For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

web site: bookstore@gpo.gov
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (such as

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Mention or depiction of commercial products or organizations in this publication does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture over other products and organizations not mentioned or depicted.

For more information on USDA, visit USDA’s web site at: http://www.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture • Office of Communications

Agriculture Fact Book

2001-2002

March 2003

http://www.usda.gov
Contents | iii

Preface ..........................................................................................................v

1. Current Topics: 

Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today..............................1

Homeland Security ................................................................................2

Conservation Measures in the 2002 Farm Bill ....................................5

Biotechnology in Brief ...........................................................................8

Certified Organic: Update......................................................................8

Energy Policy in the 2002 Farm Bill....................................................11

2. Profiling Food Consumption in America .........................................13

Meat Consumption at Record High....................................................15

Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts Cheese Consumption........................16

...And Swells Use of Salad and Cooking Oils and Shortening .........17

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Continues To Rise......................18

Consumers Eat Too Much Refined Grain, Too Little Whole Grain ..19

Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners Hits Record High ...................20

Food Expenditures and Prices.............................................................20

How Much of the Cost of Food Services and Distribution 

Goes to Farmers? .................................................................................21

3. American Farms..................................................................................23

Acres or Sales? .....................................................................................24

Change by Sales Class, 1982 to 1997..................................................26

Diversity Among American Farms .....................................................27

Shares of Farms, Assets, and Production...........................................30

Specialization and Diversification .....................................................30

Government Program Participation ...................................................32

Household Income...............................................................................34

Farm Policy and Family Farms ...........................................................34

4. Rural America: Entering the 21st Century......................................37

Rural Population Growth Levels Off, but the West 

Continues To Grow...............................................................................38

Rural Areas Benefited From the Nation’s Economic Prosperity......39

Rural Economies Are Based on Different Assets ..............................41

Federal Funding for Rural Area Development 

Smaller Than for Urban Areas............................................................42

Contents
5. U.S. Department of Agriculture.........................................................45

Departmental Administration............................................................47

Office of the Chief Economist.............................................................52

Office of the Inspector General ..........................................................54

Office of the Chief Information Officer..............................................54

Office of the Chief Financial Officer...................................................55

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations .............55

6. USDA Rural Development...................................................................57

Rural Business-Cooperative Service ..................................................58

Rural Housing Service .........................................................................60

Rural Utilities Service..........................................................................63

Office of Community Development ...................................................64

7. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.........................................67

Farm Service Agency ...........................................................................68

Foreign Agricultural Service ...............................................................74

Risk Management Agency...................................................................81

8. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ........................................85

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion .......................................86

Food and Nutrition Service.................................................................87

9. Food Safety ..........................................................................................99

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................100

10. Natural Resources and Environment.............................................111

Forest Service .....................................................................................112

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........................................126

11. Research, Education, and Economics ...........................................133

Agricultural Research Service ..........................................................134

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ...137

Economic Research Service ..............................................................140

National Agricultural Statistics Service ..........................................143

12. Marketing and Regulatory Programs............................................147

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................148

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................................154

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ...........160

Index..........................................................................................................163

iv | Agriculture Fact Book | Contents
Preface | v

In this Agriculture Fact Book, you will find facts about American food consumption, the

agricultural sector, and rural America. You will also find descriptions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s wide-ranging programs and services in such areas as farm

programs; exports; food safety; nutrition; management of land, water, and forests;

protecting our borders from pests and diseases; and research on all of these topics.

This Agriculture Fact Book is also a gateway to further information from USDA.

USDA is a good source for useful factual information across a variety of subjects—for

example, what people eat, how to grow a garden, how to apply for a farm loan, how

to maintain the soil and water resources on your farm or in your town, how to keep

your family’s food safe.

Not only are the USDA programs and missions wide-ranging, but USDA works every

day to meet the needs of very diverse constituents. The information we provide is

intended to be useful to diverse groups, including reporters, editors, researchers,

students, teachers, businesses, Government employees, and members of the general

public who are curious about the U.S. agricultural sector, food consumption, rural

America, or any of the wide-ranging programs that USDA offers.

You will notice “Agricultural Policy Notes” featured in italics throughout this book.

Most of them are from the book Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New

Century, which USDA published in September 2001 to lay out the Bush Administration’s point of view on agricultural policy.

You can find Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century, along with

this Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002 in USDA’s Web site (www.usda.gov). I encourage you

to use this Web site, its links, and other media to reach information from USDA—

because whether you are a farmer or a gardener, a professor or a child; whether you

live in a city or a rural area; whether you grow, cook, or only eat food—USDA has

useful information just for you.

ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY

Preface
CHAPTER 1

Current Topics: Selected Issues

in American Agriculture Today
2 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

This section gives a brief overview of 

a few current issues facing American

agriculture–and therefore the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Further

information on these current topics can

be found on the Web sites indicated.

Homeland Security

What is USDA doing to ensure the wellbeing of America’s agriculture and food

supply? The Department has in place an

overall biosecurity system designed to 

prevent the harmful introduction of plant 

and animal pathogens into America’s

system of agriculture and food production. From the farm to the table, USDA

enforces biosecurity measures designed

to protect against all animal and plant

pathogens.

Following September 11, 2001, USDA

took immediate steps to secure sensitive

facilities and examine vulnerabilities

throughout the food chain, and it conducted assessments to identify the critical needs to fill security gaps. USDA

continues to take the necessary steps to

ensure that its programs and services

are responsive to potential biosecurity

threats. USDA programs aim to meet two

very important objectives: first, to prevent 

the entry of plant or animal diseases,

and second, to contain and eradicate the

problem if we do face an emergency.

USDA is looking at short- and long-term

needs to ensure that the Department

continues to protect America’s food

supply and agriculture against pests and

diseases of any kind. In 2001 and 2002,

USDA took steps to strengthen USDA’s

agricultural infrastructure—the programs, the research, the coordination,

and the resources—to ensure that the

Department has the ability to prevent

pests and diseases from harming agriculture and our food system.

The Department’s efforts on homeland

security are based on a longstanding

commitment to food safety and to securing the food supply and agriculture

from threats. For example, in 2001, the

Department dealt with the threat of

foot-and-mouth disease as a widespread

outbreak occurred in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. USDA

strengthened surveillance and response

systems as it dealt with the threat of this

disease that we had not seen in this

country for over 70 years.

However, since September 11, 2001, USDA 

is also examining threats to our food

supply as homeland security issues. The

Department is now concerned about intentional as well as unintentional threats.

“The best way to deal with threats 

to the Nation’s food supply and

agricultural infrastructure is to prevent

and deter intentional or unintentional

introduction of plant and animal

diseases into the United States. I have

said many times that pests and animal

disease prevention and eradication

programs are central to USDA’s ability

to protect the Nation’s food supply and

agricultural infrastructure. Simply put,

the best offense is a good defense.”

Secretary Ann M. Veneman, May 9, 2001
Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today | 3

USDA has stepped up its ongoing efforts

to protect American agriculture against

potential threats. Key homeland security

activities include protecting the food supply and agricultural production, as well as 

protecting USDA staff and facilities and

ensuring emergency preparedness. Some

of the key biosecurity enhancements being implemented include the following: 

■ Security has been increased at appropriate USDA facilities.

■ At ports of entry, personnel are conducting intensified product and cargo

inspections of travelers and baggage to

prevent the entry of animal or plant

pests and diseases. The Agricultural

Quarantine Inspection program has been

strengthened, and an automated system

of inspections is being developed in coordination with the U.S. Customs Service.

USDA is purchasing 100 rapid pathogen

identification devices and hiring additional inspection personnel. USDA also

has doubled its inspection dog teams.

Port inspection responsibilities will be

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security during 2003.

■ Food safety inspectors have been given additional guidance to be alert to any

irregularity at food processing facilities.

USDA constantly reviews and updates its

biosecurity procedures as laboratory

methods and science improve. FSIS has

increased monitoring, provided training

to inspectors, hired additional inspectors

for imported meat and poultry, and expanded technical capabilities.

Modern information technologies allow

for improved responses to plant and animal pest and disease outbreaks. For example, USDA is also developing a system

that relies on geographic information

system technologies to provide capabilities for real-time mapping to predict

spread and consequences of outbreaks.

And the Agricultural Research Service is

improving rapid detection technologies

for foot-and-mouth disease as well as

other animal diseases. The Department

is also addressing the possible disruption

to its computer systems.

Training exercises, as well as more communications and technical assistance,

have been conducted and improved to

ensure readiness should we face an animal, pest, or food emergency.

Federal and State Coordination

USDA works with the Congress, States,

other Federal agencies, academia, and

the private sector to make sure that the

Nation has a strong line of defense.

USDA is coordinating with other Federal

agencies—such as the Food and Drug

Administration, the Centers for Disease

Control, the U.S. Customs Service, and

law enforcement agencies—on biosecurity issues, and with appropriate State 

and local agriculture offices and industry

organizations on emergency preparedness, in order to provide training and

strengthen resources where appropriate.

State grants and cooperative agreements

help bolster food and agricultural homeland security protections. These grants

are an important component of U.S. efforts to strengthen homeland security

protections as they relate to food and

agriculture. States and local communities, along with academia and the private sector, are critical partners in making sure the Nation is prepared in the

event of an emergency.

USDA conducts regular training, meetings, and conferences to discuss planning and preparedness issues as they

relate to pest and animal diseases and

food safety issues. USDA communicates

with producers, farmers, and food manufacturers via industry associations, industry media, and cooperators on State

and local levels regarding ongoing agricultural issues such as biosecurity. USDA

officials in every State continue to meet

and discuss with producers and farmers

the importance of heightened awareness

as a protection measure against biosecurity threats, urging responsible and cautious monitoring of the Nation’s food

and agriculture system.

Protecting Meat and Poultry

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection

Service (FSIS) has a team of more than

6,000 food safety inspectors working

throughout the United States at meat

processing facilities. These are specialists who are trained to look for and

prevent adulteration and foodborne

contamination of meat and poultry

products that could threaten the 

safety of our food supply.
4 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

■ Publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider additional

regulatory options for the disposal of

dead stock on farms and ranches.

The FY 2002 budget included $13 million

for additional BSE surveillance, research,

and laboratory activities.

Furthermore, new inspection positions

have been added to improve FSIS’ capacity to detect and prevent food safety

problems. In addition, supplementary

education and specialized training will

be provided for existing FSIS inspection

personnel. FSIS has hired 17 District Veterinary Medical Specialists. These new

positions will ensure that all plants, regardless of size, appropriately address

their humane handling responsibilities

and other slaughter issues. Additionally,

FSIS is training 75 Consumer Safety Officers to conduct on-site food safety and

other consumer protection assessments

in meat and poultry establishments, and

make determinations about the scientific efficacy of a plant’s Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control Point operating plan.

For More Information:

For more information on USDA’s homeland security efforts, visit:

www.usda.gov/homelandsecurity 

For more information on food safety

issues, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov

Consumers concerned about their meat

or poultry products should contact 

USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline at: 

1-800-535-4555. A USDA compliance officer will follow up on reports of product

tampering and adulteration.

Consumers who believe they have eaten

suspect product should contact a physician immediately.

FSIS continues to strengthen meat,

poultry, and egg food safety systems that

protect consumers, and it has taken

actions that continually improve food

safety protections.

USDA has a responsibility to protect

public health, and it incorporates proven

scientific principles throughout the food

safety system to enhance our food safety

infrastructure. The agency has the most

advanced food safety system in the

world and it continually works to enhance it.

This food safety system has achieved 

some measurable successes. For example,

Salmonella testing data show that the

prevalence of this pathogen has significantly decreased in all product categories,

including turkey. Also, data from the

Centers for Disease Control show significant reductions in foodborne illness.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, and

potential threats to the Nation’s food

supply, FSIS has strengthened food protection programs and is spending an additional $15 million to bolster food safety 

protections. Additional resources will be

provided to strengthen USDA’s foreign

meat inspection program and to enhance laboratory systems and research.

USDA has formed several homeland security teams to specifically examine

ways to strengthen protections against

intentional threats to the food supply.

In November 2001, USDA released a

landmark study conducted by Harvard

University that showed the risk of BSE

(bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or

mad cow disease) entering the United

States is very low. Even so, USDA announced several actions to strengthen

protection systems, including:

■ Doubling the number of BSE tests,

■ Publishing a policy options paper outlining additional regulatory actions that

may be taken to reduce potential risks,

■ Developing a proposed rule to prohibit

the use of certain stunning devices used

to immobilize cattle during slaughter,

and 
Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today | 5

Conservation Measures in the 

2002 Farm Bill

The Farm Security and Rural Investment

Act of 2002 (called the Farm Bill), which 

governs Federal farm programs for 6 years,

was signed into law on May 13, 2002. It

contains record levels of support for environmental stewardship and conservation 

of soil and water quality on working

lands. Following are highlights of the 

conservation measures in this legislation.

Conservation Funding Increased 

The 2002 Farm Act increases funding for 

almost every existing agri-environmental 

program. Overall spending for conservation and environmental programs will rise 

by 80 percent to a projected 10-year total 

of $38.6 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates (based

on the April 2002 baseline). It continues

and expands the programs that support 

conservation on land in production,

including livestock operations. New programs, including the Conservation Security Program and the Grassland Reserve

Program, further expand the objectives

and role of agri-environmental policy.

This legislation responds to a broad range

of emerging natural resource challenges

faced by farmers and ranchers, including 

soil erosion, wetlands and wildlife habitat

enhancement, and farmland protection.

Conservation Provisions in the 2002

Farm Bill

Under the 2002 Farm Act, producers can

choose from a wide range of voluntary

conservation and environmental programs—including cost share, land rental,

incentive payments, and technical assistance—designed to protect a wide range

of resources. Like the three previous

Farm Acts, the 2002 Act continues the

trend of increasing the size and scope of

agri-environmental programs. While programs that support better conservation

and environmental management on

working land have accounted for less

than 15 percent of Federal conservation

expenditures over the past 15 years, they

receive more than 60 percent of the

$17.1-billion increase in conservation

spending.

Here is a summary of existing conservation programs covered in the 2002 Farm

Bill. Most of the following programs get

acreage or funding increases:

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) offers annual payments and cost sharing to 

establish long-term, resource-conserving

cover on environmentally sensitive land.

It provides technical and financial assistance to reduce soil erosion, protect the 

Nation’s ability to produce food and fiber,

reduce sedimentation in streams and

lakes, improve water quality, establish

Environmental quality matters a great

deal to Americans today, whether

preserving wetlands, improving

wildlife habitat, or maintaining water

quality in rivers, streams, and lakes.

Agriculture, vast as it is, holds a

special responsibility for resource

stewardship. How farmers address this

environmental responsibility...has

shown steady improvement, but

remains a matter of both public and

private concern.
6 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

wildlife habitat, and enhance forest and

wetland resources. CRP encourages

farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive

acreage to vegetative cover. The acreage

cap is increased from 36.4 million acres

to 39.2 million acres. Funding is through

the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC). CBO estimates increased spending

of $1.5 billion over 10 years.

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is part of the CRP. It is a

voluntary program designed to address

specific grassroots environmental issues

related to agriculture. The CREP combines the CRP with State programs to

provide a framework allowing USDA to

work in partnership with State government and local interests. Because the

Farm Bill increases acreage caps for the

CRP, it will provide more opportunities to

create partnership agreements. More information on the CRP and the CREP can

be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

dafp/cepd/default.htm

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is 

USDA’s premier wetland restoration program. It provides cost sharing and/or

long-term or permanent easements for

restoring wetland on agricultural land.

The acreage cap is increased from 1.075

million acres to 2.275 million acres. The

Secretary of Agriculture is required (to

the greatest extent practicable) to enroll 

250,000 acres per year. Funding is through

the CCC. CBO estimates increased spending of $1.5 billion over 10 years. The WRP

is offered on a continuous signup basis.

Applications are available at local USDA

Service Centers, NRCS field offices and

conservation districts, or on the Web at

http://www.sc.egov.usda.gov 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) provides technical assistance, cost

sharing, and incentive payments to assist livestock and crop producers with

conservation and environmental improvements. The Farm Bill reauthorizes

EQIP through 2007. EQIP is slated to receive $5.8 billion in CCC funding for FY

2002-07 and a total of $9 billion over 10

years. Funding is phased up to $1.3 billion annually by FY 2007, compared with

annual funding of roughly $200 million

per year under the 1996 Farm Act. Additional CCC funding of $250 million over

FY 2002-07 is provided for ground and

surface water conservation. An additional $50 million is allocated to water conservation activities in the Klamath Basin.

The Farm Bill reauthorizes the popular

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to

improve fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. Through WHIP, landowners

can receive financial and technical assistance to help reverse the trend in the

decline of available wildlife habitat and

contribute to the recovery of many of

the Nation’s species that are currently at

risk. Total CCC funding of $360 million is

mandated over FY 2002–07, ranging from

$15 million in FY 2002 to $85 million in

FY 2005–07, and a total of $700 million

over 10 years. WHIP is offered on a con-
Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today | 7

tinuous signup basis. Applications are

available at local USDA Service Centers,

at NRCS field offices and conservation

districts, or on the Web at

http://www.sc.egov.usda.gov 

The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) provides funds to State, tribal, or local governments and private organizations to

help purchase development rights and

keep productive farmland in agricultural

use. The Farm Bill reauthorizes this program and extends it to nongovernmental

organizations to purchase conservation

easements. It also expands the program

to protecting farms and ranches that 

contain historical and archaeological sites.

Total CCC funding of $597 million is

mandated over FY 2002–7, ranging from

$50 million in FY 2002 to $125 million in

FY 2004–05, and totaling $985 million

over 10 years.

The Farm Bill permanently reauthorizes

the Resource Conservation and Development

Program (RC&D). This program provides

tools and technical support to help local

people improve their quality of life; address social, economic, and environmental concerns; and use natural resources

wisely. The focus on local direction and

control has made RC&D one of the most

successful rural development programs

of the Federal Government.

The following new programs will also receive significant funding while expanding the overall scope of USDA conservation programs:

The Farm Bill creates a new Conservation

Security Program to financially recognize

ongoing stewardship efforts and to help

producers address additional resource

concerns on agricultural working lands.

The Conservation Security Program will

provide payments to producers for maintaining or adopting a wide range of

structural and/or land management

practices that address a variety of local

and/or national resource concerns. The

Farm Bill establishes the program for FY

2003 through 2007. CSP will be funded

through the CCC. CBO estimates spending of $369 million for FY 2003–07 and

$2 billion over 10 years.

The Grassland Reserve Program will protect

up to 2 million acres of grassland. CCC 

funding of up to $254 million is available.

Also included in the Farm Bill are new initiatives that address challenges in water

quality and quantity. A new ground and

surface water conservation initiative will

help farmers improve irrigation, grow less 

water-intensive crops, or convert to dryland farming. A new grassroots sourcewater protection initiative will provide

for wellhead and groundwater protection by working with State programs.

For More Information

The day after President Bush signed the

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act

of 2002 into law, USDA launched a new

Web site aimed at helping farmers,

ranchers, and the general public learn

the latest information about the new

Farm Act. The Farm Act is very broad

and contains many new programs. The

new Web site helps users find information at one site that includes Farm Bill

program details, questions and answers,

program applications and signup forms,

as well as other important materials from 

USDA agencies on Farm Bill implementation. The Web site will also contain advanced electronic applications to help

program applicants receive program

benefits faster and more efficiently.

The Web site can be directly accessed 

at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill, or by simply clicking on the 2002 Farm Bill icon 

on USDA’s main Web site at http://www.

usda.gov 

The Farm Service Agency administers

the Conservation Reserve Program, the

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and other conservation programs.

Its Web site is http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

pas/default.asp 

The Natural Resources Conservation

Service administers the Environmental

Quality Improvement Program, Wetland

Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, Farmland Protection Program, and other conservation

programs. Its Web site is

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

Conservation programs can help 

reduce the gap between the level 

of environmental quality 

the public demands and 

the level of environmental quality 

that farmers and forest landowners

would otherwise provide.
8 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

Biotechnology in Brief

USDA is one of three Federal agencies—

along with the Environmental Protection

Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—that have primary responsibility for regulating biotechnology in

the United States. Products are regulated

according to their intended use, with

some products being regulated under

more than one agency.

Agricultural biotechnology has been advancing rapidly; and for all the promises

it offers, it poses as many questions.

Agricultural biotechnology is rewriting

the rules in several key areas—agricultural research policy, industry structure,

production and marketing, consumer

preference, and world food demand—

and public policy is struggling to keep

up. Much of the current interest in

biotechnology stems from the rapid

diffusion in North America and other

exporting countries, such as Argentina,

of genetically engineered crops such as

cotton, soybeans, corn, and canola, and

from the uneasy consumer response in

Europe as compared with the United

States.

The emergence of agricultural biotechnology is occurring at a time when the

whole world is the marketplace. With

rapid economic growth in much of the

world, consumers are more affluent and

demand more variety and higher quality

in the food they eat. Agricultural biotechnology provides a means to meet

these demands. But at the same time, international consumer preferences can

steer the development of technology and

heighten the uncertainty surrounding

the use of agricultural biotechnology.

The array of issues surrounding biotechnology includes the legal, ethical, environmental, and economic–including the

rate of and reasons for adoption of biotechnology by farmers. Other issues include marketing, labeling, and trade in

biotechnology products. Variety approval

processes here, labeling requirements,

and expressed market demand for crops 

that have not been genetically engineered 

could contribute to the transformation of

the global food marketing system.

Intellectual property rights and market

concentration in the agricultural input

industries are intertwined areas that are

shaped by public policy. Large biotech

firms have merged with seed companies

to obtain sources of germplasm to spin

off genetically modified seed varieties

and to secure outlets for delivering the

new products. Concentration in the input industry raises questions about the 

direction for future agricultural research.

Critical to the efficient and equitable advance of agricultural biotechnology is

determining the unique role of public research and when and how the public

sector should interact with the private

sector.

For more information, see USDA’s

Agricultural Biotechnology Web site:

http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/

index.html 

Certified Organic: Update

Organic farming became one of the

fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture during the 1990s. State and private

institutions also began emerging during

this period to set organic farming standards and provide third-party verification

of label claims, and legislation requiring

national standards was passed in the

1990s. Although farmers have been developing organic farming systems in the

United States for decades, more U.S.

producers are now considering organic

farming systems in order to lower input

costs, conserve nonrenewable resources,

capture high-value markets, and boost

farm income.

Organic farming systems rely on ecologically based practices such as cultural

and biological pest management, and

they virtually prohibit the use of synthetic chemicals in crop production and

antibiotics or hormones in livestock production. Many producers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers specialize

in growing, processing, and marketing an

ever-widening array of organic food and

fiber products.

Biotechnology is another tool 

that promises to help meet 

consumers’ demand for services,

illustrating how demand and

technology interact to create 

new markets.

Biotechnology is a collection 

of powerful tools that can be used 

to increase production or cut costs,

develop product attributes desired by

consumers, or enhance environmental

quality.... Additionally, the tools 

of biotechnology can address

environmental challenges.

Prospects include pollution remediation,

increased bioenergy availability,

enhanced carbon sequestration,

and reduced fertilizer runoff.
Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today | 9

Organic Food Standards and Labels:

The Facts

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has

put in place a set of national standards

that food labeled “organic” must meet,

whether it is grown in the United States

or imported from other countries. After

October 21, 2002, when consumers buy

food labeled “organic,” they can be sure

that it was produced using the highest

organic production and handling standards in the world.

What is organic food? Organic food is

produced by farmers who emphasize the

use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance

environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and

dairy products come from animals that

are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides,

petroleum-based fertilizers or sewage

sludge-based fertilizers, bio-engineering,

or ionizing radiation. Before a product

can be labeled “organic,” a Governmentapproved certifier inspects the farm

where the food is grown to make sure

the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards.

Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local

supermarket or restaurant must be

certified, too.

USDA makes no claims that organically

produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced

food. Organic food differs from conventionally produced food in the way it is

grown, handled, and processed. At the

supermarket, in order to distinguish organically produced food from conventionally produced food, consumers must

look at package labels and watch for display signs. Along with the national organic standards, USDA developed strict

labeling rules to help consumers know

the exact organic content of the food

they buy. The USDA Organic seal also

tells you that a product is at least 95 percent organic.

The word “organic” and a small sticker

version of the USDA Organic seal will be

on organic vegetables or pieces of fruit,

or they may appear on the sign above

the organic produce display. The word

“organic” and the seal may also appear

on packages of meat, cartons of milk or

eggs, cheese, and other single-ingredient

foods.

The use of the Organic seal is voluntary.

People who sell or label a product “organic” when they know it does not meet

USDA standards can be fined up to

$10,000 for each violation.

“Natural” foods are not necessarily organic foods. Truthful claims, such as 

free-range, hormone-free, and natural, can

still appear on food labels. However, this

does not mean that they are “organic.”

Only food labeled “organic” has been certified as meeting USDA organic standards.

For More Information About 

Organic Foods

For more detailed information on the

USDA organic standards, visit the Agricultural Marketing Service’s National

Organic Program Web site at http://www.

ams.usda.gov/nop. The site contains a

complete list of applicants for accreditation, application information, and more

information on the National Organic

Program. You may also call the National

Organic Program at 202-720-3252, or

write USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4008 S.

Bldg., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Energy and Agriculture

Implementing the National Energy

Policy at USDA

In May of 2001, President Bush unveiled

his national energy policy, which included a greater reliance on alternative and

renewable energy sources, including the

use of biofuels and biomass energy

sources. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has made important efforts to implement these recommendations.

One major effort at USDA is to develop 

renewable energy and bioproducts. USDA 

ordered increased use of biofuels in its

motor vehicles and improved energy

conservation at its facilities around the

country. USDA is also evaluating the potential to convert USDA fuel tanks to

biodiesel and ethanol use. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bioenergy

Program signed up increases of 141.3

million gallons in ethanol production

and 6.4 million gallons in biodiesel production in FY 2001. The program is extended through FY 2002, with $150 million in funding for production incentives

fully subscribed. Also, USDA’s rural business program area has increased loan

guarantees and grants to support new 

ethanol and bioproduct plants. And USDA

has an increased research budget for renewable energy.

A second key effort involves the management of public lands. For example, the 

USDA Forest Service is working with

other Federal Departments on an Interagency Hydropower Committee to implement agreements from the old

Hydropower Task Force to improve the

hydropower licensing process, and has

participated in a national energy industry review group in discussing changes

to improve hydropower licensing. The

Forest Service is also increasing research

and development for renewable energy,

including biomass heat and energy distribution projects and development of

well-designed combined heat and power

units, and is cooperating with DOE to

purchase 6 turbines to place in small

communities to produce electricity as a

demonstration project.

In a third key area, USDA’s Rural Utilities

Service is actively seeking to make loans

and loan guarantees to rural electric cooperatives interested in developing electric power generation fueled partially or

totally by renewable feedstocks.
10 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

Here are some further specific efforts

that USDA has undertaken in support of

the national energy policy:

Iowa State and USDA Cooperative Agreement. In

September 2002, Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and Iowa State University to

help implement provisions of the 2002

Farm Bill Energy Title that provides for

preferred procurement of biobased products by Federal agencies. This initiative

will help expand markets for farmers

and foresters through the use of valueadded bioenergy agricultural products.

Under the cooperative agreement, USDA

will provide $1 million annually for testing biobased products which will help

enable USDA to move more quickly to

get the biobased product procurement

program in operation.

USDA, DOE Team Up To Produce Bioenergy.

USDA and the Department of Energy are

evaluating whether a microturbine generator that runs on methane biogas from

animal manure can be a good source of

electricity and heat for a research dairy

farm. This cooperative project involves

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service,

the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of

Bio-Power, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The microturbine system could generate as much as 26 kilowatts of electricity and approximately

400,000 British thermal units per hour of

heat for small dairy operations of less

than 250 cows. The project will be conducted at the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville

Agricultural Research Center (BARC) at

Beltsville, MD.

This technology provides an alternate

use of dairy cow manure. Tons of manure are produced by the 1,400-pound

dairy cows and pumped from the barn

into an anaerobic digester, where the

liquid and solids are separated. The

solids go to composting and the liquids

are further processed in the digester to

produce a biogas that contains methane.

The methane gas is captured and used

in the microturbine generator, and the

remaining liquid—with odor significantly

reduced—is used for fertilizing the crops

at BARC.

The ARS research team will also evaluate the technology’s environmental and

economic impact. If this type of system

proves to be efficient and cost-effective,

it could provide an alternative energy

source for dairy farmers. Energy costs

are a large portion of dairy operating

costs. The system also could help reduce

methane emissions that contribute to

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

Rural Development Funds to Help Support Rural

Energy and Business Efforts. In December

2001, USDA announced over $260 million

in loan and grant funds for 24 States to

boost bioenergy production, expand rural business ventures, and improve economic and community development.

These loan and grant funds are being

provided through USDA’s Rural Development programs. Over 90 percent of the

funds announced will provide guaranteed loans to electric cooperatives in 14

States to increase access for nearly

19,000 rural consumers to rural electric

service. The guaranteed loans are provided in cooperation with the Federal

Financing Bank (FFB).

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

USDA established an Office of Energy

Policy and New Uses (OEPNU) to assist

the Secretary of Agriculture in developing Departmental energy policy and coordinating Departmental energy programs and strategies. The Office provides

economic analysis on energy policy issues, coordinates USDA energy-related

activities within and outside the Department, and studies the feasibility of new

uses of agricultural products.

Research is currently underway on

biodiesel fuels, ethanol fuels, and other

sources of biomass energy. Measurement

of atmospheric emissions associated

with renewable energy also is under

study. The potential effects of deregulation of electric utilities on rural communities are being studied in cooperation

with the Department’s Rural Utilities

Service.

In August 2002, the OEPNU released a report that confirmed the energy efficiency

of ethanol and its positive role in reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil. The

report, The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol:

An Update, concludes that ethanol production is energy efficient because it

yields 34 percent more energy than is

used in growing and harvesting the corn

and distilling it into ethanol.

The report says that the net energy value of corn ethanol has become positive

in recent years due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production.

Ethanol produces much more energy

than it consumes when compared to

other products such as petroleum. Moreover, ethanol production uses abundant

domestic supplies of energy to convert

corn into a premium liquid fuel that can

displace petroleum imports.

Ethanol production has grown in the

United States from a few million gallons

in the late 1970s to about 1.8 billion gallons in 2001, spurred by national energy

security concerns, new Federal gasoline

standards, and government incentives.

The increase in ethanol production has

stimulated the U.S. agricultural economy

because most ethanol is made from corn.

The boost in ethanol demand has created a significant new market for corn.

According to the report, today’s higher

corn yields, lower energy use per unit of

output in the fertilizer industry, and advances in fuel conversion technologies

have greatly enhanced the economic and 

technical feasibility of producing ethanol.

Studies using older data tend to overestimate energy use because the efficiency

of growing corn and converting it to

ethanol has improved significantly over

the past 20 years. The report is available

on the Web at http://www.usda.gov/oce.
Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today | 11

Energy Policy in the 2002 Farm Bill

The 2002 Farm Bill was the first in history to contain a separate energy title, reflecting a fundamental policy linking of

agriculture to energy. Title IX of the Farm

Bill establishes new programs and grants

for procurement of biobased products to

support development of biorefineries; to

educate the public about benefits of

biodiesel fuel use; and to assist eligible

farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses in purchasing renewable energy

systems. Here are some of the key new

provisions of this legislation:

■ Federal procurement of biobased products establishes a new program for purchase of

biobased products by Federal agencies,

modeled on the existing program for

purchase of recycled materials. A voluntary biobased labeling program is included. It mandates funding of $1 million annually through the CCC for FY 2002–07

for testing biobased products.

■ A competitive Biorefinery Grants Program

supports development of biorefineries to

convert biomass into multiple products

such as fuels, chemicals, and electricity.

For FY 2002–07, appropriations are authorized as necessary to implement this

provision.

■ The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program establishes a competitive grant program to

educate government and private entities

with vehicle fleets, as well as the public,

about the benefits of biodiesel fuel use.

The program is funded at $1 million annually through the CCC for FY 2003–07.

■ The Energy Audit and Renewable Energy

Development Program authorizes a competitive grant program for entities to administer energy audits and renewable energy development assessments for

farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses. For FY 2002–07, appropriations

are authorized as necessary to implement this provision

■ The renewable energy systems and energy

efficiency improvements establish a loan,

loan guarantee, and grant program to assist eligible farmers, ranchers, and rural

small businesses in purchasing renewable energy systems and making energy

efficiency improvements. This effort provides CCC funding of $23 million annually for FY 2003-07.

■ Under a provision concerning hydrogen

and fuel cell technologies, the Secretaries of

Agriculture and Energy are directed to

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding hydrogen and fuel

cell technology applications for agricultural producers and rural communities.

The Secretary of Agriculture is required

to disseminate information on these

technologies to agricultural producers

and rural communities.

In addition, previously existing programs

were expanded under provisions of the

2002 Farm Bill:

■ The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 had directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy to cooperate and to coordinate policies and

procedures that promote research and

development leading to the production

of biobased industrial products. The 2002

Farm Bill extends the termination date

to September 30, 2006, and provides $5

million of CCC funds for FY 2002 and $14

million annually for FY 2003-–07.

■ Under the Bioenergy Program, the Secretary of Agriculture makes payments

through the CCC to eligible producers to

encourage increased purchases of eligible commodities (energy feedstocks) for

the purpose of expanding production of

bioenergy and supporting new production capacity. Payments to eligible producers are based on the increase in

quantity of bioenergy they produce during a fiscal year over the quantity they

produced during the preceding fiscal

year. The new Farm Bill reauthorizes the

program and broadens the list of eligible

feedstocks to include animal byproducts

and fat, oils, and greases (including recycled fats, oils, and greases). The Secretary is required to use up to $150 million

annually for FY 2003–06.

■ Under the Renewable Energy Development Loan and Grant Program, USDA

business loan programs provided financial assistance to various kinds of businesses, including value-added agricultural enterprises. Under the new

legislation, business and industry loans

and guarantees will be allowed for more

types of renewable energy systems, such

as wind energy systems and anaerobic

digesters.

The Biobased Products and Bioenergy

Coordination Council 

The Biobased Products and Bioenergy

Coordination Council was established by

the Secretary of Agriculture to provide a

forum through which USDA agencies

will coordinate, facilitate, and promote

research, development, transfer of technology, commercialization, and marketing of biobased products and bioenergy

using renewable domestic agricultural

and forestry materials.
CHAPTER 2

Profiling Food Consumption 

in America
14 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 2

Americans at the beginning of the 21st

century are consuming more food and

several hundred more calories per person per day than did their counterparts

in the late 1950s (when per capita calorie

consumption was at the lowest level in

the last century), or even in the 1970s.

The aggregate food supply in 2000 provided 3,800 calories per person per day,

500 calories above the 1970 level and 800

calories above the record low in 1957

and 1958 (fig. 2-1).

Of that 3,800 calories, USDA’s Economic

Research Service (ERS) estimates that

roughly 1,100 calories were lost to

spoilage, plate waste, and cooking and

other losses, putting dietary intake of

calories in 2000 at just under 2,700 calories per person per day. ERS data suggest

that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530

calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that

24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly refined grain products) contributed 9.5

percentage points; added fats and oils,

9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7

percentage points; fruits and vegetables

together, 1.5 percentage points; meats

and nuts together, 1 percentage point;

and dairy products and eggs together,

-1.5 percentage point.

Some of the observed increase in caloric

intake may be associated with the increase in eating out. Data from USDA’s

food intake surveys show that the foodaway-from-home sector provided 32 percent of total food energy consumption in

1994-96, up from 18 percent in 1977-78.

The data also suggest that, when eating

out, people either eat more or eat higher

calorie foods—or both—and that this

tendency appears to be increasing.

According to the National Center for

Health Statistics, an astounding 62 percent of adult Americans were overweight

in 2000, up from 46 percent in 1980.

Twenty-seven percent of adults were so

far overweight that they were classified

as obese (at least 30 pounds above their

healthy weight)—twice the percentage

classified as such in 1960. Alarmingly, an

upward trend in obesity is also occurring

for U.S. children.

Although multiple factors can account

for weight gain, the basic cause is an excess of energy intake over energy expenditure. In general, Americans’ activity

levels have not kept pace with their increase in calorie consumption. Many

people apparently are oblivious to the

number of calories they consume. Calories consistently rank toward the bottom

of consumer nutrition concerns, according to the annual national probability

surveys “Trends—Consumer Attitudes

and the Supermarket” conducted by the

Food Marketing Institute. Of respondents

in the 2002 survey who said they were

either “very concerned” or “somewhat

concerned” about the nutritional content

of what they eat, only 13 percent cited

calories as one of their concerns. That

compared with fat (49 percent), sugar (18

percent), salt (17 percent), and cholesterol (16 percent).

A variety of factors are responsible for

the changes in U.S. consumption patterns in the last 50 years, including

changes in relative prices, increases in

real (adjusted for inflation) disposable

income, and more food assistance for

the poor. New products, particularly

more convenient ones, also contribute to

shifts in consumption, along with more

imports, growth in the away-from-home

American consumers today have 

come to expect a great deal more of 

the food system.... There is no doubt

that it delivers—more nutritious food

with wider variety; improved safety,

with less environmental impacts; and

greater convenience than at any time 

in the Nation’s history.

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

Total food supply available for consumption1

Food supply adjusted for spoilage, cooking losses,

plate waste and other losses2

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 2-1

Calories from the U.S. Per Capita Food Supply, Adjusted for Losses, Increased 19 Percent

Between 1983 and 2000

1 Rounded to the nearest hundred.

2 Not calculated for years before 1970.

Source: USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; USDA’s Economic Research Service.
Profiling Food Consumption in America | 15

food market, expanded advertising programs, and increases in nutrient-enrichment standards and food fortification.

Sociodemographic trends also driving

changes in food choices include smaller

households, more two-earner households, more single-parent households, a

taller population, an aging population,

and increased ethnic diversity.

ERS estimates per capita food and nutrient supplies based on food disappearance data. These data are used as a

proxy to estimate human consumption.

The data reported in tables 2-1 through

2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and

waste, so they may overstate what is

actually eaten. The data are used more

appropriately as indicators of trends in

consumption over time.

Meat Consumption at Record High 

Now more than ever, America is a Nation

of meat eaters. In 2000, total meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish)

reached 195 pounds (boneless, trimmedweight equivalent) per person, 57 pounds 

above average annual consumption in

the 1950s (table 2-1). Each American

consumed an average of 7 pounds more

red meat than in the 1950s, 46 pounds

more poultry, and 4 pounds more fish

and shellfish. Rising consumer incomes,

especially with the increase in two-income households, and meat prices in the

1990s that were often at 50-year lows,

when adjusted for inflation, explain

much of the increase in meat consumption. In addition, the meat industry has

provided scores of new brand-name, value-added products processed for consumers’ convenience, as well as a host of

products for foodservice operators.

Nutritional concern about fat and cholesterol has encouraged the production

of leaner animals (beginning in the late

1950s), the closer trimming of outside fat

on retail cuts of meat (beginning in

1986), the marketing of a host of lower

fat ground and processed meat products,

and consumer substitution of poultry for

red meats since the late 1970s—significantly lowering the meat, poultry, and

fish group’s contribution to total fat and

saturated fat in the food supply. Despite

near record-high per capita consumption of total meat in 2000, the proportion

Table 2-1

In 2000, Americans consumed an average 57 pounds more meat than they did annually in the 1950s, and a third fewer eggs

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000

Pounds per capita, boneless-trimmed weight

Total meats 138.2 161.7 177.2 182.2 189.0 195.2

Red meats 106.7 122.34 129.5 121.8 112.4 113.5

Beef 52.8 69.2 80.9 71.7 63.2 64.4

Pork 45.4 46.9 45.0 47.7 47.6 47.7

Veal and lamb 8.5 6.2 3.5 2.4 1.7 1.4

Poultry 20.5 28.7 35.2 46.2 61.9 66.5

Chicken 16.4 22.7 28.4 36.3 47.9 52.9

Turkey 4.1 6.0 6.8 9.9 13.9 13.6

Fish and shellfish 10.9 10.7 12.5 14.2 14.7 15.2

Number per capita

Eggs 374 320 285 257 236 250

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.

The food system has entered a

consumer-driven era and diversity

within our farm sector is enormous.
16 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 2

in consumption of salty snack foods favored soft drink consumption.

The beverage milk trend is toward lower

fat milk. Whole milk represented 92 percent of all beverage milk (plain, flavored,

and buttermilk) in the 1950s, but its

share dropped to 36 percent in 2000.

Average annual consumption of cheese 

(excluding full-skim American and cottage, pot, and baker’s cheeses) increased

287 percent between the 1950s and 2000,

from 7.7 pounds per person to 29.8

pounds. Lifestyles that emphasize convenience foods were probably major forces

behind the higher consumption. In fact,

more than half of our cheese now comes

in commercially manufactured and prepared foods (including food service), such 

as pizza, tacos, nachos, salad bars, fastfood sandwiches, bagel spreads, sauces

for baked potatoes and other vegetables,

and packaged snack foods. Advertising

and new products—such as reduced-fat

cheeses and resealable bags of shredded

Table 2–2

Americans are drinking less milk, eating more cheese

Per capita annual averages

Item Unit 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000

All dairy products1 lb 703 619 548 573 571 593

Cheese2 lb 7.7 9.5 14.4 21.5 26.7 29.8

Cottage cheese lb 3.9 4.6 4.9 4.1 2.9 2.6

Frozen dairy products lb 23.0 27.5 27.8 27.4 28.8 27.8

Ice cream lb 18.1 18.3 17.7 17.7 16.0 16.5

Lowfat ice cream lb 2.7 6.2 7.6 7.2 7.5 7.3

Sherbet lb 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2

Other (including frozen yogurt) lb 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.2 4.0 3.1

Nonfat dry milk lb 4.9 5.9 4.1 2.4 3.1 3.4

Dry whey lb .2 .6 2.1 3.2 3.5 3.4

Condensed and evaporated milks lb 21.6 15.7 9.4 7.5 7.3 5.8

Cream products 1/2 pt 18.1 13.3 10.1 12.8 15.7 18.6

Yogurt 1/2 pt 0.2 0.7 3.2 6.5 8.5 9.9

Beverage milk gal 36.4 32.6 29.8 26.5 24.3 22.6

Whole gal 33.5 28.8 21.7 14.3 9.1 8.1

Lower fat gal 2.9 3.7 8.1 12.2 15.3 14.5

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

1Milk-equivalent, milkfat basis; includes butter. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.

2Natural equivalent of cheese and cheese products; excludes full-skim American, cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese. Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.

of fat in the U.S. food supply from meat,

poultry, and fish declined from 33 percent in the 1950s to 24 percent in 2000.

Similarly, the proportion of saturated fat

contributed by meat, poultry, and fish

fell from 33 percent in the 1950s to 26

percent in 2000.

Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts Cheese

Consumption...

In 2000, Americans drank an average of

38 percent less milk and ate nearly four

times as much cheese (excluding cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese) as in the

1950s (table 2-2).

Consumption of beverage milk declined

from an annual average of 36 gallons per

person in the 1950s to less than 23 gallons in 2000. Consumption of soft drinks,

fruit drinks and ades, and flavored teas

may be displacing beverage milk in the

diet. Big increases in eating away from

home, especially at fast-food places, and
Profiling Food Consumption in America | 17

cheeses, including cheese blends tailored

for use in Italian and Mexican recipes—

also boosted consumption.

...and Swells Use of Salad and Cooking

Oils and Shortening

Americans’ mid-1990s push to cut dietary fat is apparent in the recent per

capita food supply data, which show a

modest (8 percent) decline in the use of

added fats and oils between 1993 and

1997, from 69 pounds (fat-content basis)

per person to just under 64 pounds. As a

result of consumer concerns about fat

and mandatory nutrition labeling beginning in July 1994, food processors introduced over 5,400 lower fat versions of

foods in U.S. supermarkets in 1995–97,

according to New Product News, a trade

magazine based in Albuquerque, NM.

But the decline in average consumption

of added fats was short lived. Between

1997 and 2000, per capita consumption

of added fats jumped 17 percent, from

64 pounds per person to 74.5 pounds. Fat

plays an important role in enhancing the

flavor of foods. Many consumers found

the taste of the new low fat (3 grams of

fat or less per serving) and fat-free versions of foods unacceptable. Accordingly,

many companies reformulated their

low-fat and fat-free products in the late

1990s, adding some fat to improve taste.

Some consumers, who rejected the lowfat and fat-free versions, have accepted

reduced-fat products (1/3 less fat than

full-fat versions). Many other consumers

have resumed eating full-fat versions.

According to a 2000 Roper Reports survey

of a nationally representative sample of

2,000 Americans 18 or older, the percentage of Americans who say they are eating “pretty much whatever they want”

was at an all-time high of 70 percent in

2000, up from 58 percent in 1997.

Although Americans apparently have relaxed their efforts to curb consumption

of added fats, they are choosing to eat

healthier fats. Olive oil and canola oil—

high in heart-healthy monounsaturated 

fats that lower blood levels of bad cholesterol but not good cholesterol—captured

23 percent of the salad and cooking oil

market in 2000, up from less than 4 percent in 1985.

Average use of added fats and oils in

2000 was 67 percent above annual average use in the 1950s (table 2-3). Added

fats include those used directly by consumers, such as butter on bread, as well

as shortenings and oils used in commerTable 2-3

Average consumption of added fats increased by two-thirds between 1950-59 and 2000

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000

Pounds per capita1

Total added fats and oils 44.6 47.8 53.4 60.8 65.5 74.5

Salad and cooking oils2 9.8 13.9 20.2 25.0 28.2 35.2

Baking and frying fats3 21.4 20.7 20.5 23.6 26.2 29.0

Shortening 10.9 14.6 17.4 20.5 22.7 23.1

Lard and beef tallow4 10.5 6.1 3.5 3.1 4.0 6.0

Table spreads 17.0 16.5 15.9 15.3 14.0 12.8

Butter 9.0 6.6 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.6

Margarine 8.0 9.9 11.2 10.7 9.6 8.2

1Total added fats and oils is on a fat-content basis. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.

2Includes a small amount of specialty fats used mainly in confectionery products and nondairy creamers.

3Total may not add due to rounding.

4Direct use; excludes use in margarine or shortening.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.

cially prepared cookies, pastries, and

fried foods. All fats naturally present in

foods, such as in milk and meat, are

excluded.

Americans in 2000 consumed, on average, three-and-three-fifths times more

salad and cooking oil than they did annually in the 1950s, and more than twice

as much shortening. Average use of table

spreads declined by 25 percent during

the same period.

In the 1950s, the fats and oils group

(composed of added fats and oils) contributed the most fat to the food supply

(41 percent), followed by the meat, poultry, and fish group (32 percent). By 1999,

the fats and oils group’s contribution to

total fat had jumped 12 percentage

points to 53 percent, probably due to the

higher consumption of fried foods in

foodservice outlets, the increase in consumption of high-fat snack foods, and

the increased use of salad dressings.

Margarine, salad dressings and mayonnaise, cakes and other sweet baked

goods, and oils continue to appear in the

top 10 foods for fat contribution, according to recent USDA food intake surveys,

which indicates the ongoing prevalence

of discretionary fats in Americans’ diets.
18 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 2

In the last two decades, Americans have

been more successful in reducing the fat

density in home foods than in awayfrom-home foods, according to food intake surveys. In 1977–78, both home and

away-from-home foods provided slightly

more than 41 percent of their calories

from fat. By 1987-88, the fat density of

home foods had declined to 36.4 percent

of total calories from fat, compared with

38.7 for away-from-home foods. Since

then, the fat density of home foods declined steadily to 31.5 percent of calories

from fat, but fat from away-from-home

foods declined only slightly to 37.6 percent of calories.

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption 

Continues To Rise

Americans in 2000 consumed a fifth 

(20 percent) more fruit and vegetables

than did their counterparts in the 1970s

(table 2-4).

Total fruit consumption in 2000 was 12

percent above average annual fruit consumption in the 1970s. Fresh fruit consumption (up 28 percent during the

same period) outpaced processed fruit

consumption (up 2 percent). Noncitrus

fruits accounted for all of the growth in

fresh fruit consumption.

Total vegetable consumption in 2000

was 23 percent above average annual

vegetable consumption in the 1970s. As

in the case of fruit, fresh vegetable use

(up 26 percent during the same period)

outpaced processed vegetable use (up 21

percent). The introduction of pre-cut and

packaged value-added products and increasing health consciousness among 

consumers boosted average fresh broccoli

consumption by a third between 1995

and 1998 and average fresh carrot consumption by more than a fifth. Highly

publicized medical research linking

compounds in broccoli with strong anticancer activity in the body has added a

powerful incentive to consumption.

