires, Argentina

0411 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman (re: decision by European Union Agriculture

Commissioner)

0408 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger of Agriculture before the California Council on

Science and Technology

0363 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on World Food Day

0362 Remarks of Secretary Glickman on the National Disability Employment Awareness Month

0355 Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger on Inter-American Institute for

Cooperation on Agriculture

0354 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the Media Availability on 16th Sign-up for CRP

0349 Statement of James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment on the

Departure Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Paul Johnson

0348 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the Departure of Natural Resources

Conservation Service

0347 Testimony of Secretary Dan Glickman Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry

0345 Statement by Secretary Dan Glickman on the Introduction of Food Safety Enforcement

Enhancement Act

0333 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Langston University's Centennial Convocation

0322 Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Vice President Al Gore on the Gleaning Announcement

0312 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman at the Iowa/Missouri Joint Chambers of Commerce

0308 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman School Breakfast Event in Baltimore, Md.

0298 Remarks of Secretary of Dan Glickman, Introduction of New Food Safety Legislation

0290 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the Virginia State University Crop Field Day

0281 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the Resolution of Issues on Biotechnology

with Egypt

0279 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on Black in Government

R002 Remarks of Secretary Glickman, National Breastfeeding Week

0255 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Aggressive Use of the Dairy Export Incentive

USDA/Speeches 1997

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index97.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:39 PM]
Program

0251 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Small Farm Commission Public Forum

0247 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger before the USDA Fourth African-African

American Summit

0239 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Export Development Council and Ag Attaches

0235 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the creation of a National Commission on the Small Farm

0228 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Fair Housing MOU Signing Ceremony

0218 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Second Harvest National Conference

R001 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Grand Opening of USDA's 1997 Farmers' Market

0202 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman for the Washington Premiere of the Film:

'Hidden in America'

0196 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the International Grains Council, London, England

0195 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman at the FRAC Annual Dinner

0189 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the Food Safety Education Conference

0180 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the National Cotton Council Board of

Directors

0165 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the National Consultations on Food Security

0160 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculure Dan Glickman before the Asian Pacific Heritage Month

0157 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the Women, Infants and Children Press Conference

0152 Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman at the Agriculture Working Group U.S.-Mexican

Binational Commission

0131 Talking Points for Secretary Dan Glickman Congressional Black Caucus Civil Rights Hearing

0116 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Selection of Peter L. Scher as Special Trade

Ambassador for Agriculture in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

0115 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman White House Community Empowerment Conference

0114 Statement by Paul Drazek, Senior Trade Advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture on U.S. and

European Union Veterinary Equivalency Talks

0110 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the National Association for Equal Opportunity in

Higher Education 22nd National Conference on Blacks in Education

text2 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the North American Wildlife Conference (March 17,

1997)

text1 Statement by Dan Glickman Secretary of Agriculture Before the House Representatives Committee

on Agriculture (March 18, 1997)

0101 Statement of Dan Glickman at the Council on Foreign Relations

0097 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Status of U.S./European Union Veterinary

Equivalency Talks

0069 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on County Office Closings

0067 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the 1997 Commodity Classic

0066 Statement of Secretary Dan Glickman on USDA Civil Rights Action Plan

0061 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the 1997 Agricultural Outlook

0052 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Resolution of Trade Issues with South Africa

USDA/Speeches 1997

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index97.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:39 PM]
0047 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman on the New Conservation Reserve Program

and Backgrounder: Conservation Reserve Program Final Rule

0043 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the National Association of WIC Directors

0042 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the South Africa Media Roundtable

0040 Statement by Secretary Dan Glickman on the Civil Rights Action Team

0037 Statement by Secretary Dan Glickman on the USDA Fiscal Year 1998 Budget

0023 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the National Cattleman's Beef

Association

0009 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Resignation of Ellen Haas

0008 Remarks Prepared for Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the National Press Club

0002 Remarks Prepared for Secretary Dan Glickman before the American Farm Bureau Federation

USDA/Speeches 1997

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index97.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:43:39 PM]
Speeches 1998

updated December 10, 1998 for Testimony and Reports

0524 Radio Address of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman December 28, 1998

0509 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Milk Espy Portrait Unveiling USDA

--December 10, 1998

0504 Statement of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman U.S. and Canada Agreement Washington,

D.C.

0502 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glcikman on USDA Progress in Addressing Civil

Rights Complaints

0500 Remaks of Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger Special Grains Conference 1998 of

the International Grains Council Buenos Aires, Argentina - December 2, 1998

0498 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Kansas Commodity Classic Salina, ks-December 1, 1998

0496 Radio Address of Secretary Dan Glickman, November 30, 1998

0495 Remarks of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman Third Annual Farm Journal Conference

0492 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Harvest Celebration Washington D.C.

November 24, 1998

0478 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's Radio Address November 16, 1998

oped Fairness for Black Farmers by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman (Submitted to The

Washington Post)

0464 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Wheat Agreement with Brazil

0459 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Food Aid Agreement with Russia November

6, 1998

0457 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the Signing of the Child Nutrition and WIC

Reauthorization Amendsments of 1998

0456 Remarks of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman Yad EZRA Food Pantry Annual Dinner

Farmington Hills, Mi -- November 4, 1998

0455 Statement of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Russian Food Aid Package November 4, 1998

0445 Remarks of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman USDA Symposium on Childhood Obesity: Causes

And Prevention Jefferson Auditorium

0430 Remarks of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman -- Radio Address

0429 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman World Food Day University California, Davis

0419 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Agriculture Appropriations Agreement

0407 Statement of Agriculture Dan Glickman on President Clinton's Veto of the Agriculture

Appropriations Bill

0404 Radio Address of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman

0403 Joint Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene

Barshefsky on Efforts to Resolve U.S.-Canada Border Dispute

USDA/Speeches 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index98.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:42 PM]
0395 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Meeting with Governors and Members of

Congress from Northern Plains States September 28, 1998

0380 Radio Address of Secretary Dan Glickman on Helping America's Farmers and Ranchers

0377 Statement of The Honorable Dan Glickman Secretary of Agriculture on the Farm Crisis September

17, 1998

0376 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Presentation of the WIC Farmers Market

Petition September 17, 1998

0365 Remarks of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman Asian Long-horned Beetle Announcement

Chicago, Illnois -- September 11, 1998

0338 Statement by Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Jim Lyons on the

National Forest Recreation Program

007 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Rich Rominger the Federation on Southern Cooperatives Rural

Training and Research Center

0332 Statement of Agriculture Dan Glickman on President's Signing the Emergency Farm Financial

Relief Act Washington, D.C. -- August 12, 1998

0331 Radio Message of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman August 10, 1998

0329 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Bombing in Kenya

0324 Remarks of Agriculture Dan Glickman White House Domestic Policy Council Conference:

Building Economic Self-Determination in Indian Communities Washington, D.C. --August 5, 1998

0320 Statement of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Judicial Officer's Decision and Order in the IBP

Case

006 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Rich Rominger before the National Association of County

Agricultural Agents

0295 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Senate Actions on the Food Safety

Enforcement Enhancement Act

0290 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Senate Actions on USDA's Civil Rights

Efforts

0288 Remarks Prepared for Secretary Dan Glickman 89th Annual NAACP Conference Atlanta, Georgia

--July 15, 1998

0284 Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, Radio Address on Most-Favored-Nation Trading

