Food Information Systems: Summary and

Analysis

August 1976

NTIS order #PB-258172
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Daniel V. De Simone, Deputy Director

FOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE*

Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., Chairman, Michigan State University

Martin E. Abel Robert Nesheim

University of Minnesota Quaker Oats Company

W. D. Buddemeier

University of Illinois

David Call

Cornell University

D. Gale Johnson

University of Chicago

Arnold Mayer

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and

Butcher Workmen of North America

Chester 0. McCorkle**

University of California

Esther Peterson

Giant Food Inc.

Roger Revelle

Harvard University

Leon Schachter**

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and

Butcher Workmen of North America

Lauren Seth

Des Moines Register and Tribune

Max Milner E. T. York

Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Florida

FOOD PROGRAM STAFF

J. B. Cordaro, Program Manager

Marsha D. Bushnell Deborah Norelli Ellen Terpstra

Jane Mason

Raymond Torrey

Michael Phillips Carol Ulinski

Max Milner Robert L. Smith Ann Woodbridge

CONSULTANTS

Raymond Hoehle Walter Wilcox

*Committee membership at the time the Food Advisory Committee Report was prepared and submitted to the

Office of Technology Assessment, June 1975.

● *Member through Mav 1975.

,,. 111
T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT B OAR D

Congress of the United States EMILIO DADDARI O

OLIN E. TEAGUE TEXAS, CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J.. VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DANIEL V. DE SIMONE

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 DEPUT Y

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. GEORGE E. BROWN , JR., CALIF.

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. CHARLES A. MOSHER, OHIO

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA. MARVIN L. ESCH. MICH.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

July 22, 1976

The .Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman

Technology Assessment Board

Office of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The world food situation has been drastically altered by a series of major

events that converged in 1972 and 1973. The consequences of these events

have demanded new policies. To develop and carry out these policies requires more timely and accurate information.

Congress is substantially dependent upon data developed and evaluated

from information resources outside the Congress. Until 1973, with our

food policies based upon “burdensome surpluses,” our information needs

seemed to be well taken care of. No one, inside or outside the Government, predicted that the events and policy decisions of 1972 and 1973

would lead to sharp increases in the cost of food and farm inputs and

shortages of such key production supplies as fuel, protein meals, and fertilizers . It was this apparent breakdown of information that led me to

request, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to- endorse, that OTA identify the key information systems and determine how well they were serving decision makers; identify defects in these

systems; and suggest options for Congress to consider to improve these information sources. I am pleased that the summary and analysis of this

study, as presented during hearings by the OTA Board, can be transmitted

to the Congress.

I have been an active participant in this study. It was my privilege to

chair four days of hearings for OTA’s Board on food information systems.

These hearings were triggered by the report of OTA’s Food Advisory Committee and afforded me the opportunity to dialogue with the most knowledgeable individuals on this subject. The impressive mix of people who helped

in this study has given this document a balance and diversity of views.

The most feasible option seems to be to make perfecting changes in the existing system rather than to try to develop a single integrated worldwide

system or to rely on the initiative of existing institutions to make thes e

improvements.

The specific areas for improvement to the existing information resource s

are relevant and useful. Indeed, the utility is already evident by the
The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Page 2

uses Congress has made of preliminary

1. Background material for the U.S.

assessment material:

congressional delegation to the 1974

World Food Conference, which supported Conference Resolution XVI to

establish an early warning and agriculture information system;

2. Congressional hearings;

a . Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture Policy of the Senate Committee

on Agriculture and Forestry on “Implementation of World Food Conference Recommendations” and “Improving the Coordination of U.S.

and Foreign Agricultural Policy. ”

b . Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on

Post Office and Civil Service on ‘The Need for Improvement and

Coordination in Federal Government Statistics” ;

3.’ HR12397, introduced by Congressman Neal Smith,

troduced “to relieve the Secretary of Commerce

for taking Censuses of Agriculture every fifth

Secretary of Agriculture to collect comparabl e

pling methods.”

and S3215, which I inof the responsibilit y

year and require the

information using sam4. The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs for a staff

report on ‘The U.S. , FAO, and World Food Politics: U.S. Relation with

an International Food Organization. ”

In addition, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

and I, as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, have asked Secretary of

Agriculture Earl Butz to respond to suggestions made by participants in the

Technology Assessment Board hearings, encouraging USDA to make certain improvements.

As the OTA report indicates, substantial progress has already been made to

improve the U.S. and world food information systems since 1973, in part as a

result of OTA studies, hearings, and staff interaction with USDA personnel.

These changes include: modifying the agricultural attache system; improving

staff analytical competence ; upgrading publication and eliminating duplica -

tion; attempting to get better information on the Soviet food situation; re -

leasing more timely crop forecasts; collecting data from new areas; and

using modeling and remote sensing technologies.

I will follow with interest continued improvement along the lines suggested

by the five areas that the OTA study emphasizes:

1. Improving the accuracy and timeliness of U.S. food and agricultural

information systems.

2. Strengthening the U.S. role in a world food information system.

vi
The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Page 3

3. Increasing congressiona l staff analytical capabilities,

4. Increasing the integration of nutrition and the consumer,

5. Accelerating the use of advanced technologies.

I plan to call this report , along with suggestions for action, to the attention of the chairmen of the relevant committees of the Congress, I look forward to continued interactions between these committees and the OTA staff

to help implement the alternatives in this report.

Sincerely ,

Hubert H. Humphrey

vii
T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT B OAR D

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

OLIN E. TEAGUE TEXAS, CHAIRMAN

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J., VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOG Y

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON , D.C. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

DIRECT0 R

ASSESSMENT DANIEL V. DE SIMONE

20510 DEPUTY DIRECTORl

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. CHARLES A. MOSHER, OHIO

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA. MARVIN L. ESCH. MICH.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

July 22, 1976

The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman

Technology Assessment Board

Office of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to submit OTA's eport entitled “Summary and Analysis

of the Office of Technology Assessment Hearings on Food Information

Systems, ” which was requested by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, OTA

Board member, and endorsed by Senator Herman Talmadge, Chairman of

the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

This summary and analysis was prepared by the Office of Technology

Assessment, based upon material developed by its Food Advisory Committee, consultant and contractor reports, and four days of Board

hearings. The complete record of these hearings and the material

that triggered these hearings is included in Food Information Systems: Hearings Before the Technology Assessment Board of the Office

of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Ninety-Fourth

Congress, First and Second Sessions, September 24, 25, and December

10, 1975, February 4, 1976.

With the approval of the OTA Board, as indicated at its July 21,

1976 meeting, Senator Humphrey will forward the hearings document

and this summary and analysis to the relevant committees of the

Congress.

!-1{. ,,.>,- 2

Directo r

ix
PREFACE

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, as a member of the Technology Assessment Board, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in a letter of January

22, 1974, requested “an OTA assessment of agricultural information systems

and their adequacy for. . agricultural policy planning. ” This request was endorsed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The OTA

Board approved this request on February 6, 1974.

The principal activity of the study was to review food information

systems in order to isolate and evaluate those significant to the development

of food legislation and related congressional policymaking.

The goal was to develop options that Congress could consider to improve

the usefulness, timeliness, and reliability of information for policymaking,

budget formulation, legislation, and oversight in the food area.

An OTA Food Advisory Committee was formed. In addition, OTA staff,

assisted by three contractor studies and consultants, developed and prepared

background material for the committee’s use. The committee, relying on staff

and contractor materials, prepared and submitted a report to the Technology

Assessment Board entitled “Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition Information

Systems: Assessment and Recommendations. ” This report became the basis

for 4 days of hearings held by OTA’s Board on September 24 and 25 and

December 10, 1975, and February 4, 1976. ’

This document is a summary and analysis of the hearings record which

directly or indirectly includes all the relevant material acquired in this study.

*Food Information Systems. Hearings before the Technology Assessment Board of the Office of

Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Ninety-Fourth Congress, First and Second

Sessions. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. (Hereinafter referred to as

“Hearings.”) The Food Advisory Committee report is found in Hearings, pp. 4-36.

xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .

The food program staff and the Food Advisory Committee of the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA) received advice and assistance from OTA

and congressional staff members, Federal agency officials, individuals from

the private food sector, farm organizations, consumer groups, experts from

international organizations, and widely known researchers, Some were advisors, some were the subjects of interviews, others assisted in review, and

others helped in numerous ways essential to a balanced understanding of the

complex issues involved in this study of food information systems.

Their assistance is acknowledged. Likewise, the time made available and

the effort put forward on behalf of OTA and the Congress is appreciated.

The views expressed in this report are solely those of OTA and should

not be construed as those of any individuals or groups listed in appendices I

and II.

xii
HIGHLIGHTS

The major food information systems are operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO). The systems maintained by individual countries,

international organizations, and the private sector either are limited to their

specific needs or use USDA and/or FAO data as their benchmark. (Page 7)

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Economic Research Service

(ERS), and Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) are the key USDA units

responsible for operating national and worldwide systems. This study examines the improvements made in these units since the apparent informational breakdown of 1972-73. Some of these improvements are: modifying

the agricultural attached system; improving staff analytical competence;

upgrading publications and eliminating duplication; attempting to get better

information on the Soviet food situation; releasing more timely crop

forecasts; collecting data from new areas; and using modeling and remotesensing technologies. (Pages 7-25)

Deficiencies that persist are grouped into four categories:

(1) poor national systems, upon which USDA must depend;

(2) collection of

(3) inadequate

agricultural attaches;

inadequate and/or obsolete data;

analysis, especially by the overseas network of

and

(4) USDA’s fragmented organizational structure, which hinders effectiveness and promotes institutional conflicts of interest. (Pages 25-29)

The study discusses a variety of alternatives that could be taken to correct these deficiencies. A number of specific proposals are reviewed in the

general areas of improving the accuracy and timeliness of USDA’s system

(Pages 34-4o); integrating nutrition information into USDA’S system (Pages

40-43); and using advanced technologies (Pages 43-60).

The OTA study does not explore the FAO system in the same detail as

the USDA system. It notes that the principal improvement has been the increased attention to the establishment of an Early Warning and Agricultural

Information System. The 1974 World Food Conference emphasized the important relationship of better information to the world food situation. (Pages

61-68).

The OTA study suggests that the United States can play a key role in

helping FAO and the developing countries to improve their information

systems. (Pages 68-70)

. . . Xlll
Attention was given to the suggestions that Congress might increase its

analytical capability. The report stresses that this need not imply additional

personnel but that this increased capability could be obtained through more

efficient use of the resources at the Office of Technology Assessment,

General Accounting Office, Congressional Research Service, and others such

as the land-grant university system. (Pages 71-73)

The magnitude of the demand placed upon Congress to deal with food

issues can be seen from the analysis of the 1,831 and 1,725 bills and resolutions of the 93rd and 94th Congresses. (Pages 73-76).

xiv
CONTENTS

PREFACE. ,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HIGHLIGHTS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background .,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , ,,,,.,.

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....,,,

Methodology. .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Options. . .,.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The USDA System: Deficiencies and Options for Improvement, ..

Responsibility for the System. . .................,,,,, ,

Collecting Foreign Agricultural Information .,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assessing and Disseminating Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soviet Grain Purchases ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interagency Cooperation: Weather Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organizational Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-USDA Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..

Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

Deficiencies Due to Poor National System. . . . . . . . . . .

Deficiencies Due to Collecting Inadequate and/or Obsolete Data.

Deficiencies Due to Inadequate Analysis. , , 

Deficiencies Due to Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suggested Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.

II

III

Improving the Accuracy and Timeliness of the U.S.

Food and Agriculture Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problems of Obsolescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Options to Make the USDA Information

System More Accurate and Timely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integrating Nutrition Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Difficulties of Obtaining Meaningful

Nutrition Status Information, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nutrition and Food Consumption Surveys, , ..

Options for Integrating Nutrition Information . . . . . . . . . . .

Using Advanced Technologies. ,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tentative Conclusions About LACIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consensus and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Options for Accelerating the Use of

Advanced Technology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

xi

. . . Xlll

1

1

1

4

5

5

7

7

7

10

10

14

17

18

23

25

25

25

26

27

28

30

34

37

40

40

40

41

42

43

53

55

57
CHAPTER 3. THE FAO SYSTEM: DEFICIENCIES AND OPTIONS

FOR IMPROVEMENT. . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Status and Plans of FAO for Its Global Information

and Early Warning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suggested Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4. THE CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZEFOOD

ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Screening and Evaluation of Information for Congress. . . . . . . . . . . .

Improving the Capacity of Congress to Analyze Food Issues ,.,...

APPENDICES

I

II

III

Iv.

Individuals and Groups Assisting the Office of

Technology Assessment in its Assessment of Food

Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Witnesses, Technology Assessment Board Hearings

on Food Information Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twenty-Six Decision Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of Dr. Robert Nesheim, Chairman,

Nutrition Panel of the Food Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . .

61

63

66

68

71

71

72

73

77

79

81

83

xvi
Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Congress is dependent essentially upon noncongressional resources for

food, agriculture, and nutrition information. Prior to 1972, Congress appeared

to be well served by these information sources. In mid-1972, however, the

world food situation changed within a 2-month period as world food production declined for the first time in many years at a time of rapidly expanding

demand. World food reserve stocks were reduced to a historically low level

of less than a 30-day supply. (See figure 1.)

The events responsible for these cataclysmic changes have been well

chronicled. They include:

● Large purchases of wheat by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

under conditions of semisecrecy.

● Increased foreign demand for U.S. soybeans because of the failure of

the Peruvian anchovy catch.

● Increased U.S. food exports to all parts of the world, due in part to

widespread inflation, U.S. dollar devaluation, and wide shifts in

monetary exchange relationships.

The phenomenal increases in prices of grains and soybeans in the

1972-73 crop year were not predicted by analysts in the Department of

Agriculture or in land-grant universities. (See figure 2.) Members of Congress

had no independent means for dealing with the food policy issues which

arose at that time. It was this apparent breakdown in the information systems

on which Congress had traditionally depended which led to a request that the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) analyze the adequacy of these

resources.

The current information flow to the Congress was never designed to

operate as a total system but rather represents a historical accretion of segments based on multiple uses and purposes which are often-conflicting.

PURPOSE

The events of 1972 and 1973 led to sharp increases in the cost of food and

farm inputs, resulted in shortages of such production supplies as fuel, protein

meals, and fertilizers, and raised a number of questions such as:

1

 1 ,
INTRODUCTION

Figure l.—World production and stocks of major grains 1960-76

World Grain Production

1.4 

Bllllons of Metric Tons Estimated

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.8

.7

1960-61 ‘63-64 ‘66-67 ‘69-70 ‘72–73 ‘75-76 ‘78-79

Crop Years

World Inventory of Grain—End of Crop Years

250

MillIions of Metric Tons

1960-61 ‘63-64 ‘66-67 ‘69-70 ‘72-73 ‘75-76 ‘78-79

Crop Years

SOURCE: United States Department of Agriculture

2
INTRODUCTION

Figure 2.—Carryover of major U.S. grains and soybeans, 1960-75 crop years,

with year-end price averages, 1970-74

WHEAT

Carryover

Billions of Bushels

1.5,

I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1

1%0 ’70 ’80

Prices-Dollars per Bushel

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

I 1 [ I I I I

1970 - 133

1971 = 134

1972 - 176

1973 ~ 395

1974 409

CORN

Carryover

Bllllons of Bushels

2.0

1.5 —

1.0 —

0.5 —

i I I I I I I I

1960 ’70 ’80

Prices-Dollars per Bushel

2 4

1970 133

1971 108

1972 1.57

1973 255

1974 303

RICE

Carryover

Mill Ions of CWT

40 )

30 –

20 —

I I 1 I

1960 ’70 ’80

Prices-Dollars per Hundredweight

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

I I I I I I I

1970 5.17

1971 ~ 534

1972 673

1380

1973

1974 11. 20

SOYBEANS

Carryover

Millions of Bushels

4 0 0

~

1960 ’70 ’80

Prices-Dollars per Bushel

2 4 6 8 10 1? 14

I I I I I I

1970 2.85

1971 3.0 3

SOURCE United States Department of Agriculture

3
INTRODUCTION

● Why had the U.S. food and agriculture information systems failed

to give warning of the impending shortages?

● Are existing food and agriculture information systems adequate?

Do they meet today’s needs?

● Have appropriate steps been taken to correct the deficiencies that

existed in 1972–73?

OTA's analysis, guided by its Food Advisory Committee, addressed

these questions.

Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., chairman of OTA’s Food Advisory Committee (FAC), noted the limitations of the study in his preface to the committee’s

report:

While the committee recognized the ideal would be to address the

needed improvements in the total system, we realistically concluded that an adequate assessment of the total information systems

would have required greater resources and more time than was

available. The committee, therefore, chose to concentrate its attention on a limited set of recommendations. Two criteria were

employed: Those areas which are most amenable to congressional

action and those which in the committee’s judgment most urgently

require attention.

Our focus was also limited to the information systems rather than

the analysis of the information generated by the systems, even

though past problems often have been due more to poor analysis

than to deficient informational

SCOPE

An identification, examination, and evaluation of the key food information systems was made in order to determine:

● The significant food information systems

This involved identifying key systems and determining how well they

serve decisionmakers. These systems were probed in terms of the information they provided—for example: type and nature of the information, processes and procedures used to obtain information (including frequency, timeliness, quality, format, and availability), and use

and dissemination practices.

IHearings, p. 5.

4
INTRODUCTION

● Deficiencies in existing information systems

This task focused on the gaps, deficiencies, redundancies, and bottlenecks that might impede decisionmaking, Identification of defects

led to consideration of options for improvements.

. Options

This task identified and analyzed options that could improve existing

information systems, taking into account the numerous recommendations made to OTA.

METHODOLOGY

The focal point of this study was OTA’s Food Advisory Committee,

working with OTA staff and consultants. In addition, contractor reports were

utilized. Each of the contractors made a contribution toward OTA’s preparation of a preliminary definition of the study:

Michigan State University provided an overview of the total system and

examined analytical techniques.

The Futures Group pinpointed some of the key issues for which Congress

evidenced information needs,

Cantor Associates explored information needed to assist the Congress in

developing an improved nutrition information system.

OPTIONS

During the course of this study, recommendations for correcting the deficiencies in the existing food information systems were made to OTA. These

recommendations helped to develop three options for congressional consideration:

1. Reliance on existing agencies to initiate improvements;

2. Development of a single integrated world food information system;

and

3. Perfecting changes in existing systems.

Option 1: Reliance on Existing Agencies To Initiate Improvements

This option would imply that the events which occurred in 1972-73

were unique and that countries and organizations were rapidly making the
INTRODUCTION

needed changes and adjustments. However, events exacerbating the world

food situation have continued to occur. The margin of error in the world’s

food supply is now less than 5 percent, reserve stocks have been reduced to

less than a 30-day supply, and the number of Most Seriously Affected (MSA)

countries has increased from 33 to 44. Likewise, although improvements are

being made to the existing system, the OTA study participants felt additional

steps to correct deficiencies were needed.

Option Z: Development of a Single Integrated World Food Information

System

This option would require the development of a worldwide system within which: 1) a congressional unit, 2) linked to a quasi-independent unit within USDA, would serve as the point of contact for the United States, 3) with

both tied to a world food information system.

The advantage of this approach is that “a system” would be idealized.

However, this option has several disadvantages: the impracticality of its implementation in the near future; the political sensitivities to be encountered

in getting such major participants as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

and the People’s Republic of China into the system; as well as the expected

enormous cost of correcting existing deficiencies in order to make the system

effective and efficient.

Option 3: Perfecting Changes in Existing Systems

Due to the fragmented nature of the system, it seems more, practical to

make perfecting changes in the key existing systems than to try to create a

new system. Likewise, suggested improvements to subordinate systems will,

in the long run, improve the world food information flow.

Synthesizing the principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations,

OTA found that there were five major areas where specific opportunities for

improvements might be considered. Within each of these, several specific opportunities exist for action. Some of these improvements require legislation;

others do not. These five areas are:

1. Improving the accuracy and timeliness of U.S. food and

agriculture information systems.

2. Strengthening the U.S. role in a world food information system.

3. Increasing congressional staff analytical capabilities.

4. Increasing the integration of nutrition information.

5. Accelerating the use of advanced technologies.

6
Chapter II

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION He also noted the dependence of USDA and

FAO on other sources:

The U.S. Department of Agricultur e

(USDA) and the Food and Agricultur e

Organization of the United Nations (FAO) are

the major institutional sources for world food

and agricultural information. Other instituBoth USDA and FAO depend heavily upon national agricultural information systems of varying sophistication and reliability, but both have

the analytic capability to develop current supplydemand estimates in those situations where the

“

tional sources-such as national systems, in- national agricultural information systems fail to

ternational organizations, and the private sec- generate timely or reliable estimates. USDA and

FAO draw upon sources outside their own

tor-either have perspectives limited to their system for agricultural information and inparticular needs or use USDA and FAO data as telligence.6

their benchmark for further analysis.

Likewise, USDA and FAO draw upon such This summary and analysis focuses on

outside sources as the International Wheat USDA’s and FAO’s food information systems.

Council 1 and cooperate and share information To appreciate suggested changes requires an

from other international organizations, 2 U.S. understanding of the existing systems and

executive agencies, s national governments, their deficiencies. Participants in OTA’s study

and multinational grain exporters. A provided insights into the nature of the USDA

and FAO systems, highlighting both the

The thorough review of world agricultural strengths and weaknesses of these systems

information systems prepared for OTA by Mr. and suggesting a number of improvements for

Howard Hjort, Schnittker Associates, rein- OTA to review and include in its options for

forces this point. possible congressional action. T

While many private and public organizations The USDA system will be discussed first,

operate partial world agricultural information followed by a review of the FAO food inforsystems, only two operate full-fledged systems—

the United States Department of Agriculture mation system.

(USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). USDA and

FAO collect, maintain, and publish world

agricultural statistics; develop and maintain

world, regional, and countrv supply-demand THE USDA SYSTEM: DEFICIENCIES

estimates for agricultural commodities; con- AND OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

tinually analyze the supply-demand balances

and the factors or events influencing supply and Responsibility for the System

demand; and release reports containing the

results of their assessments of the current situation, near-term and longer range outlook for food The Department of Agriculture is the only

and agriculture. 5 operator of both a national and a world

agricultural information system. The responsibility for the world system rests with two

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter. USDA agencies, the Foreign Agricultural

7
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Service (FAS) and the Economic Research

Service (ERS).

8 In addition, the Statistical

Reporting Service (SRS) provides time series

data that, although limited to domestic information, is invaluable to FAS and ERS in their

activities. 9

The agricultural attached network of FAS

provides foreign agricultural statistics and intelligence, and the Foreign Commodity

Analysis Unit maintains, analyzes, and

publishes world agricultural statistics and

reports on the situation and outlook for major

commodities. The Administrator of FAS

reports to the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs.10

Mr. David Hume, Administrator of FAS,

presented a detailed description of the Foreign

Agricultural Service (see figure 3), noting that

of FAS personnel, 125 are stationed overseas

as agricultural attaches at American embassies

and consulates and 63 foreign posts. ll T h e

functions of FAS are widespread, including

food aid, market development, international

trade policy negotiations, a Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) export credit program, intelligence gathering, and export reporting.

Commodity analysis is basic to all these operations. The task of an FAS commodity analyst

is:

... collection, analysis and dissemination of

agricultural commodity situation and outlook information relating to our foreign market and

competitor countries. . .The emphasis is on

historical data series, analysis of the current

commodity situation, and short-term forecasts, 12

The Foreign Demand and Competition Division of ERS reports its assessment of the world

and regional agricultural situation and outlook, The Administrator of ERS reports to the

Director of Agricultural Economics. (See

figure 4.)