The popularity of pizza and other ethnic

foods in the 1990s boosted average consumption of canned tomato products, but 

consumption of other canned vegetables

declined 13 percent between the 1970s

and 1997. The popularity of french fries,

eaten mainly in fast-food eateries,

spawned a 63-percent increase in average 

consumption of frozen potatoes during

the same period; consumption of other

frozen vegetables rose 41 percent.

Table 2-4

Per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables increased by one-fifth between 1970–79

and 2000

Annual averages

Item 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000

Pounds per capita, fresh-weight equivalent

Total fruit and vegetables 587.5 622.1 688.3 707.7

Total fruit 248.7 269.0 280.1 279.4

Fresh fruit 99.4 113.1 123.7 126.8

Citrus 27.2 24.2 23.7 23.4

Noncitrus 72.2 88.9 100.0 103.3

Processed fruit 149.3 155.9 156.5 152.7

Frozen fruit, noncitrus 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.7

Dried fruit, noncitrus 9.9 12.2 11.7 10.5

Canned fruit, noncitrus 24.7 21.3 19.7 17.4

Fruit juices 110.7 118.6 120.8 120.6

Total vegetables 338.8 353.1 408.2 428.3

Fresh vegetables 147.9 157.2 181.9 201.7

Potatoes 52.5 48.5 48.8 47.2

Other 95.4 108.7 133.1 154.5

Processing vegetables 190.9 195.9 226.3 226.6

Vegetables for canning 101.1 98.9 109.4 104.7

Tomatoes 62.9 63.5 74.4 69.9

Other 38.2 35.4 35.0 34.8

Vegetables for freezing 52.1 61.0 76.8 79.7

Potatoes 36.1 42.8 54.9 57.8

Other 16.0 18.2 21.9 21.9

Dehydrated vegetables and chips 30.8 29.4 32.0 33.7

Pulses 7.0 6.5 8.1 8.6

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
Profiling Food Consumption in America | 19

Consumers Eat Too Much Refined Grain,

Too Little Whole Grain

Per capita use of flour and cereal products reached 200 pounds in 2000 from

an annual average of 155 pounds in the

1950s and 138 pounds in the 1970s,

when grain consumption was at a record

low (table 2-5). The expansion in supplies reflects ample grain stocks; strong

consumer demand for variety breads,

other instore bakery items, and grainbased snack foods; and increasing fastfood sales of products made with buns,

doughs, and tortillas.

Many consumers’ diets now meet or

exceed the Food Guide Pyramid serving

recommendation for grain products. The

Pyramid recommends 9 daily servings of

grain products for a 2,200-calorie diet, 6

servings for a 1,600-calorie diet, and 11

servings for a 2,800-calorie diet. The food

supply, adjusted for waste in the home

and throughout the marketing system,

provided an average of 10 daily servings 

of grain in 2000. This is an underestimate.

The food supply database excludes wheat 

foods not manufactured directly from

wheat flour or bulgur. That is, it excludes

wheat bran, wheat germ, wheat berries 

and products manufactured directly from 

these items, such as Wheaties (cooked,

flattened, toasted wheat berries), Shredded Wheat, Puffed Wheat, and All-Bran

breakfast cereals and Triscuit crackers.

Similarly, it excludes whole-grain foods 

made directly from field corn (for example, Tostito and Dorito brand corn tortilla

chips, corn bran (used in some breakfast

cereals), and popcorn. ERS estimates that

these missing items would add an additional serving of grains for an average of

11 daily servings of grain in 2000—the

amount recommended for teenage boys

or men who engage in heavy physical

activity.

However, most people’s diets fall well

short of the recommended minimum

three daily servings of whole grain products. The mean daily intake of foods

made from whole grains was one serving

in USDA’s 1996 Continuing Survey of Food

Intakes by Individuals. According to the

survey, only 7 percent of Americans ate

the recommended three or more servings of whole-grain foods a day.

Table 2-5

Annual average grain consumption was 45 percent higher in 2000 than in the 1970s

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000

Pounds per capita

Total grain products1 155.4 142.5 138.2 157.4 190.6 199.9

Wheat flour 125.7 114.4 113.6 122.8 141.8 146.3

Corn products 15.4 13.8 11.0 17.3 24.5 28.4

Rice 5.3 7.1 7.3 11.3 17.5 19.7

1 Includes oat products, barley products, and rye flour not shown separately.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
20 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 2

Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners Hits

Record High in 1999

Americans have become conspicuous

consumers of sugar and sweet-tasting

foods and beverages. Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (dryweight basis)—mainly sucrose (table

sugar made from cane and beets) and

corn sweeteners (notably high-fructose

corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 43

pounds, or 39 percent, between 1950-59

and 2000 (table 2-6). In 2000, each American consumed an average 152 pounds

of caloric sweeteners, 3 pounds below

1999’s record average 155 pounds. That

amounted to more than two-fifths of a

pound—or 52 teaspoonfuls—of added

sugars per person per day in 2000. Of

that 52 teaspoons, ERS estimates that

Americans wasted or otherwise lost 20

teaspoons, resulting in an average intake

of about 32 teaspoons of added sugars

per person per day.

USDA recommends that the average person on a 2,000-calorie daily diet include

no more than 40 grams of added sugars.

That’s about 10 teaspoons, or the amount 

of sugar in a 12-ounce soft drink. Sugar—

including sucrose, corn sweeteners, honey,

maple syrup, and molasses—is ubiquitous 

and often hidden. In a sense, sugar is the

number one food additive. It turns up in 

some unlikely places, such as pizza, bread,

hot dogs, boxed mixed rice, soup, crackers, spaghetti sauce, lunch meat, canned

vegetables, fruit drinks, flavored yogurt,

ketchup, salad dressing, mayonnaise,

and some peanut butter. Carbonated sodas provided more than a fifth (22 percent) of the refined and added sugars in

the 2000 American food supply, compared with 16 percent in 1970.

Food Expenditures and Prices

What does it cost Americans to eat what

they eat? Total food expenditures, which

includes imports, fishery products, and

food originating on farms, were $844.2

billion in 2001, an increase of 3.8 percent

over those in 2000. Average food expenditures came to $2,964 per capita, 2.8

percent above the 2000 average. Awayfrom-home meals and snacks captured

47 percent of the U.S. food dollar in 2001,

up from 45 percent in 1991 and 40 percent in 1981.

Table 2-6

America’s sweet tooth increased 39 percent between 1950–59 and 2000 as use of corn sweeteners octupled

Annual averages

Item 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000

Pounds per capita, dry weight

Total caloric sweeteners 109.6 114.4 123.7 126.5 145.9 152.4

Cane and beet sugar 96.7 98.0 96.0 68.4 64.7 65.6

Corn sweeteners 11.0 14.9 26.3 56.8 79.9 85.3

High fructose corn syrup .0 .0 5.5 37.3 56.8 63.8

Glucose 7.4 10.9 16.6 16.0 19.3 18.1

Dextrose 3.5 4.1 4.3 3.5 3.8 3.4

Other caloric sweeteners 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

1Edible syrups (sugarcane, sorgo, maple, and refiner’s), edible molasses, and honey.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
Profiling Food Consumption in America | 21

While personal food expenditures rose

3.7 percent, disposable personal income

increased 5.5 percent from 2000 to 2001.

U.S. consumers in 2001 spent 10.0 percent of their disposable personal income

(after taxes) on food. This figure compares with 11.6 percent in 1991, 13.0 percent in 1981, and 13.4 percent in 1971.

In the United States, retail food prices

(including meals served in restaurants

and food purchased at grocery stores)

rose 27.0 percent over the last 10 years

(1991-2001). Prices of food eaten away

from home increased 26.1 percent, while

retail food store prices increased 27.7

percent. Prices of all goods and services

in the Consumer Price Index climbed

30.0 percent over the same 10 years.

How Much of the Cost of Food Services

and Distribution Goes to Farmers?

The estimated bill for marketing domestic farm foods—which does not include 

imported foods—was $498 billion in 1999.

This amount covered all charges for 

transporting, processing, and distributing 

foods that originated on U.S. farms. It 

represented 80 percent of the $618 billion

consumers spent for these foods. The remaining 20 percent, or $121 billion, represents the gross return paid to farmers.

The cost of marketing farm foods has

increased considerably over the years,

mainly because of rising costs of labor,

transportation, food packaging materials, and other inputs used in marketing,

and also because of the growing volume

of food and the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1990, the cost of marketing farm

foods amounted to $343 billion. In the

decade after that, the cost of marketing

rose about 57 percent. In 2000, the marketing bill rose 6.9 percent. These rising

costs have been the principal factor affecting the rise in consumer food expenditures. From 1990 to 2000, consumer

expenditures for farm foods rose $211

billion. Roughly 92 percent of this increase resulted from an increase in the

marketing bill.

The cost of labor is the biggest part of

the total food marketing bill, accounting

for nearly half of all marketing costs. Labor used by assemblers, manufacturers,

wholesalers, retailers, and eating places

cost $252 billion in 2000. This was 4.7

percent higher than in 1999 and 64 percent more than in 1990. The total number of food marketing workers in 2000

was about 14.3 million, about 17 percent

more than in 1990. About 80 percent of

the growth in food industry employment

occurred in public eating places. A wide

variety of other costs comprise the balance of the marketing bill. These costs

include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, net interest, depreciation, rent, and repairs. Their

relative proportions are illustrated in the

accompanying dollar chart.

Figure 2-2

What a dollar spent on food paid for in 2000

Labor

Packaging

Transportation

Energy

ProfitsAdvertising

Depreciation

Rent

Interest (net)

Repairs

19¢ 38¢ 8¢

4¢

3.5¢

4.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

Business Taxes

Other costs

4¢ 3.5¢

4¢

Farm value Marketing bill

2.5¢

1.5¢
CHAPTER 3

American Farms
24 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

While the American landscape 

is dominated largely by agriculture,

these operations vary widely 

to cope with different soils,

water conditions, and markedly 

distinct weather patterns.

Farms and farm families remain powerful symbols in American culture, despite

the long-term decline in their numbers.

The number of farms fell dramatically

after its peak of nearly 7 million in 1935,

with most of the decline occurring during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (fig. 3-1).

The decline in farm numbers continues,

but at a slower pace. By 1997, about 1.9

million farms remained. Because the

amount of farmland did not decrease as

much as the number of farms, the remaining farms have a larger average

acreage.

The trend in the number of farms differs

by acreage class. The number of farms

with at least 500 acres increased steadily

from 1880 through the 1960s, before stabilizing at 350,000 to 370,000 farms 

(fig. 3-2). Farms with 1 to 49 acres declined from their maximum of 2.7 million in 1935 to about half a million in

1974. After 1974, the count of these

farms has ranged between 540,000 and

640,000. In contrast, the number of

farms with 50-499 acres declined from

3.9 million in 1935 continuously to about

1 million farms in 1997. As a result of

these changes, farms with fewer than 50

acres and farms with more than 500

acres have both increased their share of

total farms since 1974, but midsize

farms’ share has declined.

Acres or Sales?

When following changes in farm size over

long periods of time, acres are generally

used to indicate farm size. Nevertheless,

the level of sales of farm products is a

better indicator of farm size, since it unambiguously measures economic activity in dollars. In contrast, farm acreage

just measures an input, land, with no indication of the value of what is actually

produced. The number of acres necessary to produce a given dollar amount of

farm products varies with the characteristics of the land and the value of the

products produced. Cattle operations, for

example, may have a low volume of

sales, but encompass many acres of pasture or range. Thus, not all farms that

are large in acreage have high sales. In

fact, most farms with more than 500

acres in 1997 were not classified as large

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1850 60 70 80 90 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 74 97 78 82 87 92

Figure 3-1

Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850-1997

Most of the decline in farms occurred between 1935 and 1974

Farms (millions)

Acres per farm (hundred acres)

Land in farms (billion acres)

Census year

Source: Compiled by ERS from Census of Agriculture data.
American Farms | 25

Farming today consists of enormously

different farms growing numerous 

crop and livestock products for sale 

in markets that range from their

immediate neighbors to consumers

worldwide. Farms differ in size, type

and value of commodities produced,

technology used, resource endowment,

financial status, and many other

attributes....

It is essential to recognize and

understand this diversity that 

makes up today’s agriculture if 

we are to adequately prepare for 

its future.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Million farms

1880 90 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 74 97 78 82 87 92

Figure 3-2

Distribution of farms by acreage class, 1880-1997

The share of farms with 500 acres or more increased from 4 percent in 1935 to 18 percent in 1997

50 to 499 acres

1 to 49 acres

500 acres or more

Census year

Source: Compiled by ERS from Census of Agriculture data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent of farms

1880 90 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 74 97 78 82 87 92

Census year
26 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

Figure 3-3

Distribution of farms with 500 acres or more by sales class, 1997

Farms with large acreages do not necessarily have large sales

Thousand farms

$250,000 or more

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Less than $250,000

Acreage class

500 acres or more 2,000 acres or more 500 to 999 acres 1,000 to 1,999 acres

Percent of farms

$250,000 or more

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

$100,000 to $249,999

Acreage class

Source: Compiled by ERS from Census of Agriculture data.

500 acres or more 2,000 acres or more 500 to 999 acres 1,000 to 1,999 acres

$50,000 to $99,999

$10,000 to $49,000 Less than $10,000

farms, defined by the National Commission on Small Farms (1998) as farms

with sales of $250,000 or more (fig. 3-3).

Changes in the distribution of farms by

sales class in the last four censuses can

be compared across time by using the

producer price index for farm products

to adjust for price changes. Unfortunately, constant-dollar sales classes cannot

be prepared before 1982, due to incomplete census records for individual farms

prior to that year.

Change by Sales Class, 1982 to 1997

Changes in the counts of farms by constant-dollar sales class—from 1982 onward—are consistent with the trends in

the counts by acreage class that were

discussed earlier. Only one sales class

grew consistently over the 16-year period (fig.3-4). Large farms increased their

numbers by 53,000, growing from

104,000 in 1982 to 157,000 by 1997. The

share of all farms in this group also

grew, from 5 percent to 8 percent over

the same period. Most farms in the large

farm group had sales between $250,000

and $499,999, but the number of farms

with sales of at least $500,000 grew more

rapidly (table 3-1).
American Farms | 27

Defining Point Farms

The official definition of a farm for census purposes is “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold or normally would have been sold during the census year

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999, p. VII).” If a place does not have $1,000 in sales, a “point system” assigns values for acres of various crops and head of various livestock species to estimate a normal level of sales. Point farms are farms with fewer than $1,000 in sales but have points worth at least

$1,000. Point farms tend to be very small. Some, however, may normally have large sales, but experience low sales in a particular year due to bad weather, disease, or other factors. Both the Agricultural

Resource Management Survey (ARMS) and the census of agriculture use the point system to help

identify farms meeting the current definition.

Note that the farms and point farms identified in the figures and table are defined in current dollars, not

constant dollars. Farms and point farms are determined for each census, based on current dollars.

The number of farms in the other sales

classes declined in each inter-census period, with the exception of farms with

sales less than $10,000 (fig. 3-4). There,

the number of farms declined from 1982

to 1987 and from 1987 to 1992, but increased from 1992 to 1997. As shown in

table 3-1, most of the increase from 1992

to 1997 occurred among “point farms,” or

farms with sales less than $1,000 that

might normally have sales that high and

satisfy the criteria necessary to be considered a farm. (See the box, Defining

Point Farms.) Because of this growth,

farms with sales less than $10,000 now

account for half of all U.S. farms.

Most of the increase in point farms,

however, is due to a change in the classification of farms that enroll all their

cropland in the Conservation Reserve or

Wetlands Reserve Programs (CRP or

WRP). The agricultural census did not

count such operations as farms in 1992,

if they did not sell at least $1,000 worth

of farm products (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994, p. B-1). They were counted as

point farms in the 1997 Census, however,

on the grounds that they normally could

have sold $1,000 worth of products (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1999, p. A-2).

There were 66,716 of these CRP/WRP establishments in 1992. When these farms

are added to the 1992 count of point

farms to be consistent with the 1997

Census, the 1992-97 change in the number of point farms shifts from a gain of

30 percent (as shown in table 3-1) to a

loss of 1 percent. In addition, the 9-percent increase in the number of farms

with sales less than $10,000 decreases to

2 percent.

Diversity Among American Farms

Despite the rapid growth in the number

of farms with sales of $250,000 or more,

most farms have sales below that level

and are classified as small. While some

definitions would set a lower sales limit

to classify a farm as small, farms with

sales under $250,000 are small businesses compared with other businesses in

the general economy.

Figure 3-4

Distribution of farms by constant dollar sales class, 1982-1997

Farms with sales less than $10,000 or sales of $250,000 or more increased their share of farms

Thousand farms

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Census year

1982 1987 1992 1997

Census year

1982 1987 1992 1997

Percent of farms

$250,000 or more

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

$100,000 to $249,999

Source: Compiled by ERS from Census of Agriculture data.

$50,000 to $99,999

$10,000 to $49,000 Less than $10,000
28 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

Table 3-1.

Number of farms by constant dollar sales class (1997 dollars), 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997

Census year Change

Sales class 1982 1987 1992 1997 1982 to 1987 to 1992 to

1987 1992 1997

Number of farms Percent

Total farms 2,240,976 2,087,759 1,925,300 1,911,859 -6.8 -7.8 -0.7

Sales less than $10,000 1,051,510 966,743 879,842 962,966 -8.1 -9.0 9.4

Point farms 1 253,147 235,562 212,580 277,248 -6.9 -9.8 30.4

Other farms 798,363 731,181 667,262 685,718 -8.4 -8.7 2.8

Sales between $10,000 and $49,999 592,328 557,006 502,229 444,745 -6.0 -9.8 -11.4

$10,000 to $19,999 262,616 256,448 234,770 212,120 -2.3 -8.5 -9.6

$20,000 to $24,999 82,080 78,078 68,709 61,920 -4.9 -12.0 -9.9

$25,000 to $39,999 167,003 151,212 137,341 117,196 -9.5 -9.2 -14.7

$40,000 to $49,999 80,629 71,268 61,409 53,509 -11.6 -13.8 -12.9

Sales between $50,000 and $99,999 253,069 217,479 186,937 158,160 -14.1 -14.0 -15.4

Sales between $100,000 and $249,999 239,923 228,514 216,334 189,417 -4.8 -5.3 -12.4

Sales of $250,000 or more 104,146 118,014 139,958 156,571 13.3 18.6 11.9

$250,000 to $499,999 70,173 76,764 86,968 87,777 9.4 13.3 0.9

$500,000 to $999,999 22,914 27,151 34,911 42,860 18.5 28.6 22.8

$1,000,000 to $2,499,999 8,090 10,250 13,139 19,069 26.7 28.2 45.1

$2,500,000 to $4,999,999 1,724 2,213 2,919 4,066 28.4 31.9 39.3

$5,000,000 or more 1,245 1,636 2,021 2,799 31.4 23.5 38.5

1 Point farms have sales of less than $1,000 (current dollars), but are still considered farms because they would be expected to normally sell at least $1,000 of agricultural products. Point farms are

defined in current dollars, rather than constant dollars, because they are identified in each census on the basis of current dollars.

Source: Compiled by ERS from the 1997 Census Longitudinal File.
American Farms | 29

Figure 3-5

Distribution of farms and farm product sales, by business organization, 1978-97

Nonfamily corporation share of farms and sales is stable

Percent of farms

Other1

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Nonfamily corporation

Farm Farm product sales

Source: Compiled by ERS from Census of Agriculture data.

1

Includes cooperatives, estates or trusts, and institutional farms.

1978 92 97 82 87 1978 92 97 82 87

Family corporation

Partnership Sole proprietorship

Family farms may be organized as proprietorships, partnerships, or family corporations. Nonfamily farms include those

organized as nonfamily corporations or

cooperatives, as well as any proprietorships, partnerships, or family corporations

with hired managers. Most farms (98

percent) are family farms. Large family

farms are often organized as family corporations, and these account for growing

shares of farm sales, but—contrary to

popular belief—the share of farms and

sales accounted for by nonfamily corporations is small and has been relatively

stable since 1978 (fig. 3-5).

Farms vary widely in their characteristics,

ranging from very small retirement and

residential farms to establishments with

sales in the millions. A farm typology developed by USDA’s Economic Research 

Service (ERS) categorizes farms into more

homogeneous groups than classifications based on sales volume alone. (See

the box, Defining the Farm Typology.) 

The typology is based on the occupation

of operators and the sales class of farms.

In the case of limited-resource farmers,

the asset base and total household income—as well as sales—are low. Compared with classification by sales alone,

the ERS typology is much more reflective

of operators’ expectations from farming,

stage in the life cycle, and dependence

on agriculture.

The typology identifies five groups of small

family farms: (1) limited-resource farms,

(2) retirement farms, (3) residential/

lifestyle farms, (4) farming-occupation/

low-sales farms, and (5) farming-occupation/high-sales farms. To cover the remaining farms, the typology identifies

two groups of larger family farms (large

and very large family farms) plus nonfamily farms.

The groups differ in their contribution to

agricultural production, their product

specialization, farm program participation, and dependence on farm income.

Differences among farm typology groups

(e.g., product specialization, program

participation) are illustrated in a series

of charts using 2000 data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey

Defining the Farm Typology

Small Family Farms

(sales less than $250,000)

• Limited-resource farms. Small farms with

sales less than $100,000, farm assets less 

than $150,000, and total operator household 

income less than $20,000. Operators may 

report any major occupation, except hired 

manager.

• Retirement farms. Small farms whose 

operators report they are retired.*

• Residential/lifestlye farms. Small farms

whose operators report a major occupation 

other than farming.*

• Farming-occupation farms. Small farms

whose operators report farming as their 

major occupation.*

• Low-sales. Sales less than $100,000.

• High-sales. Sales between $100,000 

and $249,999.

*Excludes limited-resource farms whose operators report this occupation.

Other Family Farms

• Large family farms. Sales between

$250,000 and $499,999.

• Very large family farms. Sales of

$500,000 or more.

Nonfamily Farms

• Nonfamily farms. Farms organized as 

nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as

well as farms operated by hired managers.
30 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

Figure 3-6

Share of total farms and value of production, 2000

Large, very large, and nonfamily farms account for 68 percent of the value of production

Percent of total farms or production

Farms 45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Value of production

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

Figure 3-7

Share of farm business assets and acres owned, 2000

Small farms account for most of the assets (including land) owned by farms

Percent of total farm assets or acres owned

Assets 30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Land owned

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

(ARMS). The ARMS is an annual survey

conducted by ERS and by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Share of Farms, Assets, and Production

Most farms are small, but small farms

account for a modest share of production.

■ Ninety-two percent of U.S. farms are

small (fig. 3-6), and small farms account

for 71 percent of the assets involved in

farming, including 67 percent of the land

owned by farmers (fig. 3-7).

■ But, large family farms, very large

family farms, and nonfamily farms (8

percent of all farms) account for about

68 percent of production (fig. 3-6).

Specialization and Diversification

Specialization and diversification vary

among the farm typology groups.
American Farms | 31

Figure 3-8

Share of farms by specialization, 2000

Small farms often specialize in beef

Percent of farms

Grain (includes soybeans)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

High-value crops2

Commodity accounts for at least half of the farm’s value of production. Estimates of high-value crop, hog,

dairy, and poultry farms were suppressed for specific typology groups, due to insufficient observations.

1

Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and general crops. Also includes farms with all cropland in the Conservation

Reserve or Wetlands Reserve Programs (CRP & WRP).

2

Vegetables, fruits & tree nuts, and nursery & greenhouse. Included in “other field crops” for limited-resource

farms.

3

Included in “other livestock” when not shown separately.

4

Includes sheep, goats, horses, mules. ponies, fur-bearing animals, bees, fish, and any other livestock.

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). 

Limited-resource

Retirement

Residential

Low-sales

High-sales

Large

Very large

Nonfamily

Hogs3

Other field crops1 Beef cattle Dairy3

Poultry3

Other livestock4

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

■ About two-fifths of the limited-resource, retirement, residential/lifestyle

and low-sales small farms specialize in

beef cattle (fig 3-8). Beef cattle—particularly cow-calf operations—often have

low and flexible labor requirements

compatible with off-farm work and retirement.

■ In contrast, two commodity groups—

cash grains and dairy—account for over

half of all high-sales small farms and

large family farms.
32 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

Figure 3-9 

Share of farm by number of commodities produced, 2000

Few small farms produce more than one or two commodities

Percent of farms

Four or more commodities

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Two commodities No commodity3

Three commodities1 One commodity2

Limited-resource

Retirement

Residential

Low-sales

High-sales

Large

Very large

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Based on 26 commodities or commodity groups

1

Includes the estimate for four or more commodities, when not shown separately.

2

In the nonfamily farm group, includes farms producing no commodities.

3

Largely farms with all cropland in the Conservation Reserve Wetlands reserve programs (CRP & WRP)

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

■ Many small farms specialize in a single commodity, but high-sales small

farms, large family farms, and very large

family farms tend to produce multiple

commodities (fig. 3-9).

Government Program Participation

All farm typology groups participate in

government farm programs to some extent, but the relative importance of the

programs varies.
American Farms | 33

Figure 3-10

Share of farms receiving commodity program payments and payments from the

Conservation Reserve or Wetlands Reserve Programs, 2000

Most high-sales, large, and very large farms receive payments from commodity programs

Percent of farms

Commodity programs1

60

90

80

50

70

40

20

30

10

0

CRP or WRP

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

1

Agricultural disaster payments, loan deficiency payments, and transition payments.

Figure 3-11

Distribution of total payments from commodity programs

Production of program commodities explains the distribution of commodity program payments

Percent of total payments or production 

of selected commodities

Commodity programs payments1

30

25

20

10

15

5

0

Value of production, selected

commodities2

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

1

Agricultural disaster payments, loan deficiency payments, and transition payments.

2

Barley, corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, and oats

■ High-sales small farms, large family

farms, and very large family farms are

most likely to receive commodity program payments (fig. 3-10).

■ These three groups receive nearly

three-fourths of commodity program

payments, reflecting their production of

program commodities (fig. 3-11).
34 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 3

■ Retirement, residential/lifestyle, and

low-sales small farms, on the other

hand, account for nearly two-thirds of

CRP and WRP payments and the acres

enrolled in the programs (fig. 3-12).

Household Income

Small-farm households rely heavily on

off-farm income.

■ Most small-farm households have

positive household income, even when

they incur losses from farming (fig 3-13).

■ Households operating very large

farms, large farms, and high-sales small

farms receive a significant share of their

income from farming (fig. 3-14).

■ For the remaining small-farm households, off-farm income makes a substantial contribution to economic well-being.

Farm Policy and Family Farms

The number of farms has fallen dramatically since its peak in 1935. In the

meantime, the number of large farms

has grown, which means that large

farms now form a larger share of the total U.S. farms. Nevertheless, most of the

remaining farms are family run businesses with sales less than $250,000. The

diversity of today’s farms has some implications that are discussed below.

■ Production is concentrated among

large family farms, very large family

farms, and nonfamily farms. The Nation relies on larger farms for most of its

food and fiber, despite the large number

of small farms.

■ There is unlikely to be a “one-sizefits-all” policy for family farms. The variety of farm types—what they produce

and their differences in characteristics,

economic situation, and household and

business arrangements—makes any one

policy instrument appropriate for only a

portion of the family farm population.

Figure 3-12

Distribution of total payments from the Conservation Reserve or Wetlands Reserve

Programs and acres enrolled in the programs, 2000

Retirement, residential/lifestyle, and low-sales farms account for nearly two-thirds of

CRP and WRP payments and acres

Percent of total CRP

and WRP payments or acres

CRP and WRP payments

25

20

10

15

5

0

CRP and WRP acres

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

Figure 3-13

Operator households with negative income, 2000

Off-farm income supported many small-farm households

Percent of households

Positive household income, loss from farming

Positive household income, gain from farming

Negative household income

60

90

80

50

70

40

20

30

10

0

LimitedresourceRetirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Family-occupation

Small family farms Other family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Very large

Note: The estimate of households with negative income is suppressed for retirement farms,

due to insufficient observations.
American Farms | 35

■ Commodity programs are most relevant to high-sales small farms, large

family farms, and very large family

farms. These farms produce most of the

commodities that farm programs have

traditionally supported.

■ The nonfarm economy is critically

important to households operating

small family farms. Because small-farm

households rely on off-farm work for

most of their income, general economic

policies, such as tax or economic development policy, can be as important to

them as traditional “farm” policy.

■ Small family farms manage and operate the bulk of farm assets, including

the soil, water, energy, and natural

habitat resources associated with farmland use. In this regard, policies addressing natural resource quality and conservation can play a major role in the

portfolio of policy instruments addressing the American family farm.

References

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National

Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997

Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1: Geographic

Area Series, Part 51: United States Summary and State Data. AC97-A-51. March

1999.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National

Commission on Small Farms. A Time to

Act: A Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms. Miscellaneous

Publication 1545 (MP-1545). Jan. 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census. 1992 Census of Agriculture,

Vol. 1: Geographic Area Series, Part 51:

United States Summary and State Data.

AC92-A-51. October 1994.

Figure 3-14

Sources of operator household income, 2000

Households operating residential/lifestyle, large, or very large farms have

household income above the U.S. average

Dollars per household

Farm earnings

Off-farm income

175,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

-25,000

0

150,000

125,000

100,000

Limitedresource

Retirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Average income of

all U.S. households

($57,045)

Small family farms

(sales less than $250,000)

Other family farms

Very large

Source: 2000 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
CHAPTER 4

Rural America: 

Entering the 21ST Century 
38 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 4

Today, rural America comprises 2,305

counties, contains 80 percent of U.S.

land, and is home to one-fifth (56 million) of its people. Rural America is diverse. At the dawn of the 21st century, no

one industry dominates the rural landscape, no single pattern of population

decline or growth exists for all rural areas, and no statement about improvements and gaps in well-being applies to

all rural people. Some rural areas have

shared in the economic progress of the

Nation, while others have not. The opportunities and challenges facing rural

America are as varied as rural America

itself.

Farming no longer anchors most rural

communities and economies as it did

through the mid-20th century. Small family farms are now more closely associated with diversified rural economies that

offer off-farm income opportunities.

Large farms still enhance some local

economies, but developments in longdistance purchasing of inputs and marketing of products reduce their contribution. Seven out of eight rural counties

are now dominated by varying concentrations of manufacturing, services, and

other nonfarming activities. Today, rural

regions of the country survive economically on one or more of three basic assets: natural amenities for tourism and

retirement; low-cost, good quality labor

and land for manufacturing; and natural

resources for farming, forestry, and mining.

During the 1990s, the U.S. economy enjoyed an unprecedented period of economic growth. Rural areas generally

shared in the good economic times, as

earnings and income increased and unemployment and poverty fell. The rural

population grew as urban residents and

immigrants chose to live in rural areas;

almost 8 percent of nonmetro counties,

many in the West, increased in population at more than twice the national average. Still, areas of the Great Plains and

western Corn Belt lost population as

they wrestled with declining agricultural

employment and the lack of replacement jobs in other industries. High

poverty and unemployment persisted in

rural pockets, particularly in Appalachia,

the Mississippi Delta, and the Rio Grande

Valley.

The diversity of rural economies suggests the need for a variety of rural development strategies to enhance the

economic well-being of rural Americans,

including improved educational opportunities and capitalization on natural

amenities to attract new growth. A recent trend in Federal development policy

has been to support new development

entities that assist specific regions. Some

of these entities cover large regions with

significant rural populations, while others cover smaller areas. At the same

time, Federal funding for community resource programs, such as housing, infrastructure, business assistance programs,

and other programs important for stimulating rural development, continues although at a lower per capita level in rural than urban areas.

Rural Population Growth Levels Off,

but the West Continues To Grow 

For most of the past decade, rural America enjoyed widespread population

growth, rebounding from the wide population losses of the 1980s. The nonmetro

population grew by 10.3 percent during

the 1990s, below the 13.9 percent growth

rate of metro areas. Net migration from

metro areas and an increasing flow of

immigrants accounted for most of this

nonmetro population increase. The pace

of nonmetro population growth slowed

after mid-decade, however, falling

steadily from 1.2 percent in 1994-95 to

0.6 percent in 1999-2000. Metro population growth remained steady at around

1.2 percent.

Regional trends show the continuing attraction of both the West and the South,

which together accounted for over threequarters of rural population growth during the 1990s (figure 4-1). Boosted by

both high in-migration and high birth

rates, the rural West grew by 20 percent,

twice the national average. Moderate climates, scenic features, and other natural

amenities stimulated rapid population

growth, particularly retirement migration, in parts of the Rocky Mountain

Farming no longer anchors most 

rural economies as it did in the 

early 20th century. Seven out of eight

rural counties are now dominated 

by varying mixes of manufacturing,

services, and other nonfarming

activities, and commodity-based 

farm policies do not address 

the complexity of rural economies 

and populations. Rural America 

is diverse, and the challenges 

facing rural communities are 

wide-ranging.
Rural America: Entering the 21st Century | 39

West, as well as in the southern Appalachians, and the upper Great Lakes.

High population growth in the rural

South resulted in part from urban

sprawl, especially around large metro areas of the South. As urban areas expanded, more rural residents fell within commuting zones. As a whole, the Great

Plains turned around from substantial

losses in the 1980s, achieving some population growth, although the majority of

counties in this area continued to lose

population.

Growing numbers of Hispanics are settling in rural America. Data from the

2000 Census show that Hispanics constituted 5.5 percent of the rural population

but accounted for 25 percent of the population growth in these areas during the

1990s. The nonmetro Hispanic population grew by over 60 percent during the

decade. Almost half of all nonmetro Hispanics now live outside traditional settlement States in the Southwest. With

higher fertility and younger age structure, natural increase alone now propels

the growth of rural Hispanics at a higher

rate than for other major race/ethnic

groups (Figure 4-2).

Rural Areas Benefited From the Nation’s

Economic Prosperity 

Rural areas as a whole shared in the

good economic times of the late 1990s

and the longest U.S. economic expansion

on record. The nonmetro unemployment

rate fell to its lowest levels in 20 years.

Employment continued to expand and

real earnings increased, although more

slowly than earlier in the decade. The

share of rural workers in low-wage jobs

declined. In late summer 2000, the manufacturing industry went into a downturn, as one of the first signs of oncoming recession.

Nonmetro employment declined by

about 0.6 percent from 2000 to 2001,

while metro employment remained

Rural America is home to one-fifth 

of the Nation’s people, keeper of 

natural amenities and natural

treasurers, and safeguard of a 

unique part of American culture,

tradition, and history.

Figure 4-1

Nonmetro population change, 1990–2000

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service, USDA, using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
40 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 4

Nonmetro and metro unemployment

rates moved together, declining during

the economic expansion of the 1990s

and increasing during the recession.

Nonmetro unemployment rates have

been higher than metro rates since 1996.

The nonmetro unemployment rate was

4.9 percent in 2001, compared with 4.7

percent in metro areas (figure 4-3).

steady despite the recession. Some nonmetro counties, including areas of the

Great Plains, had large employment

gains despite the recession. Much of the

nonmetro South suffered large job losses

in 2000-2001, fueled in part by the recent

manufacturing downturn. Employment

change in the nonmetro West was

mixed, with some counties reporting

losses and others gains.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

Figure 4-3

Unemployment rates rise during recession

Nonmetro unemployment rate

Metro unemployment rate

Census year

1989 1992 1996 1999 2001

Source: Calculated by ERS from Current Population Survey data.

*Changes in metro/nonmetro definitions begining 1985.3, and 1994.1

Figure 4-2

Nonmetro population growth rates by race and ethnicity, 1990-2000

Percent

80

60

40

20

0

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service, USDA, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Census

White Asian Black Native American Hispanic
Rural America: Entering the 21st Century | 41

Rural areas benefited economically from

the economic expansion of the 1990s,

with poverty rates falling to 13.4 percent,

the lowest level since the 1960s. Almost

7 million rural people lived in poverty in

2000, down half a million from 1999. Despite this improvement, poverty rates

continued to be higher in rural than urban areas and almost one in five rural

children under 17 years old were in

poverty in 2000. In addition, rural areas

lagged behind urban places in median

household income, per capita income,

and earnings per job.

Rural Economies Are Based on 

Different Assets 

A century ago, rural America was the

center of American life. It was home to

most of the population and most rural

residents were involved in producing

food and fiber for the Nation. The rural

economy has changed, shifting from a

dependence on farming, forestry, and

mining to a diversity of economic activity. This diversity means that nonmetro

areas are differentially affected by global, macroeconomic, and financial events,

resulting in different labor market conditions.

Rural regions of the country survive economically on one or more of three basic

assets: (1) natural amenities for tourism,

second homes, and retirement; (2) lowcost, good quality labor and land for

manufacturing, but also services such as

prisons and extended care health facilities; and (3) natural resources for farming, forestry, and mining. Most rural jobs

are not directly related to these assets,

but instead are in consumer services—

retail trade, education, health, and other

consumer services primarily for local

residents. Yet, consumer services cannot

thrive without agriculture, recreation,

manufacturing, and/or other activities

such as commuting that bring money into the community. In contrast, urban areas draw from a different asset base and

tend to specialize in more knowledge-intensive activities, particularly producer

services. This sector, which includes legal, financial, research, and business

services, has grown rapidly in recent

decades, with virtually all of the 1989-99

employment earnings growth occurring

in metropolitan areas.

Jobs and incomes are decreasing 

in many areas that are dependent 

on natural resource-based industries

such as agriculture, mining, and

forestry, but other places, often

associated with rural amenities,

are thriving.

Table 4-1.

Total employment earnings by industry group, 1990-2000, for nonmetro and metro areas

Nonmetro Metro

Change Change

Industry sector 2000 1990-2000 2000 1990-2000

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 5.0 -6.6 1.0 23.3

Mining 2.0 -16.2 0.7 30.7

Recreation 4.0 51.6 3.9 47.1

Manufacturing 21.3 14.5 15.1 14.8

Producer services 8.7 45.6 25.3 85.6

Construction 6.5 37.9 5.9 40.1

Transportation, utilities, and wholesale 9.4 28.8 11.1 35.8

Consumer services 22.6 43.3 22.2 39.9

Government and related 20.4 24.4 14.9 18.6

Total 100.0 26.4 100.0 39..8

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service, USDA, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis REIS data.
42 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 4

Federal Funding for Rural Area Development

Smaller Than for Urban Areas

Rural areas received $5,481, per capita,

in Federal receipts in fiscal 2000 (table 

4-2). This was about $300 less than in 

urban areas, representing a 5.6 percent

Federal funding gap. Most of the nonmetro funding gap is explained by significantly lower nonmetro receipts from 

defense and space and other national

functions. However, nonmetro areas also

received significantly less Federal funds

from the community resource programs,

which include housing, infrastructure,

and business assistance programs that

are viewed as important for stimulating

rural development.

The Bureau of the Census provides data

on the geographic distribution of Federal

funding through its Consolidated Federal

Funds Reports. They include Federal

grants, loans, salaries, procurement, and

other Federal payments. The data focus

on the 90 percent of funding that can

most accurately be followed to the county level and includes the total amounts

received by metro and nonmetro counties, classified by major program function (see box for definitions used in tables), and for nonmetro areas broken

down by Census regions. The funding

amounts are expressed in per capita

terms so that meaningful comparisons

can be made between more and less

populated regions.

Table 4-2.

Federal Funds Per Capita, FY 2000

Metro Nonmetro

Federal program function All counties counties counties

Dollars

All Federal funds 5,690 5,743 5,481

Agriculture and natural resources 116 39 427

Community resources 680 728 486

Defense and space 678 771 303

Human resources 119 113 143

Income security 3,276 3,182 3,656

National functions 822 910 467

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Table 4-3.

Distribution of Federal funds per capita in the nonmetro regions, FY 2000

South Northeast Midwest West

Federal program function Region Region Region Region

Dollars

All Federal Funds 5,624 5,258 5,287 5,588

Agriculture and natural resources 334 42 767 278

Community resources 463 463 434 666

Defense and space 321 467 171 401

Human resources 154 116 111 189

Income security 3,935 3,731 3,443 3,225

National functions 417 439 360 828

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Rural America: Entering the 21st Century | 43

Definitions Used in Tables

Program Functions

Six broad function categories for Federal

programs are as follows:

■ Agriculture and natural resources

(agricultural assistance, agricultural research and services, forest and land

management, water and recreation resources); 

■ Community resources (business assistance, community facilities, community

and regional development, environmental

protection, housing, Native American programs, and transportation); 

■ Defense and space (aeronautics and

space, defense contracts, defense payroll

and administration); 

■ Human resources (elementary and

secondary education, food and nutrition,

health services, social services, training,

and employment); 

■ Income security (medical and hospital

benefits, public assistance and unemployment compensation, retirement and

disability—includes Social Security); 

■ National functions (criminal justice

and law enforcement, energy, higher education and research, and all other programs excluding insurance).

For more details on these definitions and

on the data and methods used, see the

Federal Funds Briefing Room on the ERS

Web site, www.ers.usda.gov. This Web

site also provides maps for different program functions, access to individual

county level data, plus research focusing

on selected rural regions (such as Appalachia, the Black Belt, and the Great

Plains).

Total nonmetro Federal funding levels

were highest in the South, $5,624, and

lowest in the Northeast, $5,258 (table 

4-3). Most rural and urban Federal funds

come from income security programs,

such as Social Security, Medicare, and

Medicaid, which provide significant

amounts of transfer payments directly

to individuals or to service providers.

These programs are allocated largely

based on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. This explains why

the nonmetro South, which has the

largest concentration of low-income residents, received more in total Federal

funds, per capita, than nonmetro areas

in other regions.

However, other regions outpaced the

South when it came to nonmetro receipts from other Federal program functions. Nonmetro areas in the Northeast

ranked first in defense and space funding; the nonmetro Midwest ranked first

in agricultural and natural resource payments; and the nonmetro West ranked

first in funding from human resources,

community resources, and other national functions.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) is

the main source of economic information and research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ERS provides comprehensive economic analysis on issues

related to agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America. For more information on the conditions and trends in

rural areas, visit the ERS Web site at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Rural.
CHAPTER 5

U.S. Department of Agriculture
46 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 5

General

Counsel

Inspector

General

Executive

Operations

Director of

Communications

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Under Secretary for

Rural Development

Under Secretary for

Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services

Under Secretary 

for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs

Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional 

Relations

Assistant Secretary 

for Administration

Under Secretary for

Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services

Under Secretary for

Research, Education,

and Economics

Under Secretary 

for Food Safety

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary

Under Secretary for

Natural Resources 

and Environment

• Forest Service

• Natural Resources

 Conservation Service

• Farm Service Agency

• Foreign Agricultural Service

• Risk Management Agency

• Rural Utilities Service

• Rural Housing Service

• Rural Business-

 Cooperative Service

• Food and Nutrition Sevice

• Center for Nutrition Policy 

 and Promotion

• Food Safety and Inspection 

 Service

• Agricultural Research Service

• Cooperative State Research, 

 Education, and Extension Service

• Economic Research Service

• National Agricultural

 Statistics Service

• Agricultural Marketing Service

• Animal and Plant Health

 Inspection Service

• Grain Inspection, Packers and 

 Stockyards Administration

• Office of Congressional

 Relations

• Civil Rights

• Ethics

• Human Resources Management

• Operations

• Outreach

• Planning and Coordination

• Procurement and Property

 Management

• Small and Disadvantaged

 Business Utilization

• Administrative Law Judges

• Board of Contract Appeals

• Judicial Officer
U.S. Department of Agriculture | 47

Departmental Administration

Departmental Administration (DA) provides leadership and guidance in managing USDA’s administrative support programs and services effectively, efficiently

and fairly. DA staff offices support policy

officials throughout the Department. DA

also manages the buildings that comprise the headquarters complex, and

provides direct customer service to departmental-level employees in the

Washington area.

Departmental Administration encompasses the following offices: Office of

Civil Rights; Office of Human Resources

Management; Office of Procurement and

Property Management; Office of Operations; Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization; Office of Ethics; Office of Administrative Law Judges; Office

of the Judicial Officer; and the Board of

Contract Appeals.

Visit DA’s Web site at www.usda.gov/da

Office of Civil Rights

USDA Civil Rights Policy Statement. It is USDA

policy to ensure that no person is subjected to prohibited discrimination in

USDA employment or in federally assisted or conducted programs or activities

administered by USDA based on race,

color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,

sexual orientation, genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

The Office of Civil Rights (CR) works in

collaboration with the USDA mission areas and their agencies in implementing

civil rights laws, regulations, and best

practices relating to both employment

and program delivery.

Office of Civil Rights Mission Statement. CR’s

mission is to facilitate the fair and equitable treatment of USDA customers and

employees while ensuring the delivery

and enforcement of civil rights programs

and activities.

Continuous Process Improvement Plan. In FY

2001, CR published the Long-Term Improvement Plan (LTIP). The LTIP is a

roadmap for effecting long-term improvements in CR’s employment and

program functions. It is the result of a

comprehensive analysis of civil rights

systems, processes, procedures, and

staffing needs, levels of knowledge,

skills, and abilities, automation needs,

and administrative support.

The following are some recent improvements in CR attributable to LTIP: 

■ Development of an automated complaint tracking system to provide more

efficient, accurate tracking and reporting

on employment and program complaints.

■ Identification of resources and functions needed to support complaint processing.

■ Implementation of an online technical

resource library to expedite legal research in case processing.

■ Institution of a central records management system that ensures the integrity of complaint files and facilitates

file retrieval.

■ CR employees receiving training in

discrimination complaint investigation

and adjudication.

The issues facing the modern food and

farm system today are so multifaceted

and complex that they cannot be solved

by any one program or approach.

Protecting against plant and animal

pests and diseases, or eliminating

emerging foodborne pathogens, or

overcoming the barriers to producing

bioenergy efficiency, or ensuring

nutritious food for low-income

households, or encouraging costeffective carbon sequestration on farms

and in forests—none of these can be

accomplished by any single agency.

Increasingly, the technology available 

to solve many program and policy

problems also requires resources

from multiple agencies.
48 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 5

Continuing Policy Review. A performance objective of CR is to conduct civil rights

impact analyses (CRIAs) of all USDA regulations to assess impacts on underserved customers. Since FY 1999, CR has

performed 632 CRIAs, meeting its target

of 100 percent review of all new and

amended USDA regulations.

Increased Employee Education and Training.

During FY 2001, USDA saw an increase

in emphasis on civil rights and equal

employment opportunity (EEO) training

and education. Civil rights, EEO, and sexual harassment training were provided

to each of USDA’s more than 110,000 employees. Additionally, at the direction of

the Secretary, all USDA managers 

and supervisors received specific diversity training designed to enhance their

ability to recruit, retain, train, and manage a diverse workforce.

In FY 2001, a 5-year CR Training Plan was

developed for the period FY 2002 to FY

2006. The plan focuses on improving employee skills. Additionally, a USDA pamphlet, Dealing with Workplace Conflict and

Concerns: A Guide for Employees, was distributed to educate employees on approaches to resolving workplace disputes.

Progress in Complaint Resolution. Effective

and timely resolution of EEO and 

program complaints enhances USDA

program delivery. The average processing

time for EEO cases has been reduced 20

percent since the close of FY 2001, and

for program cases the time to process

the complaint fell 49 percent.

Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints. CR

issued 650 reports of investigation (ROIs)

in FY 2001 compared to 315 in FY 2000, a

106-percent increase. The processing 

time for complaints closed in FY 2001

was 571 days, reflecting a 15.8-percent

drop in average days to close EEO complaint cases, compared to FY 1999. Nearly 94 percent of complaint cases closed

in FY 2001 constituted cases filed between calendar years 1998 and 2000. The

processing time for complaints filed and

resolved in FY 2001 was 230 days.

Continuing Progress in Workforce Diversity.

Building and maintaining a highly 

skilled, competent, diverse workforce is

an ongoing priority at USDA. The numbers prove the agency’s efforts to eliminate under-representation of minorities,

women, and persons with disabilities in

the workforce are successful. From entry

level to top management, USDA’s initiatives to recruit and retain a diverse

workforce reflect strong commitment

and steady progress.

Minorities comprised 20.82 percent of

the 2001 USDA permanent workforce, up

from 20.07 percent in FY 1999. Employment increases were realized in all diversity groups.

A matter of continuing concern is that

the number of permanent employees reporting disabilities continues to decline.