Status for China

0274 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Senate Passage of S.2282

0267 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Second International Conference of Women in Agriculture

Washington, D.C. -- July 1, 1998

005 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger at the Second International Conference on

Women in Agriculture

0256 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on House Action on USDA'S Civil Rights

Efforts

0255 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the Agriculture Research Bill Signing Ceremony

0230 Statement of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on Final Passage of the Agriculture

Research Bill

0224 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Regarding the WTO's Decision on the EU

Beef Hormone Ban May 28,1998

USDA/Speeches 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index98.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:42 PM]
0217 Remarks by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman (Head of U.S. Delegation) on

Implementation at the WTO Second Ministerial Conference Geneva, Switzerland May 18, 1998

0213 USDA Radio Message: Remarks of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on U.S. Export

Competitiveness/Subsidized EU Barley Sales

0200 Remarks of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman National Summit on Animal Waste Issue

Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

004 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Earth Day -- Backyard Conservation Announcement

Washington, D.C. -- April 22, 1998

0194 Statement of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Forest Service Management

Reorganization

0187 Statement of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman On the Deaths of Three USDA/APHIS

Employees

0186 Statement of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman On Agriculture Research Bill

0177 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman National Association of Agriculture Journalist Washington,

D.C.--April 20, 1998

0176 Statement of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman Regarding Rail Transportation Issues April 20,

1998

0157 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Radio Address April 6, 1998

0147 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman 68th National 4H Conference

003 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Day of Remembrance

002 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger Agricultural Conference Sponsored by the Irish

Farmers' Journal

0128 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Public Voice Annual Food Policy Conference

0123 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman "Turning The Tables on Food-Borne Illness" National Press

Club -- March 19, 1998

001 Prepared Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Joint Public Affairs Assembly

0118 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman at the University of Georgia

0116 Statement of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Regarding EU Compliance with the WTO

Decision on the Hormone Ban

osec1 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the NASDA Biannual Legislative Conference

0089 Remarks of Secretary Glickman on 1998 Agricultural Outlook

0071 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman at Harvard University

0065 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman at the American School Food Service Association's 26th

Annual Legislative Conference

0056 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on USDA's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget

0045 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on CRP Sign-up Announcement

0041 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman University of Washington Public Health School Seattle,

Washington

0033 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Proposed Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform

0030 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman on the Report of the National Commission on Small Farms

0023 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Push-Excel Martin Luther King Breakfast

Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman 5th Anniversary of Pacific Northwest Outbreak Chicago,

USDA/Speeches 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index98.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:42 PM]
0022 Illinois

0013 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Meeting Charlotte,

North Carolina

0005 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman before the Oxford Farming Conference

USDA/Speeches 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index98.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:42 PM]
Speeches 1999

updated September 30, 1999 for Testimony and Reports

st004 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Forest Planning Reform Washington, DC –

September 30, 1999

0386 Remarks by Senator George McGovern USDA Millennium Lecture and Dedication of the Henry

A. Wallace Room

0385 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Henry A. Wallace Lecture and Dedication

of the Wallace Room

0382 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Russian Request for Additional Food

Assistance, September 28, 1999

st003 Statement by the Honarable Dan Glickman Secretary of United States Department of Agriculture

Before the Committee on Agriculture U.S. Houses of Representatives

0357 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on National Forum on the Future of Alaska

Natives Washington, DC- September 9, 1999

0350 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on The U.S. Approach to Agriculture in New

Round XIX Meeting of the Cairns Group

0338 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Food Stamp Education Campaign Roll-out

Baltimore, Md – August 17, 1999

0335 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Transfer of Funds for Emergency Farm

Loans

0332 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman White House Executive Order on Biomass/Biobased

Products Washington DC--August 12, 1999

0320 Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Northeastern Drought Washington,

DC – August 6, 1999

0314 Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Rominger EPA /USDA Press Briefing August 2,

1999

0305 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman On Proposed Congressional Hearings on the

Farm Crisis July 26, 1999

0304 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on New Regulations Providing Sanctions

Relief for Agriculture July 26, 1999

0300 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Invasive Species Council Meeting

Washington, D.C. -- July 22, 1999

0292 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Turkey Federation Summer Meeting

Washington, D.C. -- July 20, 1999

st002 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger 1999 Pacific Rim Sustainable Resources Forum

Seattle, Washington -- July 16, 1999

0285 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the National Press Club on New Crops,

New Century, New Challenges: How Will Scientists, Farmers, And Consumers Learn to Love

Biotechnology – And What Happens If They Don't? Washington, D.C. - July 13, 1999As Prepared

USDA/Speeches 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index99.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:44 PM]
for Delivery

0283 Statement by Secretary Dan Glickman on the WTO's Decision July 12,1999

0279 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Department of Justice's Consent Decree

Regarding The Continental-Cargill Merger July 8, 1999

0251 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, D.C. – June 16, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0250 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Commodity Club Washington, D.C. - June 8,

1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0244 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman USDA Employees Gathering Kansas City,

MO - June 8, 1999

st001 Statement by Acting Administrator Mark Mina USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service - June

3,1999

0239 Remarks by Agriculture of Secretary Dan Glickman USDA/1890 Task Force Dover, Delaware -

June 2, 1999

0231 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman White House Community Empowerment

Conference Edinburg, TX May 25, 1999

0229 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman World Agricultural Congress St. Louis,

Missouri -- May 24, 1999

0222 Remarks of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman 12th World Meat Congress Dublin,

Ireland - May 19, 1999

0219 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Consumers League Washington,

D.C. -- May 18, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0213 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the EU's Failure to Comply with WTO

Rulings on the Beef Hormone Ban

0206 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Before the Senate Committee on Foreign

Relations Washington, D.C. -- May 11, 1999

0199 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Need for Further Farm Loan Funding

Washington D.C. May 6, 1999

0194 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on FCC Chairman's E-Rate

Recommendation Washington, D.C. - May 5, 1999

0190 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman University of Michigan School of Natural

Resources Commencement Ann Arbor, Mi May 1, 1999

0187 Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Purdue University West Lafayette, in --

April 29, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0183 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Supplemental Budget Request

Washington, D.C. - April 29, 1999

0173 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman Canadian Agriculture Trade Conference Ottawa, CanadaApril 19, 1999

0164 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Approval of the Black Farmer

Lawsuit Settlement

0159 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Signing of U.S -China Bilateral

Agriculture Agreement

0134 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Emergency Budget Actions -- March 26,

USDA/Speeches 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index99.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:44 PM]
1999

0133 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman U.S. Action Plan on Food Security

Washington, D.C. -- March 26, 1999

0130 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Passage of Legislation to Extend Crop

Insurance Sales for Producers who Applied for CRCPlus March 26, 1999

0125 Remarks by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman Yoshino Cherry Tree Presentation March

24, 1999

0119 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Association of Conservation

Districts Washington, D.C. – March 22, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0117 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman USDA Millennium Speaker Series

Washington, DC --March 19, 1999

0109 Testimony of the Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's Oral Testimony Before the House

Committee on Agriculture Washington, D.C. -- March 18, 1999

0108 Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Rich Rominger European Voice Conference

Brussels, Belgium --March 18, 1999

0106 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman U.S. Africa Ministerial Business Networking