In his testimony to OTA’s Board, Mr.

Howard Hjort set forth some general evaluation criteria to use in judging the strengths and

weaknesses of information systems. He said:

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

The factors that must be taken into account in

developing judgments about the relative

strengths and weaknesses of a world agricultural

information system are objectivity, reliability,

timeliness, adequacy in terms of coverage,

efficiency, and effectiveness. The ideal is a

system that provides users timely, unbiased interpretations of the current situation and outlook

based upon estimates of known reliability for all

commodities and countries through the use of

the most cost effective procedures known to

mankind. l3 (Emphasis supplied. )

The objectivity of the estimates transmitted

by the attache depends to a large extent upon

the accuracy of the estimates released by the

host government and the attaches judgment.l4

The reliability of the estimates that attaches

transmit is a function of the methods used to

collect and assess agricultural statistics. The

reliability of estimates from nationa l

agricultural information systems varies significantly from one country to another. Estimates of questionable reliability must be subjected to consistency criteria and modified to

make them internally consistent either by the

attache or by the analytic staff in Washington.

In general, the attache submit estimates based

on their own and local staff’s judgment after

reviewing the estimates with others on the

scene. The reliability of the estimate s

transmitted by the attache from countries that

fail to provide reliable current estimates depends heavily upon their judgment--a function of experience, interest, analyti c

capability, and the importance they attach to

the task of developing estimates. These attributes obviously vary significantly from one

attache to another but in general are influenced by what they perceive to be their

mission and by the length of time they are

posted to a country, Few attach& perceive the

collection of agricultural statistics and the

development of supply-demand estimates

to be their primary mission; instead, just as is

the case for FAS, they believe their primary

mission to be the expansion of foreign markets

for U.S. farm commodities.l5 Mr. E. A. Jaenke,

president of E. A. Jaenke & Associates, Inc.,

believes the United States has relied “far toc

8
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

L accua OIL LL-UIMCCU3 I

I J

I

a

I

9

 , , ,
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Figure 4.—Organizational structure of USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS)

Information Division Office of the

Administrator Situation and Outlook Board

Data Services Center

Deputy Administrator, Deputy Administrator,

Food and Fiber Economics Resource and Development Economics

Commodity Economics I National Economic Foreign Development Economic Development

Division Analysis Division Division Division

Foreign Demand and Natural Resource

Competition Division Economics Division

long on the educated guesses of agricultural attaches. ”l6

The timeliness of agricultural intelligence

depends upon directives from Washington, the

initiative of the attache, and the ability of national systems to generate timely information. l7

Collecting Foreign Agricultural Information

Reports from the agricultural attache are

the heart of USDA’s world agricultural information systems.l8 B Scheduled, coveragespecified reporting procedures are standardized by officials in Washington. The reports

include assessments of the overall agricultural

situation and the factors influencing production, consumption, and trade-such as prices,

price and nonprice policies and programs, and

input supply availabilities. Monthly highlight

reports provide updates to previous reports—

for example, quarterly on grains; semiannually on fats and oils; and annually on the

overall food and agricultural situation.

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter

10

In addition, special publications, press

releases, and news conferences are used to

report events of major significance more

speedily.

Assessing and Disseminating Information

The Foreign Commodity Analysis Unit of

FAS and the Foreign Demand and Competition Division of ERS share the responsibility

for analyzing and disseminating information

on world agriculture. Both rely mainly upon

attache reports but obtain intelligence from

numerous other sources, including the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA).l9 USDA personnel

noted that they cooperated with CIA and were

pleased with the interaction. 20

In addition to USDA, there are many users

of FAS information, with each user having

somewhat different needs: first, the general

public —i.e., farmers, private trade,

researchers, and consumers; second, U.S.

Government agencies—i.e., administration

policy and program decisonmakers, Congress,

and the analysts of the overall domestic and
international economic situation; third, international organizations and foreign governmerits. 21

FAS reports and analyses are published in a

number of forms 22 to meet the needs of the

different users: 1) foreign agricultural circulars, 2) foreign agricultural reports, and 3) the

weekly magazine Foreign Agriculture. (See

figure 5.)

Realizing the strategic role that FAS and

these publications play for users and decisionmakers, Mr. Hume indicated that the FAS information publications would be reviewed in

1976 in order to eliminate duplication and to

provide more timeliness of information and

improved analytical input.

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

ERS conducts a program of research and

analysis that results in reports containing

assessments of the current world and regional

agricultural situation and near-term outlook,

the longer range outlook for world agriculture,

and the implications of changes in the international monetary situation, world agriculture

and trade policies, and economic development

and trade patterns. ERS also monitors and

publishes foreign agricultural trade statistics

of the United States. 23

Dr. Quentin West, Administrator of ERS,

said that ERS develops economic information

for use by both public and private decisionmakers and provides it in a variety of ways to

diverse audiences:

Figure 5.—Publications of the Foreign Agricultural Service

/’-” 

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

11
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The audience is wide because our information

covers many subject matter areas including farm

inputs, farm production, and food processing and

distribution as major components of the U.S.

food and fiber systems; foreign agriculture production and trade; development and use of land

and water resources; and the principal social and

economic factors affecting life in rura l

America. 24

Dr. West agreed with the conclusion

reached by the OTA Food Advisory Committee report, which in his view underscores the

difficulties in trying to get information to

diverse groups:

The economic models and supply-demand

price equations which had performed satisfactorily in the more stable conditions of the 1%0’s

and 1960’s had little value in light of the changes

which occurred in the domestic and world

markets when the size of the 1972 world grain

crop became known.25

Since the basic source of data for analysis is

the same for the analytic units of both FAS

and ERS, improvements in the objectivity,

reliability, timeliness, and adequacy of information released by them depend upon the

other sources of intelligence they draw upon,

their own analytic capability, and the consistency checks they employ prior to releasing information and reports. Estimates from the

field are subjected to consistency checks, and

in some cases estimates are developed by the

analysts using analytic models that have

generated reasonably reliable results in prior

years. For example, estimates of grain production for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

are developed by specialists in the Foreign Demand and Competition Division of ERS.

Analysts in FAS rely more on simple consistency checks, experience, judgment, and trend

analyses than on models or sophisticated techniques of analysis in checking or developing

estimates. They do not conduct indepth

analyses of issues or factors influencing supply and demand. 26

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

12

The FAS analyst is a commodity specialist,

while ERS is more research-oriented. ERS

analysts are better trained in research

methodology and have more experience in the

use of sophisticated analytic techniques and

models. They conduct the indepth analyses of

issues and factors influencing supply and demand. ERS is the source of agricultural intelligence; FAS is the source of agricultural

statistics and commodity information. In recent months, the flow of unanalyzed data from

USDA’s system has increased significantly,

much more than the increase in reports containing carefully reasoned assessments of the

current situation and outlook.27 Users of such

data, including media, must be aware of the

quality of this material.

The world and regional agricultural situation and outlook reports of ERS are approved

by the Outlook and Situation Board, The

reports on the world situation and outlook by

FAS for the various commodities are not approved by a similar board. Attempts to ensure

objectivity and reliability are thus more evident with respect to the world agricultural information developed and released by ERS than

is the case for the information developed and

released by FAS.

In addition to FAS and ERS, other USDA

agencies collect basic data, sort and arrange

the data into useful tables, analyze the data, or

disseminate it.28

The activities of USDA’s Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) deserve attention. The SRS

is the Department’s major collector of current

data on domestic agriculture. In cooperation

with State crop-reporting boards, it collects

and disseminates data on crop and livestock

production and utilization and agriculture

prices.

In addition, SRS takes an annual inventory

of livestock on farms, surveys farmers on their

intention to plant, and during the growing
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

season provides monthly information on crop among the very best with respect to stat

conditions, The SRS makes production projec- reliability of the results.29 

tions, assuming normal growing conditions, up

until crop harvest. (See figure 6.)

stical

In sum, although numerous Federal departThe Statistical Reporting Service is among ments, agencies, and other institutions are inthe premier agencies in the world with respon - volved in food information systems, the key

sibility for collecting, processing, and report- generator of the information is USDA,

ing agricultural statistics, It is thought to be the especially SRS, FAS, and ERS within the

world’s best with respect to timeliness and Department. The analysis of deficiencies and

Figure 6.—Publications of the Statistical Reporting Service

\

20:m

J U L Y 1 ALL .ZATTLt AW CALvf~ IfWfNTmv ~N 5 PM!.X!!J

Al 1 catt le and calves on hmd in the un!tec S18:.s on J.ly 1, 1?70 are .s$ Ima. e 1

at 133.5 .{1 I$on hetd, 5 percent below a year earl i.. a,fl 4 fmrcert bclmm t+,

J.lY 1, 1974 e$tlmate, according to the rr.v Report t.q ‘ioard

--- Beef cons at 42.8 mf ! 1 to., are iown 9 pvrccnt fro. a yea. , ,. !., W,

6 p+rcent fran two year!. .W

. . . l!i Ik ‘ow at 1 T 1 m{ 1 I ton are drmw 1 pcrc,,nt fron last yt.r ard t. iet

Wo.

Other cl b$se$ on July 1 and the change tram 4 year car! ler and two j< ars ear) ,,. r,

respectively, are ss ?01 lows

. . . Al 1 hetfers over 502 ponds le. 9 m{ 1 I ion, dOwfl if 19@* IY d6w. f PVI

cent ,

..- Be&f replace=nt heifers 6 5 mt I non, dc+m! 12 percent and dwan 17 percent

. . . Mf Ik replacement hetfers 3.9 M{ 1 Ilcn, up s 1 Ight ly frcm \915 and 1974.

. . - Other heifers 6.4 mi11 ton, up 10 percent and up 15 p+rce.t

. . . Steers weighing 5(W pounds IB. 7 ml 1 I ic+, up 8 cwcent an6 w 2 p+rcent.

. . . B U11s weighing over 5&l pounds 2 8 mi 11 ioP, dam 10 perce.t and down

5 percent,

. . . Meifers. steers bnd b.1 1s under 500 pounds 39 3 ml ) I ion, dcwn P percent

and down 6 percent.

Thl$ rreport provides State estimates of mid-year catt Ie ma calf Inventories

by classes for 34 mdor St4tt$ b+!lch accounted for % percent of the flat ftx, !

total cattle and calves on .2uly 1, 1976. fstfmm$ for the v~ajnin9 16

States are shour as an aggregate to provide L, S. totals

‘,,/ \

Lv$n 1 (7-76 ) Fo- )nformat$on <a I c :“ 44’-t ‘“C

I

I)

NOTE: Footnoles aPPear at end of chapter.

13
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

suggested

- improvements necessarily must

focus on these key units.

Soviet Grain Purchases

U.S. grain sales to the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics in 1972 and 1973 are

acknowledged to be the prime event that

focused attention on the lack of information

about the Soviet food system. The manner and

consequences of these sales exacerbated the

world food crises, Mr. Jaenke’s testimony

before the Technology Assessment Board

members Senator Humphrey and Congressman George Brown lays the blame on poor intelligence and poor cooperation:

The Soviets would not have been able to buy

up such a substantial portion of the world’s grain

reserves in 1972-1973 at low prices had it not

been for the failure of our intelligence systems to

furnish adequate and timely information on

Soviet crop prospects and buying intentions. In

addition, the lack of coordination and exchange

of information between various Government

agencies and departments handicapped effective

action by the appropriate U.S. officials,

Without pointing the finger of blame at anyone

since the Soviets went to great lengths to conceal

this information, we wish to point up this excellent example of the importance of establishing

more effective and better coordinated information systems.30

Analysts are careful to point out that it was

not the sales per se but rather their manner,

size, and timing, Buying secretly and big

causes disruptions in the market, high food

prices, and calls attention to the sales, Senator

Humphrey concluded that the primary issue is

how to regularize trade with the Soviets in the

context of an orderly marketing system. al

The significance of Soviet purchases as a

destabilizing factor is clear from table 1 ,

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

which shows total Soviet imports of U.S. grain

during the 1970’s, in which the sharp fluctuations in Soviet grain purchases from the

United States are evident,

Table l—Total Grain Shipments From the

United States to Japan and the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics

(Thousands of metric tons)

Fiscal years Japan U.S.S.R.

1970, , , . . . ., ... , , , , 8,841 0

1971 .., . . . . . , ., . . . , 8,786 0

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,988 2,513

1973 .0..., ., ... , .. 11,779 12,880

1974. , ., ., , , , ... , , , 13,304 6,775

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10,241 2,153

1976 (preliminary). , , 11,320 13,380

TOTAL ... , .. 70,259 37,701

Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (June 30,

1976).

The average

moderate, less

Other countries

ample, Senator

yearly sales were in reality

than 6 million metric tons.

actually import more, For exHumphrey noted that “last

year (1974), the Chinese actually bought more

wheat and corn from the United States than

did the Russians.

32 Another country tha t

purchases large quantities is Japan, as shown

in Table 1 which indicates that Japan has imported more in 5 out of 7 years since 1970 and

that the difference in the other 2 years was insignificant. Japan’s purchases have not been a

destabilizing factor on the U.S. and world

markets.

Dr. D. Gale Johnson, FAC member, noting

the variation in Soviet grain purchases account

for “. . .80 percent of the year-to-year variations in world grain imports. ”33

Dr. Martin Abel, an OTA Food Advisory

Committee member, consistently underscored

, the implications of this by suggesting that the

key to improving the world food information

system required quantum jumps in U.S.

knowledge of the Soviet food supply-and-demand situation, In short, concern over ade14
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

quacy of data depends

specific country has on

upon the impact the

the market. Dr. Dale

Hathaway, director of the International Food

Policy Research Institute, elaborated:

. .it is completely unrealistic to talk of an adequate food information system that does not

have timely and reasonably accurate information

on agricultural conditions in the world’s second

and third largest grain-producing countries—the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, the

absence of such data from a country whose

population or food production is small is not of

major significance to world markets and to other

countries’ well-being. Thus, “the adequacy of data

for countries with small production and consumption levels is primarily their concern, and if

they choose for one reason or another not to provide such information, they are more likely to be

harmed as a result than is the rest of the world.

On the other hand, timeliness of information

provided is just as important for small countries

as large ones when issues of food aid, disaster

relief. and similar matters are involved; a starving person in a small country is just as badly off

as one in a very large country if food aid is too

late. Thus, timely information is essential for the

effective operation of world food programs or a

bilateral aid program.34

Dr. Hathaway concluded:

Accuracy of information is always of importance to policy makers, but here again it relates to

magnitude of the populations and production involved. A 10 percent error in production estimates for large countries such as India, the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, or the USA

creates substantially greater problems for world

policy makers than a 50 percent error in the production estimate of a country that produces or

consumes a few hundred thousand tons of grain

annually. Unfortunately, statisticians are often

more concerned about estimating errors than

policy implications of such errors and thus may

be overly concerned with accuracy in some

cases.

35

The Food Advisory Committee report found

that the consequences of the increases in U.S.

farm production and food prices caused by

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

grain sales to the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics “, , was” not publicly predicted by

authoritative sources inside or outside

Government." 36

Mr. Melvin Sjerven, senior markets editor

of Milling & Baking News, agreed, He was “absolutely convinced that no one in the Department of Agriculture, no one in the Government, had any idea how much grain the

Soviets were going to buy in 1972. ”37

Senator Humphrey and Assistant Secretary

Bell agreed that the real problem” is the Soviet

buying habit:

They have bought large amounts one year,

small amounts the following year, large amounts

the next year, small amounts the next year. small

amounts the following year. This has tended to

add” a degree of instability to the market.

. . and the purpose of the long-term agreement. , .is to try to smooth out that buying pattern and bring more stability to the market.s~

Assistant Secretary Bell said we need the

Soviet market:

.,.if we are going to continue to run American

agriculture at full capacity, We still have more

resources available to us under our system of

agriculture than we can adequately use to feed

our own people and generally Western allies and

the developing countries,

So I think the main benefit we get from selling

grain to the Soviet Union is that we run

American agriculture at full capacity, In the

longer term, that means lower food prices for

everyone.

39

Assistant Secretary Bell explored the significant steps that the United States had taken

to better understand Soviet food supply and

demand conditions. These were:

● June 1973, “Cooperation in Agriculture

Agreement Between the United States

and the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics;” 40

15
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

. Improved interagency cooperation and

increased use of collaborative data, such

as weather data; and

. Internal USDA changes.

In reviewing the Soviet record under the

Agriculture Information Exchange Agreement, Assistant Secretary Bell gave the Soviets

good marks. He said: “On the whole, the

Soviets have followed the reporting schedule

rather closely for the initial 10 categories of

data. ”41

Information received under the agreement

contributes to quicker access to data on actual

values (but not forward estimates) of commodity production or related information for

the current or most recent year. It also provides some data not previously published on a

systematic basis by the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics—for example, numbers of

livestock slaughtered, oil and meal production,

and fertilizer use by major crops, ” . . informaion of a very current nature that will enable a

better assessment of foreign trade prospects in

grain and feeds.”42

On the other hand, some of the deficiencies

that continue to impede a more complete U.S.

understanding of the supply-demand conditions in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

are related to:

● delays in transmission;

. lack of forecasting data; and

. lack of historical data.

Bell said:

Allowance must be made, of course, for delays

in transmittal. The first-of-the-month livestock

count, for example, which the Soviets have

agreed to provide in mid-month, typically arrives

in the USDA analysts’ office during the first

week of the following month. The usefulness of

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

16

new data series has been limited in several instances because the Soviets frequently have not

provided historical data in the series.

In addition, there has been some feeling that

the Soviet data are less detailed than was expected. . (The most serious problem seems to be

that) the Soviets have not yet demonstrated

willingness to implement the forward estimates

provision of the agreement.qs

. . . when we ask for forward estimates, they

say, well, this is what the plan says, , .And not

until the year has been completed will they admit that the plan was not fulfilled. And it gets involved in how the Soviet system works.44

He indicated that the United States has tried

to overcome this gap and improve the

availability of Soviet data by sending teams to

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in an

attempt to better understand their economy

and to meet and interact with the Soviet decisionmakers, economists, and agriculturalists,

In sum, the Assistant Secretary indicated that

the U.S./U.S.S.R, agreement is enabling the

United States to get information on what is

going on in the Soviet farm sector much sooner

and in a much more useful form than prior to

1972.

It is recognized that:

Data acquired under the agreement probably

will continue to make only a marginal contribution to current situation and outlook work on

grains and feeds until a program is worked out to

implement the provision of forward estimates.45

In addressing the question of whether the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics actually

has more data that could be made available,

perhaps on a more timely basis, Assistant

Secretary Bell concluded:

I am confident, though, that there are regular

data which are flowing toward Moscow on the

crop conditions and the crop situation during the

harvest. How this is put together and who it goes

to we have been unable to really find out, though

we did have a team over there that did look at

how they gather statistics and so forth,
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Hopefully, some day we will be able to tap into

that system and get something. But as of now we

have not.46

Dr. Abel, in summing up for the Food

visory Committee, said:

The adequacy of data on Soviet food

agriculture continues to be a problem. .

Adand

.The

present long-term grains agreement between the

United States and the Soviet Union is an alternative way of obtaining some information from the

Soviets about trade prospects. However, this

agreement is only a partial answer to minimizing

the erratic price movements in grains caused by

large changes in Soviet purchases.47

He also suggested that:

It may be time for the agricultural committees

to take another hard look at just how far we have

come in getting needed information from the

Soviet Union, why we are not getting more information, and what can be done about it.

., .it might be worth considering ways by

which the United States might help improve the

timing and reliability of Soviet data. If. . such

collaboration is not possible or desirable, then

continued efforts will have to be made to find

ways to keep the Soviet Union from unduly disrupting world grain markets. 48

Interagency Cooperation: Weather Data

Interagency cooperation in the U.S. Government also makes an important contribution to

USDA’s analysis of the Soviet situation. This

is exemplified in the gathering and application

of weather data both to confirm Soviet reports

and to assist in estimates of current Soviet crop

prospects. The significance of this improvement was underscored by Assistant Secretary

Bell, noting that the Department o f

Agriculture’s principal

the l-year forecast,

forecast is much more

He pointed out that:

difficulty has been in

where the weathe r

difficult to deal with. 49

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

 ,

The weather data are by far the most important source of information used in making Soviet

grain forecasts as the crop progresses. so

Weather data permit the USDA researchers

to estimate regional weather indexes of grain

crops and to estimate national grain yields.

The principal source of weather data used

by Soviet analysts in the Department of

Agriculture is the Air Force Environmental

Technical Applications Center (ETAC). ETAC

regularly brings this weather data and their

timely monitoring of radio stations together in

a computerized system for USDA.

The ETAC weather data are supplemented

by other sources—for example, more current

but less processed weather information is

available through facilities of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). This information is checked to supplement ETAC data at critical stages of Soviet

crop development.

Assistant Secretary Bell added that the

Department of Agriculture is able to validate

to some extent ETAC’s information, since:

The Soviets also publish 10-day weather and

crop reports in their daily agricultura l

newspapers. The information. . . generally is

available in Washington within not more than 1

week at the end of the reporting period. (This information is) of some use in evaluating the stage

of crop development and the probable impact of

varying weather conditions on crops. 51

Dr. Robert White, NOAA Director, substantiated and underscored the fact that:

,.. emerging technology for observing and predicting weather conditions can make our

agricultural information systems more effective

in increasing agricultural productivity and assist

in policy decision making. 52

Dr. White discussed three ways

weather information can be of

value:

in which

increased

17
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(1) It can help the farmer directly, enabling

him to carry out his daily task with

greater efficiency. Weather information

a day or two in advance can affect the

,way in which he protects, sprays, harvests, or sows.

(2) It is useful to Government policymakers

as a part of an agricultural warning and

assessment system.

Such weather information from our country

and others plus an understanding of the relationship between the weather and crops can enable

us to assess the impact of the recent past and present weather conditions on crop production, thus

generating a basis on which both operating and

policy decisions can be taken.53

(3) It can help Government and private

grain trade to assess the problems of climate and anticipate its further changes.

An ability to predict changes in average

weather conditions over a period of months,

seasons, or years could be valuable in alerting us

to possible adverse or beneficial growing conditions both in this country and around the world.

Such information could be useful in planning

decisions on agricultural production, storage of

agricultural reserves, food export policies, and

preparation of disaster assistance.54

Organizational Changes

Assistant Secretary Bell pointed to organizational changes made within USDA since 1973

to improve its food information resources.

Organizational changes were designed to improve and strengthen the Department’s

analytical capacity of the Soviet food sector.

An interagency task force was established in

1973.

This task force on Soviet agriculture has provided a means of coordinating information on

the Soviet Union and making this information

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

public on a prompt and systematic basis. It includes representatives of four USDA agencies—

the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Economic

Research Service, The Agricultural Marketing

Service, and the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service. During the principal production and marketing seasons, it meets every 2

weeks under the chairmanship of the Director of

the FAS Grain and Feed Division.

Discussions within the Task Force have

brought together information which has provided the basis for policy decisions within the

Government this year, relative to Soviet trade. It

was this group that first alerted people within the

Government to the drought developing in the

Soviet spring grain areas this year—and then

made this information public in a series of

reports and releases. 55

Other organization changes were noted as

the OTA Board probed a suggestion made in

the FAC report that Congress hold hearings to

“determine what improvements in the Foreign

Agricultural Service and Economic Research

Service have been made since 1972–73 and

what further improvements are feasible.56 

Mr. Hume detailed other steps that have

been taken by USDA since 1973 or those actions that were to be taken:

●

●

Thorough review of the USD A

agricultural attache system. Noting that

the agricultural attache system is the

heart of USDA’s data gathering, Mr.