In FY 1999, employees with reportable

disabilities accounted for 7.9 percent of

the permanent USDA workforce. That

distribution declined to 7.7 percent in FY

2000, and 7.4 percent in FY 2001. Permanent employees with “targeted” (generalFigure 5-1

USDA workplace profile by race and gender group, 2001

Black males

4%

Asian American males 1.5% 

Native American males 1.5%

Black females

6.8%

White males

47%

White females

31.4%

Hispanic males

3.6

Hispanic females

2.1%

Asian American females 1% 

Native American females 1%
U.S. Department of Agriculture | 49

Human Capital Management Projects: The Department has set an aggressive goal of

hiring 9,000 individuals with disabilities

over the 5-year period beginning October 

1, 2000. USDA has developed a mentoring program with the assistance of the

USDA Graduate School. This is a result of

the successful pilot conducted by the

Secretary’s Advisory Committee for Employees with Disabilities (SACED) in

2000–2001. Phase I of the Skills Gap

Analysis was completed in FY 2002.

USDA has developed an agencywide

Career Intern Program, geared to hiring 

recent college graduates and current

employees almost “on the spot.The program should help USDA attract the “best

and brightest” for a 2-year intern 

program with minimal hiring requirements. In FY 2001, USDA hired 8,765 students, representing a 65-percent increase over the 5,320 hired in FY 2000.

The increased student hiring is a direct

result of outreach at historically black

colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges, and other

colleges and universities.

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council: On May

10, 2002, Secretary of Agriculture Ann M.

Veneman signed the Charter for the Diversity Advisory Council, to provide her

with advice on issues raised by the seven

USDA employee advisory councils. The

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council

(DAC), co-chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Associate Assistant Secretary for Administraly, more severe) disabilities decreased

from 1.2 percent in FY 1999 to 1.1 percent in FY 2001. USDA is responding by

redoubling its efforts to hire employees 

with disabilities.

Enforcement. USDA has been strengthening its efforts to ensure accountability

for discrimination. The Office of Human

Resources Management tracks corrective

and disciplinary action taken on matters

relating to employment and program

discrimination as well as other civil

rights-related actions. Between January

1998 and December 2001, 218 civil

rights-related corrective and disciplinary

actions were taken.

Continuing Vigilance and Commitment. A strong

CR program supports USDA’s goals. It ensures that customers have full access to

all USDA programs and activities, that

program and employment complaints

are handled fairly and expeditiously, and

that the best supervisory and management practices are followed to build and

maintain a diverse, competent, highly

productive and effective workforce.

Office of Human Resources

Management

The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) provides leadership,

guidance, and oversight for USDA human resources management programs,

establishes human resources management policy, and provides liaison and 

coordination with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and other central 

oversight agencies. OHRM programs include employment, recruitment, merit 

promotion, compensation, classification,

position management, employee recognition, employee and executive development, employee assistance, retirement,

benefits, workers and unemployment

compensation, employee and labor relations, personnel and classified information security, executive resources, safety

and health, and organizational development. OHRM also provides staff support

for the Secretary’s Diversity Advisory

Council and seven employee councils,

and provides day-to-day operational personnel services for the Office of the Secretary and departmental staff offices.

tion, is committed to expanding President Lincoln’s vision of the Department

of Agriculture as “the People’s Department.” Seven employee advisory 

councils comprise the DAC: the African

American Employee Advisory Council,

American Indian/Alaska Native Employee Advisory Council, Asian American and 

Pacific Islander Employee Advisory

Council, Gay and Lesbian Employee Advisory Council, Secretary’s Advisory

Committee for Employees with Disabilities, Hispanic Advisory Council, and the

Women Employees Advisory Council.

Office of Procurement and Property

Management 

The Office of Procurement and Property

Management (OPPM) provides leadership 

and policy guidance concerning procurement, property management, and energy 

conservation. OPPM also promotes and

establishes USDA policy for alternative

fuel vehicles and the purchase of

biobased, environmentally preferable,

and recycled products.

OPPM is working to simplify and reduce

the cost of procurement, and to improve 

access to information about procurement and property management policy

for businesses and other members of the

public. The cost of procurement has

been reduced by expanding the use of

commercial credit cards (purchase

cards) and the Purchase Card Management System to make small purchases.

OPPM posts USDA procurement and

property management policy and procedures on the Departmental Administration Web site, http://www.usda.gov/da.html.

Businesses interested in selling to USDA

may view Doing Business with USDA at

the Web site.

In October 1998, USDA published in the

Federal Register Uniform Procedures for 

the Acquisition and Transfer of Excess Personal Property, in accordance with the 

provisions of Section 923 of the Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996. Since then, USDA has transferred excess personal property worth

over $10.6 million to 1994 land-grant institutions (tribal), 1890 land-grant insti-
50 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 5

Office of Operations

The Office of Operations (OO) performs

facilities management, physical security,

and operational support functions for all

USDA activities in the Agriculture headquarters complex, the George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, MD, and

at leased facilities throughout the Washington metropolitan area. OO provides

cost-efficient, centralized services, including: information technology management; architect and engineering services; space planning and design;

occupational health services; interpreter 

services for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals; mail, courier, copier and duplicating services; supply and personal

property management; accessible technology resources and ergonomic assessment services for employees with disabilities from USDA and other Federal

agencies; and forms and publications acquisition and printing services.

South Building Renovation. USDA is currently

engaged in a 10-year, multi-phase 

project to renovate and modernize the

South Agriculture Building. Architectural

design, engineering, hazardous materials

abatement, and construction services

are contracted for or directly provided by

the Office of Operations. Phase 1 of the 

renovation, which included a modernized Wing 3 from the basement to the attic, was completed and dedicated at a

ceremony on December 5, 2000. The design for Phase 2 of the renovation in

Wing 4 was completed in February 2001

and a construction contract was awarded in June 2001. Most future phases are

based on a wing-by-wing approach, with

approximately 1 year required to complete each phase.

Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization (OSDBU) provides 

departmentwide leadership and oversight for implementing and executing

the Small and Small Disadvantaged

Business Procurement Preference Programs, including minorities, veterans,

and women business programs, as prescribed under Sections 8 and 15 of the

Small Business Act of 1958, as amended.

OSDBU is USDA’s lead agency in providing an integrated focus for the implementation and execution of programs to 

assist small and special emphasis small 

businesses in supporting USDA’s missions.

OSDBU develops and coordinates technical assistance services designed to eliminate barriers that prevent or severely restrict small business access and

participation in USDA program and 

contract activities. Through partnerships

with USDA program offices, professional

associations and universities, OSDBU

promotes the growth and competitiveness of small and small disadvantaged

businesses located in rural America.

OSDBU’s goal is to provide quality information, guidance, and technical assistance services to ensure continuous

growth in the rate of small business participation in USDA program and contract

activities, with increased emphasis on

small businesses owned by minorities,

women, and veterans.

If you are interested in business opportunities with the Department of Agriculture, visit the Web site at http://www.usda.gov/osdbu or call (202) 720-7117 for

more details.

Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities Program (BRAVO): BRAVO partners tribally

tutions, and Hispanic-serving institutions.

Hazardous Materials Management Group. The

Hazardous Materials Management 

Group (HMMG) administers USDA’s Hazardous Materials Management Program 

(HMMP) and provides departmental

leadership for Resource, Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance. In

addition, HMMG develops procedures

and guidance in the areas of environmental compliance, pollution prevention, and response under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund. The working cost estimate for the

environmental cleanup portion of the

HMMP exceeds $4 billion.

The HMMP has been focused for the last

several years on environmental cleanup 

results, prioritization of needs, and integration of budgets and performance. The 

strategic plan defines two goals: cleaning

up and restoring facilities and lands 

contaminated from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances

and materials, and improving regulatory

compliance and reducing environmental 

contamination through pollution prevention and improvements in management practices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture | 51

Table 5-1.

Where do USDA employees work?

Number of Number of Number of

State employees State employees State employees 

Alabama 1,195 American Samoa 8 United Arab Emirates 1

Alaska 940 Argentina 3 Thailand 1

Arizona 1,755 Australia 3 Turkey 1

Arkansas 1,972 Austria 3 United Kingdom 1

California 7,676 Belgium 5 Ukraine 1

Colorado 2,867 Brazil 4 Venezuela 2

Connecticut 153 Bulgaria 2 Vietnam 1

Delaware 218 Canada 4 Virgin Islands 26

Dist of Columbia 6,672 China 6 Total 88,593

Florida 1,818 Chile 2

Georgia 2474 Columbia 2

Hawaii 450 No. Mariana Islands 7

Idaho 2,814 Costa Rico 3

Illinois 1,566 Dominican Republic 3

Indiana 779 Egypt 1

Iowa 1,940 FED ST Micronesia 10

Kansas 1,092 France 9

Kentucky 1,153 Germany 3

Louisiana 2,868 Guam 35

Maine 256 Guatemala 4

Maryland 3,191 Hong Kong 1

Massachusetts 341 Indonesia 3

Michigan 1,166 India 2

Minnesota 1,807 Italy 1

Mississippi 1,957 Cote D’Ivoire 1

Missouri 4,075 Japan 8

Montana 2,932 Jamaica 2

Nebraska 1,412 Kenya 1

Nevada 391 Republic of Korea 4

New Hampshire 300 Morocco 1

New Jersey 517 Mexico 19

New Mexico 1,505 Malaysia 1

New York 1,121 Nigeria 1

North Carolina 1,848 Netherlands 2

North Dakota 805 Nicaragua 2

Ohio 829 New Zealand 1

Oklahoma 961 Peru 1

Oregon 4,621 Pakistan 1

Pennsylvania 1,529 Poland 2

Rhode Island 36 Panama 5

South Carolina 878 Republic of Palau 3

Tennessee 1,084 Marshall Islands 1

Texas 3,575 Philippines 1

Utah 1,657 Puerto Rico 573

Vermont 267 Russia 4

Virginia 2,083 Saudi Arabia 1

Washington 2,302 South Africa 2

West Virginia 718 Spain 2

Wisconsin 1,539 Sweden 1

Wyoming 804 Switzerland 5
52 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 5

owned 8(a) firms and Alaskan Native

small information technology (IT) businesses with experienced Federal contractors in mentor-protégé relationships.

The program gives these firms an opportunity to become prime and/or subcontractors for USDA (and other Federal

agencies) and furnishes the hands-on

experience necessary to compete in the

Federal contracting arena. Mentoring

and assistance by established IT corporations provides a high level of assurance to USDA and other customer agencies that contract work can be

accomplished in a timely and satisfactory manner.

Outreach. The USDA Office of Outreach

provides leadership and coordination on

outreach issues at the national level to

assure that all potential customers have

full access to USDA programs and services. Through cooperative efforts, the Office of Outreach and USDA agencies

place special emphasis on outreach to

the under-served populations. In addition, the Office of Outreach serves as a

contact point for those communitybased organizations making requests of

USDA agencies at the national level.

Office of Ethics

The Office of Ethics was created in 1998

to direct and coordinate the ethics programs within the various mission areas

of the Department and to service headquarters staff directly. The Office of

Ethics develops departmentwide policies

and regulations; provides training to USDA staff on the various rules governing

employee conduct, conflicts of interest,

and political activity; administers personal financial disclosure reporting by

senior staff; and counsels employees on

ethics matters. Over the past 3 years, the

Office of Ethics has used Internet technology to provide online training modules for USDA staff all over the world.

USDA was the first Federal agency to offer financial disclosure reporting

through a secure, online Web-based system. In addition to USDA staff, a large

and growing number of Federal agencies

and the public rely upon the Office of

Ethics Web site, located at

www.usda.gov/ethics, for ethics training

and financial disclosure.

American Indian and Alaska Native

Programs

The USDA Tribal Liaison is the primary

contact with tribal governments and

their members and serves as the principal adviser and representative on USDA

programs involving assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives (with the

exception of civil rights activities, which

are coordinated by the Office of Civil

Rights, and recruitment and employment, which are handled by USDA’s Office of Human Resources Management).

The USDA Tribal Liaison also coordinates

USDA’s activities under Executive Order

13175, which requires Federal agencies

to establish meaningful and regular coordination with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies having

tribal implications. The Executive Order

is designed to strengthen U.S. Government relationships with Indian tribes

and reduce the imposition of unwarranted mandates upon tribes. In September

2002, USDA conducted its first comprehensive, departmentwide consultation

with the Navajo Nation in Window Rock,

AZ.

USDA also has an American Indian/Alaska Native Employee Advisory Council,

co-chaired by two senior USDA officials,

and consisting of members from American Indian employee groups and all mission areas of the Department.

A comprehensive guide to USDA programs for American Indians and Alaska

Natives may be found at

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/indians/open.

htm.

Office of the Chief Economist

The Office of the Chief Economist (OCE)

advises the Secretary of Agriculture on

policies and programs affecting U.S. agriculture and rural areas. This advice includes assessments of USDA program

proposals, legislative proposals, and economic developments of importance to

agriculture and rural areas. In addition,

the Office of the Chief Economist coordinates activities across USDA agencies.

These activities are described below.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of the Chief Economist is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/ 

World Agricultural Outlook Board

The World Agricultural Outlook Board is

USDA’s focal point for forecasts and

projections of global commodity markets. Each month the Board brings together interagency committees of experts to forecast the supply, use, and
U.S. Department of Agriculture | 53

Office of Risk Assessment and 

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Office of Risk Assessment and CostBenefit Analysis is responsible for

coordinating, reviewing, and approving

all risk assessments and cost-benefit

analyses of mitigation measures associated with major regulations of the Department. Major regulations are economically significant (with an impact of

at least $100 million each year) and have

a primary purpose of addressing issues

of human health, human safety, or the

environment. The Office provides direction to USDA agencies on appropriate

methods for these analyses and serves

as a focal point on matters relating to

risk assessment in interagency reviews.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit

Analysis is http://www.usda.gov/oce/ oracba/index.htm 

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is responsible for coordinating

USDA’s agricultural labor policy. Areas of

concern include immigration, the H-2A

Temporary Agricultural Worker Program,

worker protection standards for pesticide use, farm labor supply, and agricultural employment issues. The World

Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor-affairs/affairs.htm 

Sustainable Development

OCE’s director of sustainable development works to integrate the principals of

sustainable development into the Department’s policies and programs, ensuring that economic, social, and environmental considerations are balanced in

decisionmaking. The director also directs

and coordinates the Department’s domestic and international policies and

programs in sustainable development,

including sustainable agriculture,

forestry, and rural communities. The

World Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/sd/index.htm. The

World Wide Web address for sustainable

development activities at USDA is

http://www.usda.gov/sustainable/ 

Global Change Program Office

The Global Change Program Office functions as the departmentwide coordinator

of agriculture, rural, and forestry-related

global change program and policy issues.

The Office is responsible for coordinating

activities with other Federal agencies, interacting with the legislative branch on

climate and other global change issues

affecting agriculture and forestry, and

representing USDA on U.S. delegations to

international climate change discussions. The Office ensures that USDA is a

source of objective, analytical assessments of the effects of global change

and proposed mitigation strategies, and

has a coordinated research program to

address the multidisciplinary dimensions of global change. The World Wide

Web address for the Global Change Program Office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm 

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses provides leadership for development

of departmental energy policy and coordination of departmental energy programs and strategies. The Office provides

economic analysis on energy policy issues, coordinates USDA energy-related

activities within and outside the Department, and studies the feasibility of new

uses of agricultural products. The World

Wide Web address for the Office of Energy Policy and New Uses is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/index.htm 

prices of major commodities in the United States and abroad. The committees

also clear agricultural forecasts published by other USDA agencies. This

teamwork ensures that USDA

forecasts are objective and consistent.

Because growing-season weather is vital

to crop forecasts, specialists from the

Board work side by side with weather

analysts from the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration to monitor

the weather and assess its effect on

crops. They provide timely information

on potential changes in global production and publish a Weekly Weather and

Crop Bulletin (http://www.usda.gov/oce/

waob/jawf.htm). The Board also coordinates departmentwide activity on longterm economic projections, remote sensing, and climate. The Department is one

of the largest users of remote sensing in

the Federal Government. The Board coordinates remote sensing activities at USDA and chairs the Department’s Remote

Sensing Coordination Committee. The

Board also hosts the Department’s Chief

Meteorologist, who serves as the principle spokesperson on weather and climate issues, chairs a departmental

weather and climate coordinating committee, and serves as president of the

World Meteorological Organization’s

Commission for Agricultural Meteorology. The World Wide Web address for the

World Agricultural Outlook Board is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/index.htm 
54 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 5

Office of Inspector General

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG),

the first civilian OIG in the Federal Government, was established in 1962 and

became fully operational in 1963. The Inspector General Act of 1978 expanded

and provided specific statutory authorities for the activities of OIG which had

previously been carried out under the

general authorities of the Secretary of

Agriculture. OIG conducts and supervises audits and evaluations, as well as investigations and law enforcement efforts

relating to USDA’s programs and operations. It provides leadership and coordination and recommends policies for activities that will prevent and detect

criminal violations and promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in USDA

programs and operations. Furthermore,

OIG keeps the Secretary and Congress

fully informed of problems and deficiencies related to the administration of USDA programs and operations and of the

actions designed to correct such problems and deficiencies.

During the period April 1, 2000, through

March 31, 2001, audit and investigative

efforts resulted in approximately $133

million in recoveries, collections, fines,

restitutions, claims established, and

costs avoided. Further, management

agreed to put nearly $276 million to better use. OIG also identified more than

$22 million in questioned costs that cannot be recovered. Investigative efforts resulted in 417 indictments and 431 convictions.

During the period April 1, 2001, through

March 31, 2002, audit and investigative

efforts resulted in nearly $65 million in

recoveries, collections, fines, restitutions,

claims established, administrative

penalties, and costs avoided. Further,

management agreed to put approximately $101 million to better use. OIG also identified more than $85 million in

questioned costs that cannot be recovered. Investigative efforts resulted in 394

indictments and 396 convictions.

One highly successful initiative is “Operation Talon,” which was designed and

implemented by OIG to locate and apprehend fugitives, including offenders

who are current or former food stamp

recipients. This nationwide initiative was

made possible by legislative changes in

welfare reform. As of March 31, 2002,

Operation Talon had resulted in about

8,000 arrests of fugitive felons during

joint OIG, Federal, State, and local law

enforcement operations throughout the

country.

The events of September 11, 2001, and

the subsequent anthrax attacks gave

new urgency to the issues of security

over USDA’s infrastructure and the agricultural economy. OIG continues to redirect its resources toward two fronts—

maintaining the integrity of Department

programs and helping the Department

strengthen its defenses against activities

that might threaten Government facilities, production agriculture, and the Nation’s food supply. In addition to protecting the food supply, key areas of emphasis include enhancing cybersecurity and

ensuring financial integrity in USDA. At

the same time, OIG remains vigilant in

countering public corruption and workplace violence.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Chief Information Officer is the Department’s senior information technology official. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) supports program

delivery in USDA by overseeing the management of the Department’s information technology (IT) resources.
U.S. Department of Agriculture | 55

vironment of one-stop, quality service

for customers of USDA’s Farm Service

Agency, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, and Rural Development mission

area agencies.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(OCFO) is responsible for overall financial management activities in USDA and

for direct management of 1,750 employees in the OCFO at USDA headquarters

in Washington, DC, and the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans, LA.

OCFO’s duties include accounting and

reporting responsibilities for program

funds totaling about $100 billion and

management responsibilities for nearly

41 percent of all debt owed to the U.S.

Government. A major cross-servicing

and operation facility, the NFC processes

the payroll for 468,000 individuals of the

Federal workforce and administers the

Federal Government’s $98 billion Thrift

Savings Plan, which is the world’s largest

retirement plan, with 2.8 million participants. In addition, OCFO administers

and manages the Department’s Working

Capital Fund.

OCFO maintains an integrated departmental accounting and financial management system that provides complete,

reliable, consistent, and timely financial

information. OCFO is the chief architect

of the departmentwide strategic plan

and coordinates its distribution to Congress and other external entities. OCFO

also leads the Department’s efforts to

produce auditable financial statements

and to comply with congressional mandates related to financial management.

The OCFO coordinates and provides

guidance to USDA agencies for the debt

management program. As of September

30, 2001, USDA’s gross account and loan

receivables were $103.2 billion, down

from $107.5 billion in FY 1996. The credit

portfolio includes loans for farm operations, housing, utilities, business cooperatives, and other economic assistance to

rural residents and organizations. As of

September 30, 2001, USDA’s delinquent

receivables were $6.2 billion, down by

about 28 percent from the $8.8 billion in

FY 1996. During FY 2001, USDA collected

$286.8 million of delinquent debt

through administrative offset and other

tools authorized under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. This rate

of collection is more than quadrupled

the $63.2 million collected in FY 1996. In

FY 2001, $363 million of delinquent debt

was written off. This represents an 80-

percent decrease from the $1.8 billion

written off in FY 1996. OCFO’s current

efforts are focused on providing guidance and assisting USDA agencies in referring eligible debts to the Treasury offset and cross-servicing programs,

implementing administrative wage garnishment, and revising debt management regulations.

Office of Congressional and

Intergovernmental Relations

Office of Congressional Relations

USDA’s Office of Congressional Relations

serves as the Department’s primary liaison with Members of Congress and their

staffs, providing information on the Department’s legislative agenda, budget

proposals, programs, and policies.

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

(OIA) works closely with the Nation’s

Governors and State Commissioners of

Agriculture, and other State and local

elected officials, on various issues relating to their States. OIA is responsible for

disseminating information on programs

involving the implementation of USDA

policies and procedures applicable to the

Department’s intergovernmental relations.

OIA participates with the Secretary,

Deputy Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations in the

overall planning, formulation, and direction of the activities of the Office relating

to intergovernmental affairs. OIA serves

as the USDA liaison with the White

House and other executive branch agencies and departments with respect to intergovernmental affairs.

In accordance with the Clinger-Cohen

Act of 1996 and similar legislation, regulations, and executive orders, OCIO provides long-range-planning guidance, reviews all major technology investments

to ensure that they are economical and

effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources Management projects,

and promotes information exchange and

technical interoperability.

OCIO is responsible for managing USDA’s

eGovernment activities, including:

strategic and tactical planning; coordinating inter- and intra-departmental

eGovernment functions and budgeting;

and information collection and management functions under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Government Paperwork

Elimination Act, and related legislation.

OCIO also provides automated data processing (ADP) services to USDA and

other Federal agencies through its National Information Technology Center located in Kansas City, MO; and telecommunications services through its

Telecommunications Services and Operations in Ft. Collins, CO, and Washington,

DC. Direct ADP services are provided to

the Office of the Secretary, Office of the

General Counsel, Office of Communications, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.

OCIO is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of USDA’s information

technology resources. Cyber security

acts as an enabler for the programs to

use highly productive information technology while minimizing security risks.

OCIO develops departmental cyber security policies, standards, processes, and

procedures; provides guidance and oversight to assist USDA agencies; and ensures compliance with industry best

practices, Federal regulation, and legislation.

OCIO has responsibility for the information technology investments of the

Service Center Modernization Initiative

(SCMI), which is the cornerstone of the

overall reorganization and IT modernization effort of the Department. The ultimate goal of the SCMI is to create an en-
CHAPTER 6

USDA Rural Development
58 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 6

Helping the people of rural America develop sustainable communities and improve their quality of life is the goal of

USDA’s Rural Development mission area,

which works aggressively to increase

economic opportunities and empower

rural communities to grow.

USDA Rural Development is working to

eliminate substandard housing from rural America by helping families and individuals buy, build, repair, or rent decent

housing.

It also creates jobs by providing funding

and technical assistance to support the

growth and creation of rural businesses

and cooperatives. In a typical year, Rural 

Development programs create or preserve 

more than 150,000 rural jobs, enable

60,000 to 70,000 rural people to buy

homes, and help more than 450,000 lowincome rural people rent apartments or

other housing.

Other Rural Development programs 

help rural communities build or improve

community facilities, such as schools,

health clinics, and fire stations. Rural

Development also has programs that

help rural communities build or extend

utilities, including water, electricity, and

telecommunications services. Rural Development is also charged with leadership

in national, State, and local strategic

planning.

Program assistance is provided in many

ways, including direct or guaranteed

loans, grants, technical assistance, research, and educational materials. To

accomplish its mission, USDA Rural Development often works in partnership

with State, local, and tribal governments,

as well as rural businesses, cooperatives,

and nonprofit agencies.

USDA Rural Development programs are

delivered through its three agencies—

Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS)—and branch,

the Office of Community Development

(OCD). Rural Development programs are

provided across the Nation through 47

State offices and 800 field offices. The

following overviews describe the three

Rural Development agencies and

branch—the Office of Community Development—and their main programs.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Creation of viable new and improved

competitive businesses and sustainable

cooperatives in rural America is the top

priority of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). This agency works

through partnerships with public and

private community-based organizations

to provide financial assistance, business

planning, and technical assistance to rural businesses. It also conducts research

into rural economic issues, including rural cooperatives, and provides educational material to the public.

Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loans help

to finance rural business and industry

projects that create employment opportunities and improve the economic and

environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement

and control. Guaranteed loans are made

for projects that foster sustained community benefits and open private credit

markets. B&I loan guarantees can be extended to loans made by commercial or

other authorized lenders in rural areas

(this includes all areas other than cities

of more than 50,000 people and their immediately adjacent urban or urbanizing

areas).

Under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program,

the Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority provides financial assistance for the purchase

of cooperative stock for family-sized

farms where the commodities produced

are to be processed by the cooperative.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are

made to public entities and private parties who cannot obtain credit from other

sources. Loans to private parties can be

made for improving, developing, or financing business and industry, creating

jobs, and improving the economic and

environmental climate in rural communities (including pollution abatement).

This type of assistance is available in ruAn environment should be created 

that will attract private investment 

to rural America. Three areas are

targets of new policy initiatives:

expanding value-added agricultural

production, finding alternative methods

to increase rural income from the

natural resource asset base, and

providing leadership in education,

specifically entrepreneurial skills.
USDA Rural Development | 59

ral areas (this includes all areas other

than cities of more than 50,000 people

and their immediately adjacent urban or

urbanizing areas).

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance

business facilities and community development projects in rural areas, including

cities of less than 25,000.

Loans to intermediaries are reloaned to

support the establishment of new business facilities and community development projects in rural areas. Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants finance

economic development and job creation

projects in rural areas based on sound 

economic plans. This financing is available to any Rural Utilities Service electric

or telecommunications borrower to assist

in developing rural areas from an economic standpoint, to create new job opportunities, and to help retain existing

employment. Loans at zero interest are

made primarily to finance business

startup ventures and business expansion projects.

Grants are made to these telephone and

electric utilities to establish revolving

loan programs operated at the local level

by the utility.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants help public 

bodies and nonprofit corporations finance

and facilitate the development of small

and emerging private business enterprises located in rural areas (this includes

all areas other than cities of more than

50,000 people and their immediately

adjacent urban or urbanizing areas).

Grants may be used to acquire and develop land, buildings, plants, equipment,

access streets and roads, parking areas,

and utility and service extensions. In

addition, funds may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services,

technical assistance, financial assistance

through loans to third parties—including

startup costs and working capital, production of television programs targeted

to rural residents, and rural distancelearning networks.

Rural Business Opportunity Grants can be

made to provide economic planning for

rural communities, technical assistance

for rural businesses, or training for rural

entrepreneurs or economic development

officials. Funding must result in economic development of a rural area. This

program is available to public bodies,

non-profit corporations, Indian tribes,

or cooperatives with members who are

primarily rural residents.

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance

the establishment and operation of centers for cooperative development. The

program enhances the economy of rural

areas by developing new cooperatives

and fostering improved operations for

existing co-ops.

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants are available to help farmers

and their farmer-owned cooperatives or 

other businesses to expand the customer

base for their products or commodities.

An expanded customer base gives producers access to a greater share of the

revenues derived from adding value to

their crops.

The Agricultural Innovation Center Program

provides grants to fund a series of centers to provide information and technical assistance to producers in getting

into value-added activities.
60 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 6

the cooperative form of business. By

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents are

often able to reduce costs for production

supplies and consumer goods, obtain

services that might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns 

for their products.

Cooperative Services accomplishes its

mission by (1) responding to requests for

technical assistance from rural residents

who want to organize a cooperative or

improve operations of an existing cooperative; (2) providing information and

educational materials relating to cooperatives; (3) conducting research on cooperative financial, structural, managerial,

policy, member governance, legal, and

social issues; and (4) collecting and disseminating statistics to support research

and technical assistance work.

Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing

and essential community facilities are

indispensable to vibrant rural communities. USDA’s Rural Housing Service (RHS)

has the responsibility to make these essential elements available to rural Americans. RHS programs help finance new or

improved housing for more than 60,000

moderate-, low-, or very low-income

families each year. These programs also

help rural communities finance construction, enlargement, or improvement

of fire stations, libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, day care centers, industrial

parks, and other essential community

facilities.

Single Family Housing Loans provide assistance to very low-, low-, and moderateincome households in rural communities,

helping them to purchase, construct, or

repair a home. Very low- and low-income 

borrowers are offered 33- to 38-year direct

loans (depending on income) at fixed interest rates with payment assistance to

bring the effective interest rate to as low

as 1 percent, depending on the family’s

adjusted income. Low- and moderateincome rural residents can be assisted

with loan guarantees, which require no

downpayment or mortgage insurance,

The Agricultural Marketing Resource Center

grant program establishes a national

electronically based center to collect and

interpret information about value-added

agriculture. It aims to empower the Nation’s agricultural producers and processors by providing publicly accessible

information on the Internet.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural

Areas program provides information to 

farmers and other rural users on a variety

of sustainable agricultural practices, including crop and livestock operations. It

helps agriculture by giving reliable, practical information on production techniques and practices that reduce costs

and are friendly to the environment.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement

Center promotes strategic development

activities to strengthen and enhance 

production and marketing of sheep, goats,

and their products in the United States.

The Center, which has a board of directors to oversee its activities, makes loans

and grants.

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation’s cooperatives

and promotes understanding and use of

Cooperative Solutions for Rural Challenges 

■ USDA has a long history of promoting cooperatives—businesses that are owned and controlled

by the people who use them. Co-ops help rural people maintain control of local resources and

improve their standard of living. In the United States, there are an estimated 40,000 cooperatives

that do everything from helping farmers market and process their crops to providing electricity and

credit services.

■ Cooperatives are organized by people who want to: (a) improve their bargaining power, (b)

reduce their costs for goods or services, (c) obtain products or services otherwise unavailable to

them, (d) expand their marketing opportunities, (e) improve their product service or quality, or (f)

increase their income.

■ For 67 years, USDA has been providing ideas and leadership to the cooperative community

through its prize-winning magazine, Rural Cooperatives, published bimonthly. Each issue carries

news, features, and columns that report on issues impacting cooperatives and highlighting

successful co-op practices. USDA Rural Development also provides the public with more than 100

publications and videos about cooperatives—ranging from How to Start a Cooperative to Tax

Treatment for Cooperatives. To order a free publication and video catalog or to request a magazine

subscription order form, call 202-720-8381. Publications are also available from the USDA Rural

Development Web site at www.rurdev.usda.gov

Rural development policy 

is no longer synonymous with

agricultural policy.
USDA Rural Development | 61

that are offered through private lenders

at terms up to 30 years. The loans, both

direct and guaranteed, can cover up to

100 percent of market value or acquisition cost, whichever is less. This eliminates the need for a downpayment and

provides homeownership opportunities

to many more rural Americans.

The innovative Mutual Self-Help Housing Program makes homes more affordable by

enabling low- and very low-income families to perform 65 percent of the labor to

construct their homes. The family’s investment or “sweat equity” reduces the

total amount of money to be borrowed.

Grants are awarded to nonprofit and local government organizations that provide 

technical assistance. They supervise

groups of families in the construction 

of their homes. The families work on

homes together, moving in only when all 

homes are completed. Usually, the homes 

are financed through an RHS Single

Family Housing direct loan. In 2001, RHS

made 70 technical assistance grants totaling $17.63 million, to nonprofit organizations in 26 States that helped about

1,417 families build their own homes. A

total of $165.3 million was loaned to

these families to help them pay for their

new homes.

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants

enable very low-income rural homeowners to remove health and safety

hazards from their homes and to make

homes accessible for people with disabilities. Loans have a maximum interest rate 

of 1 percent and are available to very

low-income homeowners regardless of

their age.

Grants are available for people age 62

and older who cannot afford to repay a

loan. A combination of funds from a

loan and grant can be used by eligible

elderly residents.

Rural Rental Housing Loans finance construction of rental and cooperative housing

for low-income individuals and families 

with an average annual income of $8,105,

including elderly or disabled persons.

Loans have a maximum term of 30

years, can equal up to 100 percent of the

appraised value or development cost,

whichever is less, and can be used to

construct new housing or to purchase or

rehabilitate existing structures. In addition to the direct lending program, USDA

offers loan guarantees to multi-family

housing developers to extend the reach

of Federal resources to moderate- and

low-income working families and elderly

individuals.

Housing Preservation Grants are made to nonprofit groups and government agencies

to finance rehabilitation of rental units

for low-income residents.

Rental Assistance payments subsidize rent

costs to ensure that low-income tenants

will pay no more than 30 percent of their

income for rent.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and

Grants finance the construction, enlargement, extension, or other improvements

for community facilities providing essential services in rural areas and towns 

with a population of 20,000 or less. Funds 

are available to public entities such as

municipalities, counties, special-purpose

districts, Indian tribes, and nonprofit

corporations. Projects commonly financed include child care centers,

schools, libraries, and medical facilities.

In addition, funding may be used for the

purchase of firefighting equipment.
62 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 6

Housing for Farm Workers 

Farm workers are often among the most

poorly housed and lowest paid workers

in the United States. RHS provides housing for migrant and farm laborers through

several programs. The Farm Labor Housing

program, the only national farm labor

housing program, provides loans to public or nonprofit agencies or to farmers to

enable them to build farm labor housing. In States, such as California, many

farm laborers are able to build their own

homes through our Mutual Self-Help

Housing Program.

Outreach to American Indians and

Alaskan Natives 

The Rural Housing Service is reaching

out to better inform Native Americans

about its programs and is working to

overcome institutional barriers to lending on tribal land. In FY 2001, Single

Family Housing direct loans worth $13.6

million were made to buy or to repair

homes for 204 Native Americans, including $2.183 million to build approximately

39 single family houses on tribal lands.

An additional $17.4 million guaranteed

another 231 housing loans made to Native Americans by private sector lenders.

Loans and grants made through the

Housing Repair program totaled over

$1.3 million and repaired 216 dwellings.

The Community Facilities Program provided

more than $32 million in direct and

guaranteed loans and grants to fund 77

essential community facilities benefiting

Native American tribes in 13 States.

These projects included infrastructure

for a tribal housing project, tribal school

and college classroom buildings, physicians’ clinics, child care centers, museums, fire trucks, a well for water, a food

preparation center, and several community centers and general office buildings.

Expanding the Reach of Federal

Resources Through Partnerships

Partnerships with public bodies, such as

towns, counties, and federally recognized Indian tribes, and the private and

nonprofit sectors, form the foundation of

several RHS programs. USDA is actively

reaching out to organizations whose

goals and missions complement those of

the Department. The following are partnerships found in RHS programs:

■ Some of USDA’s most important partnerships are created through its guaranteed loan programs, which are a collaboration with local lenders by which the

lender funds the loan and RHS issues a

guarantee for up to 90 percent of the

amount of the loan.

■ The Rural Home Loan Partnership

(RHLP), begun in 1996, makes private

credit more accessible for eligible low-income borrowers. Partners include RHS,

Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Neighborhood Reinvestment,

Rural Alliance, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The partnership

delivers a new single-family mortgage

product that enables families earning 80

percent of area median income or below

to achieve homeownership. RHS provides

a subsidized mortgage to cover part of

the cost of a house, while a local bank finances the remainder. Since RHLP began

in 1996, it has provided more than $341.8

million to help 4,329 families in 36

States attain the American dream of

homeownership.

Community Development Financial

Institution Partnership

The Community Development Financial

Institution Partnership was created in

1998 to provide homeownership opportunities to low-income applicants by

combining the resources of RHS and

community development financial institutions.

CDFIs are specialized private institutions

that serve populations whom traditional

financial institutions are not serving.

They provide a wide range of financial

products and services to underserved

communities, including mortgage financing for first-time home buyers and

basic financial services needed by lowincome households.
USDA Rural Development | 63

Rural Utilities Service

USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs, including Rural Telephone Bank

(RTB) programs administered by RUS,

touch the lives of tens of millions of rural

people daily. Through project financing

and technical assistance, RUS builds infrastructure to provide rural businesses

and households with modern telecommunications, electricity, and water.

RUS is a partner with rural business and

economic development efforts, providing

infrastructure that is the foundation for

competitiveness. It is a technical and financial resource in a time of change for

rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan

Guarantees build modern rural communications systems by making financing

available for modern high-speed telecommunications facilities. Loans made

to rural telephone cooperatives and

companies help bring reliable and affordable telecommunications services to

more than 15 million rural Americans.

Rural Electric Loans and Loan

Guarantees

The RUS Electric Program provides financing and technical assistance to upgrade, expand, and maintain the electric

utility infrastructure in rural America.

Under the authority of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, RUS makes direct

loans and loan guarantees to electric

utilities to serve customers in rural areas. Repayment of RUS loans is secured

through liens on the assets of borrowers,

long-term power arrangements, and RUS

oversight of borrower activities. RUS can

also make loans for renewable energy

and demand-side management activities

to boost rural economic development

opportunities and contribute to a cleaner environment. With new authority

added in the 106th Congress, RUS can

make grants and loans for rural communities with extremely high energy costs.

Through RUS, the Federal Government is

the primary lender and majority noteholder for 697 rural electric systems in 46

States, Puerto Rico, the Marshall Islands,

and the Virgin Islands. These active RUS

borrowers directly serve over 25 million 

people. In 2000 RUS borrowers accounted 

for over 10.8 million retail meters (90 percent of them residential meters), 1,689,000

miles of distribution lines, 96,000 miles

of transmission lines, 162,699,000

megawatt-hours (MWh) generated, and

240,147,000 MWh in retail sales.

Of the 697 RUS-financed rural systems,

nearly 96 percent are nonprofit cooperatives, owned and operated by the

consumers they serve. The remaining 

4 percent include municipal systems, public power districts, Native American tribal

utilities, and other entities. RUS-financed

electric systems provide service to 523 

of the 540 identified persistent poverty

counties and 655 of the 700 counties

identified as having net outmigration.

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and

Grants bring distance learning and

telemedicine to rural America. Education

and adequate medical care are crucial to

the survival of rural communities, but

are becoming increasingly difficult to

provide. This program employs innovative ways to use telecommunications

infrastructure to extend the reach of

educational and medical expertise into

communities without those resources.

The loan program has been expanded to

broaden the use of rural telecommunications infrastructure.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants develop water and waste disposal systems

(including solid waste disposal and

storm drainage) in rural areas and towns

with populations of less than 10,000. The

funds are available to public entities

such as municipalities, counties, specialpurpose districts, Indian tribes, and nonprofit corporations. RUS also guarantees

water and waste disposal loans made by

banks and other eligible lenders. This

program deals with over 7,000 communities nationwide.

Telecommunications, electricity, water

and waste disposal systems, and

transportation infrastructure (such as

highways and airports) are essential

for rural development.
64 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 6

Office of Community Development

The Office of Community Development’s

goal is to create empowered communities—no longer beset by hopelessness,

pervasive poverty, unemployment, and

general distress. These communities

should be able to implement self-generated strategic plans that solve some of

their most difficult economic and social

challenges. OCD promotes Federal, State,

and local agencies, private sector, and

not-for-profit organizations working cooperatively and in partnership with

communities.

USDA Rural Development’s Office of

Community Development (OCD) administers the Rural Community Development 

program. This effort promotes selfsustaining, long-term economic and

community development in areas of

pervasive poverty, unemployment, and

general distress. The program works by

helping distressed communities develop

and implement innovative, comprehensive strategic plans, which are supported

by partnerships among private, public,

and nonprofit entities. This assistance is

available through USDA Rural Development field offices to rural communities

throughout the United States. This help

includes technical assistance and support in obtaining additional financial resources and assistance in forging local

and regional partnerships.

USDA’s Office of Community Development administers three rural community empowerment efforts: Empowerment

Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC),

Champion Communities (CC), and the

Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP)

Zones. OCD also administers the Rural

Community Advancement Program

(RCAP) and other supported communities, as well as the National Centers of

Excellence.

Empowerment Zones/Enterprise

Communities

The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise

Communities (EZ/EC) Program provides

economically depressed rural areas and

communities with real opportunities for

growth and revitalization. Its mission is

to help create long-term economic and

community development and assist

communities in empowering themselves

to improve local conditions and become

self-sustaining. EZ/EC efforts begin at a

grassroots level, where communities, in

cooperation with State and local governments, work together to write strategic 

plans to address the economic and social 

problems they face. The strategic plan

also identifies partnerships and ways to

combine private and public resources to

implement their plans.

Selected Accomplishments of the Empowerment Program Communities as of 4/2/02:

Measure EZ/EC Champions REAPs Total

New or improved water & wastewater systems 203 56 7 266

New utility hookups 6,061 0 1,264 7,325

Business loans made 953 59 21 1,033

Businesses started or attracted 854 156 26 1,036

Education program participants 69,608 6,729 0 76,337

Youth participating in programs 27,155 1,396 0 28,551

Jobs created or saved 32,137 3,307 756 36,200

Houses constructed 1,447 506 0 1,953

Houses rehabilitated 3,928 490 210 4,628

New health care facilities 25 3 0 28

New/improved recreation & tourism facilities 117 28 21 166

Environmental & natural resources projects 39 0 0 39
USDA Rural Development | 65

Key features of the EZ/EC program

include:

■ Rural EZs receive substantial flexible

grant dollars to help implement their

strategic plans. Rural ECs receive somewhat less for the same purpose.

■ Rural EZs are eligible for tax credits,

such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit

and Section 179 tax deductions, as well

as tax-free facility bonds.

■ Both rural EZs and ECs receive primary consideration for many other Federal and State programs.

In 1994, the Round I EZ/EC designations

named three rural Empowerment Zones

and 30 Enterprise Communities. In 1998,

five Round II rural Empowerment Zones

and 20 Enterprise Communities were

designated. A third round of two additional rural EZs was named in December

2001. In 1999, USDA formalized the

Champion Communities (CC) program

by inviting all communities that submitted strategic plans for Round I and II

EZ/EC designations to continue implementing their plans through a partnership agreement with USDA.

Rural Economic Area Partnership

(REAP) Zones

While poverty-related issues are the main 

challenge for some rural communities,

many others face economic and community development issues of a very different 

character. Often, these challenges are

due to geographic isolation, low population density, over-dependence on agriculture, population loss, out-migration, and 

economic distress. To address these issues,

USDA advocated a pilot concept for rural

revitalization and community development called Rural Economic Area

Partnership Zones. Two zones in North

Dakota were designated in 1995 to be the

first participants in the REAP initiative.

In 1999, two areas in upstate New York

were added, and in 2000 an area in

Vermont was designated as the fifth

zone. The North Dakota zones and the

Vermont zone cover multi-county areas,

while the two in New York are basically

single counties. Each REAP Zone developed a strategic plan for economic revitalization. Through grassroots efforts in

strategic planning and community action, millions of dollars in State, Federal,

private, and nonprofit assistance are

being brought to these areas.

Rural Community Advancement

Program (RCAP)

The 1996 Farm Bill established the Rural

Community Advancement Program

(RCAP). RCAP features strategic planning

assistance, grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other assistance to meet the

development needs of rural communities. Special emphasis is placed on the

smallest communities with the lowest

per capita income.

National Centers of Excellence: College

and University Partnership Project

The National Centers of Excellence (NCE)

program has matured into a unique effort to utilize local universities and colleges as catalysts for rural economic and

community development. The NCE is a

partnership between USDA and rural

colleges and universities in the United

States. The goal of the program is to

improve the economic self-sufficiency 

of historically overlooked, poor rural

communities. It specifically focuses on

building the economic and community

development educational and outreach

capacities of the rural colleges and universities and linking them with impoverished rural communities that they have

historically served.

The National Centers of Excellence participating in 2002 include: University of

Texas-Pan American, Texas; Somerset

Community College, Kentucky; Heritage

College, Washington; Cankdeska Cikana

Community College, North Dakota;

Crownpoint Institute of Technology, New

Mexico; Fort Peck Community College,

Montana; San Diego State UniversityImperial Valley, California; and California State University-Fresno, California.
CHAPTER 7

Farm and Foreign Agricultural

Services
68 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

Farm Service Agency

The Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) mission

is to ensure the well-being of American

agriculture and the American public

through efficient and equitable administration of agricultural commodity, farm

loan, conservation, environmental,

emergency assistance, and domestic and

international food assistance programs.

FSA is a customer-driven agency with a

diverse and multi-talented workforce,

empowered and accountable to deliver

programs and services efficiently, and

dedicated to promoting an economically

viable and environmentally sound American agriculture.

What Is FSA?

FSA was established under a USDA reorganization in 1994, incorporating programs from several agencies, including

the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service, the Federal Crop

Insurance Corporation (now a separate

Risk Management Agency), and the

Farmers Home Administration. Though

its name has changed over the years, the

agency’s relationship with farmers dates

back to the 1930s.

Congress set up a unique system under

which Federal farm programs are locally

administered. Farmers who are eligible

to participate in these programs elect a

three-to-five-person county committee

that reviews county office operations

and makes many of the decisions on

how to administer the programs. This

grassroots approach gives farmers a

much-needed say in how Federal actions

affect their communities and their individual operations. After more than 60

years, it remains a cornerstone of FSA’s

efforts to preserve and promote American agriculture.

2002 Farm Bill

The Farm Security and Rural Investment

Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), which governs Federal farm programs, includes

provisions to support the production of a

reliable, safe, and affordable supply of

food and fiber; promote stewardship of

agricultural land and water resources;

facilitate access to American farm products at home and abroad; encourage

continued economic and infrastructure

development in rural America; and ensure continued research to maintain an

efficient and innovative agricultural and

food sector.

The 2002 Farm Bill also provides certainty and support for America’s farmers and 

ranchers by providing a generous safety

net for farmers without encouraging

overproduction and depressing prices.

Today, 25 percent of U.S. farm income is

generated by exports. Foreign market

access is essential to farmers, ranchers,

and the entire agricultural sector. The

2002 Farm Bill helps keep international

trade commitments and support the

agency’s commitment to fair trade by

complying with U.S. obligations to the

World Trade Organization.

The Farm Bill offers incentives for good

conservation practices on working lands,

strengthens the farm economy over the

long term, and promotes farmer independence. It has increased record-level

funding for almost every existing environmental stewardship program and

represents an unprecedented investment in conservation on America’s private lands, nearly $13 billion over the

next 6 years. The bill emphasizes conservation on working lands and provides

the most dramatic growth in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,

providing more than $5.5 billion over the

next 6 years.

Marketing Assistance Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, barley, corn, honey, grain, sorghum,

wool, mohair, oats, oilseeds, peanuts,

rice, sugar, tobacco, wheat, and upland

and extra-long-staple cotton.

The agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which provides assistance

with respect to products of certain agricultural commodities through loans and

loan deficiencies payments (LDP). This

provides farmers with interim financing

and helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of farm commodities and

Trade is critically important to the 

long-term economic health and

prosperity of our food and agricultural

sector. We have far more capacity 

than needed to meet domestic 

food market requirements. To avoid

excess capacity throughout the

system—our farmland, transportation,

processing, financing, and 

other ancillary services—we must

maintain and expand our sales 

to customers outside this country....

Clearly, without the salutary effects 

of an expanding export market,

farm prices and net cash incomes

would be significantly lower.
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 69

their orderly distribution throughout the

year and during times of surplus and

scarcity.

Instead of immediately selling the crop

after harvest, a farmer who grows an eligible crop can store the produce and,

normally, take out a “nonrecourse” loan

for its value, pledging the crop itself as

collateral. “Nonrecourse” means that the

producer can discharge debts in full by

forfeiting or delivering the commodity to

the Federal Government.

The nonrecourse loan, where available,

allows farmers to pay their bills and

other loan payments when they become

due, without having to sell crops at a

time of year when prices tend to be at

their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more favorable, farmers can

sell their crops and repay the loan with

the proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price of

the crop remains below the loan level set

by CCC, farmers can keep loan proceeds

and forfeit the crop to CCC instead. The

repayment rate may also be adjusted,

in some instances, by USDA to minimize

forfeitures and the costs of storing commodities and to allow commodities

produced in the United States to be

marketed freely and competitively, both

domestically and internationally. When

repayment rates are set below the loan

level during periods of low prices, producers realize a marketing loan gain.

Loan deficiency payments may also be

offered in lieu of marketing assistance

loans when repayment rates are below

the loan level.

Commodity Purchase Programs

Foreign food assistance in FY 2000 provided nearly 6 million tons of commodities, valued at $1.2 billion. During FY

2001, FSA provided more than 5.5 million

metric tons of commodities under foreign food aid programs valued at $1.1

billion. As part of that total, the Global

Food for Education program was initiated and provided approximately 470,000

metric tons of commodities valued at

over $106 million.