Lunch Washington, D.C. March 16, 1999

0099 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the European Union's Agenda 2000 March

11, 1999

0097 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on Crop Insurance – March 10, 1999

0094 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Farmers Union Annual Convention

Springfield, Illinois - March 8, 1999

0093 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Pork Producers Association

Nashville, TN -- March 5, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery

0087 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Joint Session of the Georgia State Legislature

Atlanta, Ga. - March 4, 1999

0085 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Crop Insurance for the 21st Century

Act Sponsored by Senators Bob Kerrey and Pat Roberts March 4, 1999

0077 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Death of Harry Rossoll, the Creator of

Smokey Bear

0073 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the President's Request for Supplemental

Agriculture Funding - February 26, 1999

0069 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman National Federal-State Food Safety

Conference Washington, D.C. -February 23, 1999

0065 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the State of American Agriculture

Delivered at the 75th Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum Arlington, Va -- February 22, 1999 (as

prepared for delivery)

0056 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Announcement of Interim Ban on Forest

Road Construction

001 Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger Soil and Water Conservation Society "The State

of North America's Private Lands" Chicago, Ill – January 20, 1999

0044 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman Executive Order on Invasive Species National Geographic

Society--February 3, 1999

USDA/Speeches 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index99.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:44 PM]
0031 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Opening Ceremony, Sixth East-West

Agricultural Forum Berlin, Germany

0027 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman before the Poultry and Egg Association

0023 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the Farm Credit Council Annual

Conference

0022 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman before the Tennessee State University

0020 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman on the Fire at the Beltsville Agricultural

Research Center January 15, 1999

0013 Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman American Farm Bureau Federation Annual

Conference Albuquerque, NM

0008 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Radio Address

0002 Remarks of Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Black Farmers Class Action Settlement

Announces Washington, D.C. January 5, 1998

Back To... News and Current

Information

Go to... 1997 Index

USDA ... Homepage 1998 Index

USDA/Speeches 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/speeches/index99.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:43:44 PM]
1999 Agency Reports Schedule/Calendar

Choose Table or Text Version by Month

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

table /text table/text table/text table /text table /text table /text

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

table /text table /text table /text table /text table/text table/text

[For 1998 Agency Reports Schedule/Calendar]

Latest Agency Reports: Agency Search:

Economic Research Service

Foreign Agricultural Service

National Agricultural Statistics Service

World Agricultural Outlook Board

USDA- Publications

http://www.usda.gov/news/calindex.htm [10/5/1999 3:43:47 PM]
 Online Photography Library

 The USDA Online Photo Center

provides a complimentary source of

high-quality digital photographs, a select few

of which appear on these web pages. The

buttons below are categories, followed by

sub-categories of images. Click on the

thumbnails to see larger images with caption

material. Click the image again for a 640

pixel image to download. 

 This is a work in progress and many

categories are under construction. Keep checking

back. 

 The digital collection has grown to over

20,000 images and continues to grow .

Thousands of additional images are available at

the Photo Library in Room 4409 in the

Agriculture South Building. 

 All original materials are kept under

climate controlled, archival storage

conditions. Our photo editors stand ready to

help you in your search. Please call (202)

720-6633 for an appointment. 

 Media sources may contact the USDA Photography Center user.photo@usda.gov for higher

resolution digital files or duplicate transparencies. Please reference the desired image number.

opclibra

http://www.usda.gov/oc/photo/opclibra.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:44:49 PM]
 The digital collection has grown to over

20,000 images and continues togrow.

Thousands of additional images are available

at the Photo Libraryin Room 4409 in the

Agriculture South Building. All original

materialsare kept under climate controlled,

archival storage conditions. Our photoeditors

stand ready to help you in your search. Please

call (202) 720-6633for an appointment.

 Media sources may contact the

Photography Center at:

user.photo@usda.gov, by FAX at

(202)720-0902, or by phone at (202)

720-6633 for higherresolution digital files or

duplicate transparencies. Please referencethe

desired image number.

 USDA'a AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS) maintains an online photo library at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/index.html.Additional ARS photography is available

through Agricultural ResearchMagazine at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR.

PHOTOGRAPHYCENTER HOME PAGE

RETURNTO USDA HOME PAGE

opclibra

http://www.usda.gov/oc/photo/opclibra.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:44:49 PM]
 Special Events

1997 Census of Agriculture Product Release Dates

October 4-7, 199

Building on Leopold's Legacy

Madison, WI

October 5-8, 1999

Int'l Group on Plant Viruses with Fungal Vectors

Monterey, CA

October 10-13, 1999

9th Gatlinburg Symposium on Plants, Nutrition and Human Health

Knoxville, TN

October 12-15, 1999

2nd National Small Farm Conference

Jefferson City, MO

October 14 -15, 1999

National Summit on Community Food Security

Chicago, IL

October 17-21, 1999

Diversity in Agricultural Products, New Crop and New Market

Eugene, OR

October 18-21, 1999

Workshop on Modernization of Irrigation Water Delievery

Phoenix, AZ

22nd National Information Systems Security Conference

Arlington, VA

November 3, 1999

Dietary Behavior: Why we Choose the Foods we Eat

Washington, DC

November 8-9 1999

Food & Ag Technology Venture Capital Conference

Fort Worth, TX

SPECIAL EVENTS -OC-USDA

http://www.usda.gov/news/special.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:45:13 PM]
SPECIAL EVENTS -OC-USDA

http://www.usda.gov/news/special.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:45:13 PM]
Questions and Answers

USDA AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

What is biotechnology? Agricultural biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques, including

genetic engineering, that are used to create, improve, or modify plants, animals, and microorganisms.

Using conventional techniques, such as selective breeding, scientists have been working to improve

plants and animals for human benefit for hundreds of years. Modern techniques now enable scientists to

move genes (and therefore desirable traits) in ways they could not before -- and with greater ease and

precision.

How can biotechnology help farmers and consumers?

Combating human diseases -- The first biotechnology products were medicines designed to address

human diseases. Insulin, used to treat diabetics, and blood clot-busting enzymes for heart attack victims

are now produced easily and cheaply as a result of biotechnology. New research by USDA's Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) finds that transgenic animals may be a new source of valuable hormones and

drugs to treat emphysema and infections in babies.

Promoting human health -- Researchers are creating ways to boost the nutritional value of foods using

biotechnology. Combating animal diseases -- Biotechnology helped produce a vaccine that protects

animals in the wild against rabies and a vaccine for "shipping fever" of cattle, the biggest killer of beef

cattle in feedlots.

Fighting hunger by resisting plant diseases and increasing crop yields -- Biotechnology can help farmers

increase crop yields and feed even more people. For example, an ARS scientist used biotechnology to

pinpoint a gene that could help wheat, a major food staple, grow on millions of acres worldwide that are

now hostile to the crop. ARS scientists have also developed an experimental potato hybrid that contains

genes to resist a new, more virulent strain of the so-called "late blight," the disease that caused the Irish

potato famine in the 1840s.

Helping the environment by reducing pesticide use -- Biotechnology can help farmers reduce their

reliance on insecticides and herbicides. For example, Bt cotton, a widely grown biotech crop, kills

several important cotton pests.