Hume indicated that in 1976 USDA

would complete “. . .a detailed review of

the attache reporting system with the objective of consolidating and refining it to

tie information more closely to the needs

of information users and to our analytical

system. ”57

Improving the analytical capability of individuals within FAS. Mr. Hume said that

to accomplish this 1) commodity analysis

specialists are receiving additional training; 2) increased qualifications are being

demanded, especially in economic techniques and the use of computers; and 3) a

better rotation system is being developed,

18
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

in order for junior personnel to develop a

thorough understanding of the USDA

Washington operation before accepting a

field assignment.

To emphasize the demand side of the supply-demand equation and to improve its

automatic data-processing (ADP) facilities

FAS has established an ADP Steering Committee to coordinate data processing and computer support within the Department of

Agriculture. 58 Likewise, ERS has made

changes since 1973 to assure more timely, accurate, and objective information. Noting that

the basic contribution of ERS to the food and

agriculture information system is economic

analysis, Dr. .West said:

. . . we have placed our first priority on improving our analytical capabilities, especially in our

m a j o r e c o n o m iC s i t u a t i o n a n d o u t 100 k

programs. 

59

He also discussed improvements in the type

and timeliness of information provided and

the efforts of ERS to improve the flow of data

as raw material or input to their analytical

process.

60

The three major steps taken to improve

ERS’- - --- -- -- . . . . -- .

1.

2.

3.

S analytical capability has been to..

.

Reorganize its resources to focus on subject matter areas and to bring the

research program into more direct support of the situation and outlook work.

Reprogram $600,000 and relocate 19 staff

positions to the situation and outlook

work and longer-term programs.

Request about $500,000 in additional

resources to provide an increased number

of highly capable, quantitatively oriented

economists. These additional resources

should strengthen the commodity situa -

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

tion and outlook staffs and establish

forecast support units, which have

become the focal point for development of

commodity, cross-commodity, an d

foreign country models that are becoming

increasingly operational as a part of

USDA’s forecasting work.

Another important change reported during

the last 3 years is improved forecast procedures. USDA has developed a regular

program of producing new forecasts each

quarter on what they consider to be the most

likely changes for the 3 to 4 quarters ahead,

An informal matrix in figure 7 illustrates the

organizational structure of the ERS long-range

projections program.

Then we supplement this forecast with contingency analysis using alternative assumptions

on such key variables as weather and levels of

exports. The results of these analyses and the underlying assumptions are then discussed in group

meetings with other key staffs from USDA,

Council of Economic Advisors, and the Federal

Reserve Board, Treasury Department, and the

Library of Congress. This interaction helps test

the soundness of our assumptions and

analysis. 62

Major improvements have also been attempted in ERS’s publications program:

Most conspicuous has been our new monthly

Agricultural Outlook situation report. This

serves as an outlet for brief reporting on our continuing appraisal of the situation for commodities, farm income, farm inputs, foreign production and trade, transportation, and farmretail price spreads, Our target is to furnish

through this new publication full updates of our

forecasts each month to provide our best estimates of the agricultural situation. . ,Other

changes in publications to provide more timely

information include issuing the report,

“Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, ”

containing updates about monthly important

basic commodities going from once a year to

three times a year in publishing World

Agricultural Situation and from annual to quarterly assessment and publication of Outlook for

U.S. Agricultural Exports.6s (Figure 8,)

19
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Figure 7.—informal research matrix of the organizational structure

of the ERS Economic Projections Program

Information Outlook &

Dvision ADMINISTRATOR Situation

Board

L

I

m ------------ q

I

■ ■

Nat Econ Foreign

Demand & Commodity Nat Res. Economic

Anal DiV

Foreign

Compet DIV

Econ DIV con DI V.

Dev. DIV. Dev. DIV.

I I I 1 ,

I PROGRAM AREAS I

Economic ProjectIions

& Analytical Systems

I

I 1

1’ 1

Other

Government 

Agencies

:

National-inter Project Ion Coordinated

Ag ProjectIons Team Project Ion

(N I RAP) System Coordinators Teams

I

I

S>urri AqrIcII/fL, rc n fhc TF rc Ccnldry ht.{, 1 !376 humbcr 1 Comp!led

by Or Leroy OU<I,lC? USDA EF3S

 Formal Organ !zatlon s

 Informal Organizations ,

Informal Cooperation,

Cross Program Area

Planning & Cooperative,

Research Agreements

20
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Figure 8.—Publications of USDA’s Economic Research Service

WORLD

AGRlCULTURAL

situation

ECONOMIC [ARCM U.S. Department OF Agriculture

21
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Concern over the obsolescence of

agricultural data systems was evidenced by

Dr. West:

We feel that ERS should take the lead in

reviewing and changing data series that no

longer provide the most meaningful descriptions

of food and agriculture. . . (ERS) has the special

task forces to assess the farm income and price

spread, market basket and market bill statistics

and make recommendations for improvement.64

Dr. West discussed the steps that ERS was

taking to develop a flow of data that would fill

its major gaps in data available for analysis.

First priority is to combine some programs of

ERS and SRS, add some resources, and implement an annual economic survey of the farming sector. This would provide data for improving the supply-response analysis, farm income estimates, capital accounts, consumption of major inputs, and some environmental

analysis. Second priority is to start collecting

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

DIVISION AND

PROGRAM AREA

RESPONSIBILITY

IN ERS

Figure 9.—Information

FDCD

data that would allow significant improvements in ERS’s analysis of the structure, cost

and performance of the farm input, food-processing, and food distribution industries.

ERS still must improve its data on foreign

agriculture. Dr. West indicated that ERS

worked closely with FAS to establish a more

complete data base on world production of

grains, that they have worked with FAS and

FAO to improve information on fertilizers, and

that they are continuing discussions with FAO

about more access and use of an extensive

supply-utilization information system which

they have been developing over the past 4

years. Finally, he said, “An increasingly important part of our effort for improving data

flow is to more fully apply current computer

technology and capabilities in managing and

analyzing the large volume of data we work

with.65 Figure 9 illustrates one such information flow, the ERS shortrun forecasting process.

flow in uSDA’s shortrun forecasting process

I

Commodity, Supply, I

Farm Income,

Use, Price Retail Prices I I

COORDINATION

Interagency Division Outlook Outlook and Situatlon Board

ERS chairs, ASCS, Food and Fiber

Estimates Committees Coordinators FAS, AMS Economics

ASCS chairs, ERS, FAS CED, NEAD, FDCD Other Interested agencies Program Areas

I I I I

R

E P

O

RTS 

ASCS-Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service NEAD-National Economic Analysis Division

FAS—Foreign Agricultural Service CED—Commodity Economics Division

AMS-Agricultural Marketing Service FDCD-Foreign Demand and Competition Division

ERS-Economic Research Service

22
He also looked toward future improvements:

Our first priority is to bring to fruition the

plans we have laid out for improving the flow of

data. This includes both the plans for getting

more of the data we need and for more effectively managing and analyzing the data we

already use. . .Our most immediate needs are for

a continuous survey of food purchases by consumers, a flow of data on the economic aspects

of land and water resource use, and data on

structure, cost and practices of the farm input,

food processing and distribution industries. . .To

improve the flow of foreign data, we plan to critique the grains data base improvement work

we have been doing with FAS.66

In sum, these highlights presented by USDA

officials Bell, Hume, and West attempt to

show the specific actions taken since 1972 to

improve the timeliness and accuracy of the

key units in USDA responsible for food information resources.

NON-USDA COMMENTS

Naturally, USDA statements of pride in

their resources and the steps taken to improve

their information resources since 1973 might

be viewed as self-congratulation and puffery.

To test this, OTA asked principal user groups,

grain and processing industries, and farm

organizations to comment. To a person, it was

agreed that:

The USDA system is excellent, the best in

the world;

USDA has taken numerous corrective

steps since 1973 which seem appropriate,

and USDA seems to be receptive to

further suggested changes; and

Additional perfecting improvements

could be made.

A good example of this is found in the comments of Mr. Hosea Harkness, director of planNOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

ning of Cook Industries. He made it clear that

an international grain trading company lives

day by day with the agricultural statistical information which is available and taps every

source it can locate. In addition, it continuously attempts to verify by its own intelligence the most recent market developments.

Commenting on the Economic Research

Service, Mr. Harkness noted that since 1972

the Situation and Outlook Board has improved

its operation. He suggested, however, that

each Supply-Demand Report could be

broadened to give further explanation of the

parts of the supply-demand balance tables.

Regarding the Foreign Agricultural Service,

Mr. Harkness feels that:

. . .it does the best job in the world in putting

world statistics together on a comparable basis.

They have speeded up their release of data considerably since 1972.67

He emphasized that the Outlook and Situation Board reports of the ERS were the only

economic type of information which a large

segment of private industry has and noted that

this was especially critical for any firms or

organization which cannot afford a staff of

economists.

.we must recognize that there are many people, and companies and organizations, which are

smaller than we (Cook Industries) are who cannot afford to have this type of personnel on their

payroll, and ERS is very essential to them.68

Comments made by Mr. Melvin Sjerven of

Milling & Baking News, one of the most read

and respected weekly trade magazines for

managers of grain milling and baking, underscored Mr. Harkness’ conclusions and recommendations. Mr. Sjerven said: “. . owe have

been very much impressed with improvements

(since 1972) . . and that commendation is accompanied by strong urging for further improvements. ” 69

23
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Sjerven said that there is almost a

surplus of information in 1975, which is an improvement from the scarcity of information in

1972. With a few notable exceptions, he found

the current informational reports of the

Department of Agriculture to be timely and accurate. These exceptions were:

1.

2.

The conflict between wheat export inspections data as provided by the

Agricultural Marketing “Service and accumulated exports as reported by the

Foreign Agricultural Service in its weekly

issuance of the U.S. export sales.

A need to coordinate information derived

by the various agencies before releases

are made.70

Mr. Sjerven, as did every OTA witness, held

in high regard the integrity of the publications

of USDA’s Statistical Reporting Service. He

was favorably impressed by the Situation and

Outlook Reports of ERS and recommended the

expanded use of such advanced technologies

as remote sensing and analysis of weather

data. He also suggested that advances in information technology be pursued and utilized and

that:

. . .Government agency responsibilities should

shift from providing a proliferation of projections

and estimates to a coordination of information

with special emphasis on consumer needs. 71

A suggestion for organizational changes

was also noted by Mr. Sjerven.

. . in the process, some shifting of responsibilities among the agencies would undoubtedly

be in order. Certainly, conflicting data should be

reconciled as much as possible.72

Mr. David Keefe, general partner and head

of the Lamson Commodity Group, a 10l-yearold New York Stock Exchange member, firmly

agreed with the accolades and commented

that:

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

24

The USDA has done

adapting to the dramatic

an admirable job of

changes that have oc- . —

curred in the world food/feed grain situation in

the last 3 to 6 years.73

.

He felt that it had “aggressively initiated

programs to improve on the accuracy and

timeliness of reports on the world food situation. . . “ and that “, , , USDA is doing a tremendous job in surveying and reporting on

this rapidly changing and complex world

agricultural situation. 75

Testimony by representatives of farm

organizations was complimentary on the issue

of the Departments’ food information system.

Mr. Reuben Johnson, legislative representative

of the National Farmers Union, said:

I may shock a few people for making this

statement—but we in the Farmers Union

generally find the Department of Agriculture’s

statistical information and related resources to

be highly useful to us.76

Mr. Charles Frazier, director of the

Washington staff of the National Farmers

Organization, echoed the comments made by

Mr. Johnson in terms of the good job that the

Department of Agriculture does in providing

information. 77

Mr. Eugene Hamilton, chief economist with

the American Farm Bureau Federation, agreed

with his colleagues:

On the whole, I think the Department of

Agriculture and its statistical agencies do an excellent job. . .And while I’m certainly in favor of

improvements, I think the Department’s batting

average is very good. ..78

Mr. Johnson suggested some specific improvements that USDA might make:

. Devote more of its energy to reporting on

the relationships between price that the

farmers receive and the price (costs) that

they pay.

. Do a better job reporting on the parity

ratio.
●

●

●

Provide guidance to the farm community

in the area of supply and demand—i. e.,

regarding crop projected supplies.

Provide better information on marketing

margins 79 because of their considerable

effect on farmers and consumers.

Attempt to resolve differences in numbers

when they occur, just as differences are

hammered out by the Crop Reporting

Board before the Board makes its

forecast. 80

Differences developed over Mr. Frazier’s

suggest ion that USDA find a method to

regularize the distribution of informal,

unevaluated marketing information. 8l This

was not acceptable to Mr. Hamilton who was

concerned that the Department could not

escape criticism if it put out information hurriedly and made mistakes. 82

Mr. Frazier recognized that this would be

highly speculative information and that individuals would have to be willing to accept it

without any guarantees of certitude, with indications for example, “at the top and bottom

of every page that this is a projection—this is

an estimate. . .“83

SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Agricultur e

(USDA) maintains one of the two key food information systems. USDA operates both a national and a world system and is regarded as

the best source of information. Other institutions-such as international organizations,

private firms, and other countries—

acknowledge their dependence on USDA data

as their benchmark.

Substantial changes have been made since

1973 in FAS and ERS to improve USDA’s

system. These changes include:

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

modifying the agricultural attache ’

system;

Inadequate analysis; 87

USDA’s fragmented organization structure; 88

attempting to get better information on

the Soviet food situation;

releasing more timely crop forecasts;

effecting changes in organizational structure;

placing more emphasis on demand, including collecting new data areas; and

using modeling and remote-sensing technologies.

Participants, while noting this progress,

pointed to a number of deficiencies that persist

and additional changes that they felt should

be made. Deficiencies and suggested improvements are discussed in the following text.

DEFICIENCIES

Interspersed with the favorable review of

USDA’s food and agriculture information

system were several comments on deficiencies

that, if corrected, would improve USDA’s

effectiveness and efficiency.84 These deficiencies can be grouped into four categories:

. Poor national systems; as

● Collection of inadequate and/or obsolete

data ;

8 6

● improving staff analytical competence;

● upgrading publications and eliminating

duplication;

Deficiencies Due to Poor National System

The supply-demand estimates produced by

national agricultural information systems

25

7, -1 I , ) - i, . ,
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

vary greatly in reliability, timeliness, and adequacy. There are a number of countries where .

estimates are seldom released in a timely manner.

89

This problem is especially acute in developing countries and has impacts on both the

USDA and FAO information systems. The

FAO report, in discussing this deficiency in

developing countries, said:

In perhaps 100 or more of the developing countries, the national information systems are so

poorly staffed that the data supplied by FAO is

lacking in reliability. There is great variation in

the agricultural information systems found in

these less developed countries. Many countries

lack even a recent census of agriculture, Others

have agricultural census data collected at regular

intervals supplemented by sample surveys and

by reports of knowledgeable people at regular

periods throughout the year.90

The supply-demand estimates produced by

some national agricultural information

systems lack objectivity. To prevent this

problem from impairing the objectivity of

USDA’s system, USDA analysts must develop

a deeper capacity to generate unbiased estimates for the country of concern; and those

managing the USDA world system must be

prepared to defend the revised estimates.

The scope of the intelligence system operated by the attaches is broad, but its adequacy

is impaired by the lack of uniformity of

coverage in terms of both content and geography.

Attache discussions of the factors that influence production and supply tend to be more

complete and frequent than their discussions

of the factors influencing the demand for

agricultural products, The attache or their

staffs base their discussions of demand upon

extremely simple analytic techniques or pure

judgment instead of on formal models. that

generate results of known reliability.

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

The adequacy of the intelligence system

operated by the attache also remains below

its potential due to inadequate coverage of

several important agricultural countries. The

most notable gap in this respect is the lack of

an attache in the People’s Republic of China.

Our intelligence gathering in many centrally

planned economies is weak to nonexistent.

Efforts by the USDA to improve its

agricultural attache system is a recognition

that improvement in data systems of the

developing countries is a long-term expectation at best. Thus, the USDA must improve its

capacity to make judgments in light of poor

and nonexistent information. Seth and

Cochrane rate this deficiency as so critical

that the United States should take appropriate

steps to improve national data:

In order to make the best possible estimates. . the Department of Agriculture needs the

best possible political and economic intelligence

about world supply and demand. The U.S.

Government ought to take the leadership in helping to improve crop and livestock reporting services for other countries, the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization, and the new

World Food Council.91

Deficiencies Due to Collecting Inadequate

and/or Obsolete Data

The reliability of the supply-demand estimates forwarded by attaches varies significantly. In addition to the problems with national systems, reliability is reduced due to the

low priority given the development of estimates by some attache, the lack of knowledge

about the country due to frequent reposting,

and inadequate training or interest in the use

of analytic techniques.

The issue of obsolete data was discussed in

the OTA Food Advisory Committee report,

which Dr. Don Paarlberg, Director of

Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, found to be quite comprehensive.

26
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(I feel) it... serves the very useful purpose to

highlight concerns about inadequate information. . .The problem of obsolete data series. , ,is a

pertinent one, primarily caused by changing

structure and changing flow of economic activity

in our food and agriculture system.92

Mr. Eugene Hamilton noted that some

agricultural data series are obsolete and that

this was well illustrated by the Food Advisory

Committee’s discussion on broiler prices.93

The fact that USDA had some inadequacies

in the data they collected was discussed by Dr.

Quentin West in terms of work that needed to

be done:

Our staff has also done a lot of work in planning how to meet some of our other major data

problems. One of these is a continuous survey of

consumer food purchases so we can improve our

forecasting and analytical capability with

respect to food prices through better measures of

price and income elasticities and demand

shifters. A second longer range plan is to fill in

the many economic and social data needs on the

use, the changes in use, and potential capacity of

our land and water resources.94

“ He indicated that USDA is in the process of

trying to identify major data gaps and that it

plans to provide the resources to fill these

voids, It is Dr. Paarlberg’s view that such improvements can best be made by:

...the managers of the key agencies, those

who know the data problems and the difficulties

of change most thoroughly, and who must carry

through on commitments for change. They are in

the best position to modernize, coordinate, and

standardize the food and fiber data series.95

Referring back to the OTA Food Advisory

Committee discussion on “Technical and Institutional Obsolescence of National Food and

Agriculture Information Systems,”96 He added

that the point on obsolete data series:

. . .is well taken. Agriculture changes rapidly

and it is important to keep our statistical series

updated, and some of them are frankly a bit out

of date.

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

We have had the review committees come in

and work with us on this from the American

Agricultural Economic Association, and the

American Statistical Association. We have

reviewed several of our specific series, particularly the farm income series. We are updating

the definition of a farm which I think will bring

us more current with regard to the present nature

of the farm, 97

In a statement on April 28, 1976, before the

Subcommittee on Family Farms and Rural

Development of the House Agriculture Committee, Dr. Paarlberg said, the definition of a

farm that has been in use since the late 195o’s

is any place under 10 acres with annual sales

of $250 or more of agricultural goods, and any

place of 10 or more acres selling $50 or more of

goods. The new definition would be any

establishment from which $1,000 or more of

agricultural products is sold or would normally be sold during a year.

Deficiencies Due to Inadequate Analysis

The analysts in FAS rely almost exclusively

on experience, judgment, and trend analyses

in making initial forecasts of supply-demand

balances for the commodities. However, trend

analyses in recent years have failed to provide

reliable results. More detailed analyses of the

factors that determine production and consumption are required to improve the

reliability of USDA’s world estimates,

There is clear imbalance in USDA’s system;

more data for analysis are being provided

from the field and other sources than are adequately analyzed, This imbalance stems from

insufficiently precise data and from an inadequate analytic capability, It is also a function

of the organizational structure USDA uses to

operated the world system. There is need for

more precise reporting from the field on the input situations and outlook and the factors influencing consumption requirements.98

Mr. Hume commented on USDA’s analytical deficiencies. He noted that:

27
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Most of our analytical work is currently based

on simple trend models, experience and commodity knowledge, and common sense. We think

this has given us a pretty good track record, and

with the re-emphasis on reporting, etc., we have

shown improvement over the past 2 years. This

is not to say, however, that we have achieved

perfection. We have been criticized at times for

shortcomings in providing timely data and for a

lack of sophisticated, econometric input to our

analysis. We think that with (additional) professionals we will be able to move forward in this

area but we feel we should add a note of caution

in that there are severe limitations i n

econometric modeling and in the data requirements for these models. Progress and improvement from this source will be slow.

We are moving forward in other areas as well.

To date, most of our work has been on the production and trade side. We are now moving to

emphasize the demand side. We have added a

specialist in macro-economics to provide our

commodity specialists with forecasts and

analysis of the general demand situation in major countries.99

In essence, Dr. West recognized the need to

make improvements in USDA-ERS analytical

capability and outlined the steps and actions

being taken in personnel, organization,

forecast procedures, and publications.l00

Mr. Harkness noted that the techniques

which Cook Industries and other grain companies utilize in their analytical process are

mainly geared for timeliness:

.,,the attitude that we must take on most

Government statistics is that this is the base, but

there is necessity for timeliness here. . .And one

point I would like to make along this line is the

fact that I repeatedly hear out of FAS, “Well, we

haven’t heard from the cable we sent two weeks

ago.” If we want to know something today we

pick up the phone and call. We don’t wait to send

a cable,. . . And I don’t know if this can work

within the Government, that you pick up the

phone and call, but by the same token this is one

solution we have to the timelines s

problem. . .We’re continuously analyzing all the

known components of what makes a crop

report.

l0l

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

Harkness noted that the grain industry

places a high premium on information and

that at Cook Industries he has an unlimited

budget;

. . .in other words, if there’s a job to be done I’m

there. So I don’t even know what my budget is as

a part of the total. . .It’s just a matter of timeliness, because these things can’t wait.102

Deficiencies Due to Organizational Structure

The organizational structure used by USDA

to’ operate its world agricultural information

system seems to impede efficiency and effectiveness. Mr. Hjort’s comments indicate the

difficulty in using analysts efficiently and

effectively when responsibility for the output

of a system is divided between two completely

separate agencies.l03

Permitting the responsibility for the world

agricultural information system to be shared

by two different agencies—with the key agency, FAS, having program and policy responsibilities-seems to make the system weaker

and open to the possible charge of lack of objectivity.

Cochrane and Seth’s prepared remarks and

discussion makes this point, while adding a

suggested way to resolve this conflict:

There is a confusion of functions in this setup

and a potential conflict of interest that may contaminate the quality of the information and

analysis.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has a .

primary responsibility to expand foreign markets

for U.S. farm products. This makes suspect the

assessments of world commodity situations and

outlook prepared by the Foreign Commodity

Analysis Unit of FAS. One way to overcome this

apparent conflict of interest would be to transfer

this analysis unit to the Economic Research Service (ERS). Commodity specialists in ERS

already perform much of the same kind of

analysis in foreign commodity situations. It is

logical to combine the two staffs and to place

them under ERS, which has no “action” responsibility. Its duty is to provide economic in28
Intelligence for users of

ment policymakers.

its reports and for governFAS also has a responsibility to collect facts

and collate information about world food and

agriculture conditions. To achieve the maximum

objectivity, it would be desirable to separate this

fact-gathering function from the sales promotion

agency and to assign it to the Statistical Reporting Service (SRS), which has the sole function of

preparing factual reports on agricultural data.

However, the responsibility for collecting foreign

agricultural data necessarily must remain with

the agricultural attach& under FAS until such

time as specialists in crop and livestock reporting

can replace them.l04

The mission of FAS is to expand foreign

markets for U.S. farm commodities. The mission of ERS is to develop and carry out a

program of economic research designed to provide economic intelligence for users. FAS has

responsibility for administering action

programs; ERS does not. The mission of FAS

and the vested interest that FAS thereby has in

U.S. and world estimates may make it difficult

for those in the Foreign Commodity Analysis

Unit or the attaches to maintain objectivity

with respect to assessments of the world situa -

tion and outlook. The consensus of OTA

hearing witnesses was that it would be extremely difficult for USDA’s world agricultural information system to reach full potential under the present organizational setup.