Domestic food assistance in FY 2000 and

FY 2001 totaled approximately 400 million pounds each year at a cost of approximately $300 million per year.

Under the Dairy Price Support Program,

CCC buys surplus butter, cheese, and

nonfat dry milk from processors at announced prices to support the price of

milk. These purchases help maintain

market prices at the legislated support

level. Dairy purchases totaled about 500

million pounds in FY 2000 and 400 million pounds in FY 2001, valued at approximately $500 million in FY 2000 and

$400 million in FY 2001.

CCC can store purchased food in over

10,000 commercial warehouses approved

for this purpose across the Nation. However, commodity inventories are not simply kept in storage. FSA employees work

to return stored commodities to private

trade channels. At the agency’s Kansas

City Commodity Office in Kansas City,

MO, FSA merchandisers regularly sell

and swap CCC inventories.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relief both in

the United States and in foreign countries. FSA employees work closely with

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to

purchase and deliver foods for the National School Lunch Program and many

other domestic feeding programs. For

foreign food assistance programs, FSA

America should continue to be 

a global agricultural leader in 

the 21st century.
70 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

Emergency Conservation Program 

The Emergency Conservation Program

provides emergency cost-share funding

for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate

farmland damaged by natural disasters

and for carrying out emergency water

conservation measures during periods of

severe drought. The natural disaster

must create new conservation problems

which, if not treated, would:

■ Impair or endanger the land,

■ Materially affect the productive capacity of the land,

■ Represent unusual damage which is

not the type likely to recur frequently in

the same area,

■ Be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to return

the land to productive agricultural use.

FSA allocated $93 million in Emergency

Conservation Program assistance to 42

States in FY 1999 and $105 million to 40

States in FY 2000 to help farmers and

ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged

by the year’s droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters and

for water conservation measures for severe drought. In FY 2002, 10,000 producers received $30 million in payments.

Emergency Loans

FSA provides emergency loans to help

cover production and physical losses in

counties declared disaster areas by the

President, or designated as such by the

Secretary of Agriculture or the FSA Administrator (physical loss loans only).

Emergency loans also are available in

counties contiguous to such disaster areas. These loans are made to qualifying

established family farm operators. In addition, to qualify for emergency loans,

applicants must have operated a farm in

a county declared as a disaster area by

the President, or designated as such by

the Secretary of Agriculture or the FSA

Administrator (physical loss loans only).

Loans for crop, livestock, and non-realestate losses are normally repaid in 1 to

7 years, and in special circumstances, up

to 20 years. Loans for physical losses to

real estate and buildings are normally

repaid in 30 years, and in special circumstances, up to 40 years. In FY 2002, FSA

employees purchase commodities for

the U.S. Agency for International Development and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. These agencies administer

the P.L. 480, Title II/III Programs and the

Section 416(b) and Food For Progress Programs, respectively.

Disaster Assistance Available From FSA

FSA has programs that are activated

during certain types of disasters. Among

these are the Noninsured Crop Disaster

Assistance Program, Emergency Conservation Program, and Emergency Loans.

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance

Program

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance

Program (NAP) provides financial assistance to eligible producers affected by

natural disasters. This federally funded

program covers noninsurable crop losses

and planting prevented by disasters.

When damage to a crop or commodity

occurs as a result of a natural disaster,

producers requesting NAP assistance

must meet certain criteria.

In FY 2002, 40,000 producers received

$173 million in payments.
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 71

made 949 emergency loans totaling

$57,609,000.

Emergency Declarations

As of November 25, 2002, 2,344 counties

of the total 3,141 in the United States

had received disaster declarations for

drought (as either primary or contiguous

counties) by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Cattle Feed Assistance Program

In 2002, USDA and FSA introduced the

Cattle Feed Assistance Program that provides $150 million to help cow-calf operators in Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming,

and South Dakota. The eligible States

were selected because data showed that

at least 75 percent of the pasture and

forage crops in these States is rated as

poor or very poor. Without this assistance, severe disruption could come to

the beef industry if producers are forced

to prematurely market foundation herds

of beef cattle due to lack of forage. To

implement the program, USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) enters

into agreements with feed mills located

in the eligible areas, making available

existing CCC stocks of nonfat dry milk to

be used in the production of livestock

feed. Eligible producers are able to obtain feed at reduced or no cost from participating manufacturers. At the time

the program was announced, CCC had

more than 441 million pounds of nonfat

dry milk that was at least 2 years old or

older in storage. In the past, CCC has

sold similar nonfat dry milk stocks for

animal feed.

Livestock Compensation Program

In 2002, USDA and FSA announced the

Livestock Compensation Program (LCP),

a new program designed to help cattle,

sheep, goat, and buffalo producers in

counties that have received primary disaster designation due to drought in 2001

and/or 2002. The program, which pays

farmers and ranchers a certain amount

per head of livestock, provides close to

$1 billion in financial assistance. Sign-up

for the program ran from October 1 to

December13, 2002. As of Nov. 20, 2002,

applications for LCP benefits had been

received from and payments issued to

more than 310,000 livestock producers in

41 drought-impacted States. Between

October 1 and November 20, 2002, more

than $578 million had been paid.

Apple Market Loss Assistance Program

II and III (AMLAP II and AMLAP III)

In 2002, FSA administered the AMLAP II,

which provided about $75 million to eligible growers to help offset economic

losses due to low prices in the U.S. apple

market in 2000. As of November 18, 2002,

$73 million had been paid to more than

6,330 growers.

In the fall of 2002, FSA held a sign-up

period for AMLAP III, which was authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill. The program

provides another $94 million to eligible

growers for their 2000-crop apple

production.

Farm Loans

FSA offers guaranteed farm ownership

and operating loans and direct farm

ownership, operating and emergency

loans to family-size farmers who are

temporarily unable to obtain private

commercial credit and who meet all applicable program eligibility criteria. Often,

these are beginning farmers who cannot

qualify for conventional loans because

they have insufficient net worth. In addition, FSA provides assistance to established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters and
72 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

to farmers who have limited resources 

to improve their farming operation’s

profitability.

Under the guaranteed loan program, FSA

guarantees loans made by conventional

agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent,

depending on the circumstances. The

lender may sell the loan to a third party;

however, the lender remains responsible

for servicing the loan. All loans must

meet qualifying criteria to be eligible for

guarantees. FSA has the right to monitor

the lender’s servicing activities. Farmers

interested in guaranteed loans must apply to a conventional lender, who then

arranges for the guarantee.

Farmers unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan may apply for a direct loan.

Direct loans are made and serviced by

FSA officials who provide applicants and

borrowers with supervision and credit

counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans are limited, and applicants

may have to wait until funds become

available. To qualify for a direct loan, the

applicant must be able to show sufficient repayment ability, pledge enough

collateral to fully secure the loan, and

meet all other eligibility criteria.

In FY 2001, FSA dealt with a strong demand for loans and loan guarantees

from farmers unable to obtain vital credit elsewhere. FSA provided over 29,900

loans and loan guarantees, totaling $3.2

billion, including:

■ 17,554 direct loans totaling $943

million

■ 12,368 guaranteed loans totaling $2.3

billion

■ more than 8,000 loans and loan guarantees to beginning farmers totaling

$706 million

■ 3,440 loans and loan guarantees to

minority and women farmers totaling

$288 million

■ 1,679 emergency loans totaling $90

million.

In FY 2000, FSA provided over 33,000

loans and loan guarantees, totaling $3.7

billion, including:

■ 18,559 direct loans totaling $1.048

billion

■ 14,930 guaranteed loans totaling $2.6

billion

■ over 8,100 loans and loan guarantees

to beginning farmers totaling $716

million

■ 3,370 loans and loan guarantees to

minority and women farmers totaling

$277 million

■ 2,451 emergency loans totaling $150

million.

In FY 2002, FSA’s Farm Loan Programs

division made more than 14,500 direct

farm operating loans totaling over

$668,000,000. There were 9,462 guaranteed farm operating loans valued at

$1,549,666,000. Over 1,500 direct farm

ownership loans were made that totaled

$177,861,000. American farmers and

producers, 3,905 to be exact, received

$1,101,176,000 in guaranteed farm ownership loans. (The remainder of the loans

were emergency loans.) In all, FSA made

more than 30,000 loans totaling

$3,553,373,000 in FY 2002.
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 73

Conservation Programs

In the conservation arena, USDA’s CCC

continued its progress in improving our

natural resources. During 2001, CCC accepted 223,000 acres in the Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) continuous signup (wherein producers can sign up at

any time for certain high-priority conservation practices, such as filter strips

and riparian buffers).

Also contracts representing more than

2.3 million acres enrolled during Signup

20 became effective in the regular (competitive) CRP, the Federal Government’s

single largest environmental improvement program.

CRP protects our most fragile farmland

by encouraging farmers to stop growing

crops on highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage. In return

for planting a protective cover of grass or

trees on vulnerable property, the owner

receives a rental payment each year of a 

multi-year contract. Cost-share payments

are also available to help establish permanent areas of grass, legumes, trees,

windbreaks, or plants that improve water quality and giver shelter and food to

wildlife.

Another conservation program, the

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, is part of the CRP. This program

shields millions of acres of American

topsoil from erosion by encouraging the

planting of protective vegetation. By reducing wind erosion as well as runoff

and sedimentation, it also protects air

and groundwater quality and helps improve countless lakes, river, ponds,

streams, and other bodies of water.

State governments have the opportunity

to participate in this environmental improvement effort. CCC provides incentives

to agricultural producers to participate,

while State governments contribute specialized local knowledge, technical help,

and financial assistance. The result is an

environmental enhancement effort tailored to the specific environmental

needs of each State.

In 2001, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,

and North Dakota signed agreements 

with FSA under the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP

combines State and Federal dollars with

funding from nongovernment sources to

tackle specific agriculture-related environmental issues. Financial incentives

encourage farmers and ranchers to enroll targeted land in CREP and establish

riparian buffers, grass filter strips, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other land

improvement practices. At the end of

2001, 18 States had signed agreements

with USDA.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service and other agencies

to deliver other conservation programs,

including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps

farmers and ranchers improve their

property to protect the environment and

conserve soil and water resources. Participants can take advantage of education in new conservation management

practices, technical support, cost-share

assistance, and incentive payments.

Where To Get More Information 

on FSA Programs

Further information and applications for

the programs described in this chapter

are available at local FSA offices. These 

are usually listed in telephone directories 

under “U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Farm Service Agency.” FSA State offices

are usually located in the State capital

or near the State land-grant university.

For further information on FSA programs, the FSA homepage can be found

at http://www.fsa.usda.gov 
74 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

Foreign Agricultural Service

The Agency and Its Mission

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)

represents the diverse interests of the

U.S. food and agricultural sector abroad.

FAS serves U.S. farmers, ranchers, and

other agricultural interests by working to

expand markets for U.S. agricultural,

fish, and forest products overseas and

promoting world food security.

The agency collects, analyzes, and distributes information about global supply

and demand, trade trends, and emerging

market opportunities. FAS seeks improved market access for U.S. products

and implements programs designed to

build new markets and to maintain the

competitive position of U.S. products in

the global marketplace. FAS also carries

out food aid programs; operates a variety of congressionally mandated import

and export programs; and manages international technical assistance, research, and economic development activities. FAS helps USDA and other

Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and

others enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture by mobilizing expertise for agriculturally led economic

growth to increase income and food

availability in the developing world. FAS

also coordinates and articulates USDA

views on a number of agricultural policy

and program issues in international organizations to promote and enhance the

interests of USDA and the U.S. agricultural community.

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the smaller USDA

agencies, with about 950 employees. FAS

operates worldwide with staff in about

100 offices covering around 130 countries. Washington-based marketing specialists, trade policy analysts, economists, and others work closely with the

overseas staff. Roughly 70 percent of the

annual FAS budget is used to build markets overseas for U.S. farm products. This

includes the funding for all of FAS’ trade

and attaché offices overseas and its work

with U.S. commodity associations on cooperative promotion projects. The remaining funds cover other trade functions, including gathering and

distributing market information, trade

policy efforts, international training and

research, and representation of U.S. agricultural interests in multilateral organizations. To get a complete picture of the

services offered and information available for exporters, visit the homepage at

http://www.fas.usda.gov

Overseas Representation 

FAS foreign service officers wear many

hats, serving as diplomats, negotiators,

analysts, and marketing representatives

for U.S. agricultural producers, processors, and exporters. The officers provide

information used to plan and develop

strategies for improving market access,

promoting world food security, protecting U.S. interests under trade agreements, and developing programs and

policies to make U.S. farm products more

competitive. They work with other USDA

and Federal agencies, international organizations, State and local governments, and the U.S. private sector. They

also advise U.S. ambassadors on agricultural matters and represent U.S. agriculture before the government, trade

groups, and public of their host countries.

Agricultural Trade

The United States exports more than $1

billion a week in agricultural products.

Export value in fiscal year 2002 (October

2001-September 2002) reached $53.3 billion, an $11-billion increase from the

level of 10 years earlier. Sales to foreign

markets of U.S. meats, fruits, and vegetables, packaged grocery products, and

other consumer foods totaled $21.6 billion, close to 2001’s all-time high. Exports of coarse grains, soybeans, wheat,

cotton, and other bulk farm commodities reached $19.1 billion. Exports of semi-processed and other intermediate

farm products climbed to a record $12.6

billion.

In 2002, Canada replaced Japan as the

leading market for U.S. agricultural exports. Sales to Canada set a record at

$8.6 billion, while exports to Japan were

$8.3 billion. Mexico was our third largest

market, taking $7.1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports. The 15-nation European

Union was fourth at $6.3 billion, and

We must ensure that our exporters

have the necessary tools to capture 

a greater share of the benefits 

that are flowing from trade reform 

and the resulting global market

expansion.
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 75

South Korea completed the top five at

$2.7 billion. Together, Canada and Mexico, our two partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), accounted for nearly 30 percent of total

U.S. agricultural export sales globally.

U.S. agricultural imports in 2002 totaled

$41 billion, up 5 percent from the previous year. Exports were substantially

higher than imports, resulting in a U.S.

agricultural trade surplus of more than

$12 billion. Agriculture is one of a few

major U.S. industries consistently producing a trade surplus.

Trade is critically important to the economic health and prosperity of the U.S.

food and agricultural sector. Overall, exports account for about 25 percent of total farm sales. At the same time, imports

provide consumers with year-round access to a wider variety of foods at reasonable prices, including foods not produced domestically.

International Trade Agreements

FAS works closely with other government agencies, including the Office of

the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to

protect the trade interests of U.S. producers and processors. FAS monitors the

agricultural provisions of existing agreements such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Trade

Agreement, and works on the agricultural provisions of new agreements such as

the bilateral free trade agreement with

Chile, and the Free Trade Area of the

Americas (FTAA).

The United States was the first WTO

member to put forward a comprehensive

and specific agriculture proposal for the

negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. Along with a comprehensive tariff reduction formula, the United

States proposed that WTO members engage in negotiations on a sector-specific

basis on further reform commitments

that go beyond the basic reductions.

These would include deeper tariff reductions, product-specific limits on tradedistorting domestic support, and other

commitments to more effectively address the trade-distorting practices in

the affected commodity sectors.

FAS works to help identify violations of

agreements and address them at the appropriate level. Besides working with the

USTR, FAS works closely with other USDA agencies such as the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service and the

Food Safety and Inspection Service to

form a team with the technical and policy experience needed to resolve problems. This team supports U.S. export interests in the day-to-day activities of

multilateral organizations such as the

CODEX Alimentarius Commission in the

Food and Agriculture Organization and

the WTO Committees on Agriculture,

and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. These groups help develop international standards that affect trade in

agricultural products and monitor compliance with existing trade agreements.

Monitoring of trade agreements is essential to ensure that the benefits gained

through long, hard negotiations are realized. Our monitoring of the Uruguay

Round Trade Agreement on Agriculture

and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Agreement ensured that nearly $1.8 billion in U.S. trade was protected or expanded. Examples include the monitoring of China and Taiwan’s WTO

accession commitments, Venezuela’s import licensing for numerous commodities, and Costa Rica’s rice import permits. In addition, we worked to secure

access for U.S. organic exports to Japan

and Europe, averted the imposition of

grain import restrictions by the EU, and

Figure 7-1

U.S. agricultural exports top $53 billion in 2002, up $11 billion from 10 years earlier

Billion $

50

60

40

30

20

10

0

1990 2000 2001 2002 91 92 97 98 93 94 95 96

Fiscal years

99
76 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

helped open the Australian market to

U.S. table grapes.

FAS is coordinating efforts with other

USDA agencies to establish the new

Trade Adjustment Assistance Program

for Farmers, a program established by

the Trade Act of 2002. Under the program, USDA is authorized to make payments to eligible producer groups when

the current year’s price of an agricultural commodity is less than 80 percent of

the national average price for 5 marketing years, and the Secretary determines

that imports have contributed importantly to the decline in price.

Food Assistance Programs

Within USDA, the Foreign Agricultural

Service is the leader in developing and

executing a number of food assistance

activities under Title I of Public Law 83-

480 (P.L. 480), the Food for Progress Act of

1985, and Section 416(b) of the

Agricultural Act of 1949. These programs

help developing nations make the

transition from concessional financing

and donations to cash purchases. The

U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) is responsible for

administering Titles II and III of P.L. 480.

P.L. 480 Title I - The objectives of the P.L.

480 Title I concessional credit program

include providing food assistance to developing countries and promoting the

development of future markets in these

countries. The program promotes market development by encouraging importers in the recipient country to become familiar with U.S. trade practices

and to establish long-term trade relationships. Title I funds also support the

Food for Progress (FFP) program, which

is a grant program designed to assist

countries working to make the transition

to more market-oriented economies. Attention is given to shifting countries

from Title I/FFP grant funding to regular

Title I long-term concessional credit

terms.

In fiscal year 2002, Title I agreements

were signed for 504,000 metric tons of

commodities to nine countries. The commodities were valued at $102 million.

The funds and facilities of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a federally

owned and operated corporation within

USDA, may also be used to support FFP

programming. In all FFP programs, cooperating sponsors (governments and pri-
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 77

vate voluntary organizations (PVOs))

may monetize the commodities received

under an agreement with CCC to generate local currencies to fund development

projects. In fiscal year 2002, USDA had

FFP programs in 25 countries. Under

CCC-funded Food for Progress programs,

about 285,000 tons of commodities with

a value of about $86 million were provided.

Under the Title II emergency and private

assistance donations program, for fiscal

year 2002, 2.2 million metric tons of

commodities valued at $493 million

were programmed. The Title III program

has been inactive since fiscal year 2000.

The Section 416(b) program allows for

the donation of surplus agricultural

commodities, made available through

CCC stocks, to assist needy people overseas. In fiscal year 2002, approximately

1.6 million metric tons valued at about

$410 million were programmed under

Section 416(b), including 274,000 metric

tons for the Global Food for Education

(GFE) Initiative. CCC purchased these

commodities under its surplus removal

authority.

The McGovern-Dole International Food

for Education and Child Nutrition Program, authorized by the 2002 Farm Act,

is based on, and will replace, the pilot

GFE initiative. This program (hereafter

referred to as FFE program) is now a

fourth USDA international food aid authority, in addition to P.L. 480, Section

416(b), and Food for Progress. The FFE

program is designed to encourage education and deliver food to improve nutrition for preschoolers, school children,

mothers, and infants in impoverished regions. The 2002 Farm Act authorized the

FFE program from FY 2003 through FY

2007, providing for $100 million in CCC

funding for FY 2003. Funding in subsequent years would need to be authorized

through congressional appropriations.

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee

Programs

The primary objective of the export credit guarantee programs is to improve the

competitive position of U.S. agricultural

commodities in international markets by

facilitating exports to middle-income

countries that do not have access to adequate commercial credit. These CCC programs encourage U.S. lenders (typically

commercial banks) to extend credit to

overseas customers. These guarantee

programs encourage the involvement of

foreign private-sector banks and privatesector importers in commercial trade

transactions with the United States.

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term credit (90 days to

3 years) extended by U.S. financial institutions in connection with exports of

U.S. agricultural products. For fiscal year

2002, GSM-102 allocations of about $4.6

billion were announced for exports to 22

countries and 11 regional groupings, including the Baltic, Caribbean, Central

American, Central Europe, China/Hong

Kong, South America, Southeast Asia,

Southeast Europe, Southern Africa, East

Africa, and West Africa regions. Under

this availability, GSM-102 registrations

totaled about $3.0 billion for exports to

11 countries and 6 regions.

The GSM-103 program helps developing

nations make the transition from concessional financing to cash purchases.

Guarantees issued under the GSM-103

program can cover financing periods of

more than 3 and up to 10 years. For fiscal year 2002, $165 million in intermediate credit guarantees was made available for exports to eight countries and

three regions: Central America, South

America, and Southern Africa. No sales

were registered under this program in

fiscal year 2002.

The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program

(SCGP) provides export credit guarantees

for sales financed by foreign importers

rather than financial institutions. Under

the program, CCC guarantees a portion

of payments due from importers under

short-term financing that exporters have

extended directly to importers for the

purchase of U.S. agricultural commodities and products. In fiscal year 2002, allocations under the SCGP totaled $1.1

billion in coverage for sales to 18 countries and 11 regions, including the Baltic,

Caribbean, Central America, Central Europe, China/Hong Kong, South America,
78 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

Southeast Asia, Southeast Balkans,

Southeast Europe, West Africa, and

Western Europe regions. Under the announced fiscal year 2002 availability, registrations totaled $452 million. The SCGP

has been growing steadily since its inception in 1997.

The Facility Guarantee Program (FGP) is

designed to provide payment guarantees

in connection with projects that it determines will benefit exports of U.S. agricultural commodities to emerging markets.

In supporting these facilities, USDA intends to enhance sales of U.S. agricultural commodities and products to emerging markets where the demand for them

may be constricted due to inadequate

storage, processing, or handling capabilities. In fiscal year 2002, $285 million in

coverage was announced to seven countries and seven regions; however, no

sales were registered.

Export Bonus Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP)

permits USDA to provide bonuses to

make U.S. commodities more competitive in the world marketplace and to offset the adverse effects of unfair trade

practices or subsidies. The EEP was not

used in fiscal year 2002.

The Dairy Export Incentive Program

(DEIP) helps exporters sell certain U.S.

dairy products at prices lower than the

exporter’s cost of acquiring them. The

major objective of the program is to increase exports of U.S. dairy products.

This is done by developing export markets for dairy products where U.S. products are not competitive because of the

presence of subsidized products from

other countries. The DEIP operates on a

bid bonus system similar to EEP, with

cash bonus payments. The major markets targeted under the DEIP in fiscal

year 2002 included Asia and Latin America, with $54.5 million in bonuses awarded, to facilitate the export of 86,473 metric tons of dairy products.

Market Development Programs

The Market Access Program (MAP) uses

CCC funds to aid in the creation, expansion, and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products. The

MAP forms a partnership between nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade associations,

U.S. agricultural cooperatives, non-profit

State-regional trade groups, and small

U.S. businesses to share the costs of

overseas marketing and promotional activities such as consumer promotions,

market research, trade shows, and trade

servicing.

The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, also known as the Cooperator Program, uses CCC funds to aid in

the creation, expansion, and maintenance of long-term export markets for
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 79

U.S. agricultural products. The Cooperator Program fosters a trade promotion

partnership between USDA and U.S. agricultural producers and processors who

are represented by non-profit commodity or trade associations called Cooperators. Under this partnership, USDA and

the Cooperator pool their technical and

financial resources to conduct overseas

market development activities. Activities

must contribute to the maintenance or

growth of demand for the agricultural

commodities and generally address

long-term foreign import constraints

and export growth opportunities.

The Emerging Markets Program assists

U.S. public and private organizations in

improving market opportunities in lowto middle-income countries that offer viable markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. The program

supports a broad range of generic technical assistance activities that U.S. organizations undertake to improve market access and to promote, enhance, or

sustain U.S. agricultural exports in these

emerging markets. For fiscal year 2002,

USDA allocated $10 million for 82 projects in Africa, Asia, Eastern and Central

Europe, South America, and the

Caribbean.

The Quality Samples Program (QSP) was

established in 1999 to help U.S. agricultural trade organizations provide samples of U.S. agricultural products to potential importers in foreign markets.

Focusing on industry and manufacturing

uses, this program stimulates interest in

U.S. products by giving potential customers the opportunity to test the products and discover U.S. quality. The QSP is

used to fund projects that broadly benefit agricultural industries rather than individual exporters. Under the program,

participants export samples of U.S. agricultural products to foreign buyers and

provide technical demonstrations on

how to properly use or further process

the products. For fiscal year 2002, USDA

announced allocations of $1.6 million to

21 organizations.

The Technical Assistance for Specialty

Crops (TASC) program was established

by the 2002 Farm Act to address unique

barriers that prohibit or threaten exports

of U.S. fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. The legislation calls for $2

million in CCC resources to be provided

each fiscal year through 2007 to assist

organizations in removing, resolving, or

mitigating phytosanitary or related technical barriers to U.S. specialty crops.

These crops include all cultivated plants

and their products produced in the United States, except wheat, feed grains,

oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and

tobacco. For fiscal year 2002, USDA announced allocations of $2 million to 18

organizations for projects to help address current or potential barriers that

hinder trade in specialty crops.

International Cooperation

The Foreign Agricultural Service coordinates, supports, and delivers a diversified program of international agricultural cooperation and development with

developing, middle-income, and emerging market countries. These programs

enhance the competitiveness of U.S.

agriculture, promote agribusiness and

trade, preserve natural resource ecosystems, and help partner countries pursue

sustainable economic development

worldwide by mobilizing the resources of

USDA and its affiliates throughout the

U.S. agricultural community.

Food Security

The U.S. Action Plan on Food Security,

which FAS coordinated, is the U.S. strate-
80 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

and alleviate hunger and poor nutrition

in developing nations, to mitigate the

impact of natural and civil disasters, to

conserve the natural resource base, and

to build the capacity to engage in international trade. The projects are funded

by a variety of donors such as the U.S.

Agency for International Development

(USAID), the World Bank, regional development banks, United Nations agencies,

foreign governments, and private organizations. Technical assistance is provided

in areas such as food safety, plant and

animal health, collection and analysis of

agricultural statistics, private sector and

agribusiness development, agricultural

marketing, soil and water conservation,

and community forest management.

Recent efforts include coordination of

$13 million of funding from USAID to

undertake hurricane recovery efforts in

the Caribbean and Central America in

the fall of 1998, provide grants to small

farmers in the Dominican Republic, and

assist African businesses with developing and marketing high-quality natural

products for local, regional, and international markets. FAS is working with

transportation and standards officials in

Southern Africa to enhance public/private partnerships, harmonize transportation and standards policies and

procedures, and foster trade and investment opportunities. Other technical assistance activities designed to promote

U.S. trade and investment in middle-income and emerging market countries include cold chain improvement, agricultural biotechnology training and

technical assistance, WTO trade policy

training, food safety programs, and

agribusiness opportunity missions.

Training

Career-related training for foreign agriculturists provides long-term benefits to

economic development and trade for

both the United States and recipient

countries. Working collaboratively with

USDA agencies, U.S. universities, and private-sector companies and organizations, FAS designs and implements study

tours, academic programs, and shortterm courses and training in a variety of

areas such as agribusiness, extension edgy for meeting the goal established at

the 1996 World Food Summit to halve

the number of undernourished people

by 2015. It represents commitments of

both the public sector and civil society to

address hunger at home and abroad in

seven priority areas: an enabling economic and policy environment, trade

and investment, research and education,

sustainable agricultural practices, a

strong safety net, improved identification of the food insecure, and safe food

and water. FAS coordinates the efforts of

all U.S. Government agencies in partnership with civil society to monitor and

implement the U.S. Action Plan and other U.S. followup to the 1996 World Food

Summit.

International Organization Liaison

FAS coordinates U.S. participation in international organizations related to food

and agriculture and monitors the policy

and programs of international organizations to ensure that they reflect U.S. priorities.

Scientific Collaboration 

Short-term exchange visits between U.S.

and foreign scientists, as well as longer

term collaboration on research projects,

allow participants to use science to help

solve critical problems affecting food,

agriculture, and the environment in both

the United States and collaborating

countries. The activities reduce threats

to U.S. agriculture and forestry, develop

new technologies, establish systems to

enhance trade, and provide access to genetic diversity essential to maintaining

crops that are competitive in the world

marketplace. In FY 2001, FAS collaborated with a diverse group of U.S. institutions in research partnerships with 51

countries in scientific cooperation. Research and exchange activities promoted

the safe development and application of

biotechnology, improved food safety, enhanced nutritive value of crops and livestock, environmental sustainability, and

addressed other priority food and agriculture issues.

Technical Assistance

FAS implements a variety of technical

assistance projects to increase income
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 81

ucation, natural resource management,

policy and economics, and human resource development.

The Cochran Fellowship Program provides short-term training in the United

States for mid- and senior-level specialists and administrators from developing,

middle-income, and emerging market

countries to promote food security and

strengthen U.S. agricultural trade and

market development opportunities. The

Faculty Exchange Program helps overseas universities equip their students to

compete in the global economy by providing training in the United States to

university educators to help them develop market-oriented agricultural education programs. Other training efforts include training officials from Mexico and

Indonesia on food labeling to alleviate

technical barriers to trade between the

United States and these countries and

training programs in emerging markets

throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin and

South America to help improve understanding of agricultural biotechnology.

Risk Management Agency

The mission of the Risk Management

Agency (RMA) is to provide and support

cost-effective means of managing risk

for agricultural producers in order to improve the economic stability of agriculture. Crop insurance is USDA’s primary

means of helping farmers survive a major crop loss. In 2002, nearly $37.3 billion

in protection was provided on 215 million acres through more than 1.3 million

policies; this level of protection is almost

2.7 times the $13.6 billion protection on

the 100 million acres insured in 1994.

Crop insurance helps farmers recover

from crop losses, secure operating loans,

and aggressively market a portion of

their crop. In 2002, more than 70 percent

of the acreage planted to major U. S.

crops was insured.

Under current law, producers are required to report their actual yields and

all such yields are used in computing a

yield guarantee for the insured crop.

Transitional yields (T-yields), based on

average county yields, are used when

there is an insufficient number of actual

yields to establish the yield guarantee.

Producers suffering multiple years of severe losses often find themselves with

protection so low that they are unable to

secure operating loans.

Crop insurance is sold and serviced by

17 insurance companies in conjunction

with a network of 15,000 agents across

the country. Crop insurance is widely

available for major commodities such as
82 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 7

corn, wheat, and cotton. Coverage is also

available on a growing number of fruit,

nut, and vegetable crops. Nationally, over

100 crops are insurable (counting all insurable varieties would greatly increase

the number of crops insured), although

not everywhere they are grown. Crop information is available at

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/

RMA continues to assist in the development and approval of new pilot programs, such as avocado, cabbage, cherry,

pecan, processing chili pepper, forage

seed, hay, rangeland, and raspberry/

blackberry crops. By increasing the number and types of insurance plans, the

program will help producers better manage their production risks.

Insurance Plans Available

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI)

policies insure producers against losses

due to unavoidable causes such as

drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind,

frost, insects, and disease. Indemnities

are paid based on the difference between what was produced and the yield

guarantee. Yield guarantees are based on

the producer’s actual production history

and the coverage level percentage elected. Coverage levels generally range from

50 to 75 percent, but up to 85 percent is

available for some areas and crops. The

prices used to pay losses are between 55

and 100 percent of the commodity price

established annually by RMA.

Group Risk Plan

The Group Risk Plan (GRP) policies use a

county index as the basis for determining a loss. When the county yield for the

insured crop, as determined by USDA’s

National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), falls below the trigger level chosen by the farmer, an indemnity is paid.

Yield levels are available for up to 90

percent of the expected county yield.

GRP protection involves less paperwork

and costs less than the farm-level coverage described above. However, individual

crop losses may not be covered if the

county yield does not suffer a similar

level of loss.

Group Risk Income Protection

Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) is

similar to the Group Risk Plan of insurance except revenue rather than yield is

the focus. The GRIP policies provide protection against low county revenue

caused by low prices, low yields, or a

combination of both. GRIP uses Chicago

Board of Trade (CBOT) futures prices to

calculate the expected price and harvest

price. NASS data are used to calculate

the expected and final county yields. The

expected price and expected county

yield are used to calculate the expected

county revenue. An indemnity is paid

when the county revenue per acre (harvest price times NASS county yield per

acre) falls below the trigger revenue (expected county revenue per acre times

coverage percent). Coverage is on an enterprise unit and is available up to 90

percent of the expected county revenue.

Dairy Options Pilot Program

RMA currently operates the Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP) to help dairy

producers protect their income against

the risk of falling milk prices. During

each round of DOPP, producers in selected pilot counties receive training in the

use of futures and options as price risk

management tools. Within program

guidelines, they may then purchase

dairy put options (right to sell) through

futures brokers registered with U.S. exchanges. When prices fall, the value of

put options increase, thereby protecting

the value of at least a portion of the producer’s dairy production. USDA assists

participating farmers by funding 80 percent of the cost of the options and by

paying $30 per contract toward the commission charged by the broker. In 2001,

the Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP)

was expanded to 300 counties.

Revenue Insurance Plans

Revenue Insurance policies include six

plans: Adjusted Gross Revenue, Crop

Revenue Coverage, Income Protection,

Livestock Gross Margin, Livestock Risk

Protection, and Revenue Assurance. Revenue policies are different from standard

MPCI policies in that they provide farmers with a measure of price risk protection. Four of the policies, Crop Revenue

Coverage, Livestock Gross Revenue, Livestock Risk Protection, and Revenue Assurance, were developed by private-sector insurance companies. Adjusted Gross

Revenue and Income Protection were developed by RMA. All the revenue policies

guarantee a level of revenue that is determined differently depending on the

policy. Visit RMA’s Web site at:

www.rma.usda.gov 

New Plans

The pilot Nutrient Management/Best

Management Practice (BMP) Insurance

Program provides insurance protection

from crop production loss when a producer applies a rate of fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus or both) for maximum

crop yield as recommended by a Best

Management Practice (BMP). A certified

crop consultant will recommend a BMP

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 7-2

Crop insurance liability, U.S. total, 1995-2002

Billion $
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services | 83

system for the production area and crop

to determine how much fertilizer to apply. The producer will apply the recommended rate of fertilizer on the insured

acreage; this portion of the field is called

the management unit. Adjacent to the

management unit, the crop consultant

will lay out a check strip on which the

producer will apply his/her historical

rate of nutrients. If the producer thinks

the crop production on the management

unit is low because of insufficient fertilizer, the producer may request a crop appraisal. The producer must use the same

farming practices on both the check

strip and management unit. It is assumed that growing conditions for the

management unit and the check strip

are the same, and that fertilization is the

only variable. The policy does not cover

any causes of loss insured by a policy

reinsured by FCIC, such as drought, but

only loss of yield from fertilizer recommendations.

Outreach

RMA is continuing its outreach efforts to 

provide beginning, small, limited-resource,

and other traditionally underserved

farmers and ranchers with program information and assistance necessary to

make informed decisions regarding participating in USDA/RMA programs and

activities. RMA is partnering with landgrant universities, Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), and community-based

organizations to educate and provide

training and technical assistance to

farmers and ranchers.

RMA held a national outreach conference, “Survival Strategies for Small and 

Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers,”

for service providers and stakeholders in

FY 2001. The conference goal was to

identify and promote successful strategies small and limited-resource farmers

and ranchers can use to remain economically viable in the rapidly changing

agricultural environment. The strategies

identified during the national conference

are being shared with farmers and

ranchers at the regional and local level

through a series of workshops and conferences. Conferences have been held in

North Carolina, Washington, and Georgia, with additional conferences in 2002

scheduled for Texas and California.

Risk Management Education

Current farm policy increases the risk 

borne by producers. To help them acquire 

the risk management skills needed to

compete and win in the global marketplace, RMA is leading a risk management

education initiative. This initiative leverages Government funds for education

with the resources of public and privatesector partners to find improved risk

management strategies, develop educational curricula and materials, and train

producers in effective use of risk management tools.

Through a competitive Request for Applications process, the RMA awarded

funds through cooperative agreements

and partnership agreements to State departments of agriculture, universities,

outreach organizations, and others to

deliver risk management educational

programs for agricultural professionals,

producers, and ranchers. The educational programs cover two areas: risk management education for specific commodities and crop insurance education

for producers in 15 underserved States.

More Growth Anticipated

While crop insurance can’t provide

farmers a good price for their crops, coverage is a vital component of an overall

risk management plan. Market-driven

risk management products combined

with an aggressive risk management education and outreach program will help

ensure that our Nation’s producers have

a reliable and effective safety net. More

information on RMA and its programs is

available at: http://www.rma.usda.gov/
CHAPTER 8

Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services
86 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and

Promotion (CNPP) was established in

1994 to improve the nutrition and wellbeing of Americans. Toward this goal, the

Center focuses its efforts on two primary

objectives—

1. Advance and promote dietary guidance

for all Americans, and

2. Conduct applied research and analyses in nutrition and consumer economics.

CNPP’s core products to support these

objectives are the following:

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are 

mandated by Congress and issued jointly

by USDA and the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services at 5-year intervals, based on the recommendations

of a non-Federal expert committee. The

Guidelines are the cornerstone of Federal

nutrition policy and nutrition education

activities. The Center shares leadership

in the review and revision of the Guidelines, and conducts the consumer research that guides this process. CNPP

leads the design and dissemination of

the official Dietary Guidelines bulletin and

also promotes the Guidelines by developing and disseminating additional consumer materials. CNPP chairs the Dietary Guidance Working Group, which

reviews Federal nutrition materials for

the public to ensure that the guidance is

consistent and accurately reflects the

Guidelines.

Food Guide Pyramid

The Pyramid is one of the most widely

recognized nutrition education tools in

history. It translates nutritional recommendations into the kinds and amounts

of food to eat each day. CNPP maintains

and updates the research base for the

Pyramid to reflect current dietary recommendations and food consumption patterns. CNPP also developed the Food

Guide Pyramid for Young Children to 

focus on young children’s food preferences and nutritional requirements.

Healthy Eating Index

The Index is a summary measure of overall diet quality. It provides a picture of

the type and quantity of foods people

eat and the degree to which diets comply with specific recommendations in

the Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide

Pyramid. CNPP developed the Index, and

maintains and updates it. CNPP also developed and maintains the Interactive

Healthy Eating Index, an on-line, self-assessment tool that provides a quick

measure of a person’s diet quality:

http://147.208.9.133/

USDA Food Plans USDA Food Plans

USDA Food Plans

CNPP develops and maintains the four

official USDA Food Plans: the Thrifty, Low

Cost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal—all

representing a nutritious diet at different costs. The Thrifty Food Plan is the

basis for food stamp allotments. A supporting consumer publication, Recipes

While some nutrient deficiencies

remain, the most pressing 

dietary problem today is

overconsumption of fat, sodium,

refined carbohydrates,

and calories.

Bread, Cereal,

Rice, & Pasta

Group

6-11

SERVINGS

Fruit

Group

2-4 SERVINGS

Meat, Poultry, Fish,

Dry Beans, Eggs,

& Nuts Group

2-3 SERVINGS

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Vegetable 

Group 

3-5 SERVINGS

Milk, Yogurt,

& Cheese

Group 

2-3 SERVINGS

Food Guide Pyramid

A Guide to Daily Food Choices

Fat (naturally occurring 

and added)

Sugars

(added) 

These symbols show fat and 

added sugars in foods.

Fats, Oils, & Sweets KEY

USE SPARINGLY
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 87

and Tips for Healthy, Thrifty Eating, includes menus and recipes based on the

Thrifty Food Plan, along with tips for

purchasing and preparing foods.

Nutrient Content of the Food Supply

Each year, CNPP assesses the U.S. food

supply and reports the amount of nutrients and Food Guide Pyramid servings

available for consumption on a per capita per day basis. This historical data series, which began in 1909, is used by policymakers in assessing the capacity of

the food supply to meet nutritional

needs. CNPP also developed and released

the Interactive Food Supply, an online tool

for nutrition researchers, policymakers,

and consumers: http://147.208.9.134/

Expenditures on Children by Families

USDA has produced estimates of the

cost of raising children from birth to age

17 annually since 1960.

These estimates are used in setting State

child support guidelines and foster care

payments, thereby affecting the economic well-being of millions of children

in the United States.

: Science and Application

ABCs of the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans: Science and Application

This innovative Web-based interactive

course is designed to provide education

for professionals on the Dietary

Guidelines. The course can be found at:

http://www.dga2000training.usda.gov/ 

Family Economics and Nutrition Review

This peer-reviewed journal has been 

published since 1943. Scientifically based,

the Journal provides a wealth of useful

information to professionals, policymakers, students, and the news media.

Nutrition Insights

CNPP issues brief research papers on

current food and nutrition topics. These

two-page documents are targeted to policymakers, nutrition professionals, and

the news media.

For More Information

Additional information on CNPP can be

found at: http://www.usda.cnpp.gov

Food and Nutrition Service 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is

the gateway to the Nation’s nutrition

safety net. FNS administers USDA’s domestic nutrition assistance programs,

and for more than 30 years the agency

has worked to accomplish a complex

mission—reducing hunger and food insecurity by providing children and needy

families better access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education.

FNS works in partnership with the States

to ensure that its programs operate effectively and efficiently. This partnership

allows the States to determine most administrative details regarding participant eligibility and distribution of nutrition benefits, and FNS provides funding

to cover some of the States’ administrative costs.

For fiscal year (FY) 2002, the funding for

FNS and its programs was $38.2 billion.

Overall, the nutrition assistance programs reach one out of every six Americans and touch every community in the

United States. Most of the programs and

Food and agricultural policy 

long has sought to ensure that 

all Americans have access to 

a healthy and nutritious food supply,

regardless of income. This policy 

has encompassed a wide array 

of food assistance and 

nutrition programs that have

humanitarian, investment, and

agricultural support goals.
Family expenditures on a child through age 17, by budgetary share1

88 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

reimbursed for snacks served to children

through age 18 in after school educational or enrichment programs.

First authorized as part of a larger pilot 

project in 1968, the program was formerly known as the Child Care Food Program.

It was made a permanent program in

1978, and the name was changed in 1989

to reflect the addition of an adult component. CACFP is administered at the

Federal level by FNS. State agencies or

FNS regional offices oversee the program

at the local level.

In FY 2001, CACFP provided 1.68 billion

meals to participants.

Eligibility: At child and adult day care

centers, participants from families with

incomes at or below 130 percent of the

Federal poverty level qualify for free

meals; those from families with incomes

between 130 percent and 185 percent of

the poverty level qualify for reducedprice meals; and those from families

with incomes above 185 percent of the

poverty level pay full price.

For family day care homes, Congress instituted a two-tier system of reimbursements under the Welfare Reform Act of

1996. Under this system, a higher reimbursement rate (tier 1 reimbursement) is

paid to providers located in areas where

50 percent of the children are eligible for

free and reduced-price meals or where

the provider’s household meets established income criteria for free or reduced-price meals. All other providers

are reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement) unless they choose to

have their sponsoring organizations

identify children who are income eligible. Meals served to such income-eligible

children are reimbursed at the higher

tier 1 level.

After school care centers are eligible for

CACFP on the basis of the income in

their area. All snacks are reimbursed at

the “free” rate of reimbursement.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend

day care facilities receive nutritious

meals and snacks. Care providers receive

reimbursement for eligible meals and

11%

Miscellaneous

10%

Child care

and Education 35%

Housing

17%

Food

7%

Health Care

6%

Clothing

14%

Transportation

1 U.S. average for the younger child in middle-income, husband-wife families with two children.

Additional information on FNS and its

programs can be found on the World

Wide Web at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program

(CACFP) provides healthful meals and

snacks in child care centers, family day

care homes, and adult day care facilities.

By reimbursing participating day care

operators for their meal costs and providing them with USDA commodity food

and nutrition information materials,

CACFP helps ensure that children and

adults in day care receive healthful

meals. Family day care homes must be

overseen by sponsoring organizations

that also receive reimbursements from

USDA for their administrative expenses.

The program generally operates in child

care centers, outside-school-hours care

centers, family and group day care

homes, homeless shelters, and some

adult day care centers. In return for Federal support, care providers in CACFP

must serve meals that meet Federal nutritional guidelines and must offer free

or reduced-price meals to eligible people. After school care centers can also be

nutrition education activities are directed at people with low incomes or schoolchildren. They include:

■ The Child and Adult Care Food Program

■ The Commodity Supplemental Food

Program

■ The Disaster Food Stamp Program 

■ Eat Smart. Play HardTM Campaign

■ Team Nutrition

■ The Emergency Food Assistance

Program

■ The Food Distribution Program

■ The Food Distribution Program on

Indian Reservations

■ The Food Stamp Program

■ The National School Lunch Program

■ The Nutrition Assistance Programs in

Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

■ Nutrition Services Incentive Program

■ The School Breakfast Program

■ The Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

■ The Special Milk Program

■ The Summer Food Service Program

■ The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program
Total expenditures on a child for the first 18 years of life1

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 89

snacks. Family day care sponsoring organizations receive reimbursement for

their administrative costs.

Funding: Congress appropriated $1.8 billion for the CACFP in FY 2002.

The Commodity Supplemental Food

Program 

The Commodity Supplemental Food

Program (CSFP) is a program of grants 

to States, administered by FNS at the

Federal level. CSFP provides commodity

foods to supplement the diets of lowincome; pregnant, postpartum, and

breastfeeding women; their infants and

children up to the age of 6; and persons

60 years of age and older.

In 1999, CSFP operated at more than 70

sites in 17 States, the District of Columbia, and 2 Indian Tribal Organizations

(ITOs). In 2000, the program was expanded to include five new States. USDA donates commodity foods to the State

agencies for distribution and provides

funds to State and local agencies to cover certain administrative costs. The program served an average of more than

407,000 people each month in FY 2001,

including more than 323,000 elderly people and more than 83,000 women, infants, and children.

Eligibility: State agencies that administer

CSFP may establish a residency requirement and/or require applicants to be

determined to be at nutritional risk in

order to be eligible for program participation. To be income eligible, women, infants, and children must be eligible for

benefits under existing Federal, State, or

local food, health, or welfare programs

and must not currently be receiving WIC

benefits. Elderly persons must meet a

low-income standard.

Benefits: There are six food packages for

different categories of participants. The

food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced diet, but

rather they are supplements that are

good sources of the nutrients often

lacking in participants’ diets.

Funding: For FY 2002, Congress appropriated $92,813,000 for CSFP.

Disaster Food Stamp Program

When commercial channels of food supply are still operable, or have been restored following a disaster, a State may

request approval from the Administrator

of the Food and Nutrition Service to operate the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

If approval is granted, FNS may provide

on-site guidance for establishing and operating the disaster program. FNS ensures that funding for food stamp benefit issuance is available. State and local

officials are responsible for determining

the eligibility of households to receive

disaster food stamp benefits and for issuance.

Eat. Smart. Play Hard.TM Campaign

The national nutrition education and

promotion campaign is designed to convey science-based, behavior-focused, and

motivational messages about healthy

eating and physical activity. The campaign’s primary communication vehicle

is Power PantherTM, a mascot who conveys nutrition and physical activity messages in a fun and non-threatening way

as a peer. The campaign focuses on four

basic themes: the importance of breakfast, healthy snacks, physical activity,

and balancing what you eat with what

you do.

0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001

1 Average expenditures for a middle-income, husband-wife family, not adjusted for inflation.

The target audience for this campaign is

the diverse population of preschool and

school-aged children (ages 2-18 years)

participating or eligible to participate in 

programs and their caregivers. Caregivers

include parents, guardians, childcare

providers, after school providers and

teachers. The campaign is designed to

reach the target group where they live,

work, learn, and play using multiple

communication vehicles, approaches,

and channels.

The campaign:

■ Encourages families to adopt behaviors that are consistent with the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and the Food

Guide Pyramid,

■ Communicates behavioral and motivational nutrition education and physical activity messages to children and

caregivers,

■ Fosters positive behavior change to

promote nutrition and health, and reduce the risk for obesity and chronic

diseases.

Team Nutrition 

FNS provides nutrition education through 

Team Nutrition; a multifaceted nutrition

education initiative delivered in schools,

WIC, and child care sites, with ongoing

expansion to encompass all the nutrition assistance programs administered
90 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

by USDA. The goal of Team Nutrition is

to continuously improve children’s lifelong eating and physical activity habits

through public-private partnerships that

promote the health and education of

children nationwide in accordance with

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

and the Food Guide Pyramid.