Which Federal agencies regulate agricultural biotechnology? The Federal government has a

well-coordinated system to ensure that new agricultural biotechnology products are safe for the

environment and to animal and human health. While these agencies act independently, they have a close

working relationship.

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting

American agriculture against pests and diseases. The agency regulates the field testing of

genetically engineered plants and certain microorganisms. APHIS also approves and licenses

veterinary biological substances, including animal vaccines, that may be the product of

biotechnology.

● 

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ensures the safety of meat and poultry

consumed as food.

● 

USDA and Biotechnology Q & A

http://www.usda.gov/news/bioqa.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:45:56 PM]
The Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) governs

the safety and labeling of drugs and the nation's food and feed supply, excluding meat and poultry.

● 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensures the safety and safe use of pesticidal and

herbicidal substances in the environment and for certain industrial uses of microbes in the

environment.

● 

The Department of Health and Human Service's National Institutes of Health have developed

guidelines for the laboratory use of genetically engineered organisms. While these guidelines are

generally voluntary, they are mandatory for any research conducted under Federal grants and they

are widely followed by academic and industrial scientists around the world.

● 

What is APHIS's role in regulating biotechnology? APHIS is the government's lead agency regulating

the safe testing, under controlled circumstances, of biotechnology-derived, new plant varieties. A

company, academic or research institution, or public sector scientist wishing to field test or move a

biotechnology-derived plant must generally obtain APHIS approval before proceeding.

If someone wants to test a biotechnology-derived plant, what do they do? Applicants ask APHIS for

permission to allow field testing (environmental release). They provide information about the plant,

including all new genes and gene products, their origin, the purpose of the test, how the test will be

conducted, and specific precautions to be taken to prevent the escape of pollen, plants, or plant parts from

the field test site. An APHIS scientific reviewer evaluates the possible environmental impacts of the

proposed field test. The possible impact of new plant varieties on endangered or threatened species is

considered. Non-target species, those not meant to be directly impacted by the new plant, are also taken

into account.

In an effort to streamline the permit process, most applicants can now use a simplified procedure in

which they notify APHIS before they plan to move or field test a biotech crop. APHIS then has 30 days

to review the notification prior to any testing. These field tests are still required to meet all the same

safety standards as trials that are approved through the permit process. Are other precautions taken if

testing is approved? If testing is approved, APHIS personnel and state agriculture officials may inspect

the field test site before, during, or after the test to ensure that is conducted and managed safely.

What is necessary for commercial production of a biotech plant? Generally, before a genetically

engineered crop can be produced on a wider scale and sold commercially, its creators must petition

APHIS for a "determination of non-regulated status," which requires the submission of more information

than a field test permit request. APHIS must be provided scientific details about the genetics of the plant,

the nature and origin of the genetic material used, information about indirect effects on other plants, field

test reports, and even information unfavorable to the petition. All petitions are published in the Federal

Register and the public is given time to comment. APHIS grants the petition only if it determines that the

plant poses no significant risk to other plants in the environment and is as safe to use as more traditional

varieties.

What does "determination of non-regulated status" mean? This is a determination by APHIS that the

new plant should be treated like any other plant and, therefore, may be grown, tested, or used for

traditional crop breeding without any additional APHIS action. Essentially, this determination permits

the plant to be widely grown and commercialized.

USDA and Biotechnology Q & A

http://www.usda.gov/news/bioqa.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:45:56 PM]
Does APHIS regulate other actions with biotechnology-derived plants? Authorizations are also

required for the movement into the United States or between states of any genetically engineered

organism that is a potential plant pest. And, some developers of the very few biotech plants that are not

regulated by APHIS may seek a voluntary courtesy permit, which may make it easier to move or field

test the plant.

How widespread are biotech crops? With APHIS approval, over 5000 field trials have been safely

conducted since 1987. About 40 new agricultural products have completed all the federal regulatory

requirements (from all relevant agencies) and may be sold commercially. They range from longer-lasting

tomatoes to pest-resistant corn.

USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) recently released the first government data on acreage of

biotechnology-derived crops. The ERS report -- available on the web at

www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/biotech -- indicates that biotech soybean, cotton, and corn acreages

have increased dramatically since the introduction of these crops in the mid-1990's. They accounted for

20-44 percent of acreage planted in 1998.

What is the role of the EPA? EPA approves new herbicidal and pesticidal substances. EPA also issues

permits for large scale testing of herbicides and biotechnology-derived plants containing new pesticidal

substances. In deciding whether to register a new pesticide, EPA considers human safety, the fate of the

substance in the environment, the safety for humans, its effectiveness on the target pest, and any effects

on other, so-called "non-target" species.

What is the role of the FDA? FDA ensures that foods derived from new plant varieties are safe to eat,

holding them to the same high standard of safety as any more traditional food product.

Are products derived from biotechnology required to be labeled? Legal authority for food labeling

rests with the Food and Drug Administration. Foods derived from biotechnology currently must be

labeled only if they differ significantly from their conventional counterparts -- for example, if their

nutritional content or potential to cause allergic reactions is altered.

In an effort to provide consumers with more information, Secretary Glickman actively encourages

voluntary labeling of biotechnology-derived products.

What about the recent monarch butterfly study? The recent study indicating that monarch butterflies

in laboratory conditions may be harmed by eating pollen from Bt corn plants is provocative, raising

concerns that biotechnology-derived plants might harm animals or the environment. However, it is

important to note that this was a preliminary report, based on laboratory results, not results in the field.

Even the study's authors have cautioned against over-interpreting the results or concluding that Bt corn

may pose a serious threat to monarchs.

Indeed, the Bt in those corn plants was chosen in order to protect against damage from insects closely

related to the monarch butterfly. And, the pesticides used on traditional crops to kill insects are known to

harm butterflies, as well.

There are a number of reasons that the effect of Bt corn pollen on monarchs is likely small. Corn pollen

is produced for only a short time during the growing season. Corn pollen is heavy and is not blown far

from corn fields by the wind. Farmers control the monarch's primary host plant, milkweed, in and around

USDA and Biotechnology Q & A

http://www.usda.gov/news/bioqa.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:45:56 PM]
their fields, just as they control other weeds. Finally, it is not known whether monarch butterflies will

choose to feed on milkweed plants with Bt pollen when given the opportunity to choose other plants in

the field.

Bt crops and the Bt pesticide were evaluated for environmental safety by the EPA and by APHIS.

Research reviewed by those agencies has confirmed the safety of Bt against a number of non-target

animal species and its safety for food and feed use.

However, USDA and EPA scientists have had discussions with the study's researchers to learn more

about ongoing experiments. And USDA scientists in Iowa are currently conducting follow-up studies.

We are also working to identify follow-up information and research that would be useful to refine our

understanding of how monarchs and corn pollen interact in the field. USDA is committed to further

research on the potential impacts of new technologies in agriculture.

Why has biotechnology become a trade issue? Some people may not feel comfortable with new

technology. They may worry about environmental, social and economic consequences -- real or simply

feared. Particularly in Europe, these consumer concerns have led to a resistance toward biotechnologyderived plants and food, though not medicine. European consumer concerns may also be bolstered by a

historic distrust in their governments' ability to ensure the safety of the food supply after the "mad cow"

scare and more recent dioxin contamination. Consequently, European governments have been slow to

permit the importation of biotechnology-derived products, even if they have been proven safe to human

and animal health and the environment. This has created friction with the United States and other trading

partners, who believe sound science should be the basis of regulatory systems.