Another organizational question was raised

by Mr. Hjort. He pinpointed a serious flaw in

the national agricultural information system

operated by USDA, and said:

The responsibility for outlook and situation

reports rests with ERS and the Outlook and

Situation Board, but the authority for U.S. commodity supply-demand estimates is outside ERS.

The reliability of the U.S. agricultural information system is, as a result, seriously impaired.l05

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Hjort concluded:

U.S. supply-demand estimates are developed

by Interagency Commodity Estimates Committees (ICEC) chaired by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), Members

of the committees are drawn from the Economic

Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. Responsibiltiy for foreign trade estimates

rests with the member from FAS; the responsibility for domestic estimates rests with the

representative from the Economic Research Service. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service has the responsibility for administering price support programs for farmers,

and FAS has responsibilities for administering

export expansion programs, Both, therefore,

have a vested interest in U.S. supply-demand

estimates. USDA’s Outlook and Situation Board

approves outlook and situation reports on U.S.

agriculture, but the ICEC’s supply-demand estimates are taken as given by the Board. USDA’s

supply-demand estimates for the United States

have been wide of the mark in recent years.

While both domestic- and foreign-demand estimates have been in error, the magnitude of the

error in the export estimate has been much larger

either due to changes in the basic world food

situation, faulty analyses, or bias. Investigations

of the reasons for errors in the estimates have

centered upon ERS, the agency with responsibility for the estimates but without authority

(analogous to the Outlook and Situation

Board). 106

Several participants in the OTA study noted

this need for organizational changes, either

consolidation as noted by Mr. Keefel07 

or major reorganization as outlined by Mr. Hjort. l08

In sum, the analysis shows two types of

deficiencies in USDA’s system, one caused by

deficiencies in other systems—i.e., national

and FAO, which require compensatory USDA

action—and another caused by the USDA

organizational structure, grounded in a potential for conflict of interest. Suggested improvements follow.

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

29
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study generated

numerous suggestions as to how the existing USDA food information

system might be improved. These suggestions have been grouped into

three areas; the suggestions are listed first, followed by discussion on the

significant items.

L Improving the Accuracy and Timeliness

of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Information System

A. U.S. Department of Agriculture

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Congress should hold hearings to determine what improvements have

been made in the Foreign Agricultural Service and Economic Research

Service since 1972-73 and what further improvements are feasible.

(Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 9, 22-23.)

The USDA should create an economic intelligence agency which will

combine the commodity analysts from FAS and ERS into one unit.

(Hjort, Hearings, p. 95.)

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service must no longer

head the Interagency Commodity Estimates Committees, and the chairmanship of the ICECS ought to be transferred to the agency responsible

for the operation of the U.S. agricultural information system. (Hjort,

Hearings, p. 95.)

The USDA should coordinate the information that its various agencies

generate before the release of such information. (Sjerven, Hearings, pp.

138-1 39.)

The USDA world and feed grain summaries and outlook reports should

be updated monthly. (Keefe, Hearings, p. 144.)

The USDA should generate summary reviews and speculative comments on new crop prospects, purchasing intentions, and the political

pressure involved in other countries. (Frazier, Hearings, pp. 159-1 60.)

A World Crop Reporting Board should be set up within USDA that would

review all sources of country production information (attache reports,

foreign-released statistics, etc.) from all departments of the Government on a timely basis. This Board would set a forecast or estimate that

would be acknowledged within Government (USDA, State, etc.) as the

best number. (Harkness, Hearings, p. 134.)

30
B.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The Secretary of Agriculture should be requested to establish an

agricultural statistical review committee charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Congress and appropriate

executive agencies for modernizing, coordinating, and standardizing

the food and fiber series. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 7,

19-21 .)

The USDA should make an effort to report the farm input prices actually

paid by farm and ranch operators in order to obtain timely information

on the rapidly rising costs of production at the farm level. (Frazier,

Hearings, p. 159.)

USDA’s Economic Research Service should assume full responsibility

for world food intelligence now shared by three agencies within USDA.

(Cochrane and Seth, Hearings, pp. 201 -202.)

The ERS should:

a. Strengthen its ability to analyze, evaluate, and interpret current

world information on a monthly basis during the crop-growing and

early harvest season;

b. Increase its ability to analyze current world weather data and interpret their significance in terms of probable crop production in the

current season;

c. Develop world models of production, utilization, trade, and prices for

more important agricultural commodities, especially grains, which

permit timely evaluation of new data on a monthly basis during the

growing and early harvest season. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 22-23.)

The ERS should have exclusive jurisdiction over the analysis and

publication of outlook information. (Keefe, Hearings, p. 143.)

The Foreign Agricultural Service should train its attach& in data collection, expand its reporting capabilities in the critical developing

countries, improve its data transmission and the timeliness of its summaries, improve its reports for the major commodities on probable import requirements of the importing countries, and finally, improve its

reports on world agricultural requisite supplies and requirements,

especially on fertilizer. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp.

22-23.)

Bureau of the Census

1. The U.S. Congress should study the desirability and feasibility of integrating the staff and activities of the Census of Agriculture with those

of the Statistical Reporting Service of the Department of Agriculture.

(Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 6, 21.)

31
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The Census of Agriculture should be replaced by sample surveys, and

much of the census data would be better obtained annually over a 5-

year period, with emphasis once every 5 years on generating county

estimates. (Paarlberg, Hearings, p. 11 9.)

The Census of Agriculture ought to be abolished. (Trelogan, Hearings,

p. 367.)

The Statistical Reporting Service ought to integrate the gathering of all

agricultural data in its probability sampling programs. (Trelogan, Hearings, p. 356.)

The responsibilities for the Census of Agriculture should not be transferred to the Statistical Reporting Service. (Office of the Director,

Bureau of the Census, Hearings, p. 373.)

It is exceedingly important to preserve the independence and integrity

of the Bureau of the Census. The collection of benchmark data from a

complete Census of Agriculture enterprises is a critical national

priority. (Bureau of the Census, Hearings, p. 373.)

The Bureau of the Census should issue the reports of the Census of

Manufactures on a more timely schedule. (Sjerven, Hearings, p. 138.)

C. Fertilizer

The several congressional committees having responsibility for the executive agencies that collect and publish the various series of data relating to fertilizer should conduct studies and hearings to determine ways, means, and costs

of improving the fertilizer information systems. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 8, 20-21.)

D. General

1. More studies are needed to examine domestic wheat utilization by

class and to treat livestock feeding in greater detail. (Sjerven, Hearings, p. 138.)

2. The food information institutions ought to use more simplified graphs or

charts in order to summarize pertinent changes that may occur on a

monthly basis in the food economy. Such a procedure would be

beneficial to both marketing participants and consumers. (Keefe, Hearings, p. 1 44.)

3. Better world statistics on livestock numbers should receive appropriate priority. (Harkness, Hearings, p. 133.)

32
—

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

4. There should be a continuous flow of data on the economic aspects of

land and water resource use and of data on the structure, costs, and

practices of the farm input, food-processing, and distribution industries. (West, Hearings, p. 127.)

5. Government agency responsibilities should shift from providing a

proliferation of projections and estimates to a coordination of the information’ they generate. (Sjerven, Hearings, pp. 138-1 39.)

Il. Integrating Nutrition Information Into the U.S. Food Information System

A.

B.

c.

D.

A.

B.

c.

D.

Consumer needs should receive a special emphasis in the management of

information generated by the U.S. food economy. (Sjerven, Hearings, p.

138.)

There should be a continuous survey of food purchases by consumers—i.e.,

a weekly or monthly data survey of consumer food preferences-and

developing trends in the public’s purchasing habits should become institutionalized. (West, Hearings, pp. 126-1 27.)

The Congress should request that USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service expand substantially its program evaluation studies. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 9-10.)

The United States should develop a national nutritional status surveillance

program. A first step in such a development ought to involve the adequacy

of design and integration of the ongoing nutrition surveys being conducted

by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the planned

Household Food Consumption Survey to be conducted by the Department

of Agriculture. (Food Advisory Committee, Hearings, pp. 9-10, 29-33.)

Ill. Using Advanced Technologies

Experiments and analyses utilizing new technologies for obtaining and

analyzing data should go forward on an expanding scale. (Food Advisory

Committee, Hearings, pp. 9, 23-24.)

Remote sensing and weather data technologies reports should reach their

users on a timely basis. (Sjerven, Hearings, p. 138.)

The United States should broaden its capabilities in satellite weather technologies in the context of a more comprehensive food information system.

(Hathaway, Hearings, p. 79.)

Should Congress decide to support a global food information system based

on advanced satellite technologies, it is strongly recommended that a

centralized data-processing and analysis facility be established for the

33

I II. I
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

multidisciplinary group of scientists responsible for its operation. Such a

team ought to be self-contained and autonomous. (Park, Hearings, p. 327.)

E. The immediate employment of the LANDSAT satellite is an urgent priority.

(Park, Hearings, p. 327.)

F. The global needs of agricultural weather forecasting demand a considerable increase in the number of agrometeorological stations and the reporting

of their climatic information at the very least once every 10 days. (Park,

Hearings, pp. 333-335.)

G. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should have

advanced computers with enough capacity and speed to use data for the

development of global climatic models. (White, Hearings, pp. 273-274.)

I. IMPROVING THE ACCURACY AND TIMELINESS OF THE U. S.,

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE INFORMATION SYSTEM

Although the Economic Research Service

and the Foreign Agricultural Service have

made substantial improvements since 1973,

OTA participants noted additional improvements that they felt should be made. Timely

and accurate information on food production,

stocks, and prices in foreign countries is as important to the Congress as information on the

domestic food industry. Yet USDA agencies

that collect, analyze, and disseminate foreign

information do not follow the same rigorous

procedures in handling it as they apply to

domestic crop, livestock, and price reports.

Objectivity is a prime requirement of a food

and agriculture information system. At the

present time the agency (FAS) which collects

the foreign food information and issues most

of the reports on foreign food production also

has the mission of expanding farm exports.

Both the quality and the objectivity of information gathered and analyzed under these

conditions may be compromised.

Reports received from the USDA’s attache

network are the primary source of foreign food

and agriculture information. Attache’s prepare

many reports and provide much information,

34

but few are specialists in the collection or

analysis of food data. These tasks are not perceived to be their primary mission. Frequent

changes in attache assignments also adversely

affect the quality of information they provide.

A long-range solution to this problem would

be the employment of specialists in the collection and analysis of food information posted

for extended periods in major food exporting

and importing countries. The near -

term solution is to require the attache to provide more precise data and information on the

use of land, use of agricultural inputs, animal

populations, income, prices, and other supply

and demand factors. Inadequate analysis of

available data, however, is recognized as an

even greater and more serious weakness than

inadequate data; thus the overall short-run

improvement in the international food and

agriculture information systems depends

mainly on how many analysts are employed

and how effective they are.

Neither USDA nor FAO (to be discussed in

the following chapter) has the analytic

capability to generate timely and reliable information for all commodities and countries
where existing national food information

systems are now inadequate, A deeper

analytic capability must be developed to improve the reliability of current assessments of

the world situation and outlook for food and

agriculture.

The consensus of OTA participants was

that a key way to harden this analytical

capacity was through improvements in

USDA’s organizational structure, elimination

of obsolete data series, and updating of other

key series such as the Census of Agriculture

and fertilizer information.

Mr. Hjort feels that the objectivity of

USDA’s international and national food and

agriculture information systems is threatened

and its efficiency and effectiveness hampered

by the current organizational structure of

USDA agencies. l09 The responsibility for the

international food information system is

shared by two officials in the Office of the

Secretary; and the system is operated by two

completely separate agencies; one also having

action program responsibilities that make it

difficult to maintain objectivity.

The responsibility for reporting on the U.S.

food situation and outlook rests with ERS and

the Outlook and Situation Board, but the

chairmanships of national commodity supplydemand estimates committees are held by

staff members in the agency that administers

farm programs, the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service.

In the interests of improved objectivity,

effectiveness, and efficiency, the responsibility

for both the international and the national

food information systems should be assigned

to one official, who would have the sole mission of providing economic intelligence on U.S.

and international food supplies and prices.

The staffs that gather data, analyze it, and

provide economic intelligence would be

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

responsible to this official rather than to agencies having as their primary mission the expansion of farm exports or the maintenance of

farm income. Reorganization was viewed by

most as a necessary condition to achieving the

maximum effectiveness of the national and international food systems operated by the

Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Hjort discussed alternative means of accomplishing the necessary reorganization. ll0

One method would be simply to transfer the

Foreign Commodity Analysis Unit from FAS

to ERS and make it another division of that

agency. Another would be to combine the

Foreign Commodity Analysis Unit from FAS

with the Foreign Demand and Competition

Division from ERS into a new agency, one

with the sole mission of providing economic

intelligence on world agriculture.lll The third

alternative would be to combine the foreign

commodity analysts from FAS, the U.S. commodity analysts from ERS, and the foreign

and national analysts from ERS into a single

economic intelligence agency with responsibility for assessing and disseminating information of world and U.S. agriculture.

The potential for meeting objectivity criteria

would be enhanced under any one of the

reorganization alternatives, Overall efficiency

and effectiveness would be lowest under the

first alternative, higher under the second, and

highest under the third. However, it is felt that

even the first alternative would represent an

improvement over the present organization

simply because it would become possible for

the first time for a single agency to plan and

carry out a coordinated program of analysis.

Efficiency and effectiveness would be higher

under the second alternative because the

system’s operation would be directed by more

senior professionals. The third alternative promises the highest efficiency and effectiveness,

as it provides the opportunity to eliminate the

duplication associated with the operation of

two systems. It is not necessary to have one

group of commodity analysts for the world

and another for the United States. U.S.

35
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

analysts cannot perform effectively unless

they take the world situation and outlook into

account; world analysts cannot perform effectively unless they take the U.S. situation and

outlook into account. Efficiency and effectiveness would obviously be improved by combining the knowledge of these analysts.ll2

Among the improvements suggested by Mr.

Hosea Harknessll3 and endorsed by several

witnessesll4 was the creation of a World Crop

Reporting Board in the U.S. Department of

Agriculturell5 with responsibility for reviewing all national and international information

on a timely basis and issuing reports that

would be recognized as authoritative

throughout the Government and the food industry. Harkness felt that regular monthly

reports by such a Board—with official supplements when new developments warrant, including analysis of the current data—would be

a substantial improvement over the current

frequent release of unanalyzed data. Mr.

Harkness recommended:

...that a World Crop Reporting Board be set

up within the USDA that would review all

sources of country production information (attache reports, foreign released statistics,

weather-yield analysis, check data, etc.) from all

departments of government on a timely basis,

This Board would set a forecast or estimate that

would be acknowledged within the Government

(USDA, State, etc.) as the best number. Thus, we

would eliminate duplicate numbers floating

within Government. This would eventually lead

to more credibility for the private user.ll6

Mr. Hume and Dr. West were asked to comment on this suggestion. Mr. Hume responded

that in his view “this would inevitably slow

up the providing of. . .information.ll7

Dr. West indicated that this kind of thing

was done on an informal basis.ll8 The principal objection or concern to the establishment

of such a Board designed to develop a number

to eliminate duplicate numbers was the delay

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

36

that might be incurred from getting clearance

for “the number.”

. Seth and Cochrane felt that while this

seemed to be a reasonable proposal, “we

believe improving the present (Outlook and

Situation) Board’s operation and strengthening ERS and SRS would accomplish the same

result and should be tried first.ll9

Regardless of action taken regarding a

World Crop Reporting Board, the necessity for

deeper capability for analysis of the factors influencing world agriculture seemed to be

generally agreed upon by everyone. Additional

analysts may be employed, but doing so and

using them inefficiently would not be a costeffective solution to the problem, Under a

reorganization it may be necessary to increase

the number of anaIysts and field staff of the

new or augmented agency. However, while the

need for developing, verifying, and using more

sophisticated analytic techniques seems evident, this need not imply increased numbers of

people. Instead, the task is to make more effective use of the analysts and positions now

available,

Variation in national data keep th e

reliability, timeliness, and adequacy of

USDA’s world system below potential. There

are two alternatives to prevent this: provide

additional technical and financial assistance

to help improve national agricultural information systems with respect to these attributes, or

strengthen the analytic component of USDA’s

world system so that more reliable and timely

national estimates can be generated within the

system. Both approaches may be pursued,

recognizing that the former will take longer to

accomplish than the latter. In the near term,

the only alternative is to improve the analytic

capability of USDA’s world system.l20

Errors in estimates by the Interagency Commodity Estimates Committees also were

singled out for correction. It is necessary to

take program operations into account when

developing supply-demand estimates, but the
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

accountability for the estimates should rest

with the agency organizationally responsible

for them, Mr. Hjort felt that the chairmanship

of these committees should be assigned to the

agency with responsibility for operating the

agricultural information system and that the

members should be drawn from the agencies

with responsibilities for programs that have

an impact on supplies or demand.l21

The creation of an economic intelligence agency, and combining commodity analysts from

FAS and ERS into one unit, provide the opportunity for improving reliability of U.S. supply-demand estimates, but this major flaw in USDA’s

national agricultural information system will

continue to impair reliability unless the chairmanship of the ICECs are taken from ASCS.l22

.

Seth and Cochrane noted a potential conflict of interest (real or apparent) in the present arrangement of the ICECs being chaired

by an official of the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service.

They agreed with Mr. Hjort:

. . . that the chairmanship of the ICECs should

be removed from ASCS. Further, responsibility

for foreign trade estimates should be removed

from FAS and representation of that agency on

the supply-demand estimates committees should

be removed.l23

The Problems of Obsolescence

Many of the data series now being maintained by SRS were started 40 or 50 years

ago.

l24 They were designed to provide information about food and agriculture at that

time. To the extent that the food and

agriculture industry has changed since then,

these older data series are based on obsolete

concepts, definitions, and measurements.

Maintaining obsolete data systems is wasteful.

Analyzing obsolete data leads to inappropriate conclusions. One good start in improving

the national food information system would

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

be removal of outdated information prior to

the collection of additional data for analysis.

This issue has gained increasing attention

on the part of analysts in recent years, but it is

a difficult one with which to deal. Failure to

bring the series up to data, on the part of administrative officials charged with their collection and publication, is closely related to interests expressed by data users in the continuity of a series,

The Food Advisory Committee reportl25 indicated that more rapid progress would probably be made if the Secretary of Agriculture

were to establish an agricultural statistical

review committee charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the

Congress and appropriate executive agencies

for modernizing, coordinating, and standardizing the older food and fiber data series.

One example of obsolescence is found in the

issue of whether farm statistics should be integrated.l26 Two sets of developments have

necessitated changes in methods of collecting

farm statistics. They are technological

changes in farming and simultaneous progress

in statistical technology,

Quality checks on the Censuses o f

Agriculture for 1964 and 1969 indicated that

data were 8 and 17,6 percent incomplete,

respectively. Typically, years rather than

months elapsed between the time of collection

of the data and the reports published. In short,

agricultural census data no longer meet users’

needs with respect to completeness and timeliness,

Methods for probability sampling to yield

greater accuracy of estimates have been in use

for current crop and livestock estimates for

several years. They are now being expanded

to gather economic data of this type previously

made available by the Census of Agriculture

after serious delays. The stage is set for the

avoidance of considerable unnecessary

duplication of effort through the integration of

37
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

the Census of Agriculture activities and the

probability sampling methods of the SRS.

The Food Advisory Committee report urged

a study of the desirability and feasibility of integrating the staff and activities of the Census

of Agriculture (Bureau of the Census, U.S.

Department of Commerce) into the Statistical

Reporting Service (Department o f

Agriculture) .127

The hearing record generated discussions

on both sides of the issue. A paper prepared by

Dr. Harry Trelogan suggests that the “integration of the present systems offers opportunities

for alleviating these problems with no more

expenditure for data collection than are now

projected.’’ l28 The statement submitted by the

Bureau of the Census, however, makes the

point that consolidation and integration

“would not result in. . gains in quality, timeliness, and reduction in costs to the Government. . . “129 In addition, t he census Bureau -

believes:

It is exceedingly important that an independent agency, such as the Bureau of the Census,

continue collecting benchmark data and that

these data be obtained from a complete Census

of Agriculture enterprises.l30

Support for the integration and use of sampling procedures has been voiced by the National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture in a resolution passed at its 1975

annual convention.

131 Professor Tweeten’s

testimony supported their position:

We can also obtain more information about

the structure of U.S. agriculture by moving

resources now used in the agricultural census to

the Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) as proposed. . .The agricultural census currently is processed much too slowly and is all too reluctantly

made available in detail to analysts for policy

research. Because SRS data are more reliable

than those of the agricultural census (which is

no longer a census but a mailed sample survey),

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

38

much can be gained by moving census resources

to SRS to obtain economies of size, timeliness,

reliability and increased responsiveness to data

needs. l32

The USDA position on this issue was

detailed by Dr. Paarlberg. He commented on

the Food Advisory Committee report discussion on the timeliness and reliability of data as

it relates to the Bureau of the Census, saying:

The question of needed changes in the

agricultural census, including possible transfer of

the operation to SRS, is a complex issue without

an immediately clear answer. What is clear is

that the agricultural census program needs to be

modernized to use current data gathering techniques, to more nearly meet the data needs in today’s more specialized agriculture and to develop

ways to produce the results in a more timely

fashion. It is also clear that much closer coordination between Census and SRS needs to take

place, and if the activities remain in two separate

Federal departments, there should be greater provision for efficiencies of planning and operation.l33

Dr. Paarlberg felt that the census should be

replaced by sample surveys and that much of

the census data would be better obtained annually over 5-year periods with emphasis once

each 5 years on generating county estimates.

We consider the agricultural census enormously important, and we frankly feel that it has

not been given the importance that it deserves in

the Bureau of Census, and there has been much

delay in coming out with the data. . . .We think

that it could be improved and could be made

more timely, and the questionnaires could be

made more brief if they were targeted at the particular groups that must respond, We think it

would be possible to update the techniques and

use a probability sampling technique.l34

Dr. Paarlberg exhibited bureaucrati c

restraint, saying:

We are not ambitious to take over that service.

If the census could be given greater importance,

and brought out more quickly, we would be very

happy to see it stay where it is, But if it is not

being afforded the importance it deserves, then

frankly we would look with favor on seeing that

it was afforded that importance.l35
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The collection of fertilizer information and

its analysis and dissemination are shared by

10 governmental agencies and at least two industry-financed trade associations, The

Bureau of the Census issues monthly reports

on the production of inorganic fertilizer

materials; the Bureau of Mines issues reports

on potash, phosphate rock, and sulfur production; and the U.S. Tariff Commission issues

reports on production of organic materials,

especially urea. The SRS collects fertilizer

utilization information from State regulatory

agencies; and finally, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics collects and publishes monthly fertilizer prices,

Users of these data are unhappy with this

excessive fragmentation of fertilizer information, the poor quality of the data provided by

some agencies, incompleteness in inventory

data, and failure to issue the many reports on

a coordinated time schedule, Although it may

not be feasible to consolidate the collection of

information on fertilizer materials, the quality

of some of the data could be improved substantially, and their release could be better

coordinated,

Regarding the OTA discussion of a more

fully coordinated fertilizer information

system, Dr. Paarlberg noted that USDA partipates in an Interagency Fertilizer Task Force

established by the President’s Economic Policy

Board, He felt that this has been a useful activity and a forum for discussing problems and

information on fertilizer. Dr. Paarlberg said

that USDA looks to the Statistical Policy Division in the Office of Management and Budget

as having the authority to bring about closer

coordination in information that is scattered

across several agencies of the Government.l36

(Figure 10 shows some of the reports on fertilizer information distributed by USDA).