Team Nutrition engages three behaviororiented strategies:

■ Empower school food service professionals through a variety of training and

technical assistance to serve meals that

meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and that appeal to children.

■ Motivate and build skills for children to 

make food and physical activity choices

for a healthy lifestyle through a comprehensive, integrated nutrition education

program designed for children, parents,

teachers, and school food service

professionals.

■ Support from school administrators and

other school and community partners is

vital to the success of Team Nutrition’s

goal. Persons in these positions can actively support Team Nutrition activities

and can help create a healthy school

environment.

Six communication channels are involved, and they offer a comprehensive 

network of delivering consistent nutrition 

messages to children and their caretakers

that will educate them about the importance of food and physical activity choices for a healthy lifestyle where they live,

work, and play. These messages are delivered and reinforced through a variety

of sources. They include: (1) food service

initiatives, (2) classroom activities, (3)

schoolwide events, (4) home activities,

(5) community programs and events, and

(6) media events and coverage.

Eligibility: All children participating in or

eligible to participate in the USDA Child 

Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition 

education through Team Nutrition. Professional school food service staffs can

also receive training and technical support. There are more than 28,000 Team

Nutrition schools across the country.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $10 million for Team Nutrition.

The Emergency Food Assistance

Program 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(TEFAP) provides food assistance to needy

people through the distribution of USDA

commodities. Under TEFAP, commodities

are made available to States for distribution to organizations that provide them

to low-income households for home consumption and to organizations that use

them in congregate meal service for the

needy, including the homeless. Local

agencies, usually food banks, shelters,

and soup kitchens, are designated by the

States to distribute the food.

TEFAP was first authorized in 1981 to 

distribute surplus commodities to households. Its aim was to help reduce Federal

food inventories and storage costs while

assisting the needy. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 required the Secretary of

Agriculture not only to distribute surplus

foods but also to purchase additional

foods for further distribution to needy

households. Funds are also provided for

State and local administrative expenses.

Foods available vary, depending on market conditions.

Eligibility: Each State sets its own income

limits for household eligibility to receive

food for home use. States can adjust the
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 91

income criteria based on the level of

need in order to ensure that assistance

is provided only to those most in need.

No income test is applied to people who

receive meals at soup kitchens and other

congregate feeding sites that make use

of TEFAP foods.

Benefits: TEFAP has provided many billions

of pounds of food since its beginning. More

than 1 billion pounds of food, valued at

$846 million, were distributed at the program’s height in 1987. In 1999, more than 

311 million pounds of food, valued at 

more than $198 million, were distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $150 million for TEFAP in FY 2002.

Food Distribution Program

FNS can provide USDA-donated food assistance through State food distribution

agencies. All States have stocks of USDA

food on hand for use in their commodity

programs for schools or needy people.

These stocks can be released immediately for use in a disaster situation.

Upon request from a State, FNS will procure additional food to meet the needs

of people affected by a disaster. Nearby 

States may be asked to release their stocks 

of USDA food to help feed disaster victims,

and USDA will provide replacement of

the foods. State agencies then distribute 

the food to emergency shelters and other

mass feeding sites operated by disaster

relief agencies such as the American Red

Cross.

The State may also request that food be 

made available for household distribution 

if commercial channels of food supply

are not available because of the disaster.

The Food Distribution Program on

Indian Reservations

The Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (FDPIR) provides monthly

food packages to low-income families

living on reservations and to Native

American families living near reservations. Many Native Americans participate 

in FDPIR as an alternative to the Food

Stamp Program if their tribe or tribal

agency has been authorized to run the

program. An average of 129,000 people

received food through FDPIR each 

month in 1999.

The program is administered at the

Federal level by FNS in cooperation with

State and tribal agencies. USDA provides

food to these agencies, which are responsible for program operations such

as storage and distribution, eligibility

certification, and nutrition education.

The food packages distributed through

FDPIR were updated in 1997 in a cooperative effort by USDA nutritionists, tribal

leaders, and health advocates. Changes

have made the food packages easier to

use and they better serve the health

needs and preferences of Native Americans. USDA also provides nutrition information in the monthly food package,

along with suggestions for making the

most nutritious use of the commodity

foods.

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the

household must have low income within

program requirements, have assets within specified limits, and be located on or

near an Indian reservation.

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foods

to help FDPIR participants maintain a

balanced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish products;

vegetables, fruits, and juices; dried

beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk,

butter, and cheese; pasta, flour, or grains;

adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and

vegetable oil and shortening. Frozen

chicken and ground beef are increasingly

available as tribes are able to store and

handle these products safely, and the

1997 review of food packages resulted in

the addition of noodles, spaghetti sauce,

crackers, reduced-salt soups, and low-fat

refried beans.

Each participant receives a monthly

package that contains a variety of foods.

For FY 2001, the value of the monthly food 

package was about $37.39 per person.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated 

$79.5 million for FDPIR.
92 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

The Food Stamp Program 

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistance programs. The program helps low-income

households increase their food purchasing power and their choices for a better

diet. It is the primary source of nutrition

assistance for low-income Americans.

The program was initiated as a pilot program in 1961 and made permanent in

1964.

The first line of defense against hunger

for millions of families, the Food Stamp

Program provides critical support for

families making the transition from welfare to work and the elderly and disabled. The program issues monthly allotments of coupons or electronic benefits

through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

that are redeemable at authorized retail

food stores, farmers’ markets, and certain other providers.

The Federal Government pays for the

benefits issued and shares with the

States the cost of administrative expenses. An average of 18.2 million people received benefits each month in FY 1999.

Participation fell steadily from a high of

28.0 million in March 1994 to 17.3 million in March 2000. In March 2001, participation remained at about 17.3 million

people, but then increased to 19 million

by March 2002. FNS is also translating

several publications into 45 languages to

assist non-English speakers at food

stamp offices.

To ensure that people potentially eligible

for benefits are aware of the program,

FNS is working with States on public information campaigns. Publications on

the Food Stamp Program are being translated in order to assist non-English

speakers.

Most States have converted food stamp

issuance to EBT systems. EBT allows

food stamp customers, using a magnetic

stripe card, to buy groceries by transferring funds directly from a food stamp

benefit account to a retailer’s account.

The Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

requires all States to convert to EBT issuance by October 2002.

EBT is only one component of FNS’

commitment to Food Stamp Program

efficiency and integrity. The agency

works closely with the States to ensure

that they issue benefits in the correct

amounts and only to people who are eligible. EBT has enhanced FNS’ ability to

catch those who abuse the program, and

penalties have been increased for people 

who are caught. In addition, FNS now has

broader authority to review the performance of food retailers who participate in

the program and to quickly remove

those who fail to follow program rules.

USDA also provides educational materials to help States integrate nutrition into

the Food Stamp Program. States may use

program administrative funds for nutrition education to help food stamp recipients make healthier food choices as they

use their benefits.

Eligibility: Eligibility and allotments are

based on household size, income, assets,

and other factors. In FY 2002, the average household benefit is about $185.62

per month; and the average per-person

benefit is about $79.68 per month.

Benefits: The level of benefits an eligible 

household receives is based on its household income and expenses. Households 

with no countable net income receive the

maximum monthly allotment of food

stamps. The allotment is based on the

cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost

model food plan. The Federal Government pays for the benefits issued and

shares with the States the cost of administrative expenses.

In FY 2001, the Food Stamp Program

awarded 14 research grants to improve

access to the program. The grants totaled $3.68 million and were awarded to

nonprofit organizations partnering with

State and local food stamp offices.

Funding: For FY 2002, the Food Stamp

Program appropriation was $23 billion.

The National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program

(NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in nearly 97,000 public

and nonprofit private schools and resi-
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 93

dential child care institutions. It provides

nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free

lunches and after school snacks to about

27 million children each school day.

NSLP is usually administered by State

education agencies, which operate the

program through agreements with local

school districts. FNS administers the

program at the Federal level. School

districts and independent schools that

choose to take part in the lunch program

receive cash reimbursement and donated commodity foods from USDA for each

meal they serve. In return, they must

serve meals that meet Federal nutrition

requirements, and they must offer free

and reduced-price lunches to eligible

children.

The after school snack component of

NSLP provides reimbursement for nutritious snacks served to children through

age 18 in eligible after school care programs. In order to qualify for these reimbursements, the school districts must

operate the lunch component of NSLP

and must sponsor or operate an after

school care program that provides children with regularly scheduled educational or enrichment activities in an

organized, structured, and supervised

environment.

Sites in which more than 50 percent of

the students qualify for free or reducedprice breakfasts or lunches are referred

to as “area eligible,” and these sites serve

all snacks free. Otherwise, eligibility for

free, reduced-price, and full-price snacks

is based on income. To qualify for reimbursement, the snacks must meet meal

pattern requirements.

USDA’s School Meals Initiative for Healthy

Children was launched in June 1994 and 

is a public policy blueprint to ensure that

school meals meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans requirements, that

we motivate children to make food

choices for a healthful diet, and that we

support these changes through training

and technical assistance for school food

service professionals.

In support of this commitment for

healthier schoolchildren, Team Nutrition

evolved as the implementation tool for

this initiative. Extensive training and

technical assistance have been provided

to all school food service professionals

for preparing meals that meet the new

nutrition standards and for educating

children about nutrition so they have

the knowledge to choose foods that are

good for them.

The Department has placed special emphasis on improving the quality of USDA 

commodity foods donated to NSLP, as well

as their consistent and timely availability.

The Commodities Improvement Council

promotes the health of schoolchildren

by improving the nutritional profile of

USDA commodities while maintaining

USDA’s support for domestic agricultural

markets. Based on the council’s recommendations, USDA has reduced the fat,

sodium, and sugar content of commodities and has increased the variety of lowfat and reduced-fat products.

USDA has greatly increased the amount

of fresh produce available to schools and

is now offering unprecedented amounts

and varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables. A cooperative project with the Department of Defense (DOD) has allowed

USDA to increase the variety of produce

available to schools by utilizing DOD’s

buying and distribution system. USDA is

also exploring ways to connect schools

to small-resource farmers in their areas
94 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

to help the schools purchase fresh, local

produce directly from the producers.

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family

income level, can receive a meal through 

NSLP. Children from families with incomes

at or below 130 percent of the Federal

poverty level are eligible to receive free

meals. Children from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of

poverty are eligible for reduced-price

meals. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay

the full price, which is established by the

local school food authority.

Benefits: Children receive meals free or at

low cost because of USDA support for

the school meals programs. Most of that

support comes in the form of cash reimbursements to schools for meals served.

USDA’s per-meal reimbursement rates

for the contiguous United States July 1,

2001, through June 30, 2002, were $ 2.09

for free meals; $1.69 for reduced-price

meals; and .20 cents for full-price meals.

Reimbursement rates are higher in Alaska 

and Hawaii. Schools may charge no more

than 40 cents for a reduced-price meal.

They set their own prices for full-price

meals, though they must operate their

meal services on a nonprofit basis.

After school snacks are served free to all

children in programs that operate in areas

where at least 50 percent of students are

eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Schools are reimbursed at the free rate

for each snack served.

In addition to cash reimbursements,

schools are entitled to receive commodity 

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an

annually adjusted per-meal rate (15.5

cents per meal in School Year 2001-02)

for each meal they serve. Schools can receive additional commodities, known as

“bonus” commodities, when these are

available from surplus stocks purchased

by USDA under surplus removal and

price support programs. USDA commodities make up approximately 17 percent

of the cost of the food served by the average school food authority. The rest of

the food served is purchased locally by

the school food authority.

Funding: For FY 2002, the projected funding need for the National School Lunch

Program is $6.4 billion.

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in

Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands 

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico

was replaced in 1982 by a block grant

program. American Samoa and the

Northern Marianas in the Pacific also

provide benefits under block grants. The

programs provide cash or food benefits

in place of food stamps or commodities.

Eligibility: The territories determine eligibility and allotments for their programs

based on household size, income, assets,

and other factors.

Benefits: The territories provide cash and

coupons to participants rather than food

stamps or food distribution. The grant

can also be used for administrative expenses or in the case of Puerto Rico, for

special projects related to food production and distribution.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated 

$1.35 billion for Puerto Rico, $5.3 million

for American Samoa, and funded $7.1

million for the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands food program.

Nutrition Services Incentive Program

Nutrition Services Incentive Program

(NSIP) is the new name for the program 

formerly known as the Nutrition Program 

for the Elderly (NPE). The name change is 

the result of an amendment to the Older

Americans Act (OAA) of 2000. The NSIP 

is administered by the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS)

Administration on Aging, but receives

commodity foods and financial support

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

NSIP helps provide elderly persons with

nutritionally sound meals through

Meals-on-Wheels programs or in senior

citizen centers and similar settings.
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 95

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in

determining eligibility. People age 60 or

older and their spouses, regardless of

age, are eligible for NSIP benefits. There

is no income requirement to receive

meals under NSIP, although the program

targets lower income areas.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute as

much as he or she wishes toward the

cost of the meal, but meals are free to 

those who cannot make any contribution.

Under NSIP, meals served must meet a

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) and the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans in order to qualify for cash or commodity

assistance.

Funding: Congress appropriated $150 million for NSIP in FY 2002.

The School Breakfast Program 

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to States to operate nonprofit breakfast programs in

schools and residential child care institutions. The program operates in more

than 72,000 schools and institutions,

serving a daily average of some 7.4 million children. It is administered at the

Federal level by FNS. State education

agencies administer the SBP at the State

level, and local school food authorities

operate it in schools.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating

school may receive a meal through SBP.

Children from families with incomes at

or below 130 percent of the Federal

poverty level are eligible for free breakfasts. Children from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of

the poverty level are eligible for reducedprice breakfasts. Children from families

with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay the full, locally established price

for their breakfasts.

Benefits: Students receive their meals free

or at low cost because USDA supports

the School Breakfast Program with cash

reimbursements for meals served. For

School Year 2001-02, schools in the contiguous United States received reimbursements of $1.15 for a free meal; 85

cents for a reduced-price meal; and 21

cents for a full-price meal. As with the

National School Lunch Program, reimbursements are slightly higher in Alaska

and Hawaii. Schools may charge no more

than 30 cents for a reduced-price breakfast. Local schools set their own prices

for full-price meals, but must operate on

a nonprofit basis.

Funding: For FY 2002, Congress appropriated $1.49 billion for SBP. Program funding for the School Breakfast Program is

estimated to be $1.57 billion.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC) 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children,

commonly known as the WIC Program,

is a grant program for States intended to

improve the health of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to 5 years old by

providing supplemental foods, nutrition

education, including breastfeeding promotion and support, and access to

health care. A few State agencies provide

food directly to participants, but most

States provide WIC vouchers to WIC participants that they can use at authorized

food stores for approved foods at no cost

to the participant.

WIC provides each State with a grant of

funds to serve its most needy eligible

population. Because of documented successes of the WIC program in improving 

the nutritional well-being of participants,

it has been expanded to serve more eligible people. In FY 2001, WIC served an

average of more than 7.3 million people

each month.

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must be a pregnant, breastfeeding,

or postpartum woman, or an infant or

child under age 5, and must meet State

residency requirements, meet an income

standard, and be determined by a health

professional to be at nutritional risk.

This nutrition evaluation is done at no

cost to the applicant.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants

receive vouchers that allow them to pur-
96 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

chase a monthly food package especially

designed to supplement their diets. The

foods provided are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C. WIC foods

include iron-fortified infant formula and

infant cereal; iron-fortified adult cereal;

vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; 

eggs, milk, and cheese; and legumes such

as peanut butter, dried beans, or peas.

Special therapeutic formulas and foods

are provided when prescribed by a physician for a specified medical condition.

WIC mothers are encouraged to breastfeed their babies whenever possible.

Women who breastfeed their babies receive an enhanced WIC food package that 

includes tuna, carrots, cheese, legumes,

and extra juice. Those who do not

breastfeed their babies receive infant

formula for the babies and a regular

food package for themselves.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $ 4.387 billion for the WIC Program.

The Special Milk Program

The Special Milk Program (SMP) provides

milk to children in schools and child

care institutions who do not participate

in other Federal meal service programs.

The program reimburses schools for the

milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch 

or School Breakfast Programs may also

participate in SMP to provide milk to

children in half-day pre-kindergarten

and kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school

meal programs.

Expansion of the National School Lunch

and School Breakfast Programs, which

include milk, and the prohibition against

using SMP to fund extra milk for lunch

and breakfast program activities, has led

to a substantial reduction in SMP since

its peak in the late 1960’s. In 2001, over

116 million half pints of milk were

served through the SMP.

In 2001, nearly 7,000 schools and residential child care institutions participated, along with 1,300 summer camps and

over 500 non-residential child care institutions.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating

school or kindergarten program can get

milk through SMP. Children may buy

milk or receive it free, depending on the

school’s choice of program options.

When local officials offer free milk under the program, any child from a family

that meets income guidelines for free

meals and milk is eligible.

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimbursement from the

Federal Government for each half pint of

milk served. They must operate their

milk programs on a nonprofit basis and

agree to use the Federal reimbursement

to reduce the selling price of milk to all

children.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $16.9 million for SMP.

The Summer Food Service Program 

The Summer Food Service Program 

(SFSP) provides free meals to low-income

children during school vacations.

SFSP was first created as part of a larger

pilot program in 1968 and became a separate program in 1975. In the summer of

2001, more than 2.1 million children participated at more than 31,000 summer

feeding sites.

The program is administered at the

Federal level by FNS. Locally, it is operated by approved sponsors who receive reimbursement from USDA for the meals

they serve. Sponsors provide meals at a

central site such as a school or community center. All meals are served free.

SFSP operates in low-income areas

where half or more of the children are

from households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty

guideline. Residential children’s camps

also may get reimbursement through 

SFSP for meals served to income-eligible

children.

Eligibility: Children age 18 and under who

participate in a school program for the

mentally or physical handicapped and

people over age 18 who are determined

by a State educational agency to be
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 97

mentally or physically handicapped may

receive meals through SFSP.

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive

either one or two meals a day. Residential camps and sites that primarily serve

children from migrant households may

be approved to serve up to three meals

per day.

Sponsors are reimbursed for documented operating and administrative costs.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $ 312 million for SFSP.

USDA Disaster Assistance

FNS is the primary agency responsible

for providing Federal food assistance in

response to domestic disasters such as

fires, floods, storms, earthquakes and

any other emergencies declared as such 

by the President. FNS provides assistance 

through the Food Distribution Program

and the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

The WIC Farmers’ Market 

Nutrition Program 

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program (FMNP) was established in 1992.

The program has two goals: to provide

fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such

as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’

markets to WIC participants who are at

nutritional risk; and to expand consumers’ awareness and use of farmers’

markets. This program, operated in conjunction with the regular WIC Program,

is operational in 44 State agencies, including 4 Indian Tribes, 1 Territory, and

the District of Columbia. During FY 2001,

2.1 million WIC participants received

FMNP benefits through 2,500 farmers’

markets.

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 months

old, and children who receive WIC program benefits or who are WIC-eligible,

may purchase foods at farmers’ markets

through FMNP.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased

with FMNP coupons. State agencies may

limit FMNP sales to specific produce that 

is locally grown to encourage participants 

to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: In FY 2002, $25 million was appropriated for FMNP.
CHAPTER 9

Food Safety
100 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 9

Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Office of Food Safety oversees the

Food Safety and Inspection Service, the

agency within USDA responsible for ensuring the safety, wholesomeness, and

correct labeling and packaging of meat,

poultry, and egg products. FSIS operates

under the authority of the Federal Meat

Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act. FSIS sets standards for food

safety and inspects and regulates all raw

and processed meat and poultry products,

and egg products sold in interstate commerce, including imported products. FSIS

has implemented a strategy for change

to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness attributable to meat, poultry, and

egg products. The Office of Food Safety,

headed by USDA’s Under Secretary for

Food Safety, provides oversight of the

agency.

In FY 2001, FSIS inspected over 8.2 billion

poultry, 140 million head of livestock,

and 4.5 billion pounds of egg products.

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspection of poultry and livestock, as

well as processed products made from

them;

■ Inspection of all liquid, frozen, and

dried egg products; 

■ Setting food safety standards for plant

facilities, product contents, processing

procedures, packaging and labeling, and

microbial and chemical adulterants;

■ Analyzing products for microbial and

chemical adulterants;

■ Conducting risk assessments, as well

as epidemiological and other scientific

studies, to estimate human health outcomes associated with the consumption

of meat, poultry, and egg products. These

risk assessments and studies provide

science-based information for risk management and communication; and

■ Educating consumers about foodborne

illness by way of publications, educational campaigns, and a toll-free, nationwide USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline

(1-800-535-4555).

FSIS inspectors examine animals before

and after slaughter, preventing diseased

animals from entering the food supply

and examining carcasses for visible defects that can affect safety and quality.

Inspectors also test for the presence of

harmful pathogens and drug and chemical residues.

More than 7,600 FSIS inspectors carry out the 

inspection laws in over 6,500 privately owned 

meat, poultry, egg product, and other 

slaughtering or processing plants in the United 

States and U.S. Territories.

In addition, about 250,000 different

processed meat and poultry products

fall under FSIS inspection. These include

hams, sausages, soups, stews, pizzas,

frozen dinners, and products containing

2 percent or more cooked poultry or at

least 3 percent raw meat. In addition to

inspecting these products during processing, FSIS evaluates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and

compounds used to prepare and package

meat and poultry products.

As part of the inspection process, FSIS

tests for the presence of pathogens and

toxins such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcal enterotoxin in

ready-to-eat and other processed products. FSIS continues to have a zero tolerance for these pathogens in ready-to-eat

and other processed products.

America’s familiarity with health risks

from foodborne microbial hazards 

has increased in recent years.

Widely publicized outbreaks of

foodborne illness...have raised the

public’s concern.

Table 9-1

Livestock, poultry, and egg products federally inspected in 2000 and 2001

2000 2001

Cattle 36,239,548 38,974,227 

Swine 93,385,041 96,599,904

Other livestock 3,915,417 4,138,779 

Poultry 8,547,271,635 8,220,504,495 

Egg products 5,100,000,000 4,500,000,000 

Note: Fiscal years are October-September (i.e., fiscal 2001 ran Oct. 1, 2000–Sept. 30, 2001).

All numbers are rounded from original data.
Food Safety | 101

FSIS also tests for pathogens in some

raw products. In 1994, USDA declared E.

coli O157:H7 an adulterant in raw ground

beef and established a monitoring program for the pathogen. As part of the

Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems final rule, issued in July 1996, FSIS

for the first time set pathogen reduction

performance standards for Salmonella

that slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet. The

final rule also requires meat and poultry

slaughter plants to conduct microbial

testing for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the

prevention of fecal contamination.

Imported meat and poultry are also subject to FSIS scrutiny. The agency reviews

and monitors foreign inspection systems

to ensure that they are equivalent to the

U.S. system before those countries are

allowed to export. When the products

reach the United States, products are

reinspected at 155 active import locations by inspection personnel.

Nearly 4 billion pounds of meat and poultry 

passed inspection for entry into the United 

States from 33 countries during 2001.

Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Systems—Implementation

In 2000, FSIS completed implementation 

of its landmark rule, Pathogen Reduction/

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) Systems. The rule addresses the

serious problem of foodborne illness in

the United States associated with meat

and poultry products by focusing more 

attention on the prevention and reduction

of microbial pathogens on raw products

that can cause illness. It also clarifies the

respective roles of government and industry in food safety. Industry is accountable for producing safe food. Government 

is responsible for setting appropriate food 

safety standards, maintaining vigorous

oversight to ensure that these standards

are met, and for operating a strong enforcement program to, among other

things, deal with plants that do not 

meet regulatory standards.

The Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule: (1)

requires all meat and poultry plants to 

develop and implement written standard 

operating procedures for sanitation

(SSOPs); (2) requires meat and poultry

slaughter plants to conduct microbial

testing for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the

prevention of fecal contamination; (3)

requires all meat and poultry plants to

develop and implement a system of preventive controls, known as HACCP, to improve the safety of their products; and

(4) sets pathogen reduction performance

standards for Salmonella that slaughter

plants and plants producing raw ground

products must meet.

The Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule

applies to over 6,500 federally inspected

and 2,300 State-inspected slaughter and

processing plants in the United States.

Countries that export meat and poultry

products to the United States must also

meet the requirements of the final rule.

Egg products are not covered by the final

rule, but FSIS has developed a strategy

that will include HACCP to improve the

safety of eggs and egg products.

Implementation of HACCP in all plants

has been smooth, and the new prevention-oriented meat and poultry inspection

system continues to show improvement.

With only minor fluctuations, Salmonella

prevalences in all classes of products have

decreased to levels below the baseline 

prevalence estimates determined prior to

HACCP. The decrease in the prevalence

of Salmonella in raw meat and poultry

from 1998 to 2001 is consistent with reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicating a decline

in human illnesses linked to Salmonella

during the same time period. As industry

has complied with the new pathogen reduction and HACCP requirements, FSIS

is strengthening HACCP systems to more

effectively protect consumers from unsafe meat and poultry.

For more information on HACCP and

compliance, visit the FSIS Web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov and access 

“HACCP Implementation.”

Proper design and implementation 

of new food safety policies must 

be based on the best available science.

This is especially important in 

an international context.
102 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 9

(including turkeys)—are eligible for the

project. These animals comprise nearly

90 percent of animals slaughtered in inspected establishments. Eligible plants

may volunteer to participate in the pilot

program.

Under HIMP, changes are being made in 

the role of the slaughter inspector. Except

for one inspector at the end of the line,

inspectors are no longer tied to one

point on the inspection line. Instead, inspectors are free to move around the

plant and up and down the processing

line to perform verification checks and

observe operations wherever necessary.

Currently, approximately 24 establishments that slaughter young chickens,

hogs, and turkeys are participating in

the pilot project.

Under the project, FSIS has established

performance standards for food safety

and non-food safety defects, such as

bruises, (also known as “other consumer

HACCP-Based Inspection Models

Project (HIMP)

In 2002, the CDC published a report that

credits the implementation of HACCP as

a major factor in the continued decline

in the incidence of foodborne illness.

However, the HACCP system does not

currently apply to all activities associated with the slaughter process, so FSIS

has developed and is testing new inspection models that employ the scientific

principles associated with Pathogen Reduction/HACCP.

HIMP is a pilot program that began in

1997 and is designed to test whether

new government slaughter inspection

procedures can be employed that improve food safety and increase consumer

protection, and that leads to the more

efficient and effective use of inspection

resources and personnel. Only meat and

poultry plants that slaughter exclusively

young, healthy, uniform animals—

market hogs, fed cattle, or young poultry

Table 9-2

Prevalence of Salmonella in the PR/HACCP Verification Testing Program 

All Years 1998–2001 

Large Establishments Small Establishments Very Small Establishments All Sizes Establishments

Product Base-line # Samp % Pos # Samp % Pos # Samp % Pos # Samp % Pos

Prevalence (%)

Broilers 20.0 23,229 9.2 7,757 13.7 453 34.7 31,439 10.7

Market Hogs 8.7 5,701 3.5 4,479 8.6 6,393 4.9 16,573 5.4

Cows/Bulls 2.7 419 0.5 4,164 2.0 1,288 3.6 5,871 2.2

Steers/Heifers 1.0 766 0.1 1,614 0.4 1,403 0.7 3,783 0.4

Ground Beef 7.5 3,954 5.2 48,595 3.8 22,209 2.4 74,758 3.4

Ground Chicken 44.6 408 15.9 536 16.0 53 11.3 997 15.7

Ground Turkey 49.9 2,836 30.2 812 25.6 64 28.1 3,712 29.2

Table 9-3

Percent of Sample Sets Meeting the Salmonella Performance Standards

All Years 1998–2001

Product # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass

Broilers 442 93.4 142 84.5 4 25.0 588 90.8

Market Hogs 99 91.9 69 73.9 49 77.6 217 82.9

Cows/Bulls 7 100.0 62 83.9 17 76.5 86 83.7

Steers/Heifers 8 100.0 19 94.7 4 100.0 31 96.8

Ground Beef 70 85.7 796 91.0 288 95.5 1,154 91.8

Ground Chicken 6 100.0 9 100.0 1 100.0 16 100.0

Ground Turkey 49 91.8 13 84.6 1 100.0 63 90.5
Food Safety | 103

protections”) that volunteer plants must

meet. In order to meet these standards,

plants are extending their HACCP systems

to address the food safety conditions, and 

they are developing process control plans

to address other consumer practices.

Plants are responsible for identifying and

removing meat and poultry carcasses

that do not meet these standards.

The accomplishments of the new system 

must meet or exceed the accomplishments of the current system in order for

FSIS to consider the new system to be 

successful. The project is being carried

out through an open public process that

allows all interested constituents the

opportunity to provide input. Data collected in the project to date, by both an 

independent contractor and FSIS’ in-plant

inspectors, show improvements in both

food safety and other consumer protections. FSIS will continue to evaluate and

make improvements to HIMP. Plants that

are permitted to operate under HIMP

will be held accountable for meeting the

performance standards and all other

regulatory requirements.

Activities Related to Homeland Security

For nearly a century, FSIS has protected 

consumers by ensuring that meat, poultry,

and egg products are safe, wholesome,

and accurately labeled. Although we are

now facing new threats related to intentional contamination of the food supply,

this history of dealing with food emergencies has allowed FSIS to develop the

expertise to protect our Nation’s supply

of meat, poultry, and egg products.

With a strong food safety infrastructure

already in place, USDA has been able to

focus on fortifying existing programs

and improving lines of communication

both internally and externally through

cooperation with industry, consumers,

and other government agencies.

FSIS coordinates its efforts with several

other agencies committed to preventing

biosecurity threats. FSIS works closely

with the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency, as well as with State and local

health agencies to share information

about illnesses.

Emerging Issues

Over the past several years, FSIS has enhanced the public health focus of its

food safety program helping the agency

address emerging and re-emerging issues, such as E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria

monocytogenes.

E. coli O157:H7

The CDC estimates that 73,000 cases of

infection and 60 deaths occur in the

United States each year as a result of 

E. coli O157:H7.

A risk assessment for E. coli O157:H7 in

ground beef was completed in September 2001 and submitted to the National

Academy of Sciences for peer review.

The risk assessment estimates the risks

of foodborne illness from the pathogen

under current baseline manufacturing

conditions and will be revised in response to comments from the peer review. When the review is completed, the

agency will use the risk assessment to

determine whether changes in its policies on E. coli O157:H7 are needed.

Listeria monocytogenes

According to the CDC, an estimated 

2,500 people in the United States become

ill from Listeria monocytogenes each year,

and approximately 20 percent die as a

result of the illness.

FSIS consumer education programs

specifically target pregnant women and

newborns, older adults, and people with

weakened immune systems caused by

cancer treatments, AIDS, diabetes, kidney disease, etc., who are all at risk for

becoming seriously ill from eating foods

that contain Listeria monocytogenes.

On January 18, 2001, FDA and FSIS released a draft risk assessment of the

potential relative risk of listeriosis from

eating certain ready-to-eat foods, as well

as an action plan designed to reduce the

risk of foodborne illness caused by

Listeria monocytogenes.

Continued basic research is needed 

to evaluate the incidence of current 

and emerging hazards, identify and

quantify the chronic complications 

that these acute foodborne illnesses 

can cause, and identify which foods 

are causing the illnesses.
104 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 9

FSIS also has the following four longer

term initiatives:

■ The agency drafted a protocol to study

the post-production growth of Listeria

monocytogenes in a wide variety of readyto-eat products. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service is conducting the study;

■ FSIS has developed an indepth verification protocol that can be used to determine the adequacy of plants’ HACCP

plans for ready-to-eat products, particularly regarding Listeria monocytogenes;

■ A risk ranking for Listeria monocytogenes,

in conjunction with the Food and Drug

Administration, focused on all foods,

particularly refrigerated, ready-to-eat

foods; and

■ FSIS is developing food safety standards 

for ready-to-eat products that will address the need to control all pathogens,

including Listeria monocytogenes.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

has never been detected in U.S. cattle.

Since 1989, USDA has banned the import

of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep,

goats, and most ruminant products from

the United Kingdom and other countries

having BSE. Should a case of BSE ever be

detected in this country, an emergency

response plan has been developed to immediately control suspect animals and

prevent them from entering the food

supply.

In 1998, USDA asked the Harvard Center

for Risk Analysis to evaluate the robustness of U.S. measures to prevent the

spread of BSE or “mad cow disease” to

animals and humans if it were to arise

in this country.

Results of this landmark 3-year study

showed that the risk of BSE occurring in

the United States is extremely low. The

report noted that early protection systems put into place by the USDA and the

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) have been largely responsible for keeping BSE out of the United

States and would prevent it from spreading if it ever did enter the country.

Even so, in November 2001, the Under

Secretary for Food Safety announced a

series of actions the USDA would take, in

cooperation with HHS, to strengthen its

BSE prevention programs and maintain

the Government’s vigilance against the

disease.
Food Safety | 105

■ USDA will have the risk assessment

peer reviewed by a team of outside experts to ensure its scientific integrity;

■ USDA will continue increasing its

testing for BSE, with over 12,500 cattle

samples targeted in fiscal year 2002—up

from 5,000 during fiscal year 2001;

■ USDA will announce in the Federal

Register the availability of a policy options paper that will outline additional

possible regulatory actions to limit the

risk of BSE exposure; 

■ USDA will issue a proposed rule to

prohibit the use of certain stunning devices used to immobilize cattle during

slaughter; and

■ USDA will publish an Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking to consider

disposal options for dead and downer

animals. Such cattle are considered an

important potential pathway for the

spread of BSE in the animal chain.

A complete copy of the Harvard Report

can be obtained from USDA’s official

Web site at http://www.usda.gov. For more

information about BSE, also visit

http://www.usda.gov or http:www.hhs.gov 

Food Net and PulseNet

FSIS has partnered with the CDC and

other State and Federal agencies to determine the extent of foodborne illness

in the United States and to maintain a

database of DNA fingerprinting of foodborne bacteria.

The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) is a part of the

CDC Emerging Infections Program. FSIS

worked in conjunction with CDC, the

Food and Drug Administration, and public health laboratories in several States

to establish FoodNet in 1995.

FoodNet includes active surveillance for 

diseases caused by foodborne pathogens,

case-control studies to identify risk factors for acquiring foodborne illness, and

surveys to assess medical and laboratory

practices related to the diagnosis of

foodborne illness. The baseline and annual data collected are being used to

help determine the effectiveness of the

Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Points rule and other regulatory actions as well as public

education efforts in decreasing the number of cases of major bacterial foodborne

disease in the United States each year.

In FY 2001, FSIS completed the sixth full 

year of an agreement with the CDC to conduct active population-based surveillance

for foodborne diseases (Campylobacter,

E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella,

Vibrio,Yersinia, Crytosporidium and Cyclospora) in Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut,

Georgia, and selected counties in California, Maryland, New York, Colorado, and

Tennessee (total population: 30 million).

This multi-year study is providing muchneeded data regarding the burden of

foodborne illness in the United States.

PulseNet is a national computer network

of public health laboratories that helps

to rapidly identify and control outbreaks

of foodborne illness. The laboratories

perform DNA fingerprinting on bacteria

that may be foodborne and the network

permits rapid comparison of the fingerprint patterns through an electronic

database at the CDC. PulseNet is an early warning system that links seemingly

sporadic human illnesses together and,

as a result, more outbreaks can be recognized, especially those that involve many

States.
106 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 9

FoodNet and PulseNet are two examples

of Federal and State agencies working

together to accomplish the agency’s public health goals of protecting the public

and the meat and poultry supply

through improving the tracking of foodborne illnesses and outbreaks.

Consumer and Food Safety Education

For more than two decades, FSIS has

provided consumer information and educational materials designed to foster

safe food handling through behavior

changes in order to reduce the risk of

foodborne illness. Educational materials

and campaigns are science based and

drawn from epidemiological studies

concerning food and behaviors that contribute to food safety risks. Projects and

activities are also based on social marketing principles, research derived from 

educational theory, market and consumer

research, and focus group testing. FSIS

provides information and educational

materials designed to foster safe handling of meat, poultry, and egg products.

Consumer education programs focus on

key food safety messages to the general

public and special high-risk groups that

face increased risks from foodborne illness—the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, people who have chronic

diseases, and people with compromised

immune systems. The agency reaches

diverse audiences through the media, information multipliers such as teachers,

Extension and health educators, the 

FSIS Web site, printed materials, videos,

USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline, the internationally distributed newsletter, The

Food Safety Educator, and other presentations and exhibits. FSIS produces public

service announcements, news features,

and partners with other government

agencies, industry, and consumer associations on food safety projects.

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 

In addition to basic food handling, storage and preparation questions, USDA’s

toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline addresses the latest issues: outbreaks of

foodborne illness; pathogens such as

Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, and E. coli O157:H7; recalls

of meat and poultry products; egg safety; red meat irradiation; and food safety

during a power outage or natural disaster. Over 172,000 calls were taken during

FY 2000 and FY 2001 combined with over

400 media or information multiplier

calls addressing safe food handling practices in the home. The analysis of call

data helps to identify gaps in consumer

knowledge to plan future food safety education campaigns. The Hotline’s staff is

comprised of home economists, registered dietitians, food technologists, and a

physician.

In September 2001, the USDA Meat and

Poultry Hotline initiated a 3-month

Spanish language outreach pilot for the

Latino community to provide consumers

with bilingual service. The pilot outreach

efforts were focused in Miami, FL, San

Diego, CA, and Newark, NJ.

Callers may speak with a food safety

specialist—in English or Spanish—from

10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time on

weekdays year round by dialing the nationwide toll-free number 1-800-535-

4555 or in the Washington, DC area, (202)

720-3333. The toll-free number for the 

hearing impaired (TTY) is 1-800-256-

7072. An extensive menu of recorded

food safety messages in English and

Spanish may be heard 24 hours a day.

The Hotline can also now be reached by

e-mail at: mphotline.fsis@usda.gov
Food Safety | 107

Food Thermometer Education

Campaign—ThermyTM

Based on USDA and other scientific research, FSIS launched a national consumer education campaign to increase

consumer use of food thermometers at a

May 25, 2000, press conference. Input

from nationwide focus groups helped to

develop ThermyTM, a cartoon character,

and his message: “It’s Safe to Bite When

the Temperature is Right!” ThermyTM educational materials, developed in English

and Spanish, were distributed nationally 

to schools, cooperative extension, and

other educators. Thermometer companies, grocery chains, and other partners

began using ThermyTM on product packaging, in-store floor displays, and consumer information publications. Thousands of information kits, magnets, and

posters were distributed to food safety

educators nationwide and a variety of

ThermyTM information is available (also

in Spanish) on the FSIS Web site:

www.fsis.usda.gov/thermy. ThermyTM continues to appear at public functions

across the country.

Partnership for Food Safety Education

and Fight BAC!® Campaign

The Partnership for Food Safety Education’s Fight BAC!® campaign, which began in 1997, is a far-reaching, ambitious,

and consumer-friendly public education

campaign focused on safe food handling.

The Fight BAC!® campaign’s goal is to educate consumers on the four simple

steps they can take to fight foodborne

bacteria and reduce their risk of foodborne illness. These steps are:

■ Clean—wash hands and surfaces often,

■ Separate—don’t cross-contaminate,

■ Cook—cook to proper temperatures,

and

■ Chill—refrigerate promptly.

The campaign is represented by the

character BAC! (bacteria), the invisible

enemy who tries his best to spread contamination wherever he goes. By giving

foodborne bacteria a personality, BAC!

makes the learning process more meaningful and memorable for consumers of

all ages.

For more information about the Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!®, visit http://www.fightbac.org/

Listeria monocytogenes Consumer

Outreach

Focus groups have shown that consumers are not aware that pregnant

women are at high risk for foodborne illness and are unfamiliar with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes (Lm). In FY

2001, FSIS developed a new brochure for

pregnant women—Listeriosis and Pregnancy: What Is Your Risk? Safe Food Handling

for a Healthy Pregnancy. The Listeriosis and

Food Safety Tips (June 1999) brochure in

English and Spanish remains available

for purchase in single or bulk copies

through the Government Printing Office

and through the Federal Consumer Information Center (FCIC) in Pueblo, CO.
108 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 9

The National Food Safety 

Information Network 

FSIS and other agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture participated in

the National Food Safety Information

Network, which fosters communication 

among the Federal Government’s primary 

providers of food safety information. The 

network includes: http://www.FoodSafety.gov 

the “Government Gateway to Food Safety 

Information;” the USDA Meat and Poultry 

Hotline; FDA’s Center for Food Safety and 

Applied Nutrition (CFSAN); the USDA/FDA 

Foodborne Illness Education Information 

Center at the National Agricultural Library; National Food Safety Educators 

Network (EdNet); and FoodSafe, an online

discussion group with 2,000 subscribers

from more than 50 countries.

National Food Safety Education

MonthSM (NFSEM) 

Created by the International Food Safety

Council, a coalition of restaurant and 

foodservice professionals certified in food

safety, National Food Safety Education

MonthSM (NFSEM) is an activity within

the National Food Safety Initiative. It is

held in September each year and its major focus is on food safety education for

government and consumer organizations, as well as industry. The goals are:

(1) to reinforce food safety education

and training among restaurant and foodservice workers; and (2) to educate the

public on how to handle and prepare

food properly at home—whether cooking

from scratch or serving take-out meals

or leftovers. The theme for the September 2001 observance, Be Cool, Chill Out,

Refrigerate Promptly, was one of the Fight

BAC!® messages.

FSIS Web Site

The Web site www.fsis.usda.gov remains a

valuable resource for consumers, food

safety educators, the regulated industry,

FSIS employees, government officials,

and other professionals. The site contains

thousands of documents concerning

FSIS news, meat and poultry product recalls, HACCP, speeches, regulations and

directives, agency reports, food safety for

consumers, and career employment information. Because documents may be

downloaded in a variety of electronic

formats, the Web site serves as an integral part of the agency’s publication distribution process. Visitors to the site may

also view video clips of news releases

and public service announcements and

can access numerous links to other food

safety-related sites. Also, the Web site’s

electronic mailbox address received

thousands of questions and comments

by visitors from around the world.
Food Safety 

| 109

Food Service Education

In FY 2001, FSIS participated in meetings

and conference calls with the Food Safety Training and Education Alliance

(FSTEA) to identify food safety activities

and initiatives. In collaboration with

FSTEA, FSIS organized and coordinated

two symposia–(1) A Social Marketing

Approach to Educating Food Service Workers and (2) Educating Food Service Workers. FSIS was instrumental in developing a Web site for FSTEA, www.fstea.org,

at the National Agricultural Library

managed by the USDA/FDA Foodborne

Illness Education Information Center.

FSIS also led the effort to develop, design, and distribute the brochure, Food

Safety: Taking Care of Business. This

brochure provides resources for food

safety information and training materials specifically designed for retail and

food service. A decal for mirrors depicting the importance of hand washing in relation to food safety, one of the four

Fight BAC!

® messages, was designed and

produced for distribution to restaurants 

and foodservice establishments. Also, FSIS 

currently provides liaisons to USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the

National Food Service Management Institute (NFSMI), and the National Coalition for Food Safe Schools (NCFSS) and a

staff member serves as a consultant to

the Conference for Food Protection’s

Manager Training, Testing, and Certification Committee.
CHAPTER 10

Natural Resources and

Environment
112 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Forest Service

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “Caring for

the Land and Serving People.” The mission is further expressed in the Forest

Service land ethic: “Promote the sustainability of ecosystems by ensuring their

health, diversity, and productivity,”

which is coupled with the service ethic:

“Work collaboratively and use appropriate scientific information in caring for

the land and serving people.”

The Forest Service, through ecosystem

management, applies these land and 

service ethics. Ecosystem management is 

the integration of ecological, economic,

and social factors in order to maintain

and enhance the quality of the environment to meet current and future needs.

The four strategic goals of the Forest

Service are to: (1) protect ecosystems,

(2) restore deteriorated ecosystems, (3) 

provide multiple benefits for people 

within the capabilities of ecosystems, and

(4) ensure organizational effectiveness.

The Forest Service’s Natural Resource

Agenda identifies four key areas of national focus. They are: watershed health

and restoration, sustainable forest ecosystem management, forest roads management, and recreation enhancement.

Principal Laws

The Forest Service administers the lands

and resources of the National Forest

System (NFS) under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act of 1960, and the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976.

The agency also conducts research,

provides assistance to State and private

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides international

assistance and scientific exchanges.

These activities are carried out under

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Renewable Resources Extension Act of

1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978, the

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978, and the International Forestry

Cooperation Act of 1990.

Organizational Structure

The Chief, the top administrative official

of the Forest Service, reports to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Under

Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. The Forest Service typically is

viewed as consisting of three major components: (1) the National Forest System 

(NFS), (2) State and Private Forestry (S&PF),

and (3) Research and Development (R&D).

However, the agency supports many

other programs, such as International

Programs and Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. The NFS is organized into

a Deputy Area within the Washington

Office, 9 regional offices, 155 national

forests managed by 115 supervisors’

offices, and approximately 570 ranger

districts and 20 national grasslands.

The Forest Service manages the 192-

million-acre NFS and supports multiple

use; sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, livestock forage,

wildfire, habitat, wood, and recreation;

and integration of mineral resource programs and visual quality. The agency also

mitigates, when appropriate and in a

scientific manner, wildfires, epidemics of 

disease and insects, erosion, floods, water

quality degradation, and air pollution.

The NFS provides many recreational activities for the public. In 2000, it hosted

more than 209 million recreation visits,

including 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing and significant percentages of hiking,

camping, hunting, fishing, and driving 

for pleasure. NFS takes care of 4,418 miles 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

412 units of the National Wilderness

Preservation System, 133,000 miles of

trails; more than 250,000 heritage sites;

and over 23,000 campgrounds, picnic

areas, and visitor facilities.

The National Forests and Grasslands

support economic activity contributing 

$38 billion in total income to the national 

economy. The Forest Service administers

many S&PF programs to provide technical and financial conservation assistance

to State and private nonindustrial forest

land. These programs serve as a link

The Nation’s capacity to produce

healthy, sustainable forest resources,

while maintaining favorable watershed

and habitat conditions, increasingly

depends on nonindustrial private

forests. Owners of these lands control

nearly 60 percent of the Nation’s

forests and supply nearly half of its

forest products, but fall far short 

of their potential for producing 

wood, other forest products, or

environmental benefits.
Natural Resources and Environment | 113

among many public and private organizations and they help to promote the

best use and conservation of America’s

natural resources on private lands. Wildland fire protection on private and public

lands, Smokey Bear, forest health protection, and natural resource education are

examples of S&PF programs. S&PF is organized into a Deputy Area within the

Washington Office; it has an office in

Newtown Square, PA, to work with States

and landowners in the Northeastern

United States, and has programs delivered from most NFS offices.

Forest Service Research & Development 

(R&D) is one of the world’s leading forestry 

research organizations, conducting and

sponsoring basic and applied scientific

research. This research provides both

credible and relevant knowledge about

forests and rangelands and exciting new

technologies that can be used to sustain

the health, productivity, and diversity of

private and public lands to meet the

needs of present and future generations.

Forest Service Community-Based

Partnerships

Over a century ago, public concern about

adequate supplies of clean water contributed to the establishment of federally 

protected forest reserves. These reserves

are now part of the USDA, Forest Service.

In 1999, the Forest Service established 

an innovative approach to restoring

watersheds through partnerships—

community-based, large-scale watershed restoration projects.

Projects were competitively selected for

supplemental funding at the national

level because of their important location

and purpose, collaborative relationships,

feasibility, and precedent-setting approach

to achieve long-term improvement of 

watershed conditions. The national office

has invested over $70 million in these

projects. And this was matched 2:1 by

partner organizations that have contributed over $150 million. Work has focused on improving water quality, forest

and range health, recovering threatened 

species; implementing the State and

Private Forestry Action Strategy and the

North American Waterfowl Management

Key Facts About the Forest Service:

■ The entire Nation has about 1.3 billion acres of forest and rangeland, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 747.0 million acres of forest land area, not including rangeland, under

all ownerships; the owners/managers of this forest land are as follows:

Federal Government: 246.7 million acres 

Forest Service: 1,146.8 million acres 

Bureau of Land Management: 48.3 million acres 

National Park Service, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, & other

Federal: 51.6 million acres 

Non-Federal total: 500.2 million acres 

State: 60.5 million acres 

9.9 million private landowners: 362.8 million acres

County and municipal: 9.2 million acres 

■ There are 192.0 million acres of National Forest System land. This is 8.3 percent of the United States’ land area, or about the size of Texas. The Forest Service manages:

National Forests: 187.6 million acres

National Grasslands: 3.8 million acres 

National Primitive Areas: 173,762 acres 

National Scenic-Research Areas: 6,630 acres 

National Wild & Scenic Rivers: 4,418 miles—95 rivers 

National Recreation Areas: 2.9 million acres 

National Monument Areas: 3.3 million acres 

National Historic Areas: 6,540 acres 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness: 34.7million acres 

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated Class 1 for air quality protection totaling 15 million acres.