The failure of other countries to develop consistent and science-based regulatory processes governing

biotechnology has the potential to constrain scientific innovation and disrupt trade. USDA recognizes

and appreciates differences in the political, social, and cultural situations in countries around the world.

However, regulatory processes must be predictable and transparent if they are to be understood and

trusted by industry and the public. Therefore, in the context of upcoming World Trade Organization

negotiations, USDA would like to work with other nations to ensure that sound science is the cornerstone

of any approval process. We also want to facilitate mutual understanding and harmonization of

evaluation of risk for the products of biotechnology.

What is USDA doing to promote public dialogue on the complex issues related to agricultural

biotechnology? Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman will soon appoint a 25-member Advisory

Committee to provide him with advice on a broad range of policy issues relating to agriculture and

biotechnology. This Committee will also help facilitate a public dialogue on biotechnology, ensuring the

inclusion of diverse voices and ideas. The Secretary has also encouraged industry and consumers groups

to seek more opportunities to engage in an open dialogue and exchange of ideas.

How can I learn more about USDA's role in agricultural biotechnology? There's lots of information

on our website at www.usda.gov under Hot Issues.

#

USDA and Biotechnology Q & A

http://www.usda.gov/news/bioqa.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/1999 3:45:56 PM]
 Disaster Assistance

Food Stamps and Emergency Food Programs

❍ State Food Stamp Information hotline numbers

❍ USDA's Food and Nutrition Service homepage

Keeping Food Safe

❍ Meat and Poultry Hotline food storage and handling

❍ Food Safety information

❍ USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service homepage

Emergency Help for Farmers

❍ USDA's Farm Services Agencyhomepage

❍ Disaster Handbook

❍ Emergency Loan Assistance for production and physical losses.

❍ Emergency Conservation Program for rehabilitating damaged farmland.

❍ Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance for noninsurable crops.

❍ USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service homepage

❍ Watershed Protection

❍ USDA's Risk Management Agency

❍ Emergency Relief for Farmers

❍ Coping with Winter

❍ Coping with Floods

❍ Coping with Drought

Other Federal Emergency Help for Citizens

❍ After the Storm Fact Sheets

❍ Extension Disaster Education Network

❍ Cooperative State Research Education & Extension Service homepage

❍ Individual and public assistance

❍ Disaster News Locator

❍ Federal Emergency Management Agency homepage

USDA/Disaster Assistance page

http://www.usda.gov/news/disaster/index.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:45:58 PM]
❍ Flood Cleanup at home

❍ Reporting Hazardous Substances Spills

❍ Pesticide Cleanup and Disposal

❍ Environmental Protection Agency homepage

❍ USDA Natural Disaster Assistance Booklet

❍ USDA Emergency Preparedness Personnel

Other Disaster Assistance

❍ Disaster services of the American Red Cross

❍ American Red Cross homepage

USDA/Disaster Assistance page

http://www.usda.gov/news/disaster/index.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:45:58 PM]
CATALOG OF

FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE

Find a Program in the Catalog by Function or

Subject Area 

 AGRICULTURE FOOD AND NUTRITION

 BUSINESS AND COMMERCE HEALTH

 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING

 CONSUMER PROTECTION INCOME SECURITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

 CULTURAL AFFAIRS INFORMATION AND STATISTICS

 DISASTER PREVENTION AND RELIEF LAW, JUSTICE, AND LEGAL SERVICES

 EDUCATION NATURAL RESOURCES

 EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND TRAINING REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TRANSPORTATION

[ Start a new search | Beneficiary or Target Group Index | ASPE Home Page ]

Agriculture

● Forestry

● Marketing

● Production and Operations

● Resource Conservation and Development

● Research and Development

● Stabilization and Conservation Service

● Technical Assistance, Information, and Services

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (1 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
Business and Commerce

● Commercial Fisheries

● Economic Development

● Economic Injury and Natural Disaster

● International

● Maritime

● Minority Business Enterprises

● Small Business

● Statistics

● Special Technical Services

Community Development

● Planning and Research

● Construction, Renewal, and Operations

● Federal Surplus Property

● Fire Protection

● Historical Preservation

● Indian Action Services

● Land Acquisition

● Rural Community Development

● Recreation

● Site Acquisition

● Technical Assistance and Services

Consumer Protection

● Complaint Investigation

● Regulation, Inspection, Enforcement

● Information and Educational Services

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (2 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
Cultural Affairs

● Promotion of the Arts

● Promotion of the Humanities

Disaster Prevention and Relief

● Disaster Relief

● Emergency Health Services

● Emergency Preparedness, Civil Defense

● Flood Prevention and Control

Education

● Dental Education and Training

● Educational Equipment and Resources

● Educational Facilities

● Elementary and Secondary Education

● General Research and Evaluation

● Handicapped Education

● Health Education and Training

● Higher Education: General

● Indian Education

● Libraries and Technical Information Services

● Medical Education and Training

● Nuclear Education and Training

● Nursing Education

● Resource Development and Support: Elementary, Secondary Education

● Resource Development and Support: General and Special Interest Organizations

● Resource Development and Support: Higher Education

● Resource Development and Support: Land and Equipment

● Resource Development and Support: School Aid

● Resource Development and Support: Sciences

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (3 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
● Resource Development and Support: Student Financial Aid

● Resource Development and Support: Vocational Education and Handicapped Education

● Teacher Training

● Vocational Development

Employment, Labor, and Training

● Assistance and Services for the Unemployed

● Assistance to State and Local Governments

● Bonding and Certification

● Equal Employment Opportunity

● Facilities, Planning, Construction, and Equipment

● Federal Employment

● Job Training, Employment

● Labor Management Services

● Planning, Research, and Demonstration

● Program Development

● Statistical

Energy

● Conservation

● Education and Training

● Facilities and Equipment

● Research and Development

● General Information Services

● Specialized Technical Services

Environmental Quality

● Air Pollution Control

● Pesticides Control

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (4 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
● Radiation Control

● Research, Education, Training

● Solid Waste Management

● Water Pollution Control

Food and Nutrition

● Food and Nutrition for Children

● Food and Nutrition for Individuals and Families

● Food Inspection

● Research

Health

● Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health: General

● Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health: Law Enforcement

● Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health: Planning

● Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health: Research

● Communicable Diseases

● Education and Training

● Facility Loans and Insurance

● Facility Planning and Construction

● General Health and Medical Services

● Health Research - General

● Health Services Planning and Technical Assistance

● Indian Health

● Libraries, Information, and Educational Services

● Maternity, Infants, Children

● Mental Health Services

● Occupational Safety and Health

● Physical Fitness

● Prevention and Control

● Program Development

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (5 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
● Specialized Health Research and Training

● Veterans Health

Housing

● Property and Mortgage Insurance

● Homebuying, Homeownership

● Home Improvement

● Cooperatives, Rental

● Rural Housing

● Multifamily

● Experimental and Developmental Projects

● Indian Housing

● Construction and Rehabilitation

● Planning

● Land Acquisition

● Site Preparation for Housing

Income Security and Social Services

● Disabled and Handicapped Services

● Disabled Veteran

● Emergency and Crisis Assistance

● Family and Child Welfare Services

● Indian Services

● Information and Referral Services

● Legal and Advocacy Services

● Nutrition

● Old-Age Assistance

● Prevention

● Public Assistance

● Refugee, Alien Services

● Research and Demonstration

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (6 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
● Social Security and Insurance