Figure IO.—Fertilizer reports distributed by USDA-ERS

---- ’

– -1

I

WORLD

FERTILIZER

REVIEW

AND

PROSPECTS

TO 1980/81

39
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Options to Make the USDA Information

System More Accurate and Timely

Congress has a range of options for making

the U.S. food and agriculture information

systems more timely and accurate. It may rely

on the executive branch to make the improvements indicated by the above analysis. Many

of the improvements indicated as needed could

be achieved by the executive branch without

any changes in legislation. Even in these

cases, however, Congress, if it wishes, could

speed the adoption of improvements by communications from committee chairmen and

ranking minority members requesting that action be taken to achieve those improvements

which could be made without additional

legislation. The scheduling of oversight hearings and issuance of directives as a part of the

appropriations process are other means of

stimulating executive improvements.

Changes in existing legislation will be

needed to achieve an integration of the Census

of Agriculture and the sampling procedures of

SRS. Changes in existing legislation also may

be required to achieve significant improvement in the U.S. fertilizer information system,

Many of the improvements suggested could

be achieved without additional governmental

expenditures. The reorganization of FAS and

ERS, creating a world economic intelligence

unit, and the consolidation of the Census of

Agriculture with SRS could be achieved without significant additional costs. The expected

benefits, as indicated by OTA’s study participants, should lead to substantial opportunities

to improve the U.S. food information facilities,

11. INTEGRATING NUTRITION INFORMATION137

Throughout the world, food disappearance

data are utilized as an indirect measure of the

nutritional adequacy of food consumption. In

the United States there is a plethora of information relative to food availability and disappearance, The Department of Agriculture, on

the basis of food disappearance data ,

publishes the percentage of total nutrients contributed by major food groups and quantities

of nutrients available per capita per day. It

publishes a National Food Situation four times

a year that contains many statistical tables

portraying food supplies available, food disappearance, and food prices, However, no agency

of the Government collects and publishes relevant national data on the nutritional status of

major population groups in the United States.

A total of 903 bills dealing with food and

nutrition were introduced into the 93rd Congress.

l38 The principal nutrition issues appeared to be:

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

40

Poverty as the principal correlation between hunger and nutritional deficiencies;

Nutritional deficiencies associated with

distorted food behavior, including overconsumption, found at all social and

economic levels in the United States;

Food and nutritional needs of special

groups, such as pregnant women ,

preschool children, ethnic minorities, and

the aged;

The effort of a major transfer of food preparation and service responsibilities to

the commercial sector; and

The quality and safety of the food supply.

Difficulties of Obtaining Meaningful

Nutrition Status Information

In 1969, a panel at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health agreed
on the need to strive for two basic objectives in

nutrition policy:

. The establishment of a monitoring

“system to evaluate the effectiveness of

Federal food distribution and other

programs to improve nutritional status;

and

. The establishment of a nutritional surveillance program to identify potential

problems before large groups are adversely affected and as a basis for designing applied nutritional programs to correct nutritional deficiencies, especially

among the poor.

Meaningful food consumption and nutrition

surveillance information is far more difficult

and far more costly to obtain than comparable

information on food production. This arises

primarily because of the difficulty of measuring nutrition deficiencies and related food consumption. Part of the high cost results from the

fact that existing technologies require clinical

analysis as a part of a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s nutritional status.

Changing technologies might make less

difficult the obtaining of useful information on

the nutritional status on a more timely basis.

Nutritional scientists also are not fully

agreed on the significance and reliability of

specific tests for nutritional deficiencies.

Further, information on nutritional status involves consideration of nutrition-related

public health issues, where in many instances

cause-and-effect relationships have not been

fully established. It is because of these and

other obstacles that little progress has been

made in establishing a monitoring and surveillance program as recommended by the

1969 White House Conference,

Nutrition and Food Consumption Surveys

The Federal Government does, however, carry on two activities that provide nutrition information based on consumption rather than

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

food disappearance, One is the Health and

Nutrition Examination Surveys, which have

been conducted for several years by the National Center for Health Statistics, HEW.

Another is the nationwide Household Food

Consumption Surveys, which were started in

1935 and have been continued at approximately lo-year intervals. The last one occurred in 1965, and another is in the planning

stage, to be carried out in 1977. These surveys

have been conducted by the Food Economics

Institute of the Agricultural Research Service

and its predecessor.

Users of the information provided by the

Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys

are critical of the small samples used, the

failure to choose samples on a probability

basis, and the excessive time lapse between

gathering the data and publishing the results.

Users of previous Household Food Consumption Surveys report that the design of these

surveys was deficient. It proved impossible to

relate the household food consumption information to important social and economic

characteristics of the populations sampled.

Statisticians and automatic data-processing

specialists are helping the USDA consumer

and food economics staff to develop plans

which will utilize the latest developments in

sampling theory, automatic data-processing,

and information transmission in the 1977

Household Food Consumption Survey, A

closer integration of the health and nutrition

surveys conducted by HEW and the Household

Food Consumption Surveys conducted by

USDA appears feasible and highly desirable.

Dr. West took exception to the OTA report’s

stating that the food and agricultural informa -

tion system was basically an impersonal, production-oriented system. He said:

Although we don’t integrate nutrition information into our analysis, we have made a couple of

other improvements in the past 3 years that we

think are consumer-oriented, The first was to increase greatly the detail of our information on

price spreads and components of marketing

41
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

costs. This is an effort to explain more fully the

reasons for changes in food prices, who gets

what from the consumer’s food dollar, and to

identify areas of research for improving the efficiency of the system.

A second effort to communicate to consumers

is our recent introduction of a monthly TV news

service on current agricultural information. We

have been successful in getting these outlook

oriented features used on prime-time evening

news shows in most major television markets.l39

Dr. West also mentioned startup efforts to

better monitor food purchases:

. . . a continuous survey of consumer food

purchases, so we can improve our forecasting

and analytical capability with respect to food

prices through better measures of price and income elasticities and demand shifters.l40

Mr. Sjerven noted that a recent editorial in

the Milling & Baking News called attention to

the fact that:

Consumption analyses recently issued by the

Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture fill a void in data about flour

and baked food usage that rank publication of

the information as an important turning point in

breadstuffs knowledge. , ,The study provides

facts about past and current flour consumption

trends of a type and of a value never before

available. . . 141

,..The innovative efforts involved. , ,go right

to the point of these hearings into the timeliness

and accuracy of current information o n

agriculture. This study recognizes the limited

usefulness of the Household Food Consumption

Survey. , which is published only once every 1 0

years. Our excitement over this study also

reflects the importance to domestic users of grain

and to the growers of the data provided by the

various bra riches of the Department of

Agriculture. l42

Mr. Sjerven suggested “that the measurement of nutritional well-being ought to be

assigned to someone. ’’l43

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

Options for Integrating Nutrition Information

The concern of Congress regarding the costeffectiveness of the Federal food assistance

programs could be satisfied by appropriate

program evaluation studies. Congress, in its

annual appropriations for the several food

assistance programs, could authorize that a

small part of the appropriations be used for

evaluation studies and mandate that they be

undertaken. In addition, it could set general

guidelines for such studies.

Although the Office of Management and

Budget has the responsibility for reviewing

and integrating Federal surveys, it does not appear to have expended much effort on the

coordination of the HEW Health and Nutrition

Examination Surveys and the USDA Household Food Consumption Surveys, Oversight

hearings on the design and compatibility of

these two ongoing surveys, if conducted by an

appropriate congressional committee, should

be effective in increasing by a significant

amount the nutritional information developed

in the analysis of the data from these two now

largely unrelated surveys.

As advancing technology is applied in making nutritional tests and analyzing the resulting data, it should be possible to develop less

costly nutritional surveillance techniques than

have been available in the recent past, This

process could be speeded up substantially by

funding limited experimental programs in

nutritional surveillance over a period of years,

thereby hastening the time when it will be

feasible to launch a national nutritional surveillance program as recommended by the

1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.

If Congress allocated as little as 0.1 percent

of the annual cost of the Federal food assistance programs to program evaluation studies,

it would be spending $600,000 for such purposes. Clearly, Congress can require that adequate program evaluation studies be under42
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

taken without appreciably increasing total

Federal food assistance program costs.

It is highly probable that expenditures of

$100,000 to $300,000 annually on improved integration of ongoing surveys and experimental

nutritional surveillance programs would result

in” a significant improvement in nutrition information over a 5- to lo-year period.

The Food Advisory Committee report recognized that the nutrition component of their

food information system report was not adequately covered. A supplementary statement

prepared by Dr. Robert Nesheim, chairman of

OTA’s nutrition panel, details specifi c

followup to be taken by the committee, His

complete statement is found in the hearing

record (pp. 341-344); however, this summary

stresses the importance of nutrition in a food

information system by appending key portions

of Dr. Nesheim’s statement to this summary

and analysis, (See appendix IV.)

III. USING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES

OTA’s Food Advisory Committee report expressed approval of various U.S. Government

agency activities and plans for exploring the

potential of advanced technologies to make

agricultural information systems more effective. The committee report concluded:

We believe it is urgent that the experiments

and analyses utilizing new technologies for obtaining and analyzing data go forward on an expanding scale as preliminary results, including

cost effectiveness analysis, justify. These newer

technologies offer great promise for the years

ahead.

l44

The committee report also noted the potential that advanced technologies have to improve agricultural information systems in

developing countries. The report suggested

that Congress:

,. direct AID (the Agency for International

Development) to increase its technical assistance

for improvement of agricultural information

systems, including the introduction of advanced

information technology, in developing countries

now most deficient in their agricultural statistical in formation.l45

OTA’s hearings pursued these FAC comments. Papers were commissioned, and a

panel of experts representing the private secNOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

tor and four executive agencies—NationaI

Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), U.S. Department of the In -

terior/Geological Survey, U.S. Department of

Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which have been

cooperating for several years—examined

issues relevant to these matters.l46

Three satellite systems—LANDSAT, METSAT, and DATASAT—have some utility in

the agricultural area, but our principal interest

is with LANDSAT.l47

LANDSAT is the NASA project which is attempting to determine the usefulness of

satellite-acquired remote-sensing data .

NASA’s Mr. Charles Matthews discussed the

advantages of sensors:

These satellites utilize advanced sensors

which gather data in the most effective regions

of the spectrum (the visible infrared and eventually, microwave wavelengths), not just the

visual wavelengths to which cameras are essentially limited, Another advantage of these sensors is that their data can be produced in digital

form, permitting rapid processing and analysis by

computer, This is essential both for handling the

large volumes of data acquired and also to get the

most information out of the data.l48

LANDSAT–1 was launched in 1972; LANDSAT–2 in 1975; and LANDSAT–C wilI be

43
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

44
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

45
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

launched in 1977. These LANDSAT satellites

are designed to be operative until 1980. LANDSAT data are expected to have a wide range of

uses, and thus have received the attention of

numerous U.S. executive agencies, including

the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and Corps of

Engineers, in addition to those to be discussed

in this summary, Also in the private sector, the

multinational grain exporters have shown

considerable interest in LANDSAT, as well as

international organizations, such as the Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, World Meteorological Organization,

and the International Wheat Council, “

Remote sensing technology shows progress

toward providing information for:l49

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

water availability: demand (irrigation)

and supply (snow cover);

weather modification;

irrigated land inventories;

impacts of changing land use o n

agriculture;

rangeland management;

flood mapping;

indications of climatic change;

exploration for phosphates for fertilizer

production;

energy resources;

demography;

soil classification;

crop inventories:

plant figure estimates; and

acreage devoted to agriculture, both in

the United States and within other nations.

The advantages to be gained from the use of

remote sensing seem to be legion. Mr. Matthews and Dr. Howard Hill (USDA) both noted

the benefits of remote-sensing information,

Dr. Hill:

Quicker and better information on world crops

could: 1) help the United States and other counNOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

46

tries to better manage agricultural production

and to minimize fluctuation in price and trade

volumes; 2) provide early warnings of crop shortages due to adverse weather; 3) provide timely indications of crop diseases and insect infestations

which could affect world food supplies; and 4) provide production and supply information to international organizations such as the Food and

Agriculture Organization for use in carrying out

their responsibilities.l50

Mr. Matthews:

. . .more accurate and timely knowledge of current and projected world crop production. . ,is required in planning and affects crop production

and distribution. Exports to other countries,

possibly involving millions of tons of grain, could

be more effectively planned with less disruption

to domestic markets and with better general

economic effectiveness if world crop production

could be readily estimated more in advance and

on a continuing basis. Planting, marketing aid,

and transportation decisions in producing countries are all based on crop inventory information,

which is often available only after harvest and is

frequently of uncertain accuracy in many countries. ., .A crop inventory system utilizing

remote-sensing technology and the global

meteorological system appears to offer great potential for upgrading existing informationgathering capabilities and for contributing to a

more long-range solution of the food supply

problem. , .151

He pointed out that advanced technologies,

combined with current crop estimatin g

methods and historical production data, help

reduce the annual uncertainties affecting the

management and marketing of major crops.

Faster, earlier, and more accurate forecasts

should assist in rational planning for the more

effective use of supplies and should improve

emergency food distribution both in th e

United States and abroad. l52

While noting the advantages, Mr. Matthews

was quick to point out that remote sensing was

not expected to be a substitute for present traditional sources of information:

The accuracy of the satellite techniques. , are

in most cases dependent on good supporting surface measurements (ground truth). That is, the

satellite information generally cannot stand
alone without good point source data. The advantage of the satellite is not in replacing the in

situ supporting measurements but in generalizing these measurements to areas so vast (country

or regional scale or larger) that no other known

technique can provide the integrating informtion.

l53

In mid-1973 the Secretary of Agriculture, as

part of the Department’s continuing efforts to

apply advances in technology to improving

available food and agriculture information,

created a Remote Sensing User Requirements

Task Force with representatives from most

departmental agencies, Eight of these agencies

employ remote-sensing data in their programs,

This task force has completed its cataloging of

the Department’s remote-sensing information

requirements. Over 2,000 items of information

useful to the Department’s programs were

identified as being potentially collectible by

remote-sensing techniques, A task force implementation team—made up of USDA

specialists, representatives from NASA, the

Department of the Interior, and universities—

has analyzed the requirements of the different

programs in terms of priority of needs and

available technology, Next, the cost-effectiveness of applications will be studied; and

finally, a proposal for an integrated research,

development, and implementation program

will be submitted to the Secretary of

Agriculture in fiscal year 1978.

Responding to the question of the use of

remote sensing. Assistant Secretary Bell gave a

personal view:

I think that in 4

remote sensing will

crop forecasting, not

in other places.l54

to 5 years from now, the

be very beneficial to us for

only in the Soviet Union but

He reviewed the present U.S. use of

satellites to photograph Soviet crops:

We are using the satellite to give us information on the Soviet crop situation. At this stage,

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

the usefulness is quite limited, . .The Soviet

Union becomes much more hazardous in terms

of trying to estimate than our own country.

because of where it is geographically located. It is

so much further north, the season is much

shorter, and it is subject to change very

quickly.

l55

The Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment

(LACIE) is the best example of USDA’s effort

to exploit advanced technology and improve

its agricultural information system. LACIE is

the first attempt to use and measure the

cost/benefit of such use in the agricultural

area. This experiment pulls together several

new and emerging technologies into one comprehensive system.

LACIE uses data from LANDSAT – 1 and

–2 and from meteorological satellites and existing worldwide meteorological ground data

systems in an experiment aimed at improving

global crop production estimates by USDA’s

Foreign Agricultural Service. Figures 13, 14,

15, and 16 are various types of satellite photographs utilized in information gathering,

Mr. Hume indicated that the LACIE system

could inform us of the spread of crop disease

and insect infestation which could affect

world food supplies; it could flash an early

alert of crop shortfalls due to adverse weather

and provide improved production estimates to

international organizations.l56

Dr. Hill explained the LACIE program:l57

LACIE will be carried out in three phases.

Phase 1, carried out in 1975, tested acreage

estimating capabilities in selected wheat-producing areas of the United States. Wheat yield

models were developed during this phase. Phases

2 and 3 will test LACIE capabilities to estimate

wheat area, yield, and production in the United

States and other wheat-producing regions. Phase

2 began in October 1975 and Phase 3 begins October 1976. Monthly crop forecasts will be prepared

during the growing season. Associated research

and development and tests of new techniques for

crop identification measurement and yield

estimation will be conducted throughout the experiment. . , It is important to stress that LACIE

47
)

48
49
Figure 15.—A black and white copy of a color photograph taken by ERTS-1 of the area between

Boston, Massachusetts and Norfolk, Virginia. The original color photograph contained

3 colors: bright red--depicting healthy crops, trees, and vegetation; industrial areas

show up green or dark gray; clear water as black; suburban areas in

light pink; and barren lands as light gray. NASA photo

‘-.,

. -

50
Figure 16.—lnfrared channel image showing most of Europe

from NOAA 4 Satellite, May 8, 1976,

51
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

is an experiment, and recommendations for

future program use will be based on the outcome

of evaluations that are made as the experiment

proceeds, , . .Although LACIE now is limited to

wheat, it is expected that programs and techniques developed during the experiment can be applied to the estimation of other agricultural crops

and land use. If successful and if found to be

cost-effective, a crop forecasting system utilizing

the earlier mentioned technologies would provide better and more timely crop estimates as inputs to the Department’s international crop information collection and reporting system,

LACIE is a large and technically complex undertaking, involving close cooperation between

two Departments (Agriculture and Commerce),

one independent Agency (NASA), and several

agencies within each of the Departments. The

present experimental approach should, in time,

be replaced by a user system capable of applying

current technology and the advanced technology

now planned for the 1980’s. Thus LACIE is providing an environment both for testing technology—including future technology relevant to

crop identification and yield forecasting—and for

determining how best to utilize modern analytic

capabilities in carrying out an information function. l58

Dr. Hill also discussed advanced technology, including the use of satellites with

respect to the Foreign Agricultural Service, the

Statistical Reporting Service, and the

Economic Research Service,:

Foreign Agricultural Service

The backbone of the Foreign

vice information system is its

tache Reporting System, which

Agricultural SerAgricultural Atrelies on attach&

stationed in 63 posts around the world reporting

on 82 countries,

It is necessary to aggregate, process, and summarize to a great extent the high volume of

detailed information concerning foreign production, imports, exports, consumption, and stocks

to get a meaningful picture of existing world

stocks of food and feed grains and the potential

demand for U.S. agricultural products. The

Foreign Agricultural Service utilizes a computer

system for storage and retrieval of this informaNOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

52

tion as well as for statistical analysis and simple

modeling to support its Foreign Commodity

operation.

The Foreign Agricultural Service plans to

make future use of advanced technology where it

is both cost effective and funded, Plans include

making FAS’s computerized information

systems more readily accessible to economists

and commodity analysts through interactive

computer terminals in commodity divisions. This

will allow FAS economists to have more current

information when it is needed and facilitate

statistical analysis and econometric modeling,

FAS also hopes to be able to employ advanced

techniques associated with intercontinental

message switching and data transmission to improve attache information collection and reporting. The actual use of these technologies,

however, will depend upon the outcome of a

future cost benefit analysis and the availability

of funds for such a project.

Statistical Reporting Service

Since the launch of LANDSAT–1 (ERTS 1) in

1972, the Statistical Reporting Service has conducted a continuing program to investigate the

potential use of this imagery as a tool for collecting agricultural information, The primary thrust

of the work to date has been in the area of crop

identification and the development of methods

to estimate crop acreages from LANDSAT imagery. Key components of this system under study

are: (1) design and development of a flexible

automated computerized data handling system

for data conversion, calibration, interpretation,

pattern recognition and statistical analysis; (2)

development of a multistage sampling design

that will utilize LANDSAT data, ground observations and related data in the estimation process;

(3) analyzing data acquired considering accuracy,

data acquisition cost, coverage, and availability

for optimizing number and size of ground sample

segments; (4) evaluation of alternative land use

and crop classification systems using LANDSAT

data for improving current SRS sampling frames;

and (5) comparisons of crop identification and

classification results from high altitude aircraft

photography and LANDSAT to determine potential improvements in classification that could occur with better resolution satellite imagery,

Research results show that LA NDSAT

classification accuracy for crops is closely related

to field size, field shape, and diversity of crops
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

produced, Accuracy ranges from about 90 percent for Southwest Kansas with 4 crops down to

40 percent for central Idaho with 12 crops.

Classification accuracy was improved, ranging to

about 80 percent for 15 crops in Idaho, when

higher resolution aerial photography was used.

However, operational problems related to handling large volumes of data in such a system

must be resolved before it can be tested for a

large area.

Computer software has been developed that

can match and retrieve LANDSAT data and corresponding ground truth sample data and estimates. This system allows LANDSAT information to be correlated with ground truth data obtained from routine field surveys.

The correlation (R) of LANDSAT data and

SRS ground truth data for identical areas ranges

from 0,5 up to 0,8. We believe that the LANDSAT data can be used to improve existing

acreage estimates. Further study will be conducted to test this theory for other areas of the

country and to develop cost estimates for the potential improvements using LANDSAT and other

survey procedures.

LANDSAT data will be processed on the ILLIAC IV Computer (a parallel processing system

using 64 computers linked together and a separate computer serving as the Central Processing

Unit). This computer can process over 7 million

pixels (data points) in about 12 minutes. A

digitizer that generates a system of coordinates is

used to extract sample segment data from

LA NDSAT frames (tapes) for correcting

classification errors, using ground truth acquired

by personal enumeration of sample segments.

Problems that must be resolved before this

technology can be put into any operation system

include: (1) earlier availability of LANDSAT

tapes, (2) improvements in the ability to extend

crop signatures between LANDSAT frames, and

(3) refinements in specified crop signatures that

will improve classification and measurement accuracy.

The use of photography for making orchard

tree and fruit counts also is being researched. A

computer model uses digitized information from

aerial and ground photographs. Results show

that fruit trees as well as mature oranges, apples,

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

and peaches can be successfully counted from

data obtained from photographs, The tree counts

can be used in sample surveys to estimate tree

populations while the automated fruit counting

system can be used in a multistage sampling

design to more precisely estimate the number of

fruits per tree.

Economic Research Service

The Economic Research Service provides

economic information on the agricultural sector

to public and private decisionmakers. The task

has become more difficult as U.S. agriculture

moves away from controls and comes more

directly under the influence of domestic and

foreign economic conditions. ERS has recognized

the need to apply advanced techniques to

problems of data management and it recently

centralized its automatic data processing services

into one unit, consisting of a data storage system

linked to a generalized analytical package for

estimating relations, making variable transformations, plotting data, and conducting statistical

analyses, This technology will aid analysts by

reducing the time required to conduct an analysis

while increasing the amount of data which can

be analyzed. Quality and timeliness of the

analyses will be improved and other agricultural

analysts will be able to retrieve data from the

system more quickly. Ultimately, this will

benefit the decisionmaker through improved information on which to base decisions. 159

Tentative Conclusions About LACIE

In reviewing and analyzing the LACIE

program, Mr. Matthews concluded that:

Preliminary indications, based upon our initial

assessments of the first year’s performance, are

that the LACIE acreage estimation techniques

are generally adequate, and that with incorporation of certain technical changes, desired accuracy goals can be achieved.l60

Others agreed that the first year’s results

have been favorable. Dr. White said: “In our

opinion LACIE has tremendous potential for

providing prompt, objective worldwide information on critical crops. ’’l61

However, there are impediments to fuller

use of remote-sensing data. Agencies with

53
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

operational responsibilities expressed caution

in becoming dependent on LANDSAT data,

Since, LACIE is essentially dependent upon

LANDSAT, three deficiencies are relevant to

future use of remote sensing in an agricultural

information system:

1.