■ The marginal value of the water from national forest lands is over $3.7 billion per year.

■ Approximately 14 percent of the Nation’s water runoff (about 190 million acre-feet annually)

comes from national forest lands (excluding Alaska).

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple uses.

■ Miles of property boundary line: 249,000

■ Number of property corners: approximately 1 million

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, with 133,000 miles of trails for

hiking, riding, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, bicycling, and snowshoeing.

The Forest Service provides a significant portion of the recreation opportunities available from

Federal lands. Visitors to national forests are attracted by:

5,800 campgrounds and picnic areas 

328 swimming developments 

1,222 boating sites 

250 winter sports sites, including 135 downhill ski areas 

Recreation use: 209 million national forest visits 

Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres 

Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres 

Watershed improvements: 35,562 acres 

Terrestrial acres restored or enhanced for wildlife: 600,670

Aquatic acres restored or enhanced for fisheries: 20,389

Stream miles restored or enhanced for fisheries: 2,741 

Reforestation: 268,520 acres 

Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal head months 

Grazing allotments administered: 8,783

Timber sold: 2.2 billion board feet, enough to build about 150,000 homes 

Timber harvested: 2.9 billion board feet 

Road system: 386,000 miles
114 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

■ Accepting donations of land to protect

archeological, historical, or other significant sites,

■ Maintaining records of national forest

land areas, land transactions, land status, permitted uses, and easements,

■ Securing public road and trail access

to existing National Forest System lands,

■ Responding to congressional request

drafting services for land ownership adjustment activities.

Key Facts About Wildlife, Fish,

and Rare Plants

The National Forest System includes 2.3 million

acres of fishable lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

and more than 197,000 miles of perennial

streams.

National forests and grasslands support habitats

for more than 3,000 species of birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians, and fish, as well as some

10,000 plant species.

In 2000, over 76,000 people engaged in Eyes on

Wildlife and Migratory Bird Day events on national forests and grasslands.

The national forests and grasslands also provide:

■ 80 percent of the elk, mountain goat, and

bighorn sheep habitat in the lower 48 States,

■ 28 million acres of wild turkey habitat,

■ 5.4 million acres of wetland habitat,

■ Habitat for 250 species of neotropical

migratory birds, and 

■ 2,800 species classified as sensitive, threatened, or endangered plants, fish, or wildlife.

Partnerships

In 2001, $17.6 million in Federal funds

was matched by partners’ $26.9 million,

for a total of $44.5 million to accomplish 

partnership projects for wildlife, fish, and

threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species on the national forests and grasslands. For example, employees of the

Alabama Power Company and the

Bankhead Ranger District utilized

bundles of donated Christmas trees to

construct sunken fish habitat structures.

Water, Soil, and Air

About 14 percent of the surface water

supply in the United States flows from 

National Forest System (NFS) watersheds.

The goals of the Forest Service’s watershed, soil, and air management programs 

Plan; and providing jobs for local communities. These funds and their use are

the critical link to local governments

and allow private landowners to become

major partners in watershed restoration

efforts.

National Forest System—Conservation

and Multiple Use

Lands and Realty Management

Lands and Realty Management activities

include:

■ Purchasing land to protect critical

resources areas and provide increased

public recreation opportunities,

■ Authorizing powerlines to provide

electricity to communities,

■ Ensuring that hydro-electric projects

protect riparian areas on the national

forest,

■ Exchanging lands with private parties

to achieve a desired national forest

landownership pattern that supports

forest land and resource goals and

objectives,

■ Surveying national forest boundaries

to identify and protect private and

public lands,

■ Determining the fair market value of

lands purchased or exchanged, so that

transaction is fair to the public and the

landowner involved,

■ Authorizing right-of-ways for roads to

private in-holdings within the forest,

Farmers and forest landowners 

need information to facilitate 

the adoption or use of more

environmentally sound practices.

Large-Scale Watershed Restoration Projects

Pacific

Coastal

Blue 

Mountain

Upper

Pit

River

Upper

Sevier

South Platte

Conasauga

New York City

Chattooga

Cheasapeake

Bay

White

River

Rio Penasco

Lower

Mississippi

Big Lost River

Upper Kootenai

St. Joe Watershed
Natural Resources and Environment | 115

are to (1) manage watersheds to maintain 

or improve watershed conditions to sustain forest land and rangeland health for

multiple uses; (2) sustain soil productivity, (3) protect 88 Class I wilderness areas

from air pollution, and (4) evaluate Forest Service activities and their effect of

air quality, watershed and soil condition.

The task of mapping all soils within NFS,

with the cooperation of USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service, is continuing and is over 50 percent complete.

Annually, the Forest Service completes

approximately 30,000 acres to improve 

water and soil resources. Other significant 

ongoing activities include watershed inventory and analyses to better understand

the capability of watersheds to sustain

forest land and rangeland health; participating in water rights adjudications; 

restoring desired watershed conditions on

abandoned mines and hazardous materials sites located on national forests;

monitoring to determine air pollution

impacts on visibility, water, and soil

chemistry in wilderness areas; and leading collaboration on large-scale watershed restoration efforts.

Key Facts About Water, Soil,

and Air:

■ There are approximately 6,000 watersheds 

on National Forest System lands that produce

an average 190 million acre-feet of water

annually.

■ There are 3,336 municipalities, serving 60

million people, which get their tap water from

NFS lands.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water are supplied by

National Forest System municipal watersheds

annually.

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated

Class I for air quality protection totaling 15

million acres. As of FY 2001, all of these areas

are monitored for regional haze and part of a

nationwide multi-agency network.

■ There are 5 regional planning organizations

assessing strategies for improving visibility in

class/acreages. The Forest Service participates

in all of these. Strategies developed will improve air quality for all people.

■ About 600 remote weather data collection

platforms are used in agricultural, fire,

weather, and stream flow forecasting.

Rangeland

NFS rangeland is managed to conserve

the land and its vegetation while providing food for both livestock and wildlife.

Under multiple-use concepts, grazing

areas also serve as watersheds, wildlife

habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing

privileges are granted on national forests

and grasslands through paid permits;

permittees cooperate with the Forest

Service in range improvement projects.

(National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process decisions were made on

allotments across the country in adherence to the Rescissions Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19). The first 6 years of the

15-year Rescissions Act schedule, 1996

through 2001, ended with approximately

one-third of all the livestock grazing allotments that needed environmental 

analyses being analyzed. Implementation

of improved management was undertaken on these allotments. Monitoring both

implementation and effectiveness of the

management actions has been undertaken and will continue into the future.

The noxious weed management program

was a success in FY 2000 with 143,938

acres treated. The Forest Service in cooperation with the States, counties, and

cities worked together to prevent the

spread of noxious weeds, treating existing infestations, and educating citizens

about noxious weed problems.

Key Facts About Rangeland:

■ In FY 2001, the Forest Service administered

8,783 grazing allotments.

■ Permitted livestock grazing totaled approximately 9.4 million animal head months. (A

head month is 1 month’s occupancy by an

adult animal.) 

■ By the end of 2001, 2,107 allotments underwent environmental analyses under the 1995

Rescissions Act. Management decisions were

made on those that resulted in improved

rangeland vegetation.

■ In FY 2001, 143,938 acres of rangelands were

treated to control noxious weeds infestations.

■ Forage improvement took place on 33,667

acres of rangelands in FY 2001.

■ In FY 2001, 1,357 structural improvements

were constructed on NFS rangelands to implement management changes prescribed in

recent decisions.
116 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Exploration, development, and production 

of energy and minerals from National

Forest System lands contribute to economic growth, provide employment in

rural communities, and raise revenues

that are shared with the States. The energy and minerals component of the

program is directed at obtaining these

benefits while ensuring operations are

conducted in an environmentally sound

manner. In terms of the magnitude of

the energy and minerals program, there

are approximately 5.3 million acres

leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 mining claims, about 9,000 mineral material

sales contracts and permits, over 2,000

new operations proposed each year, and

more than 15,000 operations to monitor

and inspect. The largest coal mine in the

United States is on NFS lands, and much

of the Nation’s phosphate and lead production comes from NFS lands. The value of all energy and mineral production

exceeds $2.1 billion per year. Annual revenues are about $170 million, 25-50 percent of which is returned to the States

where production occurs.

Key Facts About Forest Service

Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Program

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands 

provide more than $3.3 billion in private sector

revenue.

■ 7 million acres where there is a possibility for

coal leasing (50 billion tons) 

■ 45 million acres where there is a possibility for

oil and gas leasing; 5.3 million acres leased 

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and

quarries 

■ Approximately 2,000 new operations requiring

review each year 

■ Over 95 percent of domestic platinum/

palladium comes from the Custer and Gallatin

National Forests

■ Over 20,000 existing operations requiring

monitoring 

■ 45 percent of the Nation’s production of lead 

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum

deposits (Tongass National Forest, AK) 

■ Many of the Nation’s 100,000 rock hounds,

recreational mineral collectors, students, and

geologic organizations use the national forests

for education and recreational purposes.

■ Recreational panning for gold is an activity that

is rapidly increasing.

■ The Forest Service manages fossil and

geologic sites of interest as resources for

present and future generations, scientific,

education, interpretive, recreational, and

aesthetic values.

■ The most complete Champsosaurus skeleton

in the world (55 million years old) came off

Little Missouri National Grasslands and is on

display at FS headquarters.

■ FS has partnerships with communities,

States, and universities on managing the

paleontological resource.

Following are examples of energy and

mineral production on NFS lands:

FY 2001

■ 7.3 million barrels of oil 

■ 93 billion cubic feet of gas 

■ 94 million tons of coal 

FY 2000

■ 575 million pounds of lead 

■ 178 million pounds of copper 

■ 529,000 ounces of gold 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness

Resources

America’s national forests and grasslands 

are the “gold crown” of outdoor settings

where American and international visitors alike enjoy a wide variety of premier

recreation activities. From the Tongass

National Forest in Alaska, where glaciers

and coniferous forests abound, through 

the wild and scenic rivers of Idaho, to the

heritage sites of the Jemez Mountains in

New Mexico and the tropical forest of

the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto

Rico, recreation is outdoor fun on our

national forests and grasslands.

In partnership with six other Federal

agencies, the Forest Service unveiled an

Internet program that makes it possible

for anyone with access to a computer to

learn about outdoor recreation opportunities on all Federal public lands. Visit

www.recreation.gov 

Forest Service Recreation Portfolio

■ 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing

■ Significant percentages of hunting,

fishing, and wildlife viewing

■ World-class hiking, camping, and driving for pleasure
Natural Resources and Environment | 117

■ 50 percent of habitat for salmon and

trout (lower 48 States)

■ 80 percent of habitat for elk, bighorn

sheep, and mountain goat (lower 48

States)

■ 50 percent of public lands trail miles

in the country

Key Recreation Facts:

■ Wilderness areas 399 (34.7 million acres)

■ 63 percent of National Wilderness Preservation

System managed by Forest Service in lower

48 States 

■ 34 percent of National Wilderness Preservation

System managed by Forest Service in total

United States

■ 20 national recreation areas (NRA) (includes

land between the lakes NRA)

■ 9 national scenic areas (NSA)

■ 4 national monuments and volcanic monuments (NM)

■ 6.7 million acres of NRA, NSA, and NM (includes land between the lakes NRA)

Recreation Roads, Trails, and Rivers

■ 136 (9,126 miles) national forest scenic byways

■ 95 (4,418 miles) wild and scenic rivers 

■ 133,087 miles of trails 

■ 6,709 miles of scenic and historic trails

Sites, Facilities, and Services

■ 277,000 heritage properties

■ 4,300 campgrounds

■ 23,000 developed recreation sites

■ 135 Alpine ski areas 

■ 1,496 picnic sites 

■ 1,222 boating sites

■ 140 swimming areas

■ 18,000 recreation facilities

■ 14,900 recreation residences

■ 480 resorts

National Forest System Inventory,

Assessment, and Planning

Sustainable and effective management

of National Forest System lands is dependent upon scientifically credible

information and collaborative planning.

Sustainable management includes the 

continued existence and use of resources

to meet human physical, economic, and

social needs; the desire to preserve the

health of ecosystems in perpetuity; and

the ethical choice of preserving options

for future generations while meeting the

needs of the present.

National Forest System planning consists of four basic activities that constitute a continuous planning framework:

Inventory, Assessment, Land Management Planning, and Monitoring.

Key Facts about Inventory,

Assessment, and Planning:

■ Inventories of National Forest System resources are currently being conducted at a

refreshment rate of 15–18 years and total

10,432,000 acres/year.

■ A total of 130 watersheds and 18 broad-scale

assessments were completed.

■ Land and Resource Management Plans have

been prepared for 126 administrative units and

include all national forests and grasslands.

Revisions were initiated or completed on 

11 units.

■ Annual reports of monitoring results were

prepared for 126 administrative units.

■ Each year the Forest Service produces:

10,000 decision memorandums

5,000 environmental assessments

250 environmental impact statements

■ Over 1,200 projects, plans, and permit decisions were administratively appealed.

■ On average, the Forest Service had over 200

lawsuits pending at any given time challenging

resource management decisions.
118 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Forest Vegetation Management

Approximately 73 percent of the 192

million acres of national forests is considered forested. Of the forested land, 29

percent is available for regularly scheduled timber harvest and less than 1 percent is subject to some form of timber

harvest treatment in any given year. The

remaining 71 percent of the forested

land is protected as wilderness, used for

recreation, or cannot be harvested due

to environmental or economic conditions such as steep slopes, fragile soils,

and lack of feasible access.

Stewardship Demonstration Projects

Experience has shown that the agency’s 

traditional tools for managing vegetation,

i.e., the standard timber sale and service

contracts, are oftentimes not well suited 

to addressing many of today’s most pressing vegetative management needs, or to

implementing truly integrated resource

management projects. The standard timber sale contract was designed to dispose 

of commercially valuable timber, but 

many of today’s most important treatment needs—e.g., reducing excessive fuel 

loadings—often involve managing wood

of little or no commercial value. The 

standard service contract can be a flexible

and powerful tool, but funding frequently limits the amount of work that can be

accomplished in this manner.

Recognizing the problems associated

with its traditional vegetative management tools, Congress gave the Forest Service the authority to test an array of new

processes and procedures through a series of 28 stewardship contracting endresults demonstration projects. The projects that are undertaken are to address

one or more of the following resource

management objectives: road and trail

maintenance or obliteration to restore or

maintain water quality; soil productivity,

habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other

resource values; setting of prescribed

fires to improve the composition, structure, condition, and health of stands or

improve wildlife habitat; noncommercial

cutting or removing of trees or other activities to promote healthy forest stands,

reduce fire hazards, or achieve other

noncommercial objectives; watershed

restoration and maintenance; restoration and maintenance of wildlife and

fish habitat; and control of noxious

weeds and reestablishing native plant

species. The new processes and procedures the agency may test include the

following: award of contracts on the basis of best value, service contracts of up

to 10 years’ duration, exchange of goods

for services, retention of receipts, offer of

sales valued at over $10,000 without advertisement, designation of timber to be

cut by description, and use of State

foresters as Federal agents in helping to

prepare and administer national forest

timber sales.

Passport in Time

Through the Passport in Time program,

the Forest Service offers unique, nontraditional recreation opportunities such as

archaeological excavation, historic structure restoration, and wilderness surveys.

These experiences foster environmental

stewardship while providing the public

with unusual, educational experiences.

Passport in Time has over 13,000 volunteers contributing over $5.2 million

worth of time and effort to preserve our

Nation’s history by restoring historic

structures, stabilizing National Register

eligible sites, evaluating sites for inclusion in the National Register of Historic

Places, working on projects in wilderness, and developing heritage interpre-
Natural Resources and Environment | 119

tive sites. Every activity is aimed at making our Nation’s unique history accessible to the public and preserving it for future generations.

State and Private Forestry—Providing

Assistance to Nonindustrial Private

Landowners

The State and Private Forestry programs

represent important tools for the monitoring, management, protection, and

better use of America’s forests, with

emphasis on non-Federal forest land

stewardship. These programs connect

forestry to all land managers—whether

small, urban woodlot owners, tribal

foresters, State agencies, or Federal—in

efficient, nonregulatory ways. Through a

coordinated effort in management, protection, and better use, the programs of

State and Private Forestry help facilitate

sound forestry across ownerships on a

landscape scale.

About 70 percent of America’s forests

are in State and private ownership, and

80 percent of the wood fiber potential

comes from these lands. These lands are

also critical to watershed conditions, fish

and wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic

quality of the Nation’s landscape; and

they represent one of the best sources of

carbon sequestration. Since these nonFederal forests represent most of the

forests in our country, keeping these

lands healthy, productive, and sustainable in the rural and urban areas on a

cumulative basis is especially important

to the Nation. With increasing fragmentation and development pressure, the

unique Federal role in maintaining the

value and functions of these lands

across ownership divisions has never

been greater or more important.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service provides technical

and financial assistance to Federal agencies, tribal governments, States, and

(through State foresters) private

landowners. The Forest Service and State

foresters participate in a forest healthmonitoring program. With USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

the Forest Service works to protect the

Nation’s forests from exotic insects, diseases, and plants. The Forest Service provides technical assistance in the safe

and effective use of pesticides, shares

the cost of insect and disease prevention

and suppression projects with States,

and funds prevention and suppression

projects on Federal lands. The agency

also evaluates and applies new, efficient

and environmentally sensitive technologies for forest health protection.
120 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

The Forest Legacy Program is designed to effectively protect and conserve environmentally important forest areas that are

threatened by conversion to non-forest

uses. These lands can be protected

through conservation easements and

other mechanisms. This program is

based on the concept of “willing seller

and willing buyer” and is completely

nonregulatory in its approach. No eminent domain authority or adverse condemnation is authorized.

Economic Action Programs

Economic Action Programs (EAP)

stimulate and assist natural resourcedependent rural communities and natural 

resource-based businesses to pursue 

self-sufficiency and sustainability. Special 

focus includes helping build rural business infrastructures to utilize and market

products from ecosystem management

operations.

Key Facts about Cooperative

Forestry Programs:

The Economic Action Programs as a whole 

and the funds from the National Fire Plan designated for rural communities used over 1,700

activities to build local capacity to address their

needs and create opportunities. More than 650

projects included funded activities aimed at

maintaining local community businesses. About

25 projects in FY 2001 specifically included activities associated with natural resource-based 

business startups. Communities and organizations

used nearly 30 activities in FY 2001 associated

with biomass or energy.

During FY 2001 the Rural Community Assistance Program provided technical or financial

assistance to nearly 800 rural communities and

organizations. This total includes 81 tribes/tribal

organizations, 99 minority communities/organizations, and 133 underserved communities.

Wildfire protection, prevention, and hazardous

fuels management were incorporated into 180

rural community strategic action plans.

In FY 2001 the Forest Products and Conservation Recycling Program provided technical

and financial assistance to1,456 individual businesses that employed 10 or less people, 967

businesses that employed 11 to 99 people, 193

individual businesses that employed 100 or more

people, and 596 assists were made to communities and nonprofit organizations.

Cooperative Forestry—Providing

Assistance to Nonindustrial Private

Landowners (NIPF) and Community

Areas

Cooperative Forestry supports the Forest

Service mission in two important ways.

First, it helps meet the needs of present

and future generations by “connecting

people to resources and ideas” and by

assisting them to “sustain their communities.” Second, it helps to sustain the

health, diversity, and productivity of the

Nation’s forests and grasslands by helping people care for the land and its resources.

The Forest Stewardship Program promotes

sustainable management of America’s

non-Federal forests by enabling 9.9

million NIPF landowners—who own 48

percent of the Nation’s forests—to better

manage, protect, and use their natural

resources. In cooperation with State

resource management agencies, the

program assists forest landowners with 

planning and implementation of riparian 

restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement,

forest stand improvement, and other aspects of sustainable forest management.

The program also assists NIPF landowners, on a voluntary, nonregulatory basis

by providing technical and financial assistance, in cooperation with States, to

develop long-term forest stewardship

plans for the management of their

forests and related sources.
Natural Resources and Environment 

| 121

The Wood in Transportation Program in FY

2001 funded six projects which were completed

and closed. Those projects were six designed

and constructed timber bridges. These projects

not only resulted in a wooden timber bridge but

also assisted in providing technical assistance to

engineers, highway officials, and others.

The Forest Stewardship Program was responsible for facilitating the development of more

than 50,000 forest management plans covering

just over 4 million nonindustrial private forest

land acres in FY 2000 and FY 2001.

Forest Legacy Program since 1992 has assisted in the protection of over 209,000 acres from

development. These lands have a value of roughly $124 million. Thirty-one States are participating in the program.

Conservation Education

“Through education, we connect people

with the land so they take informed

actions to sustain natural and cultural resources.” This is the mission of Forest

Service Conservation Education (CE). The Forest Service brings unique strengths 

to the field of conservation education. The agency is a leader in providing scientific 

knowledge through its research programs 

and outstanding opportunities for placebased learning about natural resources

on more than 192 million acres of forests

and grasslands within the National Forest System. It also provides an extensive

delivery network for CE through more

than 700 offices and 30,000 employees,

as well as with partners such as State

foresters. The Forest Service emphasizes 

delivery of CE to youth, urban populations,

and forest visitors.

In 2001, the CE program reached nearly 

4 million Americans, nearly 100,000 of

those in face-to-face educational experiences. Nearly 1 1⁄2 million people participating in Forest Service’s CE programs

and activities were students, and another 90,000 were teachers. Over 1⁄2 million

Forest visitors participated in these programs along with nearly 1 1⁄2 million

members of the general public.
122 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

The National Symbols Program: The National

Symbols Program, a part of the Conservation Education Staff, provides leadership for the Smokey Bear, Woodsy Owl,

and Junior Forest Ranger programs.

Each of these programs is designed to increase awareness and educate the general public about natural resource conservation and fire prevention.

Smokey Bear: The Smokey Bear fire prevention campaign has been managed in

partnership with the Advertising Council

and the National Association of State

Foresters for over 50 years. The Smokey

Bear program is the cornerstone of the

Forest Service’s fire prevention program.

Annual campaigns have contributed to

Smokey’s popularity both nationally and

internationally, and several other countries have adopted Smokey as their symbol for fire prevention.

In addition to speaking to elementaryschool-age children, Smokey’s message

and image are also used to generate

awareness among adults about the real

cause of fire: forest fires caused by the

people who would least expect to be the

cause of a fire, people like you. In 2001,

Smokey’s message was changed to “Only

you can prevent wildfires!” The change

helps to include non-forested areas such

as grasslands, prairies, and rangelands in

Smokey’s fire prevention campaign.

Junior Forest Ranger: In 1952, a Smokey

Bear stuffed toy sold in stores included

an application to become a Junior Forest

Ranger. The response was overwhelming.

More than 1⁄2 million children enrolled in

the program within the first 3 years. As a

result, the Junior Forest Ranger program

was established to augment and complement a fire prevention classroom program that included hands-on activities

led by teachers. Response to the program

was so enthusiastic that by 1960 Smokey

was given his own zip code to help the

postal service sort the mail generated by

Smokey Bear and the Junior Forest

Ranger programs.

Youth who participate in the Junior Forest

Ranger program receive a packet including a plastic badge, wallet card, letter, and

certificate. Junior Forest Ranger is still a

popular program, and over the next few

years, the program will be refocused to

support education about fire ecology as

well as fire prevention.

Woodsy Owl: Woodsy Owl is America’s

symbol for environmental quality, established by an Act of Congress in June 1974,

to promote wise use of the environment

and programs that foster maintenance

and improvement of environmental

quality. Woodsy’s goals and objectives

and his look have been updated to reflect today’s needs. Woodsy’s primary

audience is children from pre-kindergarten to third grade with special emphasis on outreach to nontraditional

groups, such as: Hispanics, Native Americans, and inner-city children. An innovative program called Junior Snow

Ranger has been developed as part of

the Woodsy Program to promote conservation ethics and an understanding of

winter ecology. Junior Snow Ranger was

piloted at the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games.
Natural Resources and Environment | 123

New Century of Service

The Forest Service will celebrate 100

years of service to the American public

in 2005. Through New Century of Service, the Forest Service is commemorating the many contributions that people

of the Forest Service have made to the

United States over the past 100 years,

taking the lessons the agency has

learned and applying them to continue

to provide world-class public service for

the next 100 years. New Century of Service is about the people of the agency,

celebrating service, excellence, relationships and innovation. Activities taking

place nationally, regionally, and locally

include participation in the Smithsonian

Institution’s Folklife Festival in 2005;

teaching natural resource conservation

through visual and performing arts; nurturing our commitment to communities

through a forest fire lookout project and

other activities.

Research and Development

Forestry research in the U.S. Department

of Agriculture goes back a long way. In

1876, Congress appropriated $2,000 to

the Department of Agriculture to gather

forestry information, and thus the Federal forestry research program was born.

In 1908, Gifford Pinchot established the

first research station within the newly

formed Forest Service in Fort Valley, AZ.

The Forest Products Laboratory, which

was established in Madison, WI, in 1910,

distinguished itself in meeting the Nation’s demands during two World Wars

and the housing needs of the booming

economy after that time period.

Currently, Forest Service Research and

Development has 132 laboratories in 70

locations across the country. They are

organized within 6 research stations, the

national Forest Products Laboratory, and

the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry in Puerto Rico. Of the 192 million acres of forest and rangeland managed by the Forest Service, 408,600 acres

are officially designated as Experimental

Forests.

Key Facts About Research 

and Development:

■ Research and Development develops and

maintains key databases for enhancing forest

health, productivity, and conservation, including an extensive portfolio of long-term

research databases with many more than 

60 years old.

■ About 525 permanent full-time scientists are

working on the productivity, health, and diversity of the temperate, boreal, and tropical

forests.

■ Research and Development scientists are held

to high standards of scientific ethics and many

are recognized worldwide for the quality of

their work. All four of the U.S. scientists who

received the prestigious Marcus Wallenberg

Award (the forestry equivalent of the Nobel 

prize) are research and development scientists.

■ Research and Development manages 73

experimental forests and ranges and 452 research natural areas devoted to long-term

research.

■ Research and Development works with the

National Forest System and university partners

on a network of 62 long-term soil productivity

sites across the United States and Canada with

the goal of monitoring management effects on

sustainability and productivity.

■ The Forest Service provides leadership in tropical forestry through collaborative research

programs at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of

Pacific Islands Forestry in Hawaii.

■ Scientific products in 2001 included more than

5,678 publications, including patents, computer models, videos and books, that address the

questions and needs of natural resource

managers, other scientists, and the public.

■ Collaboration with research partners through

794 domestic grants, agreements, and contracts total about $52 million of extramural

funding.

■ In 2001, the Forest Inventory and Analysis

program, including forest health detection

monitoring conducted inventory on 75 percent

of the Nation’s forest land across all ownerships in 35 States and reported status and

trends in 115 inventory and monitoring

reports.
124 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs 

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs

provide job opportunities, training, and

education for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others

with special needs, while benefiting

high-priority conservation work. In FY

2001, these programs included more

than 108,700 participants and accomplished over $115 million in conservation

work on Forest Service lands.

Through an agreement with the U.S.

Department of Labor, the Forest Service

operates 18 co-educational Job Corps

Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest

Service lands. The Forest Service has

been operating Job Corps Centers since

1965. The Job Corps program is the only

Federal residential education/training

program for the Nation’s disadvantaged

youth.

The Volunteers in the National Forests

program allows organizations and individuals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s natural

resources.

Key Facts About Volunteers 

in the National Forests: 

■ 84,508 volunteers have participated (including

80 international volunteers) 

■ $38.6 million work accomplishment 

■ 36 percent females 

■ Over 1.6 million volunteers served since the

1972 legislation

Hosted programs provide conservation

training and work opportunities on national forests or in conjunction with Federal programs. Programs are administered through agreements with State

and county agencies, colleges, universities, Indian tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations.

Key Facts About Hosted

Programs: 

■ 8,333 participants 

■ $16.3 million work accomplishment 

■ 23 percent females 

■ 29 percent minorities 

Civil Rights

The Forest Service encourages a variety

of recruitment and community capacitybuilding efforts aimed at recruiting for

permanent professional positions and

conducting program public outreach/

technical assistance to underserved

communities through Forest Service

programs, academic institutions, and

partners.

Office of International Programs

The Forest Service promotes technical

cooperation and develops support for

sustainable forest management practices worldwide. In addition, many individual research relationships exist between Forest Service researchers and

managers and their counterparts around

the world.

Key Facts About Job Corps

Civilian Conservation Centers:

■ 18 Job Corps Centers (co-educational)

■ 9,528 enrolled, ages 16-24 

■ $114.6 million budget (PAY 2000)

■ $18.3 million work accomplishment 

■ 91 percent students placed (based on participants enrolled)

■ $8.42 average starting hourly wage

■ 48 percent minorities

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is designed to

provide useful part-time employment,

work experience, training, and transition

to public and private unsubsidized employment for persons age 55 and over. A

30th anniversary celebration is being

planned for PAY 2001.

Key Facts About the Senior

Community Service Employment

Program: 

■ 5,537 older workers participated 

■ $28.4 million budget (PAY 2000)

■ $39.4 million work accomplishment 

■ Only Federal agency among 10 national

sponsors 

■ 44 percent females 

■ 29 percent placed in unsubsidized

employment (1,160 seniors)

■ $1.39 return on dollar invested

In the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC)

summer employment program, persons

aged 15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation

of the United States’ natural resources.

The agency was directed to use not less

than $2 million of agency appropriations 

for high-priority projects to be carried out

by the Youth Conservation Corps program.

Key Facts About the Youth

Conservation Corps: 

■ 891 enrollees, ages 15-18 

■ $2.2 million operating costs 

■ $2.6 million work accomplishment 

■ $1.18 return on dollar invested 

■ 42 percent females

■ 30th anniversary of operating program
Natural Resources and Environment | 125

Key Facts About the Impact 

of International Programs: 

■ Through involvement with industry, State

foresters, and major nongovernmental organizations, 12 countries forged a consensus on a

set of criteria and indicators for assessing

progress towards sustainable forest

management.

■ International collaboration on research and

monitoring help to reduce the impact of invasive pests such as the Asian gypsy moth and

hemlock woolly adelgid, which have severe

impacts on timber resources.

■ Partnerships with organizations such as 

Ducks Unlimited to restore waterfowl habitat

will increase the populations of waterfowl that

migrate to the Western and Southwestern

United States from Mexico and further south.

■ A program with the Federal Forest Service of

Russia, the State of Alaska, and U.S. companies and nongovernmental organizations will

help to ensure that Russians have access to

the best environmental technology as petroleum resources on Sakhalin Island are developed. This will promote increased employment

in Alaska and preserve salmon fisheries

around Sakhalin Island and Alaska.

Law Enforcement and Investigations

The Forest Service Law Enforcement and

Investigations (LEI) program is charged 

with providing a safe environment for the 

public and our employees on National

Forest System (NFS) lands and protecting

natural resources and other property

under the agency’s jurisdiction. Law Enforcement and Investigations cooperates 

with Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and other Forest Service

programs to achieve these goals. The LEI

staff provide high-visibility uniformed

patrol presence and prompt response to

public and employee safety incidents

and violations of law and regulation.

They conduct criminal investigations

and maintain strong relationships with

cooperating law enforcement agencies.

While the FS does not have immigration

authority, our drug enforcement authorities and other responsibilities on the

hundreds of miles of contiguous NFS

lands along both the Southwest and

Northern Border require FS and LEI personnel to maintain a steadfast vigilance

and presence in these areas.

In addition, they reduce the production 

of domestic cannabis and other controlled 

substances and smuggling of illegal

drugs through NFS lands. The National

Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986,

amended in 1988, placed primary responsibility on the Forest Service for

Federal drug enforcement on NFS lands.

Three primary drug enforcement issues

affect NFS lands: (1) marijuana cultivation, (2) methamphetamine production,

and (3) smuggling across the U.S./Mexico

and U.S./Canada borders.

Key Facts About Law

Enforcement and

Investigations—

Calendar Year 2001

■ LEI has approximately 490 uniformed officers

patrolling NFS lands nationwide and 120

criminal investigators.

■ LEI made more than a million public contacts

for a variety of reasons, such as providing

general information, obtaining information on

criminal matters, and assisting with visitors’

problems.

■ LEI personnel responded to 215,593 incidents

of violation including on- and off-road vehicles,

wilderness, fire and forest products, damage

to government property and natural resources,

as well as emergency responses such as

search and rescue.

■ LEI conducted 1,908 serious misdemeanor

and felony investigations for timber and other

forest product theft, archeological violations,

wild land fire, controlled substances, employee

threats, assaults, and other resource and

property-related crimes.

■ LEI had oversight of 172 internal and hotline

complaints against agency employees and

programs.

■ LEI entered into 527 cooperative agreements

with State and local law enforcement agencies

to provide reimbursement for enforcement of

State and local laws on NFS lands in regular

patrol functions, and 61 cooperative agreements for drug enforcement activities.

■ LEI eradicated 719,985 marijuana plants from

NFS lands.

■ LEI seized nearly 90,000 pounds of processed

marijuana being smuggled into the United

States across the southwest border.

■ LEI located 102 methamphetamine labs and

242 chemical dumpsites on NFS lands and

seized 153.5 pounds of methamphetamine.

■ Through a partnership with the Office of

National Drug Control Policy, LEI received

$500,000 for the National Marijuana Public

Lands Initiative.
126 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Introduction

As the Nation’s lead Federal agency addressing private lands conservation, the

Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) provides technical assistance and

administers a wide range of programs to 

help solve this country’s natural resource 

problems.

Our well-being depends on healthy,

productive natural resources and their

sustainable use. Just as soil, water, and 

habitat are interrelated, the programs that 

address these resources are interrelated,

and programs that help one resource also benefit others. Protecting the soil from

erosion, for example, also enhances soil

productivity and protects water and air

quality. Improving the environment enhances the economic future of communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide national leadership, in a partnership effort,

to help people conserve, improve, and

sustain the Nation’s natural resources

and environment. NRCS’ authorizing

legislation directs the agency to assist

resource owners, operators, and managers in conserving soil, water, and related resources. Conservation of natural

resources is necessary to ensure that the

Nation’s people enjoy the benefits of:

■ A productive resource base supporting

a strong agricultural sector

■ A high-quality natural environment

■ Watersheds and water supplies that

are protected against risks imposed by

weather and climate

■ A healthy economy and high quality

of life in rural communities

A Partnership Approach to 

Resource Conservation

For nearly seven decades, NRCS employees have worked side by side with

landowners, conservation districts, resource conservation and development

councils, tribes, State and local governments, and urban and rural partners to

restore and enhance the American landscape. The agency helps landowners and

communities take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, working toward an understanding of how all 

natural resources—soil, water, air, plants,

and animals—relate to each other and 

to humans. The agency works to solve

the natural resource challenges on the

Nation’s private lands—reducing soil

erosion, improving soil and rangeland

health, protecting water quality and supply, conserving wetlands, and providing

fish and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s

network of local, county-based offices,

including those in Puerto Rico and the

Pacific Basin. The rest are at State, regional, and national offices, providing

technology, policy, and administrative

support. They serve all people who live

and work on the land. Nearly threefourths of the agency’s technical assistance goes to helping farmers and

ranchers develop conservation systems

uniquely suited to their land and their

ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conserve and

protect water, and solve other resource

problems. American Indian tribes, Alaska

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other native groups work with NRCS on a variety

of initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conservation programs to fit the special needs

of their people and their land. Also,

countries around the globe seek NRCS’

advice on building their own conservation delivery systems and in coping with

severe natural resource problems.

NRCS provides locally based conservation assistance in cooperation with conservation districts through a nationwide

network of local field offices. Locally

based NRCS technical staff work directly

with individual farmers, ranchers, local

and State officials and employees, and

community groups, providing them technical, financial, and information assistance. In fiscal year 2001, NRCS provided

assistance to 2.4 million farmers, ranchers, and other customers.

Farmers, ranchers, and private 

forest landowners own and manage

two-thirds of the Nation’s land and 

are the primary stewards of our soil,

air, and water. While the cost of

stewardship on that land is borne 

by land managers, the benefits 

accrue to society at large.
Natural Resources and Environment | 127

Erosion and Sediment Control

While NRCS has cut erosion on cropland

by 38 percent between 1982 and 1997,

soil erosion continues to threaten agricultural productivity on about one-third

of our Nation’s cropland. During fiscal

year 2001, NRCS helped landowners plan 

and apply resource management systems 

on 9.5 million acres of cropland. The

agency protected 3.5 million acres of

cropland from excessive wind and water

erosion and applied erosion control

measures on 9.3 million acres of land,

resulting in reducing soil loss by 257

million tons.

Important Farmlands

Farmland, one of America’s greatest

treasures, continues to be converted to

nonagricultural uses. Between 1982 and

1997, every State lost some high-quality

farmland to urban development. According to the National Resources Inventory,

on average, 666,000 acres of prime farmland are converted each year to nonagricultural uses. This amounts to more

than 70 acres per hour each day.

NRCS, working through State, tribal, or

local government partnerships, has been

able to protect important farmland including prime, unique, statewide or locally important soils. Since 1996, NRCS

has entered into agreements in 29 States

to leverage funds to protect more than

100,000 acres of agricultural lands from

being converted to non-agricultural uses.

Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife

Wetlands provide vital wildlife habitat

and help trap nutrients and sediment

before they enter our streams. Loss of 

wetlands is still a concern; however,

landowners have begun to restore,

protect, and enhance this resource in a

serious way. Since 1992, the net loss of

wetland acreage on agricultural land has

decreased dramatically. Continuing the

reduction in net loss trend, in fiscal year

2001, wetlands were created, restored, or

enhanced on 362,000 acres with NRCS

technical and financial assistance.

NRCS Technical Assistance

NRCS provides Conservation Technical 

Assistance (CTA) to improve and conserve 

natural resources. This assistance is based

on voluntary local landowner cooperation.

CTA is the foundation upon which NRCS

delivers its services, through local conservation districts, to private landowners,

communities, and others who care for

natural resources. CTA is the intellectual

capital of the agency; experts in soils and 

other physical and biological sciences,

with knowledge of local conditions, work

with private landowners in the stewardship of our natural resources.

CTA provides the infrastructure through

which the agency is able to respond to a

multitude of needs, from natural disaster recovery to complex site-specific

natural resource problems. CTA is the

means by which this Nation is able to

voluntarily bring about land stewardship

that improves our soil, water, wildlife,

and air resources while providing for

sustainable agricultural production. The

investments in CTA return to the American public significant benefits, ranging

from an improved environment and

quality of life to a safe and abundant

food supply.
128 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

NRCS provided assistance to 2.4 million

farmers, ranchers, and other customers.

The agency earned an American Customer 

Satisfaction Index rating of 81 from a

sample of landowners who received conservation technical assistance (CTA). The

average score for all government agencies in the survey was 71. Customers

gave NRCS an extremely high rating of

90 on trust, which is measured by

whether the customer will (1) become an

advocate for CTA and (2) request services or information from the agency in the

future.

Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is

a voluntary program to restore wetlands.

Participating landowners can establish

conservation easements of either permanent or 30-year duration or can enter

into restoration cost-share agreements

where no easement is involved. In exchange for establishing a permanent

easement, the landowner receives payment up to the agricultural value of the

land and 100 percent of the restoration

costs for restoring the wetland. The 30-

year easement payment is 75 percent of

what would be provided for a permanent

easement on the same site and 75 percent of the restoration cost. The restoration cost-share agreements are for a

minimum 10-year duration and provide

for 75 percent of the cost of restoring the

involved wetlands. At the end of fiscal

year 2001, 1,074,245 acres were enrolled

in WRP.

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program

The Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP) works primarily with

locally identified significant natural resource concerns, such as soil erosion,

water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and forest and grazing

lands. Activities must be carried out

according to a conservation plan. The 

program offers financial, educational, and

technical help to install or implement

structural, vegetative, and management

practices called for in 1- to 10-year contracts. Cost sharing may pay up to 75

percent of the costs of certain conservation practices. Nationally, at least 60

percent of the funding for this program

is targeted to livestock-related natural

resource concerns and the remainder to

other significant conservation priorities.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

(WHIP) provides financial incentives to

develop habitat for fish and wildlife on

private lands. Participants agree to implement a wildlife habitat development

plan and USDA agrees to provide costshare assistance for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development 

practices. USDA and program participants 

enter into 5- to 10-year cost-share agreements. Since WHIP began in 1998, nearly

11,000 participants have enrolled more

than 1.6 million acres into the program.

In fiscal year 2001, NRCS utilized $12.5

million to enroll nearly 2,300 agreements

on nearly 212,000 acres.

Conservation Security Program 

The Conservation Security Program (CSP)

is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance for the

conservation, protection, and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and

animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal and private working

lands. The program provides payments

for producers who practice good stewardship on their agricultural lands and

incentives for those who want to do

more. CSP assistance is authorized in the

2002 Farm Bill and the program will be

available in fiscal year 2003.

Eligible producers who own or control

agricultural land may participate by submitting a conservation security plan and

entering into an agreement with USDA.

Participants must maintain or establish

conservation treatment to specific levels

of natural resource conservation protection on their land in exchange for an annual payment. Under certain conditions,

participants would be eligible for renewal of the agreement in subsequent years.

NRCS, or any other USDA-approved

source, will provide technical assistance

to the participant on the required conservation measures. Innovation and the

use of new technologies are encouraged.

Conservation achieved through the CSP

will help ensure the sustainability of

farms and ranches and improve the condition of natural resources on our Nation’s

working lands.

Farmland Protection Program

The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 

is a voluntary program that helps farmers

and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provides matching 

funds to State, tribal, or local governments 

and non-governmental organizations

with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements or other interests in land. NRCS

manages the program. In fiscal year

2001, NRCS entered into 57 cooperative

agreements with State and local governments and non-governmental organizations to protect an estimated 34,900

acres of farmland from conversion to

nonagricultural uses through the program. Through 2001, more than 108,000

acres have been protected in 28 States.

Soil Surveys

The National Cooperative Soil Survey information constitutes one of the largest

and most valuable natural resource

databases in the world. NRCS conducts

soil surveys cooperatively with other

Federal agencies, land-grant universities,

State agencies, and local units of government. Soil surveys provide the public

with local information on the uses and

capabilities of their soil resource. Soil

surveys are based on scientific analysis

and classification of the soils and are

used to determine land capabilities and

conservation treatment needs. The pub-
Natural Resources and Environment | 129

lished soil survey for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretations with explanatory information

that is the foundation of resource policy,

planning, and decisionmaking for Federal, State, county, and local community

programs. In fiscal year 2001, NRCS

mapped or updated 24.4 million acres of

soils and provided 139 soil surveys in

digital format. Soil survey mapping has 

been completed on more than 96 percent

of the Nation’s private land, 78 percent 

of American Indian lands, and 82 percent

of public lands. In addition, more than 

1,270 soil surveys have been digitized and

made available for resource assessments.

Snow Survey and Water Supply

Forecasts

NRCS field staff collect snow information through a network of 660 Snow

Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites and 1,100

manual snow courses to provide 13

Western States with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, assembled,

and analyzed to make water supply forecasts, which provide estimates of available seasonal yield, spring runoff, and

summer stream flow. In fiscal year 2001,

9,000 water supply forecasts for Federal,

State, and local water resource planning

purposes were issued to 69,000 water

users and managers. Snowmelt provides

approximately 80 percent of the stream

flow in the West. Snow data and water

supply forecasts are used by individuals,

organizations, and State and Federal

agencies to make decisions relating to

agricultural production, fish and wildlife

management, recreation, power generation, water quality management, and

emergency flood and snow safety management. Current and historical data,

water supply forecasts, and drought risk

assessments are available at:

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov 

Plant Materials Centers

NRCS employees at 26 Plant Materials

Centers assemble, test, and encourage

increased plant propagation and usefulness of plant species for biomass production, carbon sequestration, erosion

reduction, wetland restoration, water

quality improvement, streambank and

riparian area protection, coastal dune

stabilization, and to meet other special

conservation treatment needs. The work

is carried out cooperatively with State

and Federal agencies, universities, commercial businesses, and seed and nursery associations. After species are proven

effective for conservation purposes, they

are released to the private sector for

commercial production. NRCS has released nearly 540 varieties of conservation plants to commercial producers.

Nearly 250 improved varieties are now in

commercial production and used in conservation programs. In fiscal year 2001,

NRCS released 24 new conservation

plants for commercial or private use and

evaluated 424 plant material studies.

The agency also provided data to 1.2 million customers through the PLANTS

database Web site. NRCS plant information is available on the Web at:

http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov 

Small Watershed Program

The Small Watershed Program works

through local government sponsors and

helps participants solve natural resource

problems of a specific watershed. Project

purposes include watershed protection,

flood prevention, erosion and sediment

control, water supply, water quality, fish

and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watersheds of 250,000

acres or less. Both technical and financial assistance are available. In fiscal

year 2001, communities realized a total

of $1.62 billion worth of benefits from

small watershed projects.

Emergency Watershed Protection

The Emergency Watershed Protection

(EWP) Program is designed to reduce

threats to life and property in the wake

of natural disasters. It provides technical

and cost-sharing assistance. Assistance

includes establishing vegetative cover;

installing streambank protection devices; removing debris and sediment;

and stabilizing levees, channels, and gullies. In subsequent storms, EWP projects

protect homes, businesses, highways,

and public facilities from further damage. Floodplain easements under EWP

may be purchased to help prevent future

losses due to natural disasters. In fiscal

year 2001, nearly 2 million persons benefited from EWP efforts.

Watershed Operations

The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized

NRCS to administer watershed works of 

improvement. Flood prevention operations

include planning and installing improvements and land treatment measures for

flood prevention; for the conservation,

development, utilization, and disposal of

water; and for the reduction of sedimentation and erosion damages. This also

may include the development of recreational facilities and the improvement 

of fish and wildlife habitat. Activities are 

authorized in 11 specific flood prevention 

projects covering about 35 million acres 

in 11 States. In fiscal year 2001, $14 million 

was obligated to assist clients impacted

by flooding, and work plans were completed on 24 million acres. These plans

provide project implementation guidance to local sponsors.
130 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 10

Watershed Surveys and Planning

NRCS cooperates with other Federal,

State, and local agencies in conducting

river basin surveys and investigations,

flood hazard analysis, and flood plain

management assistance to aid in the development of coordinated water resource 

programs, including the development of

guiding principles and procedures. Cooperative river basin studies are made up of

agricultural, rural, and upstream water

and land resources to identify resource

problems and determine corrective actions needed. These surveys address a

variety of natural resource concerns,

including water quality improvement;

opportunities for water conservation;

wetland and water storage capacity;

agricultural drought problems; rural

development; municipal and industrial

water needs; upstream flood damages;

and water needs for fish, wildlife, and

forest-based industries. Flood plain management assistance includes the identification of flood hazards and the location

and use of wetlands. NRCS represents

USDA on river basin regional entities

and river basin interagency committees

for coordination among Federal Departments and States. In fiscal year 2001, the

total financial obligation to support locally led watershed group actions was

approximately $112 million.

Resource Conservation and

Development Program

The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program provides a framework for local people to join together to

improve their community’s economy, environment, and living standards. RC&D

areas are locally organized, sponsored,

and directed. USDA provides technical and

financial assistance and helps sponsors 

secure funding and services from Federal,

State, and local sources. The major emphasis is environmental conservation 

and rural development. To date, 368 areas 

across the Nation (plus the Caribbean

and Pacific Basin) have been designated

by the Secretary of Agriculture as RC&D

areas. They serve more than 85 percent

of U.S. counties and more than 77 percent of the U.S. population.

Each year, these locally organized and

directed areas create thousands of new

jobs, protect thousands of miles of water

bodies, conserve hundreds of thousands

of acres of land, and improve the quality

of life in hundreds of communities.

RC&D areas are run by a council of

volunteers who serve without pay. More

than 20,000 volunteers are serving on

and with RC&D councils. In fiscal year

2001, RC&Ds completed more than 3,000

projects. These resulted in 500 businesses created and 1,800 businesses expanded; 7,500 jobs created; and 5,000 miles of

streams and 880,000 acres of wildlife

habitat improved. More than 283,000

people learned new job skills and nearly

780,000 economically and socially disadvantaged people were served.

National Resources Inventory

NRCS conducts an inventory on the condition and trends of natural resources on

non-Federal land. From 1982 to 1997, the

inventory was conducted every 5 years.