● Specialized Family and Child Welfare Services

● Specialized Services

● Training Assistance

● Veterans Services

● Youth Services

Information and Statistics

● Census Data

● General

● Libraries, Clearinghouses, Archives

● Library of Congress

Law, Justice, and Legal Services

● Law Enforcement: Crime Analysis and Data

● Law Enforcement: Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs

● Law Enforcement: Planning and Operations

● Law Enforcement: Research, Education, Training

● Legal Services: General Services

● Legal Services: Employment Rights

● Legal Services: Labor-Management Relations

● Legal Services: Housing Rights

● Legal Services: Claims Against Foreign Governments

Natural Resources

● Community Sewage Treatment Assistance

● Community Water Supply Services

● Land Conservation

● Mineral Research

● Recreation

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (7 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
● Water Conservation and Research

● Wildlife Research and Preservation

Regional Development

● Economic Development

● Education

● Energy

● Health and Nutrition

● Housing

● Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Facilities Construction

● Planning and Technical Assistance

● Resources and Development

● Transportation

Science and Technology

● Research - General

● Research - Specialized

● Information and Technical Services

Transportation

● Air Transportation

● Highways, Public Roads, and Bridges

● Rail Transportation

● Urban Mass Transit

● Water Navigation

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (8 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
What now?

[ Top of page | Target or Beneficiary Group Index | Alphabetic Listing of Programs |

Introduction to Catalog ]

[ Start a search | ASPE Home Page ]

Converted to web format by staff of the

CFDA: Index by Function or Subject Area

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/ifun.htm (9 of 9) [10/5/1999 3:46:12 PM]
U. S. Department of Agriculture

 Search · Site Map · Links · E-Mail Us · FNCS Home · USDA

About FNS

What's New?

FAQs

Contacts

Contracts & Grants

Research (OANE)

Gleaning

FOIA

Y2K

Gleaning and Food Recovery

"Each year -- in fields, commercial kitchens,

markets, stores, and restaurants, -- billions

of pounds of food goes to waste...

We need to find a way to get this into the

mouths of the hungry and not into the

mouth of a dumpster."

Dan Glickman

Secretary of Agriculture

USDA Announces new Gleaning program for federally-insured crops. Dated Aug. 9,

1999.

 

● 

Help Feed the Hungry (PDF File). A USDA brochure explaining what you can do to

glean and recover excess food.

● 

A Citizen's Guide to Food Recovery. Primer - get started in food recovery and

gleaning. Includes lists of groups closest to you.

● 

USDA Announces Food Recovery Funding for 13 School Districts. Dated July 14,

1998.

● 

● Fact Sheet: USDA Food Recovery and Gleaning Initiative. Dated May 1998.

New Handbook Will Help Guide Restaurants Toward Food Recovery Copies may be

purchased from the National Restaurant Association for $3.50. To order, call NRA

Publications Ordering Phone Number, 1-800-482-9122.

● 

● National Summit on Food Recovery and Gleaning: A Call to Action

Gleaning and Food Recovery Library of Files Contains documents pertaining to

USDA's Gleaning and Food Recovery initiative.

● 

Secretary Dan Glickman Speech to Second Harvest National Conference, July 1,

1997

● 

Gleaning and Food Recovery

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FNS/MENU/GLEANING/RECOVER.HTM (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:46:29 PM]
More Than One-Fourth of U.S. Food Wasted, USDA Study Finds, News Release,

July 1, 1997

● 

● Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses. The entire report.

Fact Sheet - Clinton Administration Accomplishments on Gleaning and Food

Recovery, March 20, 1997

● 

1-800-GLEAN IT Toll-free Telephone Number. Provides general information on

gleaning.

● 

For USDA gleaning information, call 202-720-5746; fax 202-690-1131; or e-mail:

joel.berg@usda.gov

● 

Last Updated: 08/26/99

Gleaning and Food Recovery

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FNS/MENU/GLEANING/RECOVER.HTM (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:46:29 PM]
Food and Nutrition Publications

 Publications in electronic format, not designated as html,

 require Adobe Acrobat Reader software.

Publications 

Just Published!

Food Storage Cooking School: "Use It or Lose It" has just been published, written by Rebecca Low, USU

Extension Home Economist in Salt Lake County, and Deloy Hendricks, USU Extension Nutrition and Food

Science Specialist. The intent of the book is to assist individuals in practical acquisition and use of food storage.

It is designed for personal use or as a teaching tool for non-profit groups. The book is available here in pdf

format. (A paper copy can be ordered from the Extension Bulletin Room, 8960 Old Main Hill, Utah State

University, Logan UT 84322-8960. Cost is $6.50 for the book and $3.15 postage for mail in USA (or $9.65 for

single copy). Call 435-797-2251 for postage costs on multiple copies).

FN 503 - Food Storage Cooking School: "Use It or Lose It" (1.3mb)

USDA Home Canning Guides

Preface - Acknowledgments, Preface, Table of Contents

Guide 1 - Principles of Home Canning (5.6MB - graphics)

Guide 1 - Principles of Home Canning (w/o graphics)

Guide 2 - Canning Fruit and Fruit Products

Guide 3 - Canning Tomatoes and Tomato Products

Guide 4 - Canning Vegetables and Vegetable Products

Guide 5 - Canning Poultry, Red Meats, and Seafood

Guide 6 - Canning Fermented Foods and Pickled Vegetables

Guide 7 - Canning Jams and Jellies

Canning Fact Sheets

FN/Canning/01 - Using Pressure Canners

FN/Canning/01 - Using Pressure Canners (html)

FN/Canning/02 - Using Boiling Water-bath Canners

FN/Canning/02 - Using Boiling Water-bath Canners (html)

Food Safety Fact Sheets

Food Pubs

http://www.ext.usu.edu/publica/foodpubs.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:47:26 PM]
FN 250.0 - Frequently Asked Food Safety Questions

FN 250.1 - Drug Residues and Food Safety

FN 250.2 - Drug Use in Food Animals

FN 250-3 - Risks in Foods - What to do About Them

FN 250.4 - Food Safety and the Microwave

FN 250.5 - Safe Kitchen Rules

FN 250.6 - Bovine Somatotropin in Milk

FN 250.7 - Major Canning Sins

FN 250.8 - 10 Common Questions About Food Irradiation

General

Another Bite - Nutrition Information for Preschoolers

FN 038 - Vegetable Canning Methods in the Pressure Cooker

FN 141 - Rice

FN 142 - Nonfat Dry Milk

FN 168 - Vegetable Freezing Methods

FN 176 - Water Storage

FN 176 - Water Storage (html)

FN 177 - Storage of Dry Milk

FN 191 - What Is Protein

FN 207 - Dry Beans and Peas

FN 209 - Reduced Sugar Food Preservation

FN 215 - Fruit Freezing Methods

FN 218 - Vitamins and Your Good Health

FN 219 - Sugar

FN 220 - Sodium

FN 221 - Utah Peaches

FN 222 - The Fibers

FN 223 - Fat and Cholesterol

FN 224 - Utah Tart Cherries

FN 225 - Apples

FN 226 - Aluminum

FN 237 - Asparagus

FN 238 - Cost of Home Canning

FN 239 - Food Preservation - Plan Ahead

FN 240 - Cauliflower

FN 241 - Broccoli

FN 242 - Brussels Sprouts

FN 252 - Elderberries

FN 253 - Summer Salad Recipes

FN 255 - Ingredient Substitutions

FN 257 - How to Turn Your Kitchen into a Lab

FN 265 - Can Antibiotic Test Kits Be Useful?