2.

3.

LACIE is experimental, There is no

assurancy of continuity beyond about

1980 or even earlier if a spacecraft or

launch vehicle fails.

Data are not available soon enough to be

used in making time-critical decisions,

Standard photographic products contain

less than the complete data content of the

original digital data, thus precluding their

use in some unique applications,

Dr. John DeNoyer of the Geological Survey

(Department of the Interior) summed up these

findings this way:

The greatest bottlenecks in terms of operational uses are questions of continuity of followon satellites similar to LANDSAT, quality of data

provided to users, timeliness or currency of data

when it reaches the user, and transfer of technology to users.l62

The last two reasons are technical. The

solutions are available and NASA and the

Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS)

data center are augmenting their data-processing and distribution systems to make the

necessary improvements. Dr. DeNoyer said

that to assure continutiy “would require a

commitment by the United States and appropriate funding levels to support an operational program. “163 In the panel’s view, failure

to make such a commitment would keep the

United States from continuing its leadership in

global earth resources satellite activities.

The principal and overriding issues that

emerge from a synthesis of the prepared

papers, the testimony of individuals at the

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

54

hearings, and the answers to questions that

were submitted after the hearing is whether

remote-sensing technology can be applied on

an operational basis within a food system; and

whether the LACIE program, although not yet

complete, has provided adequate information

to justify U.S. Government financial commitment to assure expert user agencies of its continuous availability.

Table 2 details the USDA budget commitment to LACIE and other related USDA

remote-sensing activities. The low level of

funds committed emphasizes the distinction

between experimental and operational uses.

Dr. Hill stressed this:

If a decision is made to make LACIE operational, the requirement of a system with a

capability to provide routine repetitive international crop forecasts would require a continuing

flow of earth resources and meteorological data

which are available to the user within a short

time after acquisition, are repeated at frequent

intervals throughout the growing season and are

suitable for computer processing and analysis. Of

course, a decision to implement a crop forecasting system at the end of LACIE also is contingent

on a determination that information generated is

sufficiently accurate, timely, and cost-effective

to warrant an investment in such a program.l64

The most positive conclusions were reached

by the only nongovernment expert on the

panel, Dr. Arch Park of Earth Resources

Satellite Corporation, who said:

Current earth-observing satellites have

demonstrated that with the proper technical,

scientific, and institutional support, they can be

employed in an operational system designed to

provide a continuous overview of agricultural

production and agricultural land use on a global

basis with the inherent capability to forecast production in advance of harvest.l65

Dr Park noted that some of the present

LANDSAT deficiencies had to do with spatial,

spectral, and temporal resolution, format, and

throughput, l66 and he added that lack of an approved operational program has had a bad impact on agricultural investigations.l67
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Table 2.—United States Department of Agriculture* —Remote Sensing

(Dollars in thousands)

Agency

Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE)

Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic Research Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Reporting Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Research Service . . . . . . . . .

Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total LACIE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Remote Sensing

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Research Service . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperative State Research Service . . . .

Economic Research Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Reporting Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Total, Other Remote Sensing . . . .

Total USDA Remote Sensing. . . .

FY1975

(Actual)

—

$950

—

—

—

—

950

50

380

2,722

143

30

1,590

120

215

5,250

$6,200

Program level

I FY1977

FY1976

(Estimate)

$2,000

—

—

—

—

—

2,000

22

349

2,610

160

14

1,770

152

796

5,873

$7,873

(Budget

request)

$2,850

—

—

—

—

—

2,850

51

508

2,646

177

35

1,925

174

799

6,315

$9,165

‘Detailed statement of Dr. Don Paarlberg, Director-of Agricultural Economics, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Prepared for Committee on A”eronautical and Space Sciences,

United States Senate, February5, 1976.

He concluded that time from acquisition of

the data to delivery of that data (now about 3

weeks):

. . . is perhaps the most serious deficiency in the

present LANDSAT program, and denies to the

serious investigator the ability to conduct an experiment in anything like realtime. It is in every

case an after-the-fact analysis of the data. This

NOTE: Footnotes appear atendof chapter.

has had a serious impact on the experimental

program in NASA, and has resulted in a lack of

serious agricultural investigations. , .l68

Consensus and

Two major

utilized in food

Conclusion

sources of information are

information systems operated

by national governments, internationa l

organizations, and private firms. They are

satellite data and traditional collateral data.

55
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

New technologies are becoming available to

support the traditional manner in which information is collected, analyzed, and disseminated. As Mr. Matthews noted in his

testimony:

,.. traditional systems were designed to cope

with traditional problems, which the international food crisis is not. To be effective, contributions for new systems will be required.169

New systems that can address major requirements for: (1) worldwide standardized

data collection relating primarily to food supply but also to food demand; (z) rapid data processing; and (3) accurate data analysis were

described:

These (new) techniques involve the use of

remote-sensing satellites to provide large area,

worldwide, repetitive coverage as well as

weather conditions affecting agricultural yield,

These satellites utilize advanced sensors which

gather data in the most effective regions of the

spectrum, . .

(These) data. . can be produced in digital form

permitting rapid processing and analysis by the

computer, This is essential both for handling the

large volumes of data acquired and also to get the

most information out of the computer.l70

In sum, Mr. Matthews concluded that a

“marriage of the satellite, sensor, and computer, and in conjunction with traditional

techniques, (makes) a worldwide food information system. . .possible, ’’l7l (Emphasis SUpplied)

Many capabilities of remote sensing have

been demonstrated. Others are in the research

stage, Still more areas of application have not

been started, The entire potential for using

remote-sensing technology cannot be adequately measured at this time. However, the

consensus of the panel is that the demonstrated capabilities do represent a major contribution toward achieving many information

needs, More emphasis needs to be placed on

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter,

56

physical models to turn data into useful information and still more attention needs to be

placed on using this information for real

management decisions,

A recent (January 30, 1976) General Accounting Office (GAO) study of NASA’s Land

Satellite Project supports a major theme found

in OTA’s analysis:

None of the Federal agencies involved in the

LANDSAT project has developed a long-range

comprehensive plan which includes user requirements to assist in deciding if and when

LANDSAT should become an operational

system.

Related to this is the question

Government’s role in supporting

remote-sensing technology.l72

of the Federal

satellite-based

The GAO study reported that the costbenefit studies performed separately by NASA

and the Department of the Interior showed

divergent results because of different assumptions used.l73

The GAO report recommended that:

NASA take the initiative to lead the other participating agencies in developing a plan which

includes requirements, milestones, and dates for

evaluating progress being made toward the goal

of deciding if and when there should be an

operational earth resources satellit e

system, . . .Such a plan must postulate a Federal

Government policy role in satellite-based

remote-sensing technology. . . (addressing) 1) the

assignments of roles and responsibilities to the

involved agencies, 2) interrelationships among

oceanographic, meteorological, and earth

resources satellite systems, 3) alternative

organizational arrangements for operational

systems reflecting differing degrees of Government, private sector, and international participation, and 4) estimated resource and funds requirements to be filled by the Federal Government.

174

Dr. Park, understandably the most outspoken witness on the panel, concluded that:

. ! !such a system is feasible, that both the requisite hardware and software exist, and that the
creation of such an operational system would

provide the most appropriate base for the orderly

development of foreseeable technological improve ment.175

He feels that the experimental phase of the

program was finished when NASA demonstrated that LANDSAT–l worked successfully

in orbit. Thus, Dr. Park believes that the only

important function which should be changed

in terms of the existing program is a commitment by the user agencies to provide an

analytical operational capability that is presently missing in some agencies of the Government. In addition, Dr. Park strongly urged

“that a centralized data processing and

analysis facility be created for the staff that

will operate it.’’l76

Options for Accelerating the Use of Advanced Technology

The use of remote-sensing data clearly

holds great promise for increasing the timeliness, coverage, and analysis of food and

agricultural information. Most agencies make

use of advanced technologies to obtain more

information and/or conduct more sophisticated analyses of available data.

The use of advanced technology is presently

constrained by the lack of a follow through

commitment to make remote sensing an operaEXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

.

tional program, This is imbedded in budget.

Congress, to a substantial extent, speeds o r

slows the adoption of advanced technology by

its appropriations for this phase of an agency’s

program, As noted above, it has authorized an

experimental remote-sensing program involving NASA and the Departments of the Interior,

Agriculture, and Commerce until 1980.

Governmental agencies are finding these

remote-sensing data highly useful but are

reluctant to become dependent on a source of

information which may not continue after

1980. An early decision to authorize a continuing LANDSAT program would speed the

adoption and broaden the use of remotesensing data.

The LANDSAT program appears to be even

more valuable in making international information available to the United States on a

timely basis than in increasing the information

available on domestic food production. Congress may wish to take the leadership in exploring the possibilities of increasing international cooperation in LANDSAT programs.

The great promise of improved coverage

and timeliness in a food information system

based on the collection and analysis of remotesensing data can be realized only at a substantial increase in total information costs. At this

stage it would appear to be on the order of

several hundred million dollars annually.

NOTE: Footnotes appear at end of chapter.

57
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

FOOTNOTES

1Noted by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Bell as

“the most effective international body in the gathering

and analyzing and dissemination of (wheat) information. ” Hearings, p. 42.

The principal groups worth noting are. Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD);

International Cotton Advisory Committee; World

Meteorological Organization (WMO); International

Monetary Fund (IMF); International Bank fo r

Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).

3

In addition to the Department of Agriculture, other

executive agencies are involved in food information

systems.

The Bureau of the Census in the Department of

Commerce is a major producer of time series data. Its

major report in this area is the Census of Agriculture.

A comprehensive document entitled “Food Industries

Data Sources” has been prepared by the Department

of Commerce (March 1975) outlining the data

published by the Federal Government and selected

private groups.

The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor

Statistics conducts monthly surveys of consumer and

wholesale prices, which include many food items.

The National Center for Health Statistics of the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conducts the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(HANES), which involves taking a 24-hour dietary

history and checking the health of participants. The

survey is conducted from mobile laboratories moved

from city to city.

The Federal Trade Commission collects considerable data on the food industry through special surveys,

used as a basis for regulating competition and unfair

trade practices.

Others—such as the Department of State, the National Science Foundation, and the National Academy

of Sciences—issue reports dealing with food and

agriculture matters from time to time.

4Hearings, p. 52. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture

Richard Bell was questioned as to how the Department of

Agriculture became aware of impending Soviet grain

purchases in 1975, Senator Humphrey asked, “How did

Secretary Butz learn of the Soviet’s grain-buying plans in

July 1975?” Secretary Bell responded:

Our first information . . regarding the Soviet

purchase intentions in fact came to us through the export firms.

The export firms for the past year have been almost

in constant contact with Soviet buyers; and they go in

and out of Moscow almost weekly, and there is something there generally every day.

We have asked them to keep us posted on the Soviet

attitudes and information. They have done a good job

of doing that. They have generally given us a report

on every trip in and on every trip out and in June 1975

they began to tell us that they felt the Soviets were

showing an interest and were probably going to buy.

Assistant Secretary Bell went on to say that when it

appeared that the grain companies were about to negotiate agreements, they kept the Department of Agriculture

“informed of the quantities they were talking about;

each firm told us the quantities they were working on;

we kept that information generally to ourselves about

what each company was doing. . .“

5Hearings, p. 88.

6

1bid.

7

See pp. 49-52, 99, and 103 of this report for detailed

summaries of all suggestions made to OTA in the course

of the study. These suggestions helped frame options for

congressional action.

8Detailed descriptions of these key agencies can be

found in the hearing testimony as follows: Regarding

FAS, pp. 104-107, 120-123; Regarding ERS, pp. 107-120,

123-130; Analysis of FAS and ERS, pp. 81-97.

9

"Scope and Methods of the Statistical Reporting Service,” USDA, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1308, July

1975, provides valuable insights into this USDA agency.

10Hearings, pp. 90, 92, and 121.

llHearings, pp. 120-123.

12Hearings, p. 120.

13 Hearings, p. 88.

14ibido

I shearings, p. 91.

16Hearings, p. 170.

17Hearings, p. 89.

113A report to the Congress entitled “The Agricultural

Attache Role Overseas: What He Does and How He Can

Be More Effective for the United States,” prepared by the

Comptroller General of the United States, April 11, 1975.

provides more detailed resource material than the OTA

study or hearing record.

19The Central Intelligence Agency feels that major

communications barriers with USDA have been overcome since 1973. Institutional barriers still remain—

namely, economic and food intelligence information

reaches only the top-level USDA decisionmakers. This

inform@ ion is held rather tightly, The information that

passes to the working-level analyst is well filtered, Not

all senior analysts in ERS are cleared to receive it.

Likewise, what flows to Congress undergoes more

sanitation via USDA.

Two lines of inquiry were not pursued by OTA: (1)

the accuracy of CIA information and its frequency,

quality, and flow within USDA; and (2) how Congress

might obtain access to CIA intelligence data on a regular

basis.

20Hearings, pp. 45, 114, and 125.

21Hearings, p, 230. A paper prepared at OTA’s request

by Mr. E.A. Jaenke, President of E.A. Jaenke & Associates, Inc., enumerated the major agencies, departments,

and government bodies that have some significant input

in the total food equation. These decisionmakers number

26 and are listed as appendix 111 along with an executive

office organization chart. See also, Hearings. pp. 173-178.

22Detailed statistics and numbers on circulation can

be found in Hearings, p. 120.

23 Hearings, pp. 92, 124-125.

24Hearings, p. 124.

58
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

~~Hearings, p. 124. Refers to the Office of Technology

Assessment Food Advisory Committee Report, p. 40.

2fjHearings, p. 92.

~Tfbid.

~8Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, Hearings, pp. 16 and 18.

~~The OTA study found more consistent praise for

SRS than for any other element in USDA’s information

network. (Hearings. p. 94. ) Another notice of high praise

is found in a comment by Dr. Hosea Harkness, who,

commenting on some of the USDA organizations playing

key roles, felt that the SRS “is the most sophisticated

agricultural data collection service in the world. Reports

are released with a timeliness that exists nowhere else.

Quality of the forecasts and estimates are unsurpassed.”

(Hearings, p. 133.)

shearings, p. 167.

:\l Hearings, p. 41.

shearings, p. 41.

SS’’The Soviet Grain Shortage: A Case of Rising Expectation,” Current History, June 1975, p. 246.

:]~Hearings. p. 75.

:\6Hearings, p. 76.

:~THearings, p, 6.

:jPHearings, p. 144.

~t\Hearings4 P. 43.

:)!) Hearings, pp. 43-44.

WIA (;oPY of the treaty appears in Hearings, pp. 61-70.

Assistant Secretary Bell noted that the United States has

similar cooperative agreements with Eastern Europe

Communist countries to fill knowledge gaps. These include Poland and Roman ia; with East Germany a serious

gap remains. (Hearings. pp. 46-47. )

~lHearings, p. 56. Refer to treaty document pp. 65–66

for a list of categories.

~~Hearings, p. 56

-!:] He:~rings, p. 56. A later witness, Professor Luther

Tweeten, said: “The Soviet Union itself seems to lack

adequate data on commodity production and utilization.

In part this stems from failure of its statistical reporting

system, which can be improved. But in part the inadequate data stems from changes in production late in the

crop season including failure to harvest grain in the

fields because of inclement weather. (Hearings, p. 222. )

~lHearings, p. 38.

~~Hearings. p. 56.

~(,Hearings, p. 38.

Q~Hearings, p. 339.

~~ll)i(]. Seth and Cochrane urged the “U.S. Government to press for full cooperation in the furnishing of information on production, use, and stockpiling of food

commodities, especially grain. Investment by the United

States in improving the fundamental data base both

home and abroad for projecting commodity requirements

would pay a high return in terms of reducing surprise.

uncertain t y. and speculative price gyration s.” (Hearings<

p. 197.)

~~Hearings, p. 44.

~~Hearings, p. 57

~ I Hearings, p. 57

~~Hearings. p. 269.

S:jl))j(j.

54Hearings, p, 269.

Shearings, p, 57.

~6Hearings. p. 9.

~THearings, p. 122. See also earlier discussion on

agricultural attach~s in this summary, pp. 7–10.

.5 fiHearings, p. 123.

shearings, p. 124.

fjOHearings, p. 124.

61HearjngS, p. 124.

62 Hearings, pp. 124-12s.

63 Hearings, pp. 125-126.

64 Hearings, p. 126.

65 Hearings, p. 127.

GGIbid.

G7Hearings, p. 133.

GBHearings, p. 130.

BgHearings, p. 137.

ToHearings, p. 138.

71 Hearings, p. 138-139.

i’z~bidc

TsHearings, p. 144.

TAHearings, p. 139.

T51-Iearings, p. 140.

76 Hearings, p. 147.

77 Hearings, p. 148-150; 159,160.

TBHearings, p. 154.

79 Marketing margin: the difference between what the

farmer gets for his raw product and what the consumer

pays at retail for the finished product.

EOHearings, p. 148.

61 Hearings, pp. 149-lS0.

62 Hearings, Pp- 151-153.

83 Hearings, p. ISO.

64DefiCienCieS were noted by all OTA participants

and were acknowledged by USDA. Mr. Howard Hjort’s

testimony and analysis provided useful categories upon

which to base this summary. (Hearings, pp. 92-95.)

65 Noted by FAC report, pp. 25-26; by Assistant Secretary Bell, pp. 37 and 42; by Dr. Hathaway, p, 70; Mr.

Jaenke, pp. 170 and 186; Dr. Cochrane and Mr. Seth, p.

197. (All page numbers refer to Hearings.)

BGNoted by FAC report, pp. 19-22; Dr. Hathaway, p.

75; Mr. Sjerven, p. 137; Mr. Johnson, pp. 147-148; Mr.

Hamilton, p. 156; Mr. Jaenke, p. 186. (All page numbers

refer to hearings.)

G7Noted by FAC report, pp. 14, 22-24; Dr. Hathaway,

pp. 78-79; Mr. Hume, p. 123; Dr. West, pp. 124-125; Mr.

Hamilton, p. 154; Mr. Jaenke, p. 186. (All page numbers

refer to Hearings, )

86 Noted by FAC report, pp. 23-24; Mr. Harkness, p,

134; Mr. Sjerven, p. 138; Mr. Keefe, pp. 143-144; Mr. o Hamilton, Hearings, p. 155; Mr. Jaenke, p. 186. (All page

numbers refer to hearings. )

69 Hearings, p. 76.

gOHearings, p. 26.

glHearings, p. 197.

gZHearings, p. 118.

93 Hearings, p, 156, For FAC discussion on broiler

prices, see Hearings, pp. 19-20.

gqHearings, pp. 126-127.

59
EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS

gsHearings, p. 118.

gGHearings, pp. 19-20.

g7Hearings, p. 102.

gGHearings, p. 93.

ggHe~rings, p. 123.

IOOHearings, pp. 124-125.

10 I Hearings, p. 146.

Iozrbjd.

10sHearings, p. 93.

IOQHearings, pp. 201-202.

10sHearings, p. 95,

10 GHearings, p. 95.

IOTHearings, pp. 143-144.

106 Headings, pp. 93-95.

IOgHearings, pp. 93-94.

llOHearings, p. 94.

]llSuch a measme was supported by Seth and

Cochrane (Hearings, pp. 201-202). See also their comments pp. 192-193.

llZHearings, p. 94.

llsHearings, p. 134.

llqFrazier, Hearings, p. 149; and Hjort, Hearings, p. 85.

115USDA opposed such a Board. See testimony by

Hume, Hearings, p. 112.

l16HearingS, p. 134.

llTHearings, p. 112.

llf3Hearings, p. 113.

l19Hearings, p. 202. See also p. 193.

120 Hearings, p. 95.

lzl Hearings, p. 9!5.

lzZHjort, Hearings, p. 95.

IZsHearings, p. 202.

lzQFood Advisory Committee report, Hearings, p. 19.

lzsHearings, p. 20.

126Detailed discussion, pro and Con, of this topic is

found in Hearings, pp. 356-392.

12i’Hearings, p. 21.

IZGHearings, p. 356.

lzgHearings, p. 373.

lsolbid.

lsl Hearings, pp. 387-389.

lszHearings, p. 222.

ISSHearings, p. 118.

134 Hearings, pp. 102-103, See ako p. 119.

135 Hearings, p. 103.

136 Hearings, p. 119.

ISi’The material for this section was developed by

OTA staff for use in the Food Advisory Committee

report. See Hearings, pp. 29-33.

ISBDerived from staff bill analysis found on pp.

106-107 of this summary and analysis.

lsgHearings, p. 126.

lqOHearings, pp. 126-127.

lqlMiiling & Baking News, October 7, 1975, as cited in

Hearings, p. 137.

lQ2Hearings, p. 137.

lQ3Hearings, p. 138.

144 Hearings, p. 24. .

145 Hearings, p. 26.

146 Much of this discussion was laced with the technical aspects of remote sensing. This summary and

analy-sis has attempted to distill the policy issues from

the presentations and discussions of witnesses. The interested reader may refer to the Hearings, pp. 243-336, to

review these technical matters.

IAT METSAT and DATASAT were intended to ac-

quire operational data to meet the needs of the organizational entities responsible for their design and employment.

METSATS (see Hearings. pp. 318-320) are the

NOAA–3 and –4 satellites of the Department of

Defense.

DATASATS (see Hearings, pp. 320-322) are the COM -

SAT/INTELSAT Communications Satellites and the

DOMSAT series. .

However, both systems may have utility for an

agricultural information system —i. e., ME TSATS,

weather and precipitation data; and DATASATS, a

telemetry channel for data transmission.

148 Hearings, p. 249.

149 Hearings, pp. 249, 277, 314-315.

ISO Hearings, p. 299.

151 Hearings, p. 253.

]SZ /bid.

IN Hearings, p. 255.

154 Hearings, p. 40.

155 Hearings, p. 45.

156 Hearings, p. 123.

1ST The reader may obtain technical background from

Mr. Matthews’ statement concerning LACIE in Hearings,

pp. 250-253, and from Dr. Park’s statement in Hearings,

pp. 312-318.

158 Hearings, pp. 298-299.

159 Hearings, pp. 299-301.

160 Hearings, p, 253,

161 Hearings, p. 273.

162 Hearings, p. 293.

163 Hearings, p. 293.

164 Hearings, p. 299.

l~s Hearings, p, 311.

l~G Hearings, pp. 316-317.

16? Hearings, p. 317.

IM Hearings, p. 316.

IG!I Hearings, p, 249.

ITO Ibid,

171 Ibid,

ITZ Land Satel)ite proje~t, N{] tiona] Aeronautics and

Space Administration. Study by the staff of the U.S.

General Accounting Office, January 30, 1976, Publication

No. PSAD-76-74, (GAO report), pp. 1–2.

173 GAO report, pp. 2, 18, 31.

174 GAO report, p. 3.

175 Hearings, p. 335.

176 Hearings, p. 327.

60
Chapter 3

THE FAO SYSTEM:

DEFICIENCIES AND OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

‘l’he Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO) is the major source

of information on world agriculture. z Thus,

any expectations for making improvements to

the world’s food information system must

review the FAO, examine its deficiencies, and

consider ways to improve its operation. Figure

17 shows the proposed organizational structure of the UN’s Food and Agriculture

Organization.