Starting in 2000, NRCS began collecting

data each year. The National Resources

Inventory (NRI) contains the most comprehensive and statistically reliable data

of its kind in the world. It measures

trends in soil erosion by water and wind;

wetland losses; prime farmland acreage;

irrigation; and habitat and conservation

treatment at national, regional, State,

and sub-State levels.

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Program

The Conservation of Private Grazing

Land Program (CPGL) is a voluntary program that provides technical assistance

from NRCS to owners and managers of 

private grazing land. Private grazing land,

the largest agricultural land use, constitutes nearly half of the non-Federal land

of the United States. This vast area contributes significantly to the quantity and

quality of water available for use and

supports some of the most extensive

wildlife habitats in the Nation. NRCS

provides technical assistance to owners

and managers of private grazing land for

the long-term productivity and ecological health of grazing land. In fiscal year

2001, through CPGL, NRCS helped landowners apply resource management systems on 11.3 million acres of grazing

land and prescribed grazing on 18.6

million acres.

National Conservation Buffer Initiative

In April 1997, USDA launched a new

public-private partnership called the National Conservation Buffer Initiative to

help landowners install 2 million miles

of conservation buffers by the year 2002.

Agricultural producers and other

landowners who install buffers can improve soil, air, and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity; and create scenic landscapes.

Conservation buffers are areas or strips

of land maintained in permanent vegetation and designed to intercept pollutants. Buffers can be installed along

streams or in uplands—within crop

fields, at the edge of crop fields, or outside the margins of a field.
Natural Resources and Environment | 131

The National Conservation Buffer Initiative is a multi-year effort led by NRCS

in cooperation with other USDA agencies,

State conservation agencies, conservation 

districts, agribusinesses, and agricultural

and environmental organizations.

To date, about 1.3 million miles of buffers,

or nearly 65 percent of the national goal,

have been established under the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental

Quality Incentives Program, Wetlands

Reserve Program, and other USDA

programs.

International Programs

NRCS helps improve the management

and conservation of natural resources

globally. Participation in collaborative

efforts with other countries results in

benefits to the United States and in accomplishment of the NRCS mission.

During fiscal year 2001, NRCS specialists

completed 188 assignments to nearly 40

countries. The objectives of the assignments were to provide short- and longterm technical assistance and leadership

for the development of natural resource

conservation programs and projects and

exchange conservation technology with

countries that face soil and water conservation issues similar to those in this

country.

NRCS provided opportunities for approximately 250 foreign nationals from more

than 35 countries to gain a better understanding of natural resource conservation

activities by observing and discussing conservation programs in the United States.

Agricultural Air Quality

The Task Force on Agricultural Air

Quality makes recommendations to the

Secretary of Agriculture with regard to

the scientific basis for agriculture’s impact on air quality. The task force is

charged with strengthening and coordinating USDA air quality research efforts

to determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution and to identify cost-effective ways

in which the agricultural industry can

improve air quality.

To date, the task force has submitted to

the Secretary of Agriculture recommendations and priorities for research emphasizing the need for credible science

on which to base regulation and subsequent conservation practices for mitigation of emissions. The top three priorities

recommended are related to National

Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10,

PM2.5 and ozone, and animal waste odor.

Backyard Conservation Campaign

In 1998, NRCS developed a national

Backyard Conservation Campaign to tell

non-farm audiences about the good conservation work being done by America’s

farmers and ranchers. The campaign

features 10 common conservation practices, such as composting, mulching, tree

planting, nutrient management, and water conservation, and shows how miniature versions can work in just about any

backyard—whether measured in acres,

feet, or flower pots.

Farmers and ranchers already have

made progress in natural resource conservation by protecting and restoring

wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat,

and reducing soil erosion. There are

nearly 2 billion acres of land in the United States. Most of that land, 1.4 billion

acres, is managed by farmers and ranchers. However, more than 92 million acres

are privately developed, and much of

this land is tended by homeowners.

These homeowners can join the conservation tradition right in their own backyards to curb water pollution and improve wildlife habitat. For more

information on this campaign or agency

programs, visit the NRCS Web site at

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov 
CHAPTER 11

Research, Education, and

Economics
134 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

Agricultural Research Service 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

is the principal in-house scientific research agency of the USDA. The agency

is committed to providing access to agricultural information and developing new

knowlege and technology needed to solve

technical agricultural problems. Research

is done to ensure an abundance of highquality, safe food and other agricutural

products to meet the nutritional needs

of the American consumer, to sustain a

viable economy, and to maintain a quality environment and natural resource

base. Research is conducted at the ARS

headquarters in Beltsville, MD, as well as

throughout over 100 national laboratories in the United States.

ARS research has contributed to improved 

crop yields and more environmentally

sensitive farming techniques. In addition 

to enhancing productivity, today’s agricultural research is as much about human

health as it is about crop production.

For example, a powerful but expensive

anticancer drug could become more

plentiful, thanks to a new process developed by ARS scientists. The process

makes the drug—called taxol—from laboratory-cultured cells of its increasingly

rare natural source, the yew tree. The

new process is 100 times more productive than the original process for deriving taxol, which was patented by USDA

in 1991. Taxol is a potent chemotherapy

drug for breast, ovarian, lung, and other

cancers. Under the original process, it

took about 6,700 pounds of bark from

rare yew trees to make a pound of taxol.

ARS research is also as much about development of new products and new crop

varieties. One environmentally friendly

product now on the market grew out of

ARS research showing that adding alum

to poultry litter helps reduce runoff of

nutrients from the litter into groundwater and surface waterways. The alum reduces phosphorus runoff by 70 percent,

reduces the litter’s ammonia vapors—

ARS Research: 

Selected Highlights

ARS scientists in Peoria, IL, and in New Orleans 

and Philadelphia have found a way to extract a

health-enhancing oil from a waste byproduct

of the corn processing industry. The scientific

team started with corn fiber, a low-value

byproduct of corn milling that’s now sold as a

low-cost ingredient in cattle rations. From that

corn fiber, they’ve extracted an oil that, in tests

with hamsters, lowered total serum cholesterol levels and LDL cholesterol, the type that

clogs arteries. They’ve also extracted a second

product from corn fiber, a white gum that

could be used in a variety of products—in

food as an emulsifier, as a soluble dietary fiber

or thickener, or as industrial adhesives and

water-based paint thickeners.

ARS studies in Boston, MA, have shown that 

certain foods contain higher levels of compounds 

that could help slow the processes associated 

with aging in both body and brain. In the studies, eating plenty of foods with these beneficial 

substances, called antioxidants, raised the 

power of human blood to defuse harmful internal substances called oxidants by up to 25 percent. Fruits and vegetables found to have the 

highest amounts of these beneficial antioxidants 

were prunes, raisins, blueberries, blackberries,

kale, strawberries, spinach, raspberries,

brussel sprouts, plums, and alfalfa sprouts.

ARS research at the U.S. National Arboretum

has yielded two new elm trees resistant to 

the Dutch elm disease that has ravaged the

American elm population since the 1940s,

wiping out an estimated 77 million elms. The

two new resistant elms from ARS are called

Valley Forge and New Harmony. Also, ARS

researchers recently unveiled two new maple

trees for American streets and yards: Red

Rocket, a fiery-red maple cultivar with pest

resistance and the ability to grow where temperatures dip to –40 degrees, and New World,

which also has pest and cold resistance and is

an excellent shade tree, as well as an ideal

choice for city landscaping.

ARS research on natural resources uncovered

a reason to celebrate: American farmers have 

crossed an auspicious environmental boundary 

and begun reducing the level of atmospheric

carbon dioxide rather than adding to it. CO2 is

one of the greenhouse gases thought to cause

global warming. The ARS study showed that

U.S. farmers have shifted from being net producers of carbon dioxide to net accumulators

of carbon, in the form of valuable soil organic

matter. The changeover was due largely to

farmers’ increasing abandonment of a cherished symbol of past American agriculture, the

moldboard plow used to break up the prairies.

Instead, many farmers now leave crop residue

on or near the soil surface, where the residue

readily decays to organic matter.

For decades, USDA has battled scrapie, a fatal

brain disease of sheep and goats. Now, the

first preclinical, noninvasive test for scrapie

should be available in a few years as a result

of ARS research. Reliable diagnosis of scrapie 

is the first step to eradicating the disease, which 

would greatly improve U.S. sheep and goat export opportunities. ARS scientists discovered

that the nictitating membrane, or third eyelid,

in sheep collects proteins known as prions.

Abnormal prions are the infectious agents

believed to cause scrapie. The researchers

developed a new laboratory-built molecule,

called a monoclonal antibody, that detects the

presence of the abnormal prions. The test will

eventually allow veterinarians to detect

scrapie before animals show clinical signs.
Research, Education, and Economics | 135

which can physically damage the chickens and cause respiratory problems for

poultryhouse workers—and reduces

heavy metal runoff such as copper, zinc,

and iron by up to 50 percent. The ARSpatented technology is now used by

poultry growers across the United States

and in Canada.

On the crops side, a new potato variety 

known as AWN86514-2 is highly resistant

to attack by late blight, the disease that

caused the Irish potato famine of the

1840s. Late blight is caused by a fungus,

Phytophthora infestans. New, more aggressive strains of the fungus that are fungicide-resistant have appeared in recent

years, so breeders have been scrambling

to find potatoes with natural resistance.

The new potato held up well in tests

when attacked by the newest and most

virulent strains of the fungus. That’s

good news for consumers, because the

average American eats about 143 pounds

of potatoes a year, making potatoes the

Nation’s favorite vegetable. ARS released

the new potato in collaboration with

agricultural experiment stations in

Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

ARS research provides solutions to a wide 

range of problems related to agriculture—

problems that require the long-term

commitment of resources or that are

unlikely to have solutions with a quick

commercial payoff that would tempt private industry to do the research. These 

problems range from fighting the ongoing

battle to protect crops and livestock from

costly pests and diseases, to improving

the quality and safety of agricultural 

commodities and products for humans, to

making the best use of natural resources.

All the while, the research results must

help ensure profitability for producers

and processors while keeping down

costs for consumers.

For more information about ARS, see its

home page: http://www.ars.usda.gov 

Every aspect of the infrastructure 

and the food system it supports 

is fed, fundamentally, with 

new knowledge, through research 

and development, data collection,

and information dissemination.

National Agricultural Library

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) 

was established as part of the Department 

of Agriculture in 1862 under legislation

signed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Part of the Agricultural Research Service

(ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NAL is the largest agricultural library in the world, with a collection of

over 3.3 million items.

It is the mission of the National Agricultural Library to serve as the chief

agricultural information resource of the

United States, ensuring and enhancing

access to agricultural information for a

better quality of life.

The library serves national and international customers, including researchers,

farmers, educators, policymakers, agricultural producers, and the general public.

A key NAL goal is to become a “library

without walls,” a library whose collection

and services are available electronically

throughout the world. By adapting electronic information technology to its

needs, the library is well on its way to

meeting this goal with worldwide accessibility over the Internet.

Over 48 miles of bookshelves hold the NAL

collection. Materials in the collection include the latest electronic resources as

well as books, journals, reports, photographs, films, videotapes, maps, artwork,

and historic materials dating to the 16th

century. Tens of thousands of new items

are added each year. The collection is international in scope and includes items

in nearly 75 foreign languages.

The library is located in Beltsville, MD,

on the grounds of the ARS Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. In addition to

being the agricultural library for the

Nation, NAL is also the departmental

library for USDA, serving thousands of

USDA employees around the globe. NAL

is a key resource in USDA’s scientific and

research activities. About 170 people

work at NAL, including librarians, computer specialists, information specialists,

administrators, and clerical personnel.

Volunteers ranging from college students to retired persons work on various

programs at NAL too. The library has an
136 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

services on topics such as alternative

farming systems, animal welfare, food

and nutrition, technology transfer, rural

development, and water quality.

For walk-in visitors, the library is open

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Many of NAL’s services are

available anytime through the NAL

homepage.

NAL can be contacted at:

The National Agricultural Library

Agricultural Research Service, USDA

10301 Baltimore Avenue

Beltsville, MD 20705-2351

(301) 504-5755

E-mail: agref@nal.usda.gov 

active visiting scholar program as well,

which allows professors, scientists, and

librarians from universities worldwide to

intern at NAL on projects of mutual interest.

AGRICOLA (AGRICultural OnLine Access)

is NAL’s bibliographic database providing

access to the NAL collection. AGRICOLA

contains nearly 3.5 million citations to

agricultural literature and is available on

the Internet through the NAL home page

at http://www.nal.usda.gov. NAL provides

reference and document delivery services in all aspects of agriculture. It also includes specialized information centers

that provide customized information

NAL Selected Highlights:

■ Electronic Delivery of Documents

Expands and Preservation Plans

Developed

Working toward its goal of becoming a

“library without walls,” NAL encourages

its patrons to send requests and receive

materials electronically. Requests submitted electronically to NAL account for

about 80 percent of all document delivery

requests received. NAL has also significantly increased its electronic delivery of

materials to patrons. This number is nearly 40 percent. NAL has take the lead in

developing plans to preserve USDA electronic publications. Preservation and

long-term access of these publications

are an important issue due to the

ephemeral nature of electronic formats.

■ Dietary Supplement Database

Established

In its continuous effort to keep abreast of

key issues affecting U.S. food and nutrition, NAL, working with the National Institutes of Health, has launched an Internet

site on dietary supplements. The userfriendly database helps researchers and

consumers find current information on

the growing number of supplements

available. For more information about the

database, visit the Web site at: http://

ods.od.nih.gov/databases/ibids.html
Research, Education, and Economics | 137

Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)

sees agriculture as a knowledge-based,

global enterprise sustained by the innovation of scientists and educators. Its

mission is to advance knowledge for

agriculture, the environment, human

health and well-being, and communities.

CSREES works with land-grant universities, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic and Native

American institutions, as well as universities and other public and private organizations to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food

and agricultural sciences and in related

environmental and human sciences. Its

programs increase and provide access to

scientific knowledge, strengthen the capabilities of State universities, expand

accessibility and use of improved communication and network systems, and

promote informed decisionmaking.

CSREES links the research and education 

resources and activities of USDA, improving customer service and responsiveness 

to emerging issues and national priorities.

CSREES programs focus on improving

economic, environmental, and social

conditions in the United States and globally. These conditions include improved 

agricultural productivity and development 

of new products; safer food; cleaner water 

and air; enhanced stewardship and management of natural resources; healthier

and more responsible individuals, families, and communities; and a stable, secure, diverse, and affordable food supply.

The CSREES domestic and international

research, education, and extension networks are strengthened with partnerships that maximize resources and program impact. CSREES partners include:

■ More than 130 colleges of agriculture,

including land-grant institutions in each

State and Territory;

■ 59 agricultural experiment stations

with more than 9,500 scientists conducting research;

■ 57 cooperative extension services with

more than 9,683 local extension agent

educators working in 3,150 counties;

■ 63 schools of forestry;

■ 17 1890 historically Black land-grant

institutions and Tuskegee University; 

■ 27 colleges of veterinary medicine; 

■ 42 schools and colleges of family and

consumer sciences;

■ 31 1994 Native American land-grant

institutions; 

■ 175 Hispanic-serving institutions

■ Federal and State governments

■ Nonprofit organizations

■ Private sector

CSREES research, education, and extension leadership is provided through programs in:

■ Communications 

■ Competitive Programs

■ Economic and Community Systems

■ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

■ Information Systems and Technology

Management

■ Natural Resources and Environment

■ Office of Extramural Programs

■ Plant and Animal Systems

■ Science and Education Resource

Development

CSREES programs include:

■ Model education programs in sustainable agriculture, water quality, food safety, risk management, children and families, health, environmental stewardship,

and community economic development.

■ Higher education programs to develop

the scientific and professional expertise

needed to advance the food, agricultural,

and natural resource systems and maintain excellence in college and university

teaching programs.

■ Cooperative partnerships involving:

—over 9,600 scientists engaged in research at 59 State agricultural experiment stations, 17 1890 historically

Black land-grant colleges and universities, and Tuskegee University

—over 9,680 local extension agents

working in 3,150 counties

—over 700,000 volunteers working in the

Master Extension Volunteer programs...at a dollar value (computed at

$16.52 per hour) of $1.9 billion

—3 million trained volunteers working

with national outreach education programs

—6.8 million youth involved in 4-H programs that increase self-esteem and

enhance problem-solving skills in a

positive, support environment.

■ The National Research Initiative to

support research in the biological, physical, and social sciences to solve key agricultural and environmental problems

■ A Small Business Innovation Research

program to support high-quality research proposals containing advanced

concepts related to important scientific

problems and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to significant public

benefit if the research is successful

■ Immediate electronic access to vital

information on safety and disaster recovery during time-critical disasters,

such as hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and

terrorism.
138 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

Virginia Tech scientists have demonstrated in the laboratory that cotton gin 

waste is a suitable source for fuel ethanol.

Successful development could convert

existing gin waste, which typically gets

plowed back into the soil, into 680,000

gallons of ethanol each year. This could 

create 100 new jobs in southeast Virginia.

Large-scale testing is under way.

Roadmaps to Better Crops and Animals

Arizona researchers are halfway there 

to mapping the 50,000 genes in corn,

America’s most important crop. They are

sharing information with public and

private researchers to develop improved

traits in corn and genetically similar

crops like wheat, barley, rice, and oats.

Arkansas researchers have engineered

plants to produce two human proteins

that may be involved in the regulation of

cancer metastasis. Large-scale, low-cost

production of these two cancer-related

proteins in plants may facilitate their

practical use in early cancer diagnosis or

treatment. Farmers may become pharmaceutical producers.

Texas A&M researchers have cloned a

bull calf from cells frozen for 15 years.

The resulting calf is believed to be the

first animal specifically cloned for disease resistance. The cells used to clone

the calf are from a bull that was naturally resistant to brucellosis, tuberculosis,

and salmonellosis–infectious diseases

that can be transmitted among cattle to

humans. Breeding resistence into cattle

could reduce pathogens in meat and

milk. Ranchers who cannot afford to

vaccinate or test their herds for these 

diseases would benefit from this research.

Looking Out for the Small Farm

The CSREES Small Farm Program works

in partnership with a network of State

small farm specialists in the land-grant

university system to improve the economic viability of small farm and ranch

operators nationwide. The CSREES Small

Farm Digest newsletter targets farmers,

ranchers, and small farm specialists at

local, State, and Federal levels with information about direct marketing techniques for farm-raised goods and other

timely topics.

CSREES Highlights

New Uses for Agricultural Materials

USDA and land-grant university scientists are finding new uses for agricultural

materials of all kinds. Years of research

and development are now paying off and

scientists have successfully developed

bioplastics from corn, potato, wheat, and

rice starch. The problem with most

petroleum-based plastics, such as polystyrene, is that they don’t degrade and

are filling up landfill space. But starchbased plastic polymers are environmentally preferable because they are 

biodegradable.
Research, Education, and Economics | 139

The CSREES’ Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program

advances farming and ranching systems

that are profitable and environmentally

sound for families and communities.

SARE’s national outreach arm, the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN),

combines SARE-funded research results

with other information to produce practical publications on a variety of topics,

including marketing.

Protecting Water Quality

As a result of a widely publicized Utah

Extension program, residential water

users are measuring sprinkler pressure,

coverage, and water saturation per hour

to reduce their water consumption in

one of the fastest growing States. Utah is

the second driest U.S. State and if population growth and current water consumption continue at their present rate,

Salt Lake City could “run dry” by 2020.

An added benefit of the Utah Extension

program is that residents using it are

saving 25 percent on water bills and reducing water consumption by 50 percent.

The Fond du Lac Tribal and Community

College in Wisconsin is playing a key role

in the St. Louis River Watch Program,

which protects the watershed and improves water quality. Since 1997, the

college has supported water sampling 

in the river, using students in 21 area

schools, teacher training, and data collection. An annual conference to measure

results and encourage stewardship is held

by the college. The St. Louis River contributes significant amounts of water,

nutrients, and pollutants to Lake Superior. The river and lake are important to

the region’s water supply and recreation.

Healthier Lives Through Research 

and Education

Land-grant universities are considering

cultural differences as they address nutritional needs of different populations

as different cultures obtain nutrients in

different ways. Caucasians use milk for a

protein source. Hispanics get more calcium from cheese and beans, while Asians 

use seaweed and soy. California Extension 

specialists conduct the Expanded Food

and Nutrition Education Program

(EFNEP) for low-income Vietnamese families in five counties. A California Extension program, “Cooking for Better

Health,” helps low-income Hispanic families improve dietary practices. Program

graduates ate fewer fried foods, drank

lower fat milk, and bought lower fat

foods. Colorado Extension educators

conduct a bilingual program called “La

Cocina Saludable” (The Healthy Kitchen)

to provide Hispanic grandmothers with

nutritional information. Seventy-eight

percent surveyed made positive nutritional changes as a result of the program. Connecticut EFNEP reached 10,000

low-income Latino children and their

caretakers with a bilingual nutrition education program emphasizing the importance of eating fresh produce. Salud!,

a nutrition marketing campaign, features Latino celebrities who “toast” good

health by promoting fresh fruits and

vegetables. This program reached more

than 50,000 children at a cost of only

$1.60 per child in 2000.

Pest Management

Researchers in Delaware found that

sprays containing viruses control gypsy

moths. Producers using this pest control

technique have cut insecticide spraying

from 67,000 acres to almost zero, at a

savings of $2 million.

Local Problem Solving

Nevada land-grant specialists, in a collaboration of public and private organizations, including Nevada and California 

firefighters, are teaching homeowners

how to live more safely in a high wildfire-hazard environment. Extension specialists have developed 72 wildfire-rating

maps on various vegetation types covering 3,200 square miles for use by developers and firefighters. These include

recommendations for managing vegetation and creating a buffer zone between

houses and dry grass.

Purdue students are mentoring kids who

live in public housing by helping them

with homework and basic life skills. College students gain life experience while

helping children improve their grades.

Georgia 4-H community service club

members are helping kids to read. Participants are spending more time reading,

and their teachers are seeing improved

literacy skills.

Managing Agricultural Waste

A cooperative multi-State effort to protect the Chesapeake Bay led Maryland

researchers to promote the use of riparian buffers–areas of trees, shrubs, and

vegetation adjacent to bodies of waters

that capture pollutants before they

reach the bay. An educational video has

increased riparian awareness throughout the Chesapeake Bay area and was

distributed in all 50 States and several

foreign countries, including Germany

and Albania. This effort addresses the

problem of non-point-source pollution

from urban and rural sources as the primary cause of water quality problems in

the United States. Many States are now

combining urban and agricultural efforts

to protect water supplies.

For More Information

More information on CSREES can be

found at: http://www.reeusda.gov/
140 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

Economic Research Service

Are you a congressional staffer who wants

to know how U.S. agriculture would be

affected if China joined the World Trade

Organization (WTO)? Are you a reporter

seeking insights on future patterns of 

adoption of genetically engineered crops? 

Are you an industry analyst who has

heard the meatpacking industry has

fewer and fewer firms and wonders why

this increasing concentration occurred

and what it means? Are you looking for 

farm income and farm program payment

information to use in designing a new

safety net program for small or limitedresource farmers? Are you a nutrition

educator who wonders what Americans

eat and why they make the food choices

they do?

If so, you are in luck. These are just a few

of the many timely issues addressed by

the Economic Research Service (ERS)—

USDA’s premier source of social science

information and research. ERS conducts

social science research for a purpose. That

purpose is to build the knowledge base

for informed and effective decisionmaking on economic issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and

rural economies.

ERS publications are easy to find. They are

posted in their entirety, and summarized

for easy access to the main ideas, on the

ERS Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov

Copies are also available from the 

USDA Order Desk (1-800-999-6779 or

703-605-6220). For assistance in locating

specific publications, periodicals, or data

products, please call the ERS Information Center at (202) 694-5050 or email

service@ers.usda.gov.

Finding the Facts

Commodity Markets. What’s up and what’s

down in the crop and livestock markets?

The ERS commodity situation and outlook series includes monthly and quarterly reports containing current and

prospective information on commodity

supply, demand, and price conditions.

Annual situation and outlook yearbooks

that include historical data series on

acreage, yield, supply, domestic use, foreign trade, and price, as well as topical

articles pertinent to understanding the

U.S. and global markets, are also available. From the ERS Web site, you will find

links to situation and outlook reports for

cotton and wool, feed, fruit and tree

nuts; livestock, dairy and poultry; aquaculture; oil crops, rice, sugar and sweeteners; tobacco, vegetable and specialty

crops, and wheat. Commodity briefing

rooms can also be found on the ERS Web

site. These sites provide one-stop-shopping entrees into commodity data from

all USDA agencies.

Agricultural Trade. Are prospects bright or

dim for U.S. agricultural trade? To find

out, visit the ERS Web site where you will

find the Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade,

which offers the latest value and volume

of U.S. farm exports by commodity and

region, and also the agricultural trade

balance, import commodities, and export outlook. Or take a look at the Trade

Briefing Room, which will hook you directly into the Foreign Agricultural Trade of the

United States—a trade database that you

can search according to the commodity,

country or region, and time period that

interests you.

Farm Income and Finance. Are farmers doing

better or worse economically than in the

past? How many farmers make a living

“just farming” these days? What percentage of farm income comes from government payments? You can find the answer to these questions in the ERS
Research, Education, and Economics | 141

periodical Agricultural Income and Finance.

Issued 3 times a year, this report provides historical estimates and forecasts

of farm sector financial information that

will allow you to gauge the financial

well-being of the Nation’s farmers and

ranchers. It includes farm sector receipts, expenses, debt, assets, and costs

of producing crops and livestock. Or visit

the Farm Sector Performance Briefing Room,

where you will find links to the latest

farm income forecasts, other farm financial data, and related research reports.

Food Consumption and Prices. How much of

their personal income do Americans

spend on food these days? (Answer: 10

percent) How much of their food expenditures are on “food away from home”?

(Answer: 47 percent) For direct access to

data on retail food prices, food expenditures, and food costs, and access to numerous publications on America’s eating

habits, visit the Food Markets Briefing Room

on the ERS Web site.

Resource Trends and Indicators. How much

cropland is being lost to urban uses? The

answer—it turns out that acres in cropland have remained quite stable over

time, varying from 440 to 460 million

acres since 1945—can be found in the

ERS Land Use and Value Briefing Room. Are

farmers using more or fewer chemicals

today than in the past? For the answer to

this and many other questions about

how natural resources (land and water)

and commercial inputs (energy, nutrients, pesticides, and machinery) are used

in the agricultural sector, see the Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators

report, which is posted on ERS’ Web site.

Rural Economic Indicators. Which rural counties are experiencing population growth?

What is the median household income

in your county? What proportion of your

State’s rural jobs are in farm and farmrelated industries? Does commercial

bank restructuring impair local rural

economic growth? The Rural Development

Briefing Room provides a rich source of

information about rural population dynamics, employment change, jobs by industry, and credit and finance. You can

also learn about Federal funds going to

rural America simply by going to the ERS

Web site.

Staying on Top of Special Topics

At ERS you can get more than just the

economic facts. ERS’ unique contribution in USDA is to bring the perspective

of economic analysis to many critical issues facing farmers, agribusinesses, consumers, and policymakers. For example,

ERS can tell you the economic benefits

to society and the costs to the food industry of implementing food safety

protections. Or ERS can tell you which

sectors of the economy have gained the

most economically, and by how much,

from implementation of the North

American Free Trade Agreement. Many

special topics are highlighted on the ERS

Web Site Briefing Rooms. Among the topics covered are:

New Farm Bill Legislation. Find out what the

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act

of 2002 will mean for farmers, ranchers,

the food industry, and consumers in

America. Learn about new provisions

concerning commodity programs, rural

development, nutrition, farm credit, and

conservation.

Domestic Conservation and Environmental Policies. Find out what policy instruments

are available to encourage farmers to

adopt conservation and environmental

practices, and how effective they have

been.
142 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

reflect operators’ expectations from

farming, position in the life cycle, and

dependence on agriculture. The groups

differ in their contribution to agriculture

production, degree of specialization, extent of participation in commodity and

conservation programs, and dependence

on farm income. These (and other) differences are discussed in this report.

Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology,

ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin No.

762, March 2001. Agricultural biotechnology has been advancing very rapidly, and

while it presents many promises, it also

poses many questions. Many dimensions

to agricultural biotechnology need to be

considered to adequately inform public

policy. Policy analysis is made more difficult by the fact that agricultural biotechnology encompasses many policy issues 

addressed in very different ways. We have 

identified several key areas—agricultural

research policy, industry structure, production and marketing, consumer issues

and future world demand—where agricultural biotechnology is dramatically

affecting the public policy agenda. This

report focuses on the economic aspects

of these issues and addresses some current and timely issues as well as longer

term issues.

Household Food Security in the United States,

2000, ERS, Food and Nutrition Research

Report No. 21, March 2002. This report,

based on data from the September 2000

food security survey, provides the most

recent statistics on the food security of

U.S. households, as well as on how much

they spent on food and the extent to

which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food

assistance programs. Between 1998 and

2000, food insecurity fell by 11 percent

and hunger by 16 percent. The declines

were widespread, affecting most regions

and types of households. For the year

ending September 2000, nearly 90 percent of American households were food

secure for the entire year. The rest were

food insecure at least some time during

the year, meaning they did not always

have access to enough food for active,

healthy lives for all household members.

Food Safety. Learn that foodborne illnesses

from a few selected pathogens cost society at least $6.9 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity. Find out

what your government is doing to improve the safety of the Nation’s food

supply, and what you as a consumer can

do to keep your family’s food safe.

Food Security and Hunger. Find out that although most households (nearly 90

percent) in the United States are food

secure, during 2000 some 11 million U.S.

households (10.3 percent of total) were

food insecure—that is, they did not always have access to enough food to

meet basic needs.

World Trade Organization. Find discussions 

of the three pillars of agricultural trade

negotiations: export subsidies, domestic

support, and tariffs as well as other

trade negotiation issues. The Web site

also contains an analysis of China’s potential membership in the WTO; for example, did you predict that the largest

increases in China’s agricultural imports

after full accession are likely to be for

corn ($587 million), wheat ($543 million),

and cotton ($359 million)?

Research Reports: Indepth

Understanding of Complex Issues 

ERS underpins its contributions to understanding the topics of the day with

peer-reviewed social science research.

The results of many research projects

are published as ERS research reports as

well as in professional journals. All ERS

reports are available in PDF format on 

the ERS Web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov.

The following is a selection of indepth

research reports published in 2001: 

Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, ERS, WRS No. 01-1, May

2001. Higher income, urbanization, other 

demographic shifts, improved transportation, and consumer perceptions regarding 

quality and safety are changing global

food consumption patterns. Shifts in

food consumption have led to increased

trade and changes in the composition of

world agricultural trade. Given different

diets, food expenditure and food budget

responses to income and price changes

vary between developing and developed

countries. In developing countries, higher income results in increased demand

for meat products, often leading to increased import of livestock feed. Diet diversification and increasing demand for

better quality and labor-saving products 

have increased imports of high-value and 

processed food products in developed 

countries. Consumer groups in developed

countries have also brought attention to

organic production of food and the topic

of animal welfare. One way in which the

public and private sectors have responded to consumer demand for these quality attributes has been by developing and

implementing mandatory and voluntary

quality control, management, and assurance schemes.

Structural and Financial Characteristics of

U.S. Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report , ERS,

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 768,

May 2001. Family farms vary widely in

size and other characteristics, ranging

from very small retirement and residential farms to establishments with sales

in the millions of dollars. The farm

typology developed by ERS categorizes

farms into groups based on the primary

occupation of the operator and sales

class of the farm. The typology groups
Research, Education, and Economics | 143

How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Taxes Affect Farmers?, ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 751-02, March 2002.

Concern among policymakers that the

Federal estate tax might force the liquidation of some family farms has resulted

in the enactment of a variety of special

provisions over the years. Providing relief

to farmers and other small business

owners was the primary impetus for the

1997 changes to Federal estate and gift

tax policies and a major objective of the

2001 law that will phase out and eventually repeal the Federal estate tax. While

only about 4 percent of all farm estates

owe Federal estate taxes, a much larger

percentage of farm estates must file an

estate tax return, make use of special

farm provisions, alter their business

practices, or engage in costly estate

planning to reduce the impact of the

estate tax on their farm business. Thus,

the phaseout and repeal of the Federal

estate tax will affect a much broader

group of farmers than just those who

owe tax.

What Does ERS Look Like?

Located in Washington, D.C., ERS has approximately 500 employees. The agency’s

work is structured among three program

divisions: Food and Rural Economics,

Market and Trade Economics, and Resource Economics.

For more information about the agency,

visit the ERS Web site: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov

National Agricultural Statistics Service

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), “The Fact Finders for U.S.

Agriculture,” is USDA’s official source of

comprehensive agricultural statistics.

The only way to “tell the story” of the

phenomenal success of American agriculture is by having data available that

measure productivity.

The NASS mission is to provide timely,

accurate, and useful statistics in service 

to U.S. agriculture. These statistics are not

only important to tell the success story 

of American agriculture, but they are vital 

to support the efficient handling and

marketing of commodities in today’s

global market. This mission, which

serves both producers and consumers by

allowing for informed decisions, is accomplished through the collection and

dissemination of official USDA statistics

through weekly, monthly, quarterly, and

annual surveys and the 5-year census of

agriculture.

Agricultural statistics have been vital to

providing for stable markets and serving

public interests since 1791, when George

Washington personally conducted the 

Nation’s first agricultural survey and compiled the results. Seventy-two years later,

in 1863, the newly established USDA,

named the “People’s Department” by its

founder, Abraham Lincoln, issued the

first USDA crop report.

Why Are Ag Statistics Important?

Besides helping producers get a fair

market price for the goods produced on

their farms and ranches, agriculture statistics help Americans plan for a future

sustained by a safe and secure food supply. The data allow a growing multitude

of people from various sectors of the

agricultural industry to make decisions

affecting agriculture that are based on

fact, not opinion. NASS has successfully

met many challenges over the last 138

years to provide data to meet the changing demands of data users. These data

are geared toward producers to help

them plan planting, feeding, breeding,

and marketing programs. Other major

uses of these statistical data include the

following: 

Associated with, but distinct from,

scientific research and development 

is the continued need for public sector

provision of objective, consistent data

and information to level the basis 

for decisionmaking among participants

in the food and agricultural system.
144 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 11

Other estimates are based on surveys of

grain elevators, hatcheries, and other

agribusinesses, and on administrative

data such as slaughter records. Their

voluntary cooperation is absolutely vital

to a workable and meaningful statistical

program. The success of this cooperative

relationship can be attributed to producers’ recognition of the importance of the

survey results and to the confidential

treatment NASS accords all reported information. Other estimates are based on

surveys of grain elevators, hatcheries,

and other agribusinesses, and on administrative data such as slaughter records.

In addition, NASS relies on actual field

counts and measurements for some crop

forecasts.

Data collected from these varied sources

are summarized by the NASS State Statistical Offices and then sent to the

Agency’s Agricultural Statistics Board in

Washington, DC, whose members determine and issue State and national official statistics. Reports are released to the

public according to a published calendar.

A Model of Federal–State Cooperation

The NASS network of 45 State Statistical

Offices, serving all 50 States, and the

Puerto Rico Field Office operate through

cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture or universities.

This enables NASS to be responsive to

“grassroots” data needs, while eliminating duplication of effort and ensuring

statistical products are consistent with

national-level standards.

■ Producers and buyers rely on timely,

accurate data to conduct business on an

even playing field, within a market place

where price is determined by real facts

rather than speculation and rumors.

■ Farm organizations and government

use these sound statistics to resolve environmental issues, rather than basing

decisions on worst-case scenarios.

■ Exporters of American farm products

rely on accurate supply information.

■ Producers use the data to determine

emerging markets for new and existing

commodities or to decide when to

change their enterprises.

■ Transportation and storage companies

rely on the statistics to efficiently move

agricultural products to market.

■ Suppliers use the data to allocate the

necessary inputs farmers need to grow

their crops or raise livestock.

■ Local and Federal government policymakers rely on accurate data to address

natural disasters, crop insurance, and

depressed farm prices.

■ Other USDA agencies use the statistical data to accomplish important programs for the Department, whether it be

carrying out agricultural policy concerning farm program legislation, commodity

programs, agricultural research, or rural

development.

Statistics Based Primarily on 

Producer Reports

Most estimates are based on information gathered from producers surveyed

through personal and telephone interviews or through mailed questionnaires.
Research, Education, and Economics | 145

What Data Are Available?

Current Ag Surveys

An abundance of current and historical

agricultural information, covering 120

crops and 45 livestock items across the

50 States, is available from NASS’ 400

national reports and 9,000 State reports

on topics including: 

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and

grain stocks;

■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry production and prospects;

■ Chemical use in agriculture, including

post-harvest applications on selected

crops;

■ Labor use and wage rates;

■ Farms and land in farms; and,

■ Prices, costs, and returns.

In addition to the information above,

statistics on more specialized commodities including hop stocks, mink, cherries,

cranberries, lentils, and peppermint oil

are also available. Enhanced statistics

for the nursery, equine, and aquaculture

industries have been enthusiastically received by data users.

2002 Census of Agriculture

You Make it Known—Agriculture Counts!

Thanks to America’s farmers and ranchers

who supply the answers needed to produce a

reliable, accurate, and timely picture of our

Nation’s agriculture.

The above slogan carries an important

message to over 2 million farms and

ranches across America, as the National

Agricultural Statistics Service began the

enormous task for the Department of

Agriculture of the mailout of the census

of agriculture questionnaires in December 2002. Farmers and ranchers, the cornerstone of the Nation’s food and fiber

system, are the only ones who can provide the information needed to compile

the 5-year complete accounting of American agricultural production demographics, structure, economics, and other

characteristics.

Response to the 2002 Census of Agriculture is required by law (Title 7, U.S. Code)

to ensure all operations, large and small,

are properly counted and represented.

That same law requires that individual

producer information is safeguarded and

strictly confidential. High-quality census

data depend on a complete response

from everyone receiving a form.

Results from the 2002 Census of Agriculture will be released on the NASS Web

site (www.usda.gov/nass/) in early February

2004. The census of agriculture is the only source for uniform, comprehensive

agricultural data for every county in the

Nation.

What Will the Picture Reveal for 2002?

The 2002 Census of Agriculture will give

us a complete statistical picture of

America’s diverse farming and ranching

industry, and it will help provide

new information to analyze trends.

The Census of Agriculture results provide data on the number of farms, land

in farms, land use and ownership, operator characteristics, crops, machinery and

equipment, livestock, fertilizer, poultry,

chemicals, market value of products, irrigated land, production expenditures,

type of organization, farm programs, and

corporate structure. Data are also published for Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin

Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands,

and the American Samoa.

Where Can You Find Current Survey

and Census of Agriculture Data?

NASS reports are released at scheduled

times on the Internet, in print, and on

CD-ROM. All census and survey reports

are accessible free of charge from the

NASS Web site at www.usda.gov/nass/. You

can also find census of agriculture data

through local NASS State Statistical Offices, depository libraries, universities,

and other State government offices. For

questions, contact the Agricultural Statistics Hotline at 800-727-9540.
CHAPTER 12

Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs
148 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

Agricultural Marketing Service

When you visit the grocery store, you

know you’ll find an abundance and variety of top-quality produce, meats, and

dairy products. If you’re like most people, you probably don’t give a second

thought to the marketing system that

brings that food from the farm to your

table. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketing

system makes it possible to pick and

choose from a variety of products, available all year around, tailored to meet the

demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of

people—from grower to retailer—make

this marketing system work. Buyers,

traders, scientists, factory workers,

transportation experts, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, advertising firms—in

addition to the Nation’s farmers—all

help create a marketing system that is

unsurpassed by any in the world. And

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading,

Quality Standards, and Certification

Wherever or whenever you shop, you

expect good, uniform quality and reasonable prices for the food you purchase.

AMS quality grade standards, grading,

certification, auditing, inspection, and

laboratory analysis are voluntary tools

that industry can use to help promote

and communicate quality and wholesomeness to consumers. Industry pays

for these services and since they are voluntary, their widespread use by industry

indicates they are valuable tools in helping market their products.

In the grocery store, USDA quality grade

marks are usually seen on beef, lamb,

veal, chicken, turkey, butter, and eggs.

For many other products, such as fresh

and processed fruits and vegetables, the

grade mark isn’t always visible on the retail product. For these commodities, the

grading service is used by wholesalers,

and the final retail packaging may not

include the grade mark. However, quality

grades are widely used—even if they are

not prominently displayed—as a “language” among traders.

Grading is based on standards, and standards are based on measurable attributes that describe the value and utility

of the product. Beef quality standards,

for instance, are based on attributes

such as marbling (the amount of fat interspersed with lean meat), color, firmness, texture, and age of the animal, for

each grade. In turn, these factors are a

good indication of tenderness, juiciness,

and flavor of the meat—all characteristics important to consumers. Prime,

Choice, and Select are all grades familiar

to consumers of beef.

Standards for each product describe the

entire range of quality for a product, and

the number of grades varies by commodity. There are eight grades for beef,

and three each for chickens, eggs, and

turkeys. On the other hand, there are 45

grades for cotton, 32 grade standards

and specifications for dairy products,

and more than 312 fruit, vegetable, and

specialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS program has six user-funded laboratories

performing numerous microbiological,

chemical, and physical analyses on a host 

of food and fiber commodities, including

processed dairy products, meat, poultry,

egg products, and fruits and vegetables.

This testing supports AMS purchases for

the National School Lunch Program and

other domestic feeding programs, troop

ration specifications for the Department

of Defense, export of U.S. food to foreign

countries, laboratory quality control and

assurance programs, and testing for aflatoxin in peanut products.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA)

services that include Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International Organization for Standardization

(ISO)-based programs. These programs

ensure and document that companies’

operations are in compliance with provisions of contracts and/or their own standards and procedures. QA services are

voluntary, hourly-fee-based, and valueadded. HACCP concepts and procedures

have been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences for application

in the food industry, and ISO procedures

U.S. agriculture successfully delivers

abundant, affordable, safe, and

nutritious food to markets worldwide.

Nothing has been more important 

to this success than an extensive

physical and institutional

infrastructure–in effect, the backbone 

of the food and agricultural system.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 149

are becoming an international norm for

some processes.

One such service AMS has developed is

the Process Verification Program, which

provides livestock and meat producers,

along with other businesses in the agricultural industry, an opportunity to assure customers of their ability to provide

consistent quality products by having

their written manufacturing processes

confirmed through independent, thirdparty audits. AMS Process Verified suppliers are able to have marketing claims,

such as breed, feeding practices, or other

raising claims verified by the USDA and

marketed as “USDA Process Verified.”

AMS’ Dairy Programs conducts comprehensive evaluations of dairy and related

products, manufacturing plant facilities,

and equipment to assure their eligibility

to receive grading service and display

the grade shield on products. Associated

with this service is a sanitary design

evaluation service for processing equipment. Under this service, processors can

have the sanitary aspects of the design

and the cleanability of a machine or

process evaluated prior to installation in

their facility. A similar service is also offered by AMS for the meat and poultry

industry.

Spreading the News

Farmers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers across the country rely on AMS

Market News for up-to-the-minute information on commodity prices and shipments. Market News helps industry

make the daily critical decisions about

where and when to sell, and what price

to expect. Because this information is

made so widely available, farmers and

those who market agricultural products

are better able to compete, ensuring consumers a stable and reasonably priced

food supply.

In 2001, AMS launched the Livestock

Mandatory Price Reporting (LMPR) program as required by the Livestock

Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.

As a leading example of electronic government in USDA, the LMPR program requires packers to electronically submit

purchase and sale information to AMS.

The resulting data, reported by AMS,

supplies the agricultural industry with

multiple daily and weekly reports covering new transaction data for slaughter

cattle, swine, lamb, beef and lamb meat.

Overall, AMS Market News reporters

generate approximately 700 reports each

day, collected from more than 100 U.S.

locations. Reports cover local, regional,

national, and international markets for

dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, eggs,

grain, fruit, vegetables, tobacco, cotton,

and specialty products. Weekly, biweekly,

monthly, and annual reports track the
150 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

Buying Food: Helping Farmers,

School Children, and Needy Persons

AMS serves both farmers and those in

need of nutrition assistance through its

commodity procurement programs. By

purchasing wholesome, high-quality

food products that are in abundance,

AMS helps provide stable markets for

producers. The Nation’s food assistance

programs benefit from these purchases,

because these foods go to low-income

individuals who might otherwise be unable to afford them.

Some of the programs and groups that

typically receive USDA-purchased food

include: children in the National School

Lunch, Summer Camp, and School

Breakfast Programs; Native Americans

participating in the Food Distribution

Program on Indian Reservations; older

Americans through the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; and low-income

and homeless persons through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and

the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

In addition, USDA helps provide disaster

relief by making emergency purchases of

commodities for distribution to disaster

victims.

Pesticides: Information and Records

The U.S. food supply is one of the safest

in the world, but the public is still concerned about the effects of agricultural

pesticides on human health and environmental quality. The Pesticide Data

Program (PDP), which is administered by

AMS, provides statistically reliable information on chemical residues found on

agricultural commodities such as fresh

and processed fruits and vegetables,

grain, and milk. PDP is a Federal-State

partnership where 10 participating

States using uniform procedures collect

and test these commodities. The information gained helps form the basis for

conducting realistic dietary risk assessments and evaluating pesticide tolerances as required by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. The Environmental Protection Agency uses PDP data to

address reregistration of pesticides.

longer range performance of cotton,

dairy products, poultry and eggs, fruits,

vegetables, specialty crops, livestock,

meat, grain, floral products, feeds, wool,

and tobacco. Periodically, AMS issues

special reports on such commodities as

olive oil, pecans, peanuts, and honey.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 151

Helping Farmers Promote Their

Products

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the

Fabric of Our Lives,” “Beef...It’s What’s

for Dinner,” “Got Milk?, “If It Ain’t Eggs,

It Ain’t Breakfast.” If you’ve watched television or read magazines lately, you’ve

probably heard or read these slogans

and others for a host of agricultural

commodities. All of these promotional

campaigns are part of the Research and

Promotion Programs that AMS oversees.

Federal research and promotion programs, authorized by Federal legislation,

are designed to strengthen the industry’s

position in the marketplace and to

maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets. The programs are all fully

funded by industry assessments. Board

members are nominated by industry and

appointed officially by the Secretary of

Agriculture. AMS oversees the activities

of the boards or councils and approves

budgets, in order to assure compliance

with the legislation.

Currently, there are research and promotion programs for beef, lamb, pork, cotton,

fluid milk, dairy products, eggs, honey,

mushrooms, potatoes, soybeans, watermelons, popcorn, peanuts, and cultivated blueberries.

But, while advertising is one part of

these programs, product research and

development is also a major focus.

Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-fat

dairy products are just two examples 

of how these programs have benefited

consumers and expanded markets for

producers.

Marketing Orders: Solving Producers’

Marketing Problems

Marketing agreements and orders help

dairy, fruit, and vegetable producers

come together to work at solving marketing problems they cannot solve individually. Marketing orders are flexible

tools that can be tailored to the needs of

local market conditions for producing

and selling. But, they are also legal instruments that have the force of law,

with USDA ensuring an appropriate balance between the interests of producers

looking for a fair price and consumers

who expect an adequate, quality supply

at a reasonable price.

Federal milk marketing orders, for example, establish minimum prices that milk

handlers or dealers must pay to producers for milk, depending on how that milk

is used—whether fluid milk, ice cream,

cheese, or other storable product. Federal milk orders help build more stable

marketing conditions by operating at the

first level of trade, where milk leaves the

farm and enters the marketing system.

They are flexible in order to cope with

market changes. They assure that consumers will have a steady supply of

fresh milk at all times.

Marketing agreements and orders also

help provide stable markets for fruit,

vegetable, and specialty crops like nuts

and raisins, to the benefit of producers

and consumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having to 

market whatever happens to be produced.

A marketing order may help an industry

smooth the flow of crops moving to market, to alleviate seasonal shortages and

gluts. In addition, marketing orders help

maintain the quality of produce being

marketed; standardize packages or containers; and authorize advertising, research, and market development. Each

program is tailored to the individual industry’s marketing needs.

Ensuring Fair Trade in the Market

AMS also administers several programs

that ensure fair trade practices among

buyers and sellers of agricultural

products.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities

Act (PACA) program promotes fair trading in the fresh and frozen fruit and vegetable industry. Through PACA, buyers

and sellers are required to live up to the

terms of their contracts, and procedures

are available for resolving disputes outside the civil court system.

Fruit and vegetable buyers and sellers

need this assurance because of the highly perishable nature of their products.