Food Pubs

http://www.ext.usu.edu/publica/foodpubs.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:47:26 PM]
FN 283 - Yeast Breads Plain and Fancy (5.8 MB)

FN 290 - Cutting and Preserving Whole Turkeys

FN 330 - Home Drying of Foods

FN 356 - Whole Kernal & Bulgar Wheat--How to Cook & Use

FN 371 - Home Storage of Wheat

FN 500 - Home Food Storage Management Plan

FN 501 - Efficient Cooking for One

FN 502 - Food Storage in the Home

FN 503 - Food Storage Cooking School: "Use It or Lose It" (1.3mb)

Food Pubs

http://www.ext.usu.edu/publica/foodpubs.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:47:26 PM]
 Home Gardening

Backyard Conservation Horticulture Solutions Series

Eco-region map Landscape and Nursery

Garden InfoGraphic Pointers Lawn and Garden Care

Gardening, Fruit Production, Landscaping National Arboretum

Home and Garden Information Center Organic Vegetable Gardening

Home Horticulture Plant Hardiness Zone Map

Hot Corner USDA Vegetable Laboratory

USDA's Home Gardening Page

http://www.usda.gov/news/garden.htm [10/5/1999 3:47:29 PM]
AMS' Farmer Direct Marketing and Farmers Market sites both contain a wealth of information. 

 Farmer Direct Marketing Home Page

The Farmer Direct Marketing site includes a State by State listing of direct marketing resources,

links to direct marketing organizations, published articles about direct marketing and a calendar

of direct marketing-related conferences and meetings. 

Farmers Markets Home Page

The Farmers Markets site includes a clickable map that will help you find a farmers market in

your state, directions to markets in the D.C. area and information on starting a farmers market on

Federal property.

AMS@USDA - AMS - Farmer Direct Marketing/Farmers Markets

http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketing.htm [10/5/1999 3:47:58 PM]
The Food and Nutrition Information Center (FNIC) is one of several

information centers at the National Agricultural Library (NAL), part of the

United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Research

Service (ARS). You can access all of FNIC's resource lists and databases,

as well as many other food and nutrition related links from this award

winning site. Click here for more about FNIC.

FNIC Databases

Food and Nutrition Software and Multimedia Programs

Healthy School Meals Training Materials

Nutrition Education and Training (NET) Program Products

USDA / FDA Foodborne Illness Educational Materials

USDA / FDA HACCP Training Programs

WIC-Developed Nutrition Education Materials

This is an official Agriculture Network Information Center Web Site. 

Food and Nutrition Information Center

http://www.nalusda.gov/fnic/index.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:48:20 PM]
Privacy and Security Notice

Food and Nutrition Information Center

http://www.nalusda.gov/fnic/index.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:48:20 PM]
 Weather

Agricultural Weather & Climate

El Nino

National Weather Service

National Weather Warning

Satellite Images

Weather World 2010 Project

USDA/OC/Weather page

http://www.usda.gov/news/weather.htm [10/5/1999 3:48:25 PM]
AG CALENDAR OF EVENTS

United States Department of Agriculture

Office of Communications

May 1999

The following is a calendar of agricultural events and national organizations' meetings

where USDA speakers and/or information are featured. Updated during the first week of each

month, the calendar is distributed electronically via e-mail, the Internet World Wide Web

at ttp://www.usda.gov/news/calendar/maycal.htm, or AgNewsFAX (202-690-3944 and follow voice

prompts to retrieve # 9350). Single printed copies may be picked up from the Office of

Communications' News Distribution Office, Room 460-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building.

To include information about future events and speaking engagements, contact editor April

Horton, Office of Communications' Coordination and Review Center, Room 459-A, Jamie L.

Whitten Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-1350; telephone 202-720-1691; fax 202-720-0539;

Internet e-mail april.horton@usda.gov --OR-- contact managing editor Shirley Adams, Room

440-A, telephone 202-720-2882; fax 202-690-3611, or Internet e-mail shirley.adams@usda.gov

Please provide information two weeks prior to the first of the month. JUNE entries for

events and speaking engagements are now due. Information submitted after May 22,1999, will

be included on the July calendar.

* * * * * * * * * * * 1999 C A L E N D A R * * * * * * * * * * *

May 16-20

 Biotechnology Industry Organization Annual Meeting

 Seattle, Washington

 Contact: Megan Matthews 202-857-02444

May 18-20

 USDA National Ag Day In The Classroom

 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

May 21-23

 American Livestock Breeds Conservancy Annual Conference

 Garfield Farm

 LaFox, Illinios

 Contact: 317-776-60000

May 23-25

 World Agricultural Forum

 World Congress

 St. Louis, Missouri

 Contact: Jerry Ingenthron 314-569-0359

May 23-28

 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference

 Purdue University

ag calendar of events/may 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/calendar/maycal.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:48:28 PM]
 West Lafayette, Indiana

 Contact: Registration: Nona Schaler 765-494-2756 or

 1-800-359-2986 ext.92n Email: njschaler@cea.purdue.edu

 http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/isco99/isco99.htm

 for program information contact Mark Nearing 765-494-8673

June 6-8

 National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Annual Meeting

 University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 Nebraska

 Contact: 607-254-4856

June 6-8

 The International Dairy-Deli-Bakery Association

 Dairy-Deli-Bake '99

 Ernest N. Morial Convention Center

 New Orleans, Louisiana

 Contact: IDDBA 608-238-7908 or www.iddba.org

June 23-25

 IBC's 4th International Conference on Phytoremediation

 Embassy Suites

 Toronto, Canada

 Contact: Derek Kealey 508-481-6400 or visit www.ibcusa.com

July 14-16

 Northeast Cooperative Council Cooperative Leadership Conference

 Ramada Suites

 Geneva, New York

 Contact: Brian Heneham 607-255-8800

July 15-18

 1999 American Convention of Meat Processors

 Crowne Plaza Hotel

 Springfield, Illinios

 Contact: AAMP, P.O. Box 269, Elizabethtown, PA 17022 email: aamp@aamp.com

 717-367-1168 or fax 717-367-9096 or visit www.aamp.cpm

July 28-31

 The Agricultural Publications Summit

 Hyatt Regency Dnever

 Denver, Colorado

 Contact: 512-451-5000

August 4-7

 Global Soy Forum

 Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Cityfront Center

 Chicago, Illinois

 Contact: Brad Cortright 217-244-7384

ag calendar of events/may 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/calendar/maycal.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:48:28 PM]
August 9-11