FAO performs for the United Nations about

the same functions that the Department of

Agriculture performs for the U.S. Governments Headquartered in Rome, FAO has

. 1 The OTA study did not explore the FAO system in

detail since such an analysis has been the subject of intense study culminating in the 1974 World Food Conference resolution. (See Hearings, pp. 33-36.) Thus, this

summary is not on the same level as the analysis of

USDA resources. Attention is called to The United

States, FAO and World Food Politics: U.S. Relations with

an International Food Organization, a staff report prepared for the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and

Human Needs, United States Senate (June 1976) which

provides an excellent discussion of FAO and the U.S.

role in this international organization.

z The International Wheat Council (IWC) is also a

valuable source of information in the international

arena. Located in London, with 10 exporting members

and 42 importing members, the IWC began issuing

monthly and annual reports on the world wheat su~ply

and demand situation in 1972. These reports are issued

on a timely basis and appear to be comprehensive. The

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although not a member of the FAO, is a cooperating member of IWC.

s Hathaway’s presentation provides background and

detail for this summary (pp. 70-85); additional sources:

FAC (p. 18; pp. 24-28; pp. 33-36); Hjort (pp. 86-90). (All

page numbers refer to Hearings.)

statistical and research divisions as well as

numerous field offices scattered about the

world, from which it collects data and gives

advice, FAO’s main agricultural publications

are its annual Yearbook of Agricultural Production, Yearbook of Agricultural Trade, commodities reviews, and State of Food and

Agriculture.

The latter provides food balance sheets and

indices of agricultural production by region

and country. However, these statistics are

generally 1 year to 18 months old and thus do

not meet the criterion of timeliness. In addition, the FAO publishes a Monthly Bulletin of

Agricultural Economics and Statistics and every 10 years conducts a world food survey.

The Monthly Bulletin on Statistics, the early

warning systems, and commodity publications

provide more current data, especially in recent

years on particular commodities and commodity groups.

Recognizing the lack of timeliness in most of

its data series, FAO began the development of

an early warning system in 1968. Under this

system, monthly reports on food crop conditions and the food situation are collected by

FAO and the World Food Program staff for

over 70 developing countries. This early warning program is aimed at obtaining advance indications of possible needs for emergency food

aid. These early warning reports are in addition to current and prospective crop estimates

collected regularly as a part of an FAO market

intelligence service, which has been functioning for many years.

61
THE FAO SYSTEM

I 1

II + l!---- 1

t

! ( 1 I

I L– . _ L . –– L -— — – — – – – – – — – - -—

I I

-r- -

1

I

1 –J
THE FAO SYSTEM

The 1973 FAO conference authorized funds

for an expansion of the early warning system:

and an expanded program was established in

March 1974. The new food information system

represents a step forward in providing greater

emphasis on’ a more coordinated and timely

approach.

This early warning food information

system, staffed by the FAO and the World

Food Program, provides the most timely information available during the crop-growing

season for about 70 developing countries. The

FAO collects similar crop progress information on commodities in the developed countries.

The World Food Conference in November

1974 adopted resolutions calling for further

improvement in the early warning food information system. q

As a followup to the 1974 World Food Conference, FAO is developing timely information

during the growing and early harvest season

for all countries on a regional and world basis.

STATUS AND PLANS OF FAO FOR ITS

WARNING

The new FAO food information system has

four basic types of output:

1. the food situation and outlook series;

2. an early warning of food shortages;

3. information on food stocks and food aid;

and

4. fertilizer and pesticide information.

The food situation and outlook series now

consists of monthly, quarterly, and ad hoc

reports, They cover the food supply-demand

outlook in light of changes in production

‘prospects, prices, policies, sales, stocks, and

the availability and prices of such key inputs

as fertilizer, pesticides, and shipping.

q See FAC report for discussion and Resolution XVI,

pp. 33-36; and Hathaway, p. 75.

Figure 18 lists the member countries of the

FAO.

Each year for the past 10 years or more, the”

FAO has stationed 25 to 40 technically trained

experts in underdeveloped countries for the

purpose of helping the national governments

improve their statistical services. The technically trained FAO staff member is usually

stationed in a country for a full year or more to

enable him to train local personnel in the collection and dissemination of agricultural information.

FAO cooperates with national governments

in the experimental use of aerial photography

to collect more accurate and timely information on crops and livestock numbers. Its staff

is also studying the feasibility of remote sensing as a means of obtaining agricultural data

in countries where gaps now exist.

The field staff of the FAO and the World

Food Program prepare qualitative reports on

the weather as it has affected crop production

in the country for which they are making early

warning reports.

GLOBAL INFORMATION AND EARLY

SYSTEM

Early warning of food shortages as provided

by monthly summaries of the latest information on crop conditions, weather, plant diseases, and food deficiencies and availabilities

in some 90 countries is published in Foodcrops

and Shortages. This contains largely qualitative estimates of conditions—including a rating scale of crop conditions, planting, progress

of harvest, and rainfall—plus comments or observations from FAO representatives, project

specialists, World Food Program officers, and

other sources.

The most valuable attribute of this portion

of the system is its timeliness. The reporting of

adverse weather conditions, natural disasters,

and other events that may affect crop

availabilities and demands is a great aid to

63
THE FAO SYSTEM

Figure 18.—Members of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Afghanistan

Albani a

Algeria

Argentina

Australia

Austria

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belgium

Bolivia

Botswana

Brazil

Bulgaria

Burma

Burundi

Cameroon

Canada

Cape Verde Islands

Central African Republic

Chad

Chile

China

Colombia

Congo

Gabon

Gambia, The

Germany (Fed. Rep. of)

Ghana

Costa Rica

Cuba

Cyprus

Czechoslovakia

Dahomey

Denmark

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Ethiopia

Fiji

Finland

France

Greece

Grenada

Guatemala

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Ivory Coast

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Kenya

Khmer Republic

Korea (Republic of)

Kuwait

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libyan Arab Republic

Luxembourg

Madagascar

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mexico

Mongolian People’s Rep.

Morocco

Nepal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Panama

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Qatar

Romania

Rwanda

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Somalia

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Surinam

Swaziland

Sweden

Switzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Tanzania

Thailand

Togo

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

United States of America

Upper Volta

Uruguay

Venezuela

Viet-Nam (Republic of)

Yemen Arab Republic

Yemen (People’s Dem. Rep. of)

Yugoslavia

Zaire

Zambia

those who must make rapid policy decisions in lack of an adequate support system and in

advance of the final quantitative estimates, some cases to a lack of country cooperation.

The adequacy of information available in In the case of the early warning system,

this part of the system varies greatly from quantitative accuracy is almost impossible by

country to country. Defects are due partly to a definition. The relationships between weather

64
and the appearance of insects and diseases are

not yet well quantified, nor is a direct and stable relationship likely to be found in the near

future. Thus, the qualitative estimates now

used are probably as good as can be devised

given the state of knowledge regarding these

relationships,

Information on food stocks and food aid is

provided by reports entitled “World Food

Stocks: Status and Evaluation, ” authorized by

the FAO Conference in 1973. They include

assessment of national stock targets and

policies and the adequacy of world cereal

stocks in the context of world food security.

The FAO Food Aid Bulletin, (figure 19),

issued quarterly since July 1970, provides information on bilateral and multilateral food

aid transactions and food aid availabilities

based on notifications made by governments

THE FAO SYSTEM

to FAO and on data especially provided by international agencies concerned .

The FAO Food Aid Bulletin, issued quarterly since July 1970, provides information on

bilateral and multilateral food aid transactions and food aid availabilities based on

notifications made by governments to FAO

and on data especially provided by interna -

tional agencies concerned.

The FAO fertilizer and pesticide information is an off-shoot of their newly established

International Fertilizer Supply Scheme. Information on suppIies, deficits, prices, contracts,

and capacities are monitored for the purposes

of emergency operations under the scheme. A

new quarterly fertilizer survey and other information-gathering activities have been initiated, and steps are being taken to develop a

similar information. system on pesticides.

Figure 19 .—Publications of the Food and Agriculture Organization

\

.“ .

●

No. 6, 1976,~ .,,, ,,

*-

, 

. -

-=. 

* “

65
THE FAO SYSTEM

DEFICIENCIES

Most of the problems and deficiencies are

those encountered in any attempt at collection

and dissemination of data from a large number of governments with diverse informationassembling capabilities and dissemination

policies. These deficiencies can also be attributed in part to the limitations on FAO action inherent in an international or intergovernmental organization.

After discussing the excellent data provided

on wheat by the International Wheat Council, s

Assistant Secretary Bell said: “When it comes

to the other commodities, like rice and coarse

grain and meat, we do not have that effective

a system. "

6 He indicated that information

from other international bodies on such commodities is made available from the FAO in

Rome, He said, however, that this information

“tends to be less prompt and ., .is not, in my

judgment, as accurate and as useful as the information coming out of the International

Wheat Council--or as up-to-date as the information from the International Wheat Council. ”7 (See figure 20.)

The new FAO data series will attempt to

solve the timeliness problem, but there will

still be gaps in adequacy and accuracy. In

terms of the range of information covered, the

adequacy is excellent. Its inadequacy in terms

of world coverage lies in the fact that the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not a

member of FAO and has thus far cooperated

no more with FAO than with others regarding

this information. The People’s Republic of

China, although a member of FAO, has not yet

seen fit to provide the information requested

for the system. Thus, the FAO food information system, in common with other systems

generally available to most governments, is

totally inadequate in coverage of two of the

world’s largest agricultural producers and

consumers.

The problem of accuracy is twofold, The

first and most significant problem is the sheer

inability of developing countries to produce

accurate information with present indigenous

technology. The difficulties encountered in

producing reasonably accurate estimates in

developing countries are enormous.

Figure 20.— Members of the international Wheat Council

EXPORTING MEMBERS

Argentina

Australia

Canada

European Economic Community

Greece

Kenya

Spain

Sweden

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

United States of America

IMPORTING MEMBERS

Brazil

Costa Rica

Cuba

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

Egypt (Arab Rep. of)

El Salvador

European Economic Community

Finland

Guatemala

India

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Mauritius

Morocco

Nigeria

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Peru

Portugal

Republic of Korea

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

Switzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Trinidad and Tobago

Algeria Japan Tunisia

Austria Lebanon United Kingdom

Barbados Libyan Arab Republic Vatican City

Bolivia Malta Venezuela

5 Hearings, p. 41.

G Hearings, p. 42.

T Ibid.

66
Another accuracy problem

some countries simply do not

arises because

want to admit

that their agricultural economy is performing

badly; and they either do not report or report

belatedly the facts about their agricultural production. This, too, reduces the accuracy of

world food information. a

In the area of key inputs, fertilizers, and

pesticides, the information is neither timely,

nor accurate, nor adequate. The reasons for

this vary. First, the production and distribution of these products are carried on by a mix

of private and public enterprises, sometimes

within the same country, Some countries, for

their own reasons, do not divulge their most

recent statistics on current status of plans,

even though they presumably have them, The

private firms involved often are reluctant to

disclose information which they believe may

affect their competitive position. All in all, the

situation is totally unsatisfactory in both current estimates and forecasts and the problem

of accurate information an exceedingly

difficult one.

As an illustration, in the months just prior

to the World Food Conference in 1974, a series

of estimates on world fertilizer production,

use, availability, and potential capacity in the

short- and long-run were prepared by several

national and international organizations.

They varied widely in several aspects and

changed markedly during a short period of

time. The situation regarding pesticides appeared equally confusing.

By action of FAO member governments, the

FAO information system is a closed system—

i.e., certain of the materials it provides are

limited in distribution only to participating

countries and cooperating internationa l

organizations for their exclusive use. This includes the monthly Food Situation Reports, the

reports on crop conditions and food situations

by countries, and the special reports. The Food

Quarterly Outlook is distributed to participating governments, to nonparticipating governB Hearings, pp. 74-75.

THE FAO SYSTEM

ments that are members of FAO, and t o

cooperating international organizations.

Thus, the FAO food information system is

not available to the general public and th e

media. This condition was imposed by some

member governments which believe that disclosure of such information would give an advantage to private traders and speculators,

In the area of analysis, FAO faces a problem

created by the nature of its organization. The

reporting of facts is a much less sensitive area

than the analysis of what actions need to b e

taken and by whom, Here the FAO runs head

on into sensitivities that go with nationa l

sovereignty. It is one thing to point out that

there is a serious gap between available food

and the needs of the most seriously affected

nations and another to suggest to the U.S.

Government or to the European Economic

Community that they need to do more in providing food aid. It is acceptable for one nation

to publicly question another’s policy, but it is

not acceptable for the staff of an international

organization composed of member nations to

do SO.

Some believe it is expecting too much of the

FAO to provide policy analysis which is explicitly critical of national policies. This means

that policy analysis must rest with national

governments and organizations outside the

formal United Nations framework. This, of

course, means that a substantial imbalance occurs between nations,

.

Many developing nations have neither the

trained manpower nor the resources for such

analysis, nor do they always accept analysis

done by other governments.

●

FAO and other international agencies also

encounter the problem of unwillingness on the

parts of national governments to release unbiased data when they fear problems with an

important segment of their citizenry, For example, national governments have been reluc67
—

THE FAO SYSTEM

tant to release their best estimates of national

crop production in a drought year. Rather, the

government releases the estimates it believes

best suited to its political purposes. FAO and

other international agencies, as well as USDA,

have no practical alternative to accepting the

data supplied by the national governments.

This is a potential source of weakness in all

data gathered and released by international

organizations and a serious hardship to all

who use the data,

Although the early warning reports of FAO

have been helpful in providing information at

an early date on food crop conditions in countries with potential requirements for emergency food aid, the reports have been in qualitative terms, They have seldom contained quantitative estimates and have seldom been sufficiently documented to provide a basis for

estimating the food import requirements of the

countries.

Serious political problems in the collection

and release of remote-sensing data, as well as

the high cost of processing them, make it

unlikely that remote sensing will close existing

information gaps in the near future.

Other deficiencies in the information collected and published by the FAO are recognized.

The elapsed time between the collection of

data in the various countries and its

availability in FAO publications is so great

that most series are of value only for historical

research. The information reported in the

monthly bulletins of economics and statistics

is more timely than that published in the annual yearbooks; yet even in these publications

there is usually a lag of 6 months or more between the collection of the country data and

the availability y of the regional and world summaries in the monthly bulletins.

Another deficiency, noted earlier, is the gap

in the world food and agriculture information

created by the failure of the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics to provide adequate and

timely national agricultural data, In addition,

little information on either acreage or production is made available by the People’s Republic

of China.

The inadequacies of the food and

agriculture information systems in the

developing countries create serious problems

for U.S. analysts and for the international

agencies that assemble world food and

agricultural statistics. The United States has

made an important contribution to the information systems of developing countries in the

past by its Agency for International Development (AID) financed technical assistance activities. 9 However, AID no longer provides

adequate funds to continue these efforts, Indeed, OTA’s study found that inadequate attention is now being given to this in AID,

OTA’s study stressed the importance of

strengthening FAO food information activities

as much as possible, while it recognized that

FAO will find it difficult to achieve the goals it

has set for itself in the next few years. The

United States can be of substantial assistance

to the FAO as it struggles to meet these goals,

by providing increased technical and financial

assistance for FAO informational activities.

g Hearings, pp. 413-414.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

Several suggestions were made as to how the FAO information system

might be improved. These suggestions focused on the role of the U.S. in this

system. These suggestions and a discussion follow.

68
THE FAO SYSTEM

Expanding U.S. role in a world information system

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The USDA should combine world food intelligence with U.S. situation

and outlook in food and agriculture. (Hjort, Hearings, p. 90.)

The USDA should adapt to changes in world food situation with appropriate staff, organization, and budget changes. (Keefe, Hearings, p.

1 44.)

U.S. agricultural attaches should provide more precise data and information on the use of land, agricultural inputs, human and animal populations, income, prices, and other supply and demand factors, so that

analysts covering the world situation and outlook are in a better position

to assess these factors. They should develop more reliable supply-demand estimates and report more fully and frequently on the world food

and agriculture situation and outlook. (Hjort, Hearings, p. 93.)

The United States should provide increased financial and technical

assistance to the world information institution of the FAO. (FAC Report,

Hearings, pp. 33-36.)

The U.S. Congress should direct AID to increase its technical assistance

for the improvement of agricultural information systems, including the introduction of advanced information technology, in developing countries

most deficient in their agricultural statistical institutions. (FAC Report,

Hearings, pp. 33-36.)

The U.S. Government should convince other governments to freely provide FAO with the information this global institution needs. (Hathaway,

Hearings, p. 70.)

Opinions differ as to the availability of current production and information on

forward estimates in the centrally planned countries. If the information does exist, it is not shared. With improved technologies for data collection, analysis, and

transmission, existing deficiencies in current production information and forward

estimates can be corrected within the next few years if a country desires. The

world food information system would be improved significantly if the centrally

planned countries would supply the FAO and major exporting countries with

timely production information and forward estimates of requirements. The United

States can play a constructive role in encouraging these countries to develop

such data as a part of its trading relationships with them. It also might provide

technical assistance to them on request.

Options for Strengthening the U.S. Role

There are several options for Congress to strengthen the U.S. role in world

food information systems. Congress could insist that the executive branch, in its

trading relations with centrally planned countries, take a more positive role

regarding the need for those countries to supply the outside world with timely

national food information. This issue was not dealt with in the 1975 long-term

69
THE FAO SYSTEM

grain sales agreement the U.S. concluded with the Union of the Soviet Socialist

Republics. Congress could ask the executive branch to insist on timely release

of national food information as a part of any future commercial trading relations

with the United States.

A second option would be for Congress to take a more positive role toward

increasing the scope and quality of the data collected in developing countries

and increasing the analytic capabilities of the U.S. staffs that prepare reports on

international food production, stocks, and prices. These actions would primarily

benefit the United States, but since this country makes all published information

generally available, other countries would benefit from better world information

on which to base their food policies.

Another option would be to focus increased congressional attention on the

activities and needs of the FAO. This could be achieved by conducting congressional oversight hearings on the cooperation between U.S. technical staffs and

those of the FAO.

Still another option would be for Congress to make additional funds available to AID for financing technical assistance on food information problems in

developing countries.

To date, “AID has not given special policy emphasis to technical assistance

for the establishment or strengthening of crop reporting systems (in developing

countries). “Io Since AID does not now give this a high priority. 11 Congress could

ask AID to develop a comprehensive, well-coordinated program to assure that

funds are properly allocated.

If Congress wished to take an even more active role in improving world food

information systems, it might make additional funds available for FAO information

activities and urge” other countries to take similar actions. The United States now

contributes approximately 25 percent of the total FAO budget, approximately

$20 million annually Only a small part is used for information activities.

Although some members of Congress believe that the United States is

already contributing more than it should to the FAO, if it wishes to take the

leadership in increasing FAO’s informational activities, increased expenditures

on the order of several hundred thousand dollars might be required.

With the exception of Congresswoman Holt,12 all comments13 supported the

recommendation made by the FAC report suggesting an increased role for the

United States as well as increased funds for technical assistance.

We believe that the Department’s role in AID funded technical assistance has been very productive. This type of direct assistance is probably the

best way to improve statistics in countries eligible for AID funds.14

10 Hearings, p. 413.

11 persona] communication dated June 3, 1976, from John E, Murphy, acting administrator, AID, to

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey.

IZ Hearings, pp. 98-99.

13 paarlberg, p, 103; Hathaway, p. 70; Hjort, p. 96; Abel, pp. 339-340. (All page numbers refer to

Hearings.)

la Dr. Don Paarlberg, Hearings, p. 119.

70
Chapter 4

THE CAPACITY OF CONGRESS

TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

During the course of this OTA study, comments were made regarding the

need for Congress to improve its capabilities to analyze current and emerging

food issues and to review proposed legislation in the food, agriculture, and nutrition area. These suggestions were:

1.

2.

3.

Congress should increase the analytical capabilities of the staffs of its

agricultural committees and of the agricultural specialists in the Congressional Research Service. A group of several competent analysts

capable of making its own studies should be available to Congress.

(FAC report, Hearings, pp. 12-1 4.)

The increased analytical capabilities of Congress should be used primarily to analyze information produced by research and statistical agencies, such as the Economic Research Service of USDA and the landgrant universities. (Hamilton, Hearings, p. 154.)

Congress should develop closer liaison with the executive agencies

and the land-grant universities, requesting them to devote more of their

analytical capabilities to the analysis of information for Congress. (FAC

report, Hearings, p. 7.)

The thrust of these suggestions and, the consensus of discussion with OTA’S

Food Advisory Committee and witnesses was that increased analytical

capability need not imply additional staff.

Congress has increased its staff substantially in recent years. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 primarily authorized an expansion in the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office. House Resolution 998—the Boiling committee reform amendments, approved in 1974—

realigned House committee responsibilities and authorized some additional

committee staff. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act-Public Law

93-344, approved in 1974-also authorized and required additional staff.

Even though congressional staffs, including those of the agencies serving

Congress—the General Accounting Office, Congressional Research Service,

Office of Technology Assessment, and the Congressional Budget Office-have

increased over 60 percent in the past 4 years, they are small in relation to the

71
CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

workload of Congress. Congressional staffs also are very small in any specific

area in relation to the size of similar staffs in executive agencies or universities.

In the area of food, agriculture, and nutrition, members and staff of the 93rd

Congress dealt with 330 bills and resolutions in the Senate and with 1,501 similar items in the House of Representatives. Although the second session of the

94th Congress may not end until the close of the calendar year 1976, by April 19,

1976, congressional staff had dealt with 325 Senate and 1,400 House bills and

resolutions in the area of food, agriculture, and nutrition.

Although all bills and resolutions which deal primarily with agriculture and

nutrition are referred to the agriculture committees of the Senate and the House,

17 different committees in the Senate and 20 different committees in the House

considered bills or resolutions dealing with food, agriculture, and[or nutrition in

the 93rd and 94th Congresses. The number of items referred to each committee

is shown in table 3.

The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs and the Joint

Economic Committee also spend considerable time and effort on problems in

food, agriculture, and nutrition but do not have any bills or resolutions referred to

them for action, since they do not have legislative responsibilities. Also, different

procedures for introducing items in the House and Senate affect the numbers

recorded. In the House a member may reintroduce an item several times as cosponsor s a r e

added. In the Senate, cosponsors are added to the original bill or resolution

rather than reintroducing the item with cosponsors. A further indication of the activities of Congress in the area of food, agriculture, and nutrition is the number of

bills and resolutions on which hearings were held and related actions taken.

These are shown in table 4.

It is of interest to note that only 26 of the 330 items introduced in the Senate

and 34 of the 1,501 items introduced in the House in the 93rd Congress were

enacted by the Congress and approved by the President.

SCREENING AND EVALUATION OF

INFORMATION FOR CONGRESS

Although members of Congress or their staffs seldom have all the information they would like to have on a particular issue, Congress does not suffer from

a lack of information. Rather, member and committee offices are almost overwhelmed by the volume of reports, news items, letters, and telephone calls coming into their offices each day.

The screening of this massive flow of information is an enormous job. Members of Congress and their staffs, who have had little experience in the fields of

food, agriculture, and nutrition, have little basis for judging the quality of the information coming from the different sources. Many students of the problem

believe that the critical need in this area is neither more information nor more

staff but more analytical capability.

72
CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

Members of Congress and congressional committees depend primarily on

the Congressional Research Service to supplement their staffs in supplying

analytical evaluated information. The Congressional Research Service, with its

automatic data-processing facilities and other research resources, is the only

agency which has as its primary goal, on a continuing basis, the organization of

information specifically to meet the day-to-day requests of members and committees of Congress. It maintains a corps of analysts in most subject matter fields

and stands ready to respond as promptly as their own staffs to requests by members of committees of Congress.