Trading in produce is considerably different than trading for a car, a computer,

or even grain. When a vegetable grower

doesn’t get paid, the product usually

can’t be reclaimed before it spoils—or

before it has already been consumed.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protects

everyone who buys seed by prohibiting

false labeling and advertising of seed in

interstate commerce. The FSA also complements State seed laws by prohibiting

the shipment of seed containing excessive noxious weed seeds. Labels for agricultural seed must state such information as the kinds and percentage of seed

in the container, percentages of foreign

matter and weed seeds, germination percentage and the date tested, and the

name and address of the shipper. USDA

also tests seed for seedsmen and seed

buyers on a fee-for-service basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides

intellectual property rights protection to

breeders of plants that reproduce both

sexually, that is, through seeds, and

through tubers. Developers of new plant

varieties can apply for certificates of protection. This protection enables the

breeder to market the variety exclusively

for 20 years and, in so doing, creates an

incentive for investment in the development of new plant varieties. Since 1970,

AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has

issued more than 5,000 certificates of

protection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allows

farmers to file complaints with USDA if a

processor refuses to deal with them because they are members of a producers’

bargaining or marketing association. The

Act makes it unlawful for handlers to

coerce, intimidate, or discriminate

against producers because they belong

to such groups. USDA helps to institute

court proceedings when farmers’ rights

are found to be so violated.

The Shell Egg Surveillance Program protects consumers and producers from 

those who would pack eggs for consumers 

with more low-quality shell eggs, such

as dirty, cracked, and leaking eggs, than

permitted by U.S. Consumer Grade B

standards. Producers that would do so,

intentionally or otherwise, are able to

gain a financial advantage over other
152 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

jects include research on innovative

marketing techniques, taking those research findings into the marketplace to

“test market” the results, and developing

State expertise in providing service to

marketers of agricultural products. In FY

2001, the FSMIP funded 34 projects in 25

States for nearly $1.35 million.

Efficient Transportation for Agriculture

An efficient transportation system allows

consumers access to a wide variety of

agricultural products and commodities

produced beyond their own localities.

AMS, through its Transportation and

Marketing Programs, conducts research

and issues periodic reports on the logistical requirements and constraints involved in transporting and distributing

U.S. agricultural products to destination

markets by railroads, trucks, inland

barges, and ocean vessels, and monitors

the adequacy of existing infrastructure

to support efficient commerce. The research reports provided by AMS transportation and marketing specialists are

designed to help agricultural growers,

processors, shippers, and exporters respond more effectively to emerging

changes in both the domestic and international marketplace and are specifically targeted to help the smaller grower,

processor, shipper, or exporter who may

lack easy access to relevant market data

and research. AMS also provides funding

to academic institutions and nonprofit

organizations for the purpose of investigating alternative marketing channels

for agricultural items produced by limited-resource farmers and processors.

Produce Locally, Think Globally

Agricultural product markets are increasingly international in scope, and

AMS is a strong partner in enhancing the

competitiveness of American agriculture. AMS’ roles include quality grading

and certification for export marketings,

reporting international market news,

and participation in trade-oriented international forums that develop international agricultural product standards.

Grading involves determining whether a

product meets a set of quality standards.

Certification ensures that contract speciproducers who do not. When mixed in

with high-quality eggs, these low-quality

eggs can be sold at a higher price, instead of being diverted for production of

liquid and frozen egg products. Also consumers suffer by receiving lower quality

eggs at high-quality prices.

Organic Certification

AMS is responsible for implementing

and overseeing the organic certification 

program. The final rule containing national standards for production, handling,

and labeling of organic agricultural products was published in December 2000.

The final rule went into effect October

2002. Consumers can now be assured

that all organic food sold in the United

States meets the same high standards

and the new labels will help them to

know the organic content of the food

they buy.

Consumers should also look for the

USDA Organic Seal, which may appear

on all food, processed or raw, that is at

least 95 percent organic.

Direct Marketing and Market

Development

AMS continually seeks ways to help

farmers and marketers improve the U.S.

food marketing system. For example,

AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds on a competitive basis to State

Departments of Agriculture or other

State agencies to conduct studies or develop innovative approaches to the marketing of agricultural products. The aim

of the program is to improve the marketing system or identify new market opportunities for producers, ultimately

benefitting consumers through lower

food costs and more food choices. Pro-
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 153

fications have been met—in other words,

that the buyer receives the product in

the condition and quantity described by

the terms of the contract. AMS commodity graders frequently support other

USDA agencies involved in export assistance, including the Farm Service Agency

and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

U.S. companies often request certification

services when exporting to a country

that has specific import requirements.

Certification services provided by AMS

help avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reaches

its foreign destination. Delays lead to

product deterioration, shipper losses,

and, ultimately, affect the image of U.S.

quality. AMS’ Quality Systems Verification Program, a user-funded service for

the meat industry, provides independent,

third-party verification of a supplier’s

documented quality management system. The program was developed to promote world-class quality and to improve

the international competitiveness of U.S.

livestock and meat. AMS also certifies

that all dairy products exported to the

European Union (EU) meet the requirements of a trade agreement between the

United States and the EU.

AMS provides laboratory testing for

exporters of U.S. food commodities on a

fee basis in keeping with sanitary and

phytosanitary requirements of foreign

countries. To date, this service has been

requested by exporters of products destined for Japan, South Korea, and other

Pacific Rim countries, South Africa, European Union member countries, and

countries of the former Soviet Union.

AMS also provides a seed testing service

used by U.S. seed exporters. Seed analysis certificates containing test results

have been issued for seed exported to

more than 50 countries.

For selected fruits, vegetables, nuts (including peanuts), and specialty crops,

the grading of imports is mandatory. For

the most part, however, firms importing

agricultural products into the United

States use grading services voluntarily.

AMS graders are also often asked to

demonstrate commodity quality to

foreign firms and governments.

In addition to export grading and certification services, AMS Market News offices

provide information on sales and prices

of both imports and exports. Today, U.S.

market participants can receive market

information on livestock and meat from

Venezuela, New Zealand, Japan, Poland,

and other Pacific Rim markets, Mexico,

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand;

poultry from Canada, Mexico, Japan,

Germany, and the Netherlands; fruits,

vegetables, and ornamentals from Argentina, Bulgaria, France, Canada, Chile,

Columbia, the Caribbean Basin, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, The

Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, and

Spain; dairy products from Eastern and

Western Europe and Oceania; and a host

of products from Ukraine, Kazakhstan,

and Russia.

For More Information

Additional information is available at

http://www.ams.usda.gov
154 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service: Protecting Agricultural Health

and Productivity

Why are the farmers and ranchers of the

United States able to produce so much

food for the tables of America’s consumers?

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But

one key to this plentiful supply of food

can be summed up in a single phrase:

“Healthy crops and livestock.”

And this is no accident. America’s agricultural health is a result of a team effort—good husbandry by farmers and

ranchers plus an organized effort to exclude foreign pests and diseases and

control and eradicate those agricultural

threats that make their way past our

defenses.

If agriculture is the foundation of manufacture and commerce, there is perhaps

no greater mission than making sure

that foundation remains healthy and

strong. With the advent of free trade initiatives, a global network of countries

has agreed that valid agricultural health

concerns—not politics nor economics—

are the only acceptable basis for trade

restrictions. In this environment, our

country’s agricultural health infrastructure will be our farmers’ greatest ally in

seeking new export markets.

Safeguarding U.S. Agriculture

Agriculture, America’s biggest industry 

and its largest employer, is under constant 

threat of attack by invasive species. Invasive species are countless and often microscopic, and they gain access to our

country in surprising ways. Their potential allies are every traveler entering the

United States and every American business importing agricultural products

from other countries.

Invasive species are nonindigenous

organisms that cause, or are likely to

cause, harm to the economy, the environment, plant and animal health, or

public health if introduced into the

country. Organisms considered to be invasive species can include terrestrial or

aquatic plants, animals, and disease

agents. The estimated economic harm to

the United States from these biological

invaders runs in the tens of billions of

dollars and may exceed $120 billion

annually.

Problems associated with invasive

species are national in scope and are becoming more and more widespread. For

instance, conservation experts estimate

that an average of 3 million acres of land

throughout the United States are lost to

invasive plants each year.

While the United States faces an everincreasing challenge in managing invasive species that are currently thriving

across our Nation, preventing the introduction of new invasive species also has

become more challenging in today’s

global environment. Worldwide opportunities for international commerce and

travel have reached unprecedented levels. Unfortunately, this global activity

has increased greatly the number of

pathways for the movement and introduction of foreign, invasive agricultural

pests and diseases.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) historically has worked

hard to safeguard American agricultural

resources and prevent damage to our

natural ecosystems from the introduction and establishment of those invasive

species that threaten the health and vitality of domestic plants and animals.

Over the last several years, APHIS has refined and modernized its agricultural

safeguarding system, especially at U.S.

border crossings and other international

ports of entry. This system is a combination of regulatory, inspection, and antismuggling programs designed to keep

plant and animal products that could

carry pests or diseases out of the United

States. Since the outbreak of foot-andmouth disease in Great Britain in 2001,

APHIS has hired additional inspection

personnel at major U.S. ports of entry

and ensured heightened vigilance

against this disease and other serious

pest and disease risks to U.S. agriculture.

Science, technology, and

intergovernmental cooperation are key

to keeping crop and animal pests 

and diseases out of the United States,

and to managing the pest and disease

challenges we face inside our borders...

Invasive crop insects, weeds,

and diseases are particularly elusive 

in this age of extensive 

international trade.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 155

APHIS has also further intensified

agency biosecurity efforts as a result of

the events of September 11, 2001. In 

combination with earlier efforts to bolster 

the Nation’s defenses against foot-andmouth disease (FMD), APHIS, now more

than ever, is confident in its ability to detect and respond to the accidental or intentional introduction of animal or plant

pest and diseases. Below is a summary

of the numerous short- and long-term

measures APHIS has taken to strengthen

its infrastructure and safeguarding 

programs.

■ By the close of fiscal year (FY) 2003,

APHIS intends to have increased its safeguarding personnel to approximately

3,870, a 50-percent increase over FY 2000

hiring levels.

■ Starting in FY 2001, APHIS hired 18 additional veterinarians to its comprehensive agricultural quarantine inspection

program to strengthen the United States’

agriculture infrastructure.

■ The early detection of smuggled agricultural products that may contain foreign pests or diseases is also extremely

important. In order to ensure this detection takes place and pathways are immediately shutdown, APHIS created the

Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance unit. APHIS employs 92 Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance

officers and supervisors.This unit conducts approximately 20 blitzes, or intensified inspections, at U.S. ports of entry

each year.

■ To formalize a method for activating

private veterinarians across the country

to assist with a foreign animal disease

outbreak, APHIS has created a National

Animal Health Reserve Corps. This organization is currently made up of more

than 275 private veterinarians from

around the United States who would become temporary Federal employees to

assist APHIS veterinarians in field and

laboratory operations during a foreign

animal disease situation.

■ In late September 2001, APHIS provided 

nearly $2 million to 32 States to bolster

emergency animal disease prevention,

preparedness, response, and recovery

systems. Funding provided will be used

for training, purchasing equipment, and

conducting exercises to simulate animal

health emergencies.

Two key pieces of legislation recently

passed into law have also augmented

APHIS’ authority—and ability—to safeguard U.S. agriculture. The Plant Protection Act of 2000 and the Animal Health

Protection Act of 2002 provide greater

protection for our Nation’s agricultural

commodities.

The Plant Protection Act gives APHIS new 

tools for enforcing the plant quarantine

laws by establishing more effective deterrents against smuggling. Agency officials can now assess larger fines, secure

subpoenas, and prosecute serious offenders in Federal Court. In addition, an

amendment to the Plant Protection Act

under the 2002 Farm Bill provides for a

felony provision, which increases criminal penalties from misdemeanors to

felonies if an individual knowingly imports, enters, exports, or moves for distribution or sale in violation of the Act.

Congress passed the Animal Health

Protection Act as part of the 2002 Farm

Bill. The Act consolidates more than 20

animal quarantine and related laws. In

addition, it increases APHIS’ authority to

deter people from deliberately bringing

into the United States prohibited animals, animal products, and even animal

disease agents. The maximum fines for

deliberate violations of APHIS’ import

regulations have increased from $1,000

per violation to $50,000 per violation 

for individuals and up to $500,000 for

companies.

In addition to its safeguarding mission,

APHIS also helps facilitate trade by ensuring that both U.S. agricultural products exported throughout the world and

foreign agricultural imports are free of

plant and animal pests and diseases. In

fiscal year 2000, APHIS helped to resolve

67 foreign trade disputes that centered

around plant and animal health issues.

These efforts, in turn, permitted trade to

occur worth over $2.5 billion to U.S.

farmers and producers.

The Components of APHIS’

Safeguarding System

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Many passengers entering the United

States do not realize that one piece of

fruit packed in a suitcase has the potential to cause millions of dollars in damage to U.S. agriculture. Forbidden fruits

and vegetables can carry a whole range

of invasive plant diseases and pests.

Oranges, for example, can introduce

diseases like citrus canker or pests like

the Mediterranean fruit fly.

Similarly, sausages and other meat products from many countries can contain

animal disease organisms that can live

for many months and even survive processing. Meat scraps from abroad could

end up in garbage that is fed to swine. If

the meat came from animals infected

with a disease, such as African swine

fever or hog cholera, it could easily be

passed to domestic swine, and a serious

epidemic could result. An outbreak of

African swine fever in U.S. hogs would

drive up the price of pork to consumers,

cost hundreds of millions of dollars to

eradicate, and close many U.S. export

markets.

APHIS safeguards U.S. borders against

the entry of foreign agricultural pests

and diseases. At 187 U.S. ports of entry,

about 3,300 Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) employees inspect international conveyances and the baggage of

passengers for plant and animal products that could harbor pests or disease

organisms. At some of these international ports, detector dogs in APHIS’ Beagle

Brigade help find prohibited agricultural

materials. PPQ officers also inspect ship

and air cargoes, rail and truck freight,

and package mail from foreign countries. At animal import centers, APHIS

veterinarians check animals in quarantine to make sure they are not infected

with any foreign pests or diseases before

being allowed into the country.
156 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

APHIS’ pest exclusion efforts, international pest information systems, pest

permits, and detection and response efforts. After concluding its review, the

group made approximately 300 recommendations that the group believes will

assist APHIS in adapting its safeguarding

efforts to better manage drastic increases in trade and international travel.

Animal Health Safeguarding Review

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture concluded a review

of APHIS’ animal health safeguarding

programs and published a report of the

review’s findings in October 2001. The review confirms that the United States has

been successful in preventing, detecting,

and eradicating animal diseases, and it

outlines steps that APHIS can take to

further strengthen domestic safeguarding systems.

The safeguarding review’s recommendations focus on, among other things,

APHIS’ domestic and international disease monitoring programs; the critical

nature of cooperative emergency response planning; and improvements to

the agency’s information collection and

dissemination strategies.

Import–Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the import and export

of animals and plants and certain agricultural products.

Importation requirements depend on

both the product and the region of origin. Certain restrictions, ranging from

testing or processing to total import prohibition, are placed on both animals and

animal products if they originate in

countries that have a different disease

status from the United States. Livestock

and poultry must be accompanied by a

health certificate issued by an official of

the exporting country.

Imports of livestock and poultry from

most countries must enter the United

States through APHIS-approved quarantine facilities. Animals from Mexico and 

Canada may cross at land ports along the

borders as long as they have met certain

specified requirements and are accomIn fiscal year 2001, APHIS officials inspected about 52,000 maritime vessels,

540,000 aircraft, 85,000,000 airplane and

cruise ship passengers, 2,200,000 cargo

shipments, and 454,000 rail cars for prohibited or infested agricultural products

that could threaten the health of U.S.

agriculture. APHIS officials intercepted

and impounded prohibited materials

over 1.7 million times while carrying out

inspection duties. APHIS also issued approximately 16,000 civil penalties to international travelers in baggage areas at

U.S. airports for failing to declare prohibited agricultural products from abroad.

In confiscating these prohibited products, APHIS detected an estimated

71,000 pests that could have seriously

damaged America’s agricultural and

natural resources, if left unchecked.

International Programs

Through direct overseas contacts, International Services (IS) employees gather

and exchange information on plant and

animal health; work to strengthen national, regional, and international agricultural health organizations; and cooperate in international programs against

certain pests and diseases that directly

threaten American agriculture. Two of

the latter are the MOSCAMED program—

which combats Medfly infestations in

Mexico and Guatemala—and a program

to eradicate screwworms, a parasitic insect of warm-blooded animals.

Screwworms were eradicated from the

United States through the use of the 

sterile insect technique. With this method,

millions of screwworm flies are reared in

captivity, sterilized, and then released

over infested areas to mate with native

fertile flies. Eggs produced through such

matings do not hatch, and the insect literally breeds itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. livestock, starting in 1972, eradication efforts were moved southward from the

U.S.-Mexican border, with the eventual

goal of establishing a barrier of sterile

flies across the Isthmus of Panama.

Coping With Invasions

If, despite our best efforts, foreign pests

or diseases do manage to slip past our

defenses, APHIS establishes appropriate

quarantine and eradication programs.

Current examples include: 1) citrus

canker eradication in Florida; 2) plum

pox eradication in Pennsylvania, and 3)

Asian longhorned beetle eradication in

metropolitan Chicago and New York City.

Early detection of exotic animal diseases

by alert livestock producers and practicing veterinarians who contact specially

trained State and Federal veterinarians

is the key to the quick detection and

elimination of a foreign animal disease

of concern. More than 300 such trained

veterinarians are located throughout the

United States to investigate suspected

foreign diseases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task

forces in VS can be mobilized at the site

of an outbreak to implement the measures necessary to eradicate the disease.

Currently, APHIS officials are actively

working to prevent the entry of bovine

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—

sometimes referred to as “mad cow disease.” BSE has never been diagnosed in

the United States. Since 1989, APHIS has

restricted the importation of live ruminants and ruminant products—including 

animal feed made with ruminant protein—from Great Britain and other countries where BSE is known to exist. In

1997, APHIS extended these restrictions

to include all of the countries of Europe.

As of December 2000, APHIS prohibited

all imports of rendered animal protein

products, regardless of species, from Europe. In addition, APHIS has conducted a

BSE surveillance program since 1989.

Specialists have examined brain specimens from more than 21,000 cattle and

have found no evidence of BSE.

Plant Health Safeguarding Review

In an effort to evaluate and ultimately

improve pest exclusion efforts, APHIS

contracted with the National Plant Board

several years ago to conduct a thorough

review of all components of the agency’s

safeguarding system. The review group,

which was comprised of State, industry,

and university representatives, reviewed
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 157

panied by the appropriate paperwork.

Personally owned pet birds of foreign origin can enter through one of four USDAoperated bird quarantine facilities: New

York, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; and

Hidalgo, TX.

Imported plants must be accompanied

by a phytosanitary certificate issued by 

an official of the exporting country. APHIS 

maintains 16 plant inspection stations, the

largest of which is in Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials.

Smaller stations are at Orlando, FL; San

Juan, PR; John F. Kennedy International

Airport, Jamaica, NY; Linden, NJ; Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville),

TX; Nogales, AZ; San Diego, Los Angeles,

and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Honolulu, HI; Beltsville, MD (used strictly for

importations of plants for research purposes); and New Orleans, LA.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS

officials certify the health of both plants

and animals that are shipped to foreign

countries. APHIS PPQ provides assurance

that U.S. plants and plant products meet 

the plant quarantine import requirements

of foreign countries.

It is in the area of foreign animal health

requirements that APHIS is of greatest 

help to the U.S. livestock industry. Through

direct negotiations with foreign governments, APHIS has established approximately 450 livestock, semen, embryo,

and poultry health agreements with

more than 100 countries in the world.

These negotiations are a continuous

process wherever APHIS finds opportunities to open new markets and to reduce

unnecessary impediments or changing

disease conditions require adjustments.

Domestic Plant Health Programs

In most cases, plant pest problems are

handled by individual farmers, ranchers,

and other property owners and their

State or local governments. However,

when an insect, weed, or disease poses a

particularly serious threat to a major

crop, the Nation’s forests, or other plant

resources, APHIS may join in the control

work.

“Deliver Us From Weevil”—Boll Weevil

Eradication 

One major domestic program PPQ is coordinating is the effort to eradicate boll

weevils from the United States. The boll

weevil entered this country from Mexico

in the late 1890s and soon became a major pest of cotton. Boll weevil is estimated to cost U.S. farmers $300 million in

control costs and yield losses.

The current boll weevil eradication effort

judiciously applies pesticides based on

the number of adult weevils trapped

around cotton fields. The traps contain a

pheromone and a small amount of insecticide that kills all captured weevils.

In eradication program areas, traps are

placed at a rate of one trap per 1 to 3

acres and are checked weekly. Pesticide

is applied only to fields that reach a predetermined number of trapped weevils.

This selective use of pesticides results in

fields requiring minimal pesticide applications—sometimes none—during the

growing season. After several seasons,

the weevils are eradicated within the

defined program area, eliminating any

further need to spray for this pest.

The National Boll Weevil Eradication

Program is one-third complete with total

eradication projected by the end of 2005

or beginning of 2006. Approximately 5.9

million acres of cotton spread over nine

States are now weevil-free. These States

include Virginia, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,

Kansas, Arizona, and California. Eradication efforts are underway on 9.7 million

additional acres, which include nearly

all other areas of the country affected by

the boll weevil.

Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB)

Since 1996, infestations of the ALB, a

destructive pest of hardwood in China,

have been detected in and around New

York City, and near Chicago, IL. APHIS

began an ALB eradication program in

conjunction with State and local officials

in both areas in FY 1997. Since then, aggressive efforts to detect and eradicate

this pest have drastically reduced ALB

populations and helped protect forest resources across the United States.

The programwide implementation of the

insecticide imidacloprid in Chicago and

New York has increased confidence that

ALB can be eradicated through an aggressive combination of chemical treatment, survey, quarantine, and tree removal. Imidacloprid is a systemic

insecticide approved for the eradication

of ALB and is found in many common

lawn and garden pesticides and dog and

cat flea control products. Each noninfested tree to be treated is inoculated via

small capsules containing imidacloprid

that is absorbed naturally through the

tree’s vascular system. The process takes

approximately 4 hours per tree and can

remain effective up to 1 year. Over

70,000 trees in New York City and 55,000

trees on Long Island were treated with

imidacloprid in the spring of 2002.

Citrus Canker

Citrus canker is a devastating bacterial

disease that greatly reduces production

in citrus trees by causing fruit and

leaves to drop prematurely. It was first

detected in residential trees in Florida’s

Dade County in 1995; since then, it has

been detected in commercial and residential trees in five other counties: Manatee, Collier, Broward, Hendry, and Hillsborough. APHIS has worked with Florida

officials to conduct a citrus canker eradication program since 1996. This program

consists of a statewide survey of residential properties and commercial citrus

groves, regulatory action, removal of infected and exposed trees within 1,900

feet of an infection site, where legally allowable, a commercial compliance program, statewide eradication activities,

and an intensive inspection-based barrier program.

Since the citrus canker eradication program’s inception, APHIS and the State of

Florida have spent approximately $300

million combating the disease. This figure excludes compensation funds provided to commercial citrus growers.
158 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 8

Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests 

and Diseases

In order to combat invasive plant pests

and animal diseases, it is important to

know their number and where they are

located. To monitor plant pests, APHIS

PPQ works with the States in a project

called the Cooperative Agricultural Pest

Survey. Survey data on invasive species 

such as weeds, insects, and plant diseases

and pests are entered into a nationwide

database, the National Agricultural Pest

Information System (NAPIS).

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrieve

the latest data on pests. NAPIS data can

assist pest forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise delimiting

efforts, and better planning for plant

pest eradication or control efforts.

Regulating Biotechnology in Agriculture

Scientists use agricultural biotechnology

with a variety of laboratory techniques,

such as genetic engineering, to improve

plants, animals, and micro-organisms.

Recent discoveries have led to virus-resistant crops such as cucumbers, tomatoes, and potatoes; to better vaccines

and diagnostic kits used for diseases of

horses, chickens, and swine; and even to

new and improved varieties of commercial flowers.

Since 1987, APHIS’ role in agricultural

biotechnology has been to manage and

oversee regulations to ensure the safe

and rapid development of the products

of biotechnology. Under APHIS’ effective

regulations and practical guidelines, applicants can safely field test—outside of

the physical containment of the laboratory—genetically engineered organisms.

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the importation,

interstate movement, or field testing of

genetically engineered plants, microorganisms, and invertebrates that are

developed from components of plant

pathogenic material.

Since 1987, APHIS has issued more than

8,700 release permits and notifications

at more than 30,000 sites in the United

States. The biotechnology regulations

also provide for an exemption process

Domestic Animal Health Programs

Protecting the health of the Nation’s

livestock and poultry industries is the

responsibility of APHIS’ Veterinary Services (VS).

VS veterinary medical officers and animal health technicians work with their

State counterparts and with livestock

producers to carry out cooperative programs to control and eradicate certain

animal diseases. The decision to begin a

nationwide campaign against a domestic

animal disease is based on a number of

factors, the most important of which is:

“Are producers and the livestock industry a leading force in the campaign?”

To date, 13 serious livestock and poultry

diseases have been eradicated from the 

United States. They are: 

Diseases Eradicated from the 

United States

Year Disease

1892 Contagious bovine 

pleuropneumonia

1929 Foot-and-mouth disease 

1929 Fowl plague

1934 Glanders

1942 Dourine

1943 Texas cattle fever

1959 Vesicular exanthema

1959 & 1966 Screwworms (Southeast &

Southwest)

1971 Venezuelan equine encephalitis

1973 Sheep scabies

1974 Exotic Newcastle disease

1978 Hog cholera

1985 Highly pathogenic avian influenza

Current VS disease eradication programs

include cooperative State-Federal efforts

directed at cattle and swine brucellosis,

bovine tuberculosis, and pseudorabies in

swine.

Disease control and eradication measures

include quarantines to stop the movement of possibly infected or exposed animals, testing and examination to detect

infection, destruction of infected (sometimes exposed) animals to prevent further

disease spread, treatment to eliminate

parasites, vaccination in some cases, and

cleaning and disinfection of contaminated premises.

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of about 250 veterinarians and 360 inspectors working

out of area offices. Laboratory support

for these programs is supplied by APHIS’ 

National Veterinary Services Laboratories 

(NVSL) at Ames, IA, and Plum Island, NY,

which are centers of excellence in the diagnostic sciences and an integral part of

APHIS’ animal health programs.

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913,

APHIS enforces regulations to assure that 

animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, potent, and effective. Veterinary biologics are products

designed to diagnose, prevent, or treat

animal diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of

domestic animals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and

fur bearers.

APHIS also regulates the licensing and

production of genetically engineered

vaccines and other veterinary biologics.

These products range from diagnostic

kits for feline leukemia virus to genetically engineered vaccines to prevent

pseudorabies, a serious disease affecting

swine. Since the first vaccine was licensed in 1979, a total of 79 genetically

engineered biologics have been licensed;

all but 20 are still being produced.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 159

once it has been established that a genetically engineered product does not

present a plant pest risk. Under this

process, applicants can petition APHIS

for a determination of nonregulated status for specific genetically engineered

products. Over the past 10 years, 53 new

engineered plant lines in 15 crops have

been proven safe and no longer need to

be regulated by APHIS. One was the first

genetically engineered sugar beet, which

is herbicide tolerant.

Managing Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’ Wildlife Services

(WS) program is to provide Federal leadership in managing problems caused by

wildlife. Wildlife is a significant public

resource that is greatly valued by the

American public. But by its very nature,

wildlife also can damage agricultural

and industrial resources, pose risks to

human health and safety, and affect

other natural resources. WS helps solve

problems that occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one

another. In doing so, WS attempts to

develop and use wildlife management

strategies that are biologically, environmentally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage management is rising dramatically. There are

several reasons for this. Increased suburban development is intruding upon traditional wildlife habitats. Population explosions among some adaptable wildlife

species—such as coyotes, deer, and

geese—pose increasing risks to human

activities. At the same time, advances in

science and technology are providing alternative methods for solving wildlife

problems.

More than half of U.S. farmers experience economic loss from damage caused

by wildlife. WS plays a leadership role in

cooperative efforts with the States and

agriculture producers across the country

to protect farm crops, livestock, aquaculture, and forest resources from damage

caused by wildlife. Annual wildlife

depredation losses to selected agricultural commodities in the United States

have been documented by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS). The losses for 2001 include estimated losses of more than $178 million

to livestock and poultry resources; over

$146 million in losses for producers of

vegetables, fruits and nuts; and more

than $14 million in losses for producers

of farm-raised catfish and trout. Wildlife

damage to U.S. agriculture as a whole is

estimated at approximately $944 million

each year.

WS deals with a wide variety of wildlife

problems, ranging from reducing the

threat of wildlife-borne diseases to managing hazards caused by wildlife at airports, to protecting endangered species

from predation by other wildlife. Here

are a few examples of WS recent efforts

to manage the damage caused by

wildlife in the United States:

■ West Nile virus (WNV) is a disease

that has enormous potential to impact

public health, livestock, and wildlife. In

2001, West Nile virus was detected in 27

States and the District of Columbia. This

represents a significant geographic expansion of the disease from when it was

first discovered in New York. Birds serve

as a natural host for the virus, which is

transmitted to people and animals

through mosquito bites. WS has played

an integral part in detecting the spread

of WNV through the collection of blood

samples from wild birds.

■ Wildlife collisions with aircraft cost

the civil aviation industry in the United

States more than $300 million annually

and pose a serious safety hazard to flight

crews and passengers. WS is recognized

internationally for its scientific expertise

in reducing wildlife hazards at airports

and military bases across the United

States. Nearly 6,000 wildlife collisions

with civil aircraft were reported in 2000.

Currently, WS works at more than 350

airports around the country to provide

information and equipment to airport

managers to reduce the presence of

wildlife, especially birds, around runways and airport operations areas. WS

also provides hands-on assistance to 

trap and remove wildlife that are a threat

to air safety. At airports and military airfields where WS operational projects

were conducted, the presence of wildlife

was reduced by up to 95 percent.

■ Beavers are one of the most destructive wildlife species, causing millions of

dollars in damage to roads, bridges, dikes

and dams, sewer and water treatment

facilities, and landscape plants. In Mississippi and North Carolina, the problem

is so severe that WS conducts Statewide

beaver damage management programs

that receive major funding from State

agencies. In North Carolina alone, the

beaver population is estimated at

500,000. WS also conducts large-scale

beaver damage management programs

in more than a dozen additional States,

and responds to individual requests for

assistance on a case-by-case basis.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the world’s only research facility devoted entirely to the development of methods for managing wildlife

damage, accounts for about one-fourth

of WS’ budget. In existence since the

1940s, NWRC has an integrated, multidisciplinary research program that is

uniquely suited to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife

damage problems.

Humane Care of Animals

APHIS administers two laws that seek to

ensure the humane handling of animals:

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the

Horse Protection Act (HPA).

For more than a quarter century, USDA

has enforced the AWA and its standards

and regulations to prevent trafficking in

lost and stolen pets and protect covered

animals from inhumane treatment and

neglect. The AWA prohibits staged dogfights, bear and raccoon baiting, and

similar animal fighting ventures. It also

requires that minimum standards of

care and treatment be provided for most

warmblooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported

commercially, or exhibited to the public.

This includes animals exhibited in zoos,

circuses, and marine mammal facilities,

as well as pets transported on commercial airlines.
160 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 12

Individuals who operate regulated businesses must be licensed or registered

with USDA and provide their animals

with adequate care and treatment in the

areas of housing, handling, sanitation,

nutrition, water, veterinary care, and

protection from extremes of weather

and temperature. They must also keep

accurate acquisition and disposition

records and a description of every animal that comes into their possession.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS conducts

prelicensing inspections of licensees. Before issuing a license, applicants must be

in compliance with all standards and

regulations under the AWA. APHIS also

conducts randomly scheduled unannounced inspections to ensure that all

regulated facilities continue to comply

with the Act.

In FY 2000, APHIS pursued numerous

cases against individuals who were not

in compliance with the AWA. The tables

above provide data on APHIS’ inspection

and enforcement efforts for FY 1998–00.

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) facilitates

the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat,

cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural

products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the overall

benefit of consumers and American

agriculture.

Federal Grain Inspection Program

Through its Federal Grain Inspection

Service, GIPSA facilitates the marketing

of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. This program serves

American agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodologies for measuring the quality and

quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and

related commodities.

GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing services, on a fee

basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a unique partnership of Federal, State, and private

agencies. In fiscal year 2001, the official

system performed over 2 million inspections on 235 million metric tons of grain.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA)

that relate to inspection of rice, pulses,

lentils, and processed grain products, the

Federal Grain Inspection Service:

■ Establishes official U.S. grading standards and testing procedures for eight

grains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum,

triticale, wheat, and mixed grain), four

oilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, and

sunflower seed), rice, lentils, dry peas,

and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and

customers of U.S. grain around the world

with a national inspection and weighing

system that applies the official grading

and testing standards and procedures in

a uniform, accurate, and impartial

manner.

Compliance Inspections, FY 1998–2000

Total facilities Total compliance

FY (sites) inspections

1998 7,773

(10,393) 10,709

1999 7,958

(9,897) 9,096

2000 8,773

(10,207) 8,727

Sanctions Imposed, FY 1998–2000

Revocations, suspensions, and

FY Fines Imposed disqualifications

1998 $378,900 34

1999 $585,162 16

2000 $343,301 23

USDA also enforces the HPA, which prohibits horses subjected to a process

called soring from participating in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions. In addition, the act prohibits drivers from

hauling sored horses across State lines

to compete in shows. The law was first

passed in 1970 and amended in 1976.

Aquaculture

APHIS provides services to the aquaculture industry in a number of areas.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, surpassing in

value most domestic fruit, vegetable,

and nut crops.

Current APHIS services include licensing

of fish vaccines and other biologics under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act; managing bird and mammal depredation to

commercial fish stocks; and providing

health certification services for exports.

We are currently working to expand our

aquatic animal health activities and underlying authority to support industry

efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products around the world and for

coordinating interstate regulation.

For More Information

Additional information about the agency

is available through the World Wide

Web: http://www.aphis.usda.gov 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs | 161

■ Inspects and weighs exported grain

and oilseeds. Domestic and imported

grain and oilseed shipments, and crops

with standards under the AMA, are inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to

prevent the deceptive use of the grading

standards and official inspection and

weighing results, and the degradation of

grain quality through the introduction of

foreign material, dockage, or other nongrain material to grain.

GIPSA also is developing standard testing

procedures to identify grain quality traits

desired by world markets and to better

measure end-use functionality. By serving as an impartial third party, and by

ensuring that the Official U.S. Standards

for Grain are applied and that weights

are recorded fairly and accurately, GIPSA

and the official grain inspection and

weighing system advance the orderly

and efficient marketing and effective

distribution of U.S. grain and other assigned commodities from the Nation’s

farms to destinations around the world.

Packers and Stockyards Programs

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers and

Stockyards Act of 1921 (P&S Act), a fair

trade practice and payment protection

law that promotes fair and competitive

marketing environments for the livestock, meat, and poultry industries.

Payment Protection

The P&S Act requires prompt payment

for livestock and poultry purchased by

firms and individuals subject to the Act.

Purchase of livestock and poultry in cash

sales must be paid before the close of

the next business day. Poultry obtained

under a poultry growing arrangement

must be paid before the close of the 

15th day following the week of slaughter.

Packers, market agencies, and livestock 

dealers are required to maintain financial 

solvency and to have a surety bond to

secure livestock purchases. As of May 21,

2002, bonds totaling $572 million were in

place to cover livestock purchases. In addition, sellers of livestock at auction are

further protected by requirements that

the markets have and maintain a custodial (trust) account for consignor’s proceeds. The custodial audit program has

been very successful in protecting funds

due livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust Activities

If a meat packer fails to pay for livestock

in a cash sale, or a live poultry dealer 

fails to pay for live poultry from a poultry

growing arrangement, then receivables,

inventories, and proceeds held by the

packer or poultry dealer become trust

assets. These assets are held by the meat 

packer or live poultry dealer for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers and/or poultry growers. Cash sellers of livestock and

poultry growers receive priority payment

in bankruptcy or in claims against trust

assets in the event of business failure.

Competition

GIPSA works to eliminate unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices,

and anti-competitive activities in the

meat and poultry industries. Practices

such as apportioning of territories, price

manipulation, and arrangements not to

compete are potential violations of the

P&S Act. GIPSA deploys rapid response

teams to immediately investigate any

practice that could constitute unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice under the P&S Act.

Scales and Weighing Activities

GIPSA is concerned with two different

elements that affect the integrity of

weights: (1) the accuracy of scales used

for weighing livestock, meat, and poultry,

and (2) the proper and honest operation

of scales to assure that the weight on

which a transaction is based is accurate.

The major emphasis is on detecting improper and fraudulent use of scales. An

investigative program uses several different procedures to determine whether

weighing activity is proper and honest.

Agency investigators routinely visit livestock auction markets, buying stations,

and packing plants for the purpose of

checkweighing livestock, carcasses, and

live poultry, and examining weight

records and equipment.

Trade Practices

Fraudulent trade practices, such as price

manipulation, weight manipulation of

livestock or carcasses, manipulation of 

carcass grades, misrepresentation of livestock as to origin and health, and other

unfair and deceptive practices continue

to be concerns in the livestock, meat,

and poultry industries. GIPSA investigates these practices when complaints

are received, or when such practices are

uncovered during other investigations.

GIPSA carries out enforcement of the

trade practice provisions of the P&S Act

relating to live poultry dealers. Its investigative program examines the records 

of poultry integrators to determine the

existence of any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices in its dealings with poultry growers and sellers.

Complaints alleging unfair termination

of growing contracts are investigated on

a priority basis.

Analysis of Structural Change

GIPSA examines structural changes in

the livestock, meatpacking, and poultry

industries, and analyzes the competitive

implications of these structural changes.

The analyses assist in enforcing the P&S

Act and in addressing public policy issues relating to the livestock and meat

industries.

Clear Title

The Clear Title provisions of the Food

Security Act of 1985 permit States to establish central filing systems to inform

parties about liens on farm products.

The purpose of this program is to remove

an obstruction to interstate commerce

in farm products. GIPSA certifies that a

State’s central filing system complies

with the Act.

Violation Hotline

GIPSA has instituted a hotline for reporting potential violations and abuses in

the grain, livestock, meat, and poultry

industries. GIPSA’s toll-free telephone

number is 1-800-998-3447.

Homepage

For further details about GIPSA, visit the

homepage at http://www.usda.gov/gipsa.
Index | 163

A

ABCs of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: 

Science and Application, 87

Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance, 82

Adult care

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89

African American Employee Advisory Council, 49

African swine fever, 155

After-school care centers

food assistance programs, 88–89

AGRICOLA bibliographic database, 136

Agricultural Air Quality, Task Force on, 131

Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 151

Agricultural Income and Finance, 141

Agricultural Innovation Center Program, 59

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 53

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 160

Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, 60

Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 150

Dairy Programs, 149

direct marketing and market development, 152

fair trade practices, 151–152

food testing, 148

grading, quality standards, and certification,

148–149

Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting program,

149

Market News, 149–150

marketing orders, 151

National Organic Program, 9

pesticide information and records, 150

Process Verification Program, 149

Quality Systems Verification Program, 153

Research and Promotion Programs, 151

slogans, 151

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 152

Web site, 153

AGRICultural Online Access, 136

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program, 3,

155–156

Agricultural Research Service

biogas production, 10

contributions, 134–135

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service, 137–139

description, 134

foot-and-mouth disease detection, 3

Listeria monocytogenes study, 104

National Agricultural Library, 135–136

selected highlights, 134

Web site, 135

Agricultural Resource Management Survey

farm typology group differences, 29–30

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,

68

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,

49–50

Air quality, 114–115, 131

Aircraft

wildlife collisions with, 159

Alabama

boll weevil eradication, 157

fish habitat structures made from donated 

Christmas trees, 114

Alaska Natives. See American Indian and Alaska 

Native Programs

ALB. See Asian longhorned beetle

American Indian/Alaska Native Employee Advisory

Council, 49, 52

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs, 52.

See also Native Americans

American Samoa

nutrition assistance program, 94

AMLAP II and III. See Apple Market Loss Assistance

Program II and III

AMS. See Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

agricultural quarantine inspection, 155–156

animal diseases eradicated from the United States,

158

animal health safeguarding review, 156–157

biotechnology regulation, 158–159

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 158

domestic animal health programs, 158

domestic plant health programs, 157

foot-and-mouth disease, 154–155

foreign trade and, 155

forest health protection, 119

genetically engineered vaccines and veterinary 

biologics, 158

humane care of animals, 159–160

import-export regulations, 156–157

international programs, 156

international trade agreements, 75

invasive species, 154–155

mission, 154

plant health safeguarding review, 156

Web site, 160

wildlife management, 159

Animal fighting ventures, 159

Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, 155

Animal Welfare Act, 159–160

Antioxidants, 134

APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service

Appalachia

poverty in, 38

Apple Market Loss Assistance Program II and III, 71

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program, 60

Aquaculture, 160

Arizona

boll weevil eradication, 157

crop gene mapping, 138

Arkansas

plant sources for chemotherapy, 138

ARMS. See Agricultural Resource Management

Survey

Asian American and Pacific Islander Employee 

Advisory Council, 49

Asian longhorned beetle, 156, 157

Australia

U.S. table grapes, 76

Automated data processing services, 55

AWA. See Animal Welfare Act

Away-from-home eating

fat density of foods, 18

milk consumption and, 16

percent of total food energy consumption, 14

percentage of food dollars used for, 20

prices of food, 21

B

Backyard Conservation Campaign, 131

Bankhead Ranger District, 114

BARC. See Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural

Research Center

Be Cool, Chill Out, Refrigerate Promptly, 108

Beagle Brigade, 155

Beaver damage management programs, 159

Beef. See also Cattle; Livestock

grading and quality standards, 148

mandatory price reporting program, 149

B&I loans. See Business and industry loans

Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination

Council, 11

Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, 11

Bioenergy Program, 11

Biofuels, 9–10

Biogas, 10

Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, 11

Bioplastics, 138

Biorefinery Grants Program, 11

Biosecurity. See Homeland security

Biotechnology 

description, 8

economic issues, 142

regulation of, 158–159

Block grants, 94

Boll weevil eradication, 157

“Bonus” commodities, 94

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 4, 104–105, 156

Bovine tuberculosis, 158

BRAVO. See Bringing Rural America Venture 

Opportunities Program

Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities 

Program, 50, 52

Broccoli, 18

Brucellosis, 158

BSE. See Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Buffalo

Livestock Compensation Program, 71

Bureau of the Census

Federal funding distribution, 42

Bush, George
164 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

national energy policy, 9

Business and industry loans, 58–59

Butter. See also Fats and oils

grading, 148

surplus, 69

C

CACFP. See Child and Adult Care Food Program

California

boll weevil eradication, 157

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program,

139

Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 62

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

California State University-Fresno, 65

Caloric sweeteners

consumption profile, 20

Camps

nutrition assistance programs, 96–97, 150

Campylobacter, 105

hotline information, 106

Canada

animal imports, 156–157

leading market for exports, 74, 75

Cankdeska Cikana Community College, 65

Canned vegetables, 18

Canola

genetically engineered, 8

Carbon dioxide reduction, 134

Career Intern Program, 49

Caribbean National Forest, 116

Carrots, 18

Cattle. See also Beef; Bovine spongiform encephalopathy; Livestock

brucellosis, 158

cloning for disease resistance, 138

Federal inspection, 100, 102

feed assistance, 71

low labor requirements for, 31

mandatory price reporting program, 149

specialization of farms in, 31

CBO. See Congressional Budget Office

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corporation

CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Census of Agriculture

point farms and, 27

response to, 145

trend analysis, 145

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 108

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 86–87

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

biosecurity issues, 3, 103

database of DNA fingerprinting of foodborne 

bacteria, 105

Emerging Infections Program, 105

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network

(FoodNet), 105

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project, 102–103

Salmonella prevalence decrease, 4, 101

CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Certification services, 148, 152–153

CFSAN. See Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition

Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and

Trade, 142

Cheese

consumption profile, 16–17

surplus, 69

Chemotherapy

plant extracts, 134, 138

Chesapeake Bay

riparian buffers, 139

Chicago Board of Trade futures prices, 82

Chickens. See Poultry

Chief Economist, Office of, 52

Chief Financial Officer, Office of the, 55

Chief Information Officer, Office of the, 54–55

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89

Child Care Food Program. See Child and Adult Care

Food Program

Children

estimates of the cost of raising, 87

fire prevention campaigns, 122

food guide pyramid for, 86

nutrition assistance programs, 77, 88–90, 92–94,

95–97

obesity in, 14

Chile

trade agreement with, 75

China

WTO accession commitments, 75

Cities. See Metropolitan areas

Citrus canker eradication, 156, 157

Civil rights

Forest Service issues, 124

Civil Rights, Office of, 47–49

Civil rights impact analyses, 48

Civil Rights Mission Statement, 47

Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act, 161

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 55

Cloning of cattle for disease resistance, 138

CNPP. See Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

Coal mines, 116

Cochran Fellowship Program, 81

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, 75

College and University Partnership Project, 65

Colorado

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

extension nutrition program for Hispanics, 139

population-based surveillance for foodborne 

diseases, 105

Commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78

Commodities Improvement Council, 93

Commodity Credit Corporation, 9, 68–71, 76–80

Commodity purchase programs, 69–70

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 89, 150

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 94

Community Development, Office of, 64–65

Community Development Financial Institution Partnership, 62

Community Facilities Program, 61, 62

Complaint resolution, 48

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 50

Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the, 62

Conferences

“Survival Strategies for Small and Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers,” 83

Congressional Budget Office

conservation spending estimates, 5

Connecticut

bilingual nutrition education program, 139

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

Conservation

Emergency Conservation Program, 70

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

provisions, 5–7

Farm Service Agency programs, 73

Conservation Education, 121–122

Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program, 130

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 6, 73

Conservation Reserve Program, 5–6, 27, 73

Conservation Security Program, 5, 7, 128

Conservation Technical Assistance, 127–128

Consolidated Federal Funds Reports, 42

Consumer Safety Officers, 4

Cooking oils. See Fats and oils

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 158

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 112

Cooperative services, 60, 63

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

agricultural waste management, 139

description, 137

local problem solving, 139

new uses for agricultural materials, 138

pest management, 139

programs, 137

roadmaps to better crops and animals, 138

Small Farm Program, 138–139

water quality protection, 139

Web site, 139

Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority, 58

Cooperator Program. See Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program

Corn

bioplastics from, 138

consumption profile, 19
Index | 165

crop insurance, 81–82

gene mapping, 138

genetically engineered, 8

oil from waste byproduct, 134

Corn ethanol, 10

Corn sweeteners

consumption profile, 20

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office of Risk Assessment

and, 53

Costa Rica

rice import permits, 75

Cotton

boll weevil eradication, 157

crop insurance, 81–82

exports, 74

genetically engineered, 8

grading, 148

wrinkle-resistant, 151

CPGL. See Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Program

CR. See Office of Civil Rights

CR Training Plan, 48

CREP. See Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRIAs. See Civil rights impact analyses

Crop insurance, 81–83

Crop Revenue Coverage, 82

Crops. See also specific commodities

gene mapping, 138

genetically engineered, 8

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 70

“nonrecourse” loans and, 69

technical assistance for specialty crops, 79

virus-resistant, 158

Crownpoint Institute of Technology, 65

CRP. See Conservation Reserve Program

Crytosporidium

population-based surveillance for, 105

CSFP. See Commodity Supplemental Food Program

CSREES. See Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service

CTA. See Conservation Technical Assistance

Cucumbers

virus-resistant, 158

Cybersecurity, 54–55

Cyclospora

population-based surveillance for, 105

D

DA. See Departmental Administration

Dairy Export Incentive Program, 78

Dairy Options Pilot Program, 82

Dairy Price Support Program, 69

Dairy products. See also Cheese; Milk

Agricultural Marketing Service Dairy Programs,

149

consumption profile, 14

exports, 78, 153

grading, 148

imports, 153

insurance program, 82

low-fat, 151

marketing orders, 151

Dealing with Workplace Conflict and Concerns: A

Guide for Employees, 48

Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 55

Debt management program, 55

DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive Program

Delaware

gypsy moth control program, 139

Departmental Administration, 47–52

Detector dogs, 155

Developing countries. See also International issues

exports to, 78–79

food assistance programs, 77–78

technical assistance to, 80

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 86, 90, 93

Direct Business and Industry Loans, 58–59

Direct loans, 58–59, 72

Direct marketing and market development, 152

Disaster assistance, 70–71, 80, 89, 91, 97, 129, 137,

150

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 89, 97

Discrimination, 49

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and

Grants, 63

District Veterinary Medical Specialists, 4

Diversification of farms, 30–32

Diversity training