 InfoAg99

 Purdue University

 West Lafayette, Indiana

 Contact: 605-692-6280

August 25-26

 National Custom Applicator Expo

 Ankeny, Iowa

 Contact: 605-692-6280

November 8-9

 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

 San Francisco Marriot Hotel

 San Francisco, California

 Contact: 202-778-0850

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 2000 C A L E N D A R * * * * * * * * * * * *

ag calendar of events/may 1999

http://www.usda.gov/news/calendar/maycal.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/1999 3:48:28 PM]
Communications to Congress

Testimony and Reports

Secretary of Agriculture

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Farm Service Agency

Foreign Agricultural Service

Risk Management

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Food and Nutrition Service

Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service

Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Natural Resources and Environment Forest Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Research, Education, and Economics Agricultural Research Service

 National Agricultural Library

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Economic Research Service

 National Agricultural Statistics Service

Rural Development Rural Utilities Service

 Rural Housing Service

 Rural Business - Cooperative Service

Administration Administrative Law Judges Office

 Board of Contract Appeals

 Civil Rights

 Human Resources Management

 Judicial Officer

 Operations

Outreach

 Procurement and Property Management

 Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Staff Offices ❍ Office of Chief Financial Officer

❍ Office of Chief Information Officer

❍ Office of Communications

❍ Office of Congressional Relations

❍ Office of Budget and Program Analysis

❍ Office of Chief Economist

USDA's Communications to Congress

http://www.usda.gov/news/special/congress.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:48:44 PM]
❍ National Appeals Division

❍ General Counsel

❍ Office of Inspector General

USDA's Communications to Congress

http://www.usda.gov/news/special/congress.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:48:44 PM]
Federal Resources for Drought Information

Department of the Interior

U.S. Map of Daily Streamflow Conditions

http://water.usgs.gov/dwc/national_map.html

Drought Watch '99

http://md.usgs.gov/drought

Department of Agriculture

Drought Information Page

http://drought.fsa.usda.gov/

Department of Commerce

NOAA's Drought Information Center

http://www.drought.noaa.gov

Department of Labor

Tips on Avoiding Heat Stress

http://www.osha.gov/media/oshnews/august99/national-19990803.html

Department of Health and Human Services

Drought/Heat Information

http://www.hhs.gov/hottopics/drought.html

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Resources for Drought Information 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/federal-drought-resources.html (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:49:50 PM]
Ozone Information

http://www.epa.gov/airnow/

Water Efficiency

http://www.epa.gov/owm/genwave.htm

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Water Conservation Guidelines

http://www.fema.gov/nwz99/drought.htm

Other Links

Press Briefing by White House Staff on Drought

Fact Sheet on the White House Drought Task Force

Statement by the Press Secretary on Drought

To comment on this service,

send feedback to the Web Development Team.

Read our Privacy Policy

Federal Resources for Drought Information 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/federal-drought-resources.html (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:49:50 PM]
U.S. Office of

Personnel Management

Metropolitan Area

Council of Governments

Federal Government

OPERATING STATUS IN THE DC METROPOLITAN

AREA DURING WEATHER (OR OTHER) EMERGENCY

Federal agencies of the United States government in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area are

OPEN. All federal employees are expected to report for work on time.

The information above will be updated immediately upon a determination that operating status is

anything other than OPEN. Please do not call.

During weather emergencies this page provides current information on the operating status of federal

executive agencies (except the U.S. Postal Service) inside the Washington Capital Beltway. Guidance

will be posted during snow emergencies, severe icing conditions, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, air

pollution, power failures, interruption of public transportation, and other situations in which significant

numbers of employees are prevented from reporting for work on time or which require agencies to close

all or part of their activities. See the Emergency Closure or Dismissal Procedures for further information

on the coverage of these advisories.

● To OPM Home Page

Updated October 5, 1999

DC Area Federal Government Operating Status

http://www.opm.gov/weather/index.htm [10/5/1999 3:49:55 PM]
 To download a complete copy in WordPerfect

This directory lists sources of information in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its various agencies. Changes are made as they

are submitted (see bottom of page) and dates beside the http addresses below indicate when the listing was last updated.

How To Get Information is available electronically for downloading on USDA's homepage at:

http://www.usda.gov/news/howto/howto.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C O N T E N T S * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Office of Communications http://www.usda.gov/agencies/ocpage.htm

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service

Farm Service Agency http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

Foreign Agricultural Service http://www.fas.usda.gov/

Risk Management Agency http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov/

Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

Food and Nutrition Service http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/

Center For Nutrition Policy and Promotion http://www.usda.gov/cnpp.htm

Food Safety Services

Food Safety and Inspection Service http://www.fsis.usda.gov/index.htm

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Agricultural Marketing Service http://www.ams.usda.gov

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/

Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

Research, Education, and Economics Programs

Agricultural Research Service http://www.ars.usda.gov/

National Agricultural Library http://www.nalusda.gov/

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service http://www.reeusda.gov/

Economic Research Service http://www.econ.ag.gov/

National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.usda.gov/nass/

Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Service http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/index.html

Rural Community Development http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rcd/index.html

Rural Housing Service http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/index.html

Rural Utilities Service http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rus/index.html

Executive Operations

Office of the Chief Economist http://www.usda.gov/oce/

World Agricultural Outlook Board http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/waob.htm

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oracba/oracba.htm

Global Change Program Office http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm

USDA\OC\HOW TO GET INFORMATION/April 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/howto/howto.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:50:03 PM]
Sustainable Development and Small Farms http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/osfsd/

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses http://www.usda.gov/oce/oenpu/

National Appeals Division

Office of Budget & Program Analysis http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Home-Page/obpa.html

Other USDA Offices

Office of Chief Financial Officer http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/

Office of the General Counsel

Office of Inspector General http://www.usda.gov/oig/

Departmental Administration http://www.usda.gov/da/

Office of Chief Information Officer http://www.ocio.usda.gov/

USDA agencies listed in the How To Get Information publication can send changes to the Editor, Shirley E. Adams, Office of

Communications, Communications Coordination and Review Center, via the above USDA home page address. Hard copy version

will be updated quarterly; electronic version will be updated as changes occur. email changes

USDA\OC\HOW TO GET INFORMATION/April 1998

http://www.usda.gov/news/howto/howto.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/1999 3:50:03 PM]
 USDA Legislation

1999 Budget Summary

1998 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act

1996 Farm Bill

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

USDA Legislation

http://www.usda.gov/news/legislat.htm [10/5/1999 3:50:05 PM]
Welcome to the

United States Trade Representative's Homepage

USTR Toll-Free Public Information Line

1-888-473-USTR (1-888-473-8787)

NEW! —> USTR Federal Register Notices, click here.

Privacy Statement

¦ What's New ¦ Reading Room ¦ Mission ¦ Reports ¦ Speeches ¦ Employment ¦

¦ Press Releases ¦ People ¦ History ¦ Agreements ¦ Testimony ¦ Contact ¦

Webmaster @ USTR - 30 September 1999

United States Trade Representative

http://www.ustr.gov/ [10/5/1999 3:50:08 PM]
 Y2K Programs 

President's Council on Year 2000 Food Supply Working Group

Agricultural Research Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Cooperative State Research Education Extension Service

Farm Service Agency

Food Nutrition Service

Food Safety and Inspection Service

National Finance Center

NITC Y2K Tools and Solutions

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Rural Utilities Service

USDA Year 2000 Program Office

Year 2000 Programs page

http://www.usda.gov/news/y2000.htm [10/5/1999 3:50:11 PM]