In recent years the increasing amounts of information and analyses most

commonly requested have been accumulated in computer data banks and are

available on a moment’s notice.

Members of Congress, congressional committees, and subcommittees

dealing with food, agriculture, and nutrition issues also call on the USDA

Economic Research Service and to a lesser extent on other government agencies for analytical reports. Professors at the land-grant universities are another

important source of evaluated information on food policy issues.

The Government Accounting Office, which in earlier years was primarily

engaged in auditing the administration of Government programs, more recently

has responded to congressional requests for analysis of current or emerging

issues of concern to members of Congress.

Two congressional staff agencies that provide additional analytical

capability for the Congress were very recently created. These are the Office of

Technology Assessment and the Congressional Budget-Office.

The Office of Technology Assessment responds to requests from committee

chairmen and ranking minority members for indepth studies and assessments that

require more resources than are available in the Congressional Research Service.

The Congressional Budget Office, now in its second year, has developed a

modest analytical staff that is fully occupied with issues closely related to the

new budget responsibilities of Congress.

IMPROVING THE CAPACITY OF CONGRESS

TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

After surveying both the flows of information and the analytical capabilities

of the congressional staffs and those of the research agencies serving Congress, Food Advisory Committee members and witnesses at the hearings concluded that the greatest congressional needs at this time are more analytical

services and capabilities for dealing with the burgeoning information

rapidly changing situation involving food, agriculture, and nutrition. ’

1 Hearings, pp. 12-14.

flow on the

73
CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

The Food Advisory Committee suggested strengthening the analytic

capabilities of the major congressional committees dealing with food,

agriculture, and nutrition. They also suggested that a group of several competent analysts capable of making its own studies should be available to the Congress. This group of analysts might be located in a single agency such as the

Congressional Research Service, or it might be made up of analysts complementary to one another from several congressional committees and staff agencies.

As pointed out by one witness, congressional action to improve its own staff

capability should not be limited to increasing the number of professional staff

members. Attention should also be given to how to make professional staff

resources more aware of and more responsive to the needs of Congress.

Improved communication and coordination of activities among the Congressional Research Service, Office of Technology Assessment, General Accounting

Office, Congressional Budget Office, and the staffs of the agriculture and nutrition committees could eliminate unnecessary duplication of the various staffs on

the important issues that confront the Congress.

Witnesses indicated that the increased analytical capabilities needed by

Congress in the field of food, agriculture, and nutrition could be supplied to a

considerable extent by increased reliance on the USDA Economic Research

Service, other executive agencies with competent analytical staffs, and

professors at the land-grant universities. Coordinated use of these resources

could make more readily available to Congress a greater amount of expertise

and analytical capability than is presently the case.

Of the several options open to Congress in dealing with this important issue,

the first to be considered might well be to place a premium on the professional

background of the committee and agency staffs as replacements are recruited to

fill vacancies caused by retirements and resignations.

Another option would be for the appropriate congressional committee or

committees to ask the professionally trained agriculturalists serving Congress

either on its committees or in its agencies, to inventory their special capabilities

and develop a program of specialization and communication to the end that their

outstanding abilities are more fully utilized and Congress is better served.

A third means of increasing the analytical capabilities available to Congress

involves more forward planning and increased liaison with the universities and

executive agencies having research staffs. The staffs in the executive agencies

and professors at the land-grant universities have their own programs of work

that must be interrupted when they attempt to respond to emergency requests

from Congress. With advance planning and.modest financial assistance in some

cases, analysts in research agencies and at land-grant universities have indicated a willingness to devote more of their resources to analyses of issues for

Congress.

74
CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

Table 3 .—Bills and Resolutions Dealing with Food, Agriculture, and

Nutrition Introduced in the 93rd and 94th Congresses*

Referred to Senate Committees

Aeronautical and Space Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agriculture and Forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Armed Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interior and Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Labor and Public Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Post Office and Civil Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rules Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Referred to House Committees

Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Armed Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking and Currency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education and Public Welfare.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interior and Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interstate and Foreign Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merchant Marine and Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Post Office and Civil Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Works.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ways and Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total, .,, ,,..... . ....,,.,,.,,,.,,., . . . . . . . .

Number of bills and resolutions

93rd

1

177

—

—

17

—

16

1

8

23

—

5

14

55

4

1

8

330

5

565

7

1

116

1

133

25

1

9

373

23

12

10

1

20

1

—

6

192

1,501

94th*

2

114

2

2

14

2

25

—

11

32

14

29

8

55

6

3

6

325

2

560

21

—

19

1

98

89

7

53

216

32

3

41

6

19

13

9

1

210

1,400

● From the House Bill Status Office.

**As of April 19, 1976.

75
CAPACITY OF CONGRESS TO ANALYZE FOOD ISSUES

Table 4.—Actions Taken on Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition Items

in the 93rd and 94th Congresses*

Total referred to committees .

Items with hearings. . . . . . . . . .

Items reported out ... , . . . . . .

Items with hearings that did

not become law . . . . . . . . . .

Items reported with no

hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Items passed by each. . . . . . . .

Items that became law without

hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Items that became law . . . . . .

● Ilom the House Bill Status Office.

** As of April 19, 1976.

Senate

93rd

330

78

73

59

38

75

7

26

94th**

325

7a

56

73

22

57

5

10

House

93rd

1501

382

68

359

20

74

11

34

1400

220

67

207

31

75

5

18

76
APPENDIX I

Individuals and Groups Assisting the Office of Technology Assessment

in Its Assessment of Food Information Systems

Agribusiness Accountability Project Dr. Dale Hathaway, International

Food Policy Research Institute

Dr. James Austin, Harvard Business

School Mr. Howard Hjort, Schnittker

Associates

Mr. Ned W. Bandler, Jr., Lever

Brothers Company, Incorporated Mr. J. Russell Ives, American Meat

Dr. Howard Bauman, Pillsbury

Ms

Mr

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Company Dr

Anneliese Binder, Food and

Agriculture Organization of the Dr

United Nations

Wim B. Blaisse, Unilever, Ltd. Dr

Marguerite Burk, U.S. Depart- Mr

ment of Agriculture

Mahlon A. Burnett III, Grocery Dr

Manufacturers of America,

Incorporated

Institute

F. James Levinson, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Pat J. Luby, Oscar Mayer and

Company

Dean McKee, Deere and Company

Vernon McMinimy, Continental

Grain Company

Leo Mayer, Congressional Research

Service, Library of Congress

Mr. Graham T. Molitor. General Mills.

William A. Carlson, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

A. Barry Carr, U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Sol Chafkin, Ford Foundation

S. Kent Christensen, National

Association of Food Chains

William Cromarty, Connell Rice

and Sugar Company

Carleton C. Dennis, Agway,

Incorporated

Incorporated

Dr. John R. Moore, University of

Maryland

National Conference of Catholic

Charities

National Consumers League

National Council of Jewish Women

Operation PUSH

Mr. Frank Frazier, American AgriDr. Leroy Quance, U.S. Department

business Associates

Dr. Roy C. Froday, Gerber Products Mr.

Professor Martin Greenberger, Johns

Hopkins University Mr.

Dr. Robert W. Harkins, Grocery

Manufacturers of America,

Incorporated Mr.

of Agriculture

William Roenigk, National Broiler

Council

Morton Sosland, Milling and

Baking News

0. V. Wells, Consultant

77
Michigan State Univeristy

East Lansing, Michigan

Background Reports Prepared by

Sidney M. Cantor Associates The Futures Group, Incorporated

Haverford, Pennsylvania Glastonbury, Connecticut

Congressional

Dr. George Ingram, House Committee on Foreign

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Affairs

Hyde H. Murray, House Committee on

Agriculture

Charles Paolillo, House Committee on Foreign

Affairs

Kenrieth Schlossberg, Senate Select Committee

on Nutrition and Human Needs

Henry Casso, Senate Committee on Agriculture

and Forestry

Staff Interviews

Mr.

Dr.

Mr.

Mr.

Michael McLeod, Senate Committee on

Agriculture and Forestry

Dale L. Stansbury, Senate Committee on

Agriculture and Forestry

Alan J. Stone, Senate Select Committee on

Nutrition and Human Needs

James E. Thornton, Senate Committee on

Agriculture and Forestry

Office of Technology Assessment Staff

Mr. Joseph F. Coates Mr. Dennis F. Miller

Mr. Thomas P. McGurn Mr. Thomas L. Trumble

Mr. Charles W. Wixom

78
APPENDIX II

Witnesses

Technology Assessment Board Hearings on Food Information Systems

Dr. Martin E. Abel. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director, Economic Development Center,

University of Minnesota

The Honorable Richard E. Bell. . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Dr. W. D. Buddemeier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director, International Agricultural Programs,

University of Illinois

Dr. Willard W. Cochrane, , , . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota

Dr. John M. De Noyer. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . Director, Earth Resources Observations

Systems (EROS) Program, Geological

Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Charles L. Frazier. ., , ., , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director, Washington Staff, National Farmers

Organization

Dr. Dale E. Hathaway , ... , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director, International Food Policy Research

Institute

Mr. W. E. Hamilton, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Economist, American Farm Bureau

Federation

Mr. Hosea S. Harkness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director of Planning, Agri-Products Group,

Cook Industries, Incorporated

Dr. Howard L. Hill , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Manager, Large Area Crop Inventory

Experiment (LACIE) Project Group, Foreign

Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Mr. Howard J. Hjort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President, Schnittker Associates

Mr. David L. Hume, ., , , ., . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . , Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mr. E. A. Jaenke. , , ., . . . . . . , ... , , ., ... , . . . President, E. A. Jaenke and Associates

Mr. Reuben Johnson . . . . . , , ... , , , , ... , , , . . Legislative Representative, National Farmers

Union

Mr. David Keefe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head, Commodity Group, Lamson Brothers

Mr. Charles W. Mathews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate Administrator for Applications,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Dr. Don Paarlberg .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. Director of Agricultural Economics, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

79
Dr. Archibald B. Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President, Research and Development,

Earth Satellite Corporation

Mrs. Esther Peterson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumer Adviser, Giant Food Inc.

Mr. Melvin S. Sjerven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior Editor (Markets), Milling & Baking

News

Mr. Lauren Seth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman, Agriculture Committee, National

Planning Association

Dr. Luther Tweeted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professor of Agricultural Economics,

Oklahoma State University

Dr. Quentin M.West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrator, Economic Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Dr. Robert M. White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Additional Background Material for OTA Hearings Preparedby

Agency for International Development Dr. Harry C. Trelogan Bureau of the Census

U.S. Department of State Consultant U.S. Department of Commerce

80
APPENDIX III

Twenty-Six Decision Centers*

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to indicate each and every organization,

department, bureau, agency, council, board, and committee that has by law or executive

order been given some significant responsibility for at least one aspect relating to food, Many

involve the inputs to agriculture; some involve the production process itself. Others involve

marketing, distribution, and quality control. A number affect the overall supply and utilization of food—particularly when consumers and voters are up in arms over food prices,

This paper will attempt to enumerate the major agencies, departments, or Government

bodies that have some significant input in the total food equation.

1. Department of Agriculture, with its 23 agencies, has the prime responsibility for

many aspects of food, its production, and use,

2. Department of Labor, through its Rural Manpower Service of the U.S. Employment Service, its Office of Manpower Development programs, its National

Migrant Workers program, and its administrative responsibility for occupational

safety and health, is deeply involved in a number of aspects relating to food,

3. Department of State, likewise is involved through its Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs, its Under Secretary for Political Affairs, its Assistant Secretary

for International Organization Affairs, its semi-independent Agency for International Development, and its coordinator of the Food for Peace program.

4. Department of the Interior has inputs in the food area through its Bureau of Land

Management which controls livestock production on Federal lands, its Bureau of

Commercial Fisheries, its Bureau of Reclamation, and its Office of Land Use and

Water Planning.

5. Department of Commerce and its Domestic and International Business Administration work with businesses involved in the processing, handling, and exporting of food products.

6. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, with its jurisdiction over the Nation’s

water resources development actually has tremendous effect on agriculture.

7. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare plays an important role particularly through its Food and Drug Administration.

8. Department of Transportation has at least seven entities directly involved in

transportation matters which have major impact on the supply of productive inputs or the transportation of raw or processed agricultural commodities.

9. Federal Energy Administration, with programs of allocation of energy supplies to

agriculture, is deeply involved. Its decisions affect the ability of farmers to produce food and its proper handling and processing.

10. Treasury Department plays an important role particularly under the current

government organization which brings the Secretary of Treasury into nearly all

economic decisions.

11. Farm Credit Administration, supplying nearly one third of the capital needs of

agriculture, is involved,

*Jaenke, Hearings pp. 175–178,

81
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22,

23.

24.

25.

26.

Central Intelligence Agency, with its analyses of world production, has become a

significant part of the decisionmaking process.

Environmental Protection Agency, with its rulemaking authority in the

agricultural field, can greatly increase the cost of food production as well as affect

the ability of farmers to produce the quantities of food needed.

Federal Trade Commission, with its responsibilities over legislation affecting

competition, is involved in food policy.

Federal Maritime Commission is concerned with the conditions of export of products including food products.

Federal Reserve System, with at least six of its banks located in heavily productive agricultural areas and with its decisions so intricately interwoven with national economic policy, is a key actor in the food decisionmaking process.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, recently established to regulate futures

trading, has a significant role and effect.

International Trade Commission, with its enforcement of import and export

policies, affects food production and distribution.

Office of Management and Budget plays a major role in determining food production and utilization through its influence on policy and expenditures.

Domestic Council, charged with longrange planning and with making Presidential and legislative recommendations, is involved.

Council of Economic Advisors provides significant analyses and inputs into decisionmaking processes involving food,

Council on Wage and Price Stabilization, particularly during its most active period

of the early 1970’s, had tremendous influence on agricultural policy.

Office of Special Representative for Trade Negotiations is a key actor since

agricultural trade is the largest single item involved in our balance of payments

and, as a result, greatly affects how much farmers will be paid to produce food.

National Security Council is involved in all major international political and

economic affairs.

Council on International Economic Policy was created by Presidential memorandum in January 1971 to improve the coordination of U.S. Government agencies in

the field of foreign economic affairs. With food playing so important a role, the

CIEP becomes part of the decision-making process.

President’s Economic Policy Board, established to advise the President concerning

all aspects of national and international economic policy. , and serve as a focal

point for economic policy decisionmaking, has an important effect on food

availability y.

Each of the above has some responsibility for decisionmaking in matters that affect

food policy. In many instances, a decision by some of the above can have not only shortrange but very important long-range effects. As an example of this, decisions in the field of

energy have major impacts in the energy-intensive modern agricultural plant.
St

Chairman, Nutr

APPENDIX IV

atement of Dr. Robert Nesheim

ition Panel of the Food Advisory Committee

Nutrition Information Assessment

Although Congress has passed dozens of bills

affecting the nutritional status of Americans,

surprisingly little is known about the nutritional

status of this Nation. In an effort to alleviate hunger

and the manifold problems related to it, numerous

food delivery programs have been legislated and

implemented. These programs are aimed at providing food to the target populations believed to be

most in need of supplemental nutritional assistance, Thus these programs attempt to provide a

level of nutritional sufficiency to the target population. This assumption raises many poignant questions relating to the quantity and quality of the information which Congress received prior to making

these determinations. How is the target group

selected? Who are the nutritionally deficient in this

Nation? What are their deficiencies? Why do deficiencies exist in their diets? Reasons include:

a. Inadequate purchasing power,

b. Poor selection of food items from money

available,

c. Cultural. food habits,

d. Inadequate preparation facilities, etc.

What are the nutritional requirements of the

population? Are these programs, in fact, meeting

their intended objectives?

Because of the serious implications these questions raise as to the adequacy of channels of nutrition communication and the quality of information

Figure 21 .—Executive organization for food issues

World Food Conference

Follow-Up r I

 ‘R’s’”’” ’ I

International Food

Review Group

Secretary of State—Chairman

Secretary of Agri —Vice Chairman

Secretary of Treasury

Deputy Sec’y of State

Director, OMB

Chairman, CEA

STR

Executive Director, EPB

Executive Director. CIEP

I

IFRG Working Group

State—Chairman

USDA—Vice Chairman

CIEP

STR

NSC

OMB

CEA

Treasury

AID

Commerce

J

Economic Policy Board

‘See’y of Treasury—Chairman

“ Assist. to President for Economic

Affairs—Executive Director

“ Sec’y of State

Sec’y of Interior

Sec’y of Agriculture

‘See’y of Commerce

‘See’y of Labor

Sec’y of HEW

Sec’y of HUD

Sec'y of Transportation

 Director, OMB

‘Chairman, CEA

‘ Executive Director, CIEP

Chairman, Bd. of Governors,

Federal Reserve

Food Deputies Group

CEA—Chairman

Treasury

State

Commerce

USDA

Domestic Council

OMB

CIEP

NSC

CIA

STR

P.L. 480

I

OMB Senior Review Group

Asst. Sec’y Representation from

OMB—Chairman

NSC

CIEP

USDA

State

Treasury

Commerce

Defense

I

AID

Interagency Staff Committee

USDA—Chairman

State

Treasury

Commerce

Defense

AID

OMB

NSC

CIEP

‘Executive Committee Members

83
available, the nutrition panel will explore in depth

the nature of available and necessary nutrition information and examine how it might be used in

Congress.

In an effort to assess the extent and adequacy of

nutritional information, it is essential to study the

various components of the nutrition process and the

information flow related to it?

Although several studies are presently being undertaken or considered which involve analysis of

various components that we will evaluate, it is important to note from the outset that their thrust is

not identical to ours.

The National Center for Health Statistics, HEW,

is now administering Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (HANES) to obtain data for use

in national health program planning. Although the

information is being collected on a rather small

scale, this will be among the information networks

that our assessment will evaluate. Furthermore, the

Administration is considering the establishment of a

multiagency Federal food consumption data bank.

It is anticipated that our assessment will be of

assistance in establishing and implementing such a

system. It should also be pointed out that the Food

and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of

Sciences will be updating the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) guidelines in the near future.

Such an effort, however, will not overlap or infringe

upon the nutrition panel’s proposed undertaking.

This assessment will, in fact, analyze the information input and utility of the RDA to the consumer

and, if necessary, propose improvements. It is anticipated that our assessment may utilize and

analyze other studies being done, but it is not expected to duplicate the research efforts of these

studies.

Before Congress makes any decisions regarding

food delivery programs, members should be aware

of the nutritional state in this Nation. Thus it is imperative that a knowledge of the nutritional status

of the population and its various segments be obtained. Several attempts have been and are presently being made to accomplish this formidable

task,

Presently, there are government agencies gathering varied and often overlapping nutrition information. Both the USDA and HEW are involved in food

delivery programs and have, to some extent,

gathered nutritional information and statistics

relating to the Nation’s population. There is,

however, no clear, concise understanding of exactly

what or how much information each agency collects or distributes or whether the frequency of the

surveys is adequate. Neither has there been an

analysis of the collection processes. If a national

surveillance system is to be implemented, an

evaluation of the information presently being collected would be a first step, This system should indicate the magnitude and extent of nutritional deficiencies by geographical area, income level, age

group, ethnic group, and other identifiable characteristics. It would be necessary to evaluate proposals for surveillance systems considering such

questions as: How should the sample to be

monitored be drawn? Are there particular groups

which should be observed because of suspected

nutritional problems ? Should the information be

gathered by a government agency or through a contractual agreement with a private firm?

How often should the information be reported?

How shall it be collected? Moreover, it would be

necessary to consider the type of information which

might be collected: Should the monitoring be conducted on a random sample of the population or

merely on certain specified target groups? Should

the existing food delivery systems be monitored for

effectiveness in their ability to reach their target

groups and/or for the nutritional quality of the food

delivered? Nutrition surveys tend to be expensive

and time-consuming. Are there innovative approaches that can yield timely and useful information on a cost-effective basis?

These are some of the most obvious questions,

the answers to which would help Congress determine if a survey and surveillance are feasible, or

even desirable. Our objective will be to explore the

questions that would have to be addressed in

establishing a surveillance system, evaluate the information that we have presently and/or need to obtain, and outline the alternative surveillance options available to Congress.

Food Consumption

Since people require nutrients but eat foods to obtain these nutrients, it is important that we have

sound information on what people eat, First, we

must collect and analyze the existing surveys of

food consumption, most notably the USDA’s

Household Food Consumption Survey (HFCS). This

should be evaluated with regard to the adequacy of

84
the survey’s consideration of differences between

the total household consumption and the consumption level of individual family members, as well as

differences between consumption levels based on

age, sex, ethnic group, income, and geographical

area. Varying food consumption habits result in

deviations in nutrient intake.

Thus, it is essential to monitor food consumption

habits to maintain information on the nutritional

status of key segments of the population and thus

gain some insight into the nutritional status of the

population. In this respect, we should analyze the

differences in quality and type of food consumption

for each group and the effect of these differences on

the health of individuals within a particular group.

The end result will be to state the options available

for implementing a survey of food consumption

with cost and feasibility alternatives.

We will, at the same time, attempt to synthesize

the existing information into a cohesive framework.

In doing so, we will gain insight into the quantity

and quality of information that is currently available, how these sources of information contrast with

each other, and how they can be improved.

Food Composition

Because people eat food but require nutrients, it

is essential to determine the nutrient composition of

specific foods, both processed and unprocessed.

Many recommendations have been made as to

possible methods of analyzing food composition. It

is important to determine what these theories are,

how they relate to each other, and where they

differ. Additionally, these must be assessed in

terms of their ability to be implemented in a continuous and consistent manner for all foods.

The USDA has for years been determining and

recording the composition of a broad spectrum of

the foods available for American consumption.

Known as Handbook 8, this volume has been relied

upon by all segments of the food delivery chain for

ready reference on food composition. Thus, one

task before the nutrition panel will be to examine

Handbook 8 to determine if it provides a comprehensive analysis in terms of foods surveyed and

nutrients enumerated, ability to remain” current,

validity of findings, and dissemination of information to the public in a comprehensive manner.

Consideration should also be given to the following:

●

●

●

Which nutrients are or should be included

‘in the analysis?

Does the handbook properly reflect the influence of processing and storage on

nutrient content of foods as delivered to

the consumer?

Does the processing and storage technology differentially affect the nutrient

content of food? What are the trade-offs

in terms “of food availability, nutrient

preservation and economic viability?

Thus, the assessment should evaluate whether it

is, in fact, possible to analyze the nutrient content

of foods, validly and in a meaningful manner, in

light of the technology applied in the marketing process, and to summarize it effectively.

Nutrition Requirements

Nutrition is intrinsically related- to health. It is

impossible, however, to recommend nutrient intake

levels for individuals without an evaluation of the

nutrient requirements of these individuals.

Moreover, an assessment of nutrient requirements

should evaluate the feasibility of considering the

varied requirements of different segments of the

population based on age, sex, present state of

health, and environmental situation,

Any assessment of nutrient requirements should

also examine the RDA—what it is, what information it utilizes and provides, and how effective it is.

Particular attention should be given to the RDA and

its users, since this is used extensively in measuring

adequacy of nutrient intakes, recommending diets,

and evaluating nutritional needs. Other suggestions

for establishing nutrient requirements should be

considered and analyzed with attention to ease of

obtaining information, cost, timeliness of obtaining

results, and the validity of applying the information

to the target population.

What we must bear in mind in considering each

of these components is that this assessment will

deal with information options rather than with

policy alternatives. By enumerating the nutritional

components and evaluating the available information in terms of quantity, quality, what information

is needed and how, or if, it can be obtained, we will

have completed the first step toward helping Congress to formulate a nutrition policy. If this is to be

achieved, it is only with quality information in

sufficient quantity that responsible decisions can be

made.

1:1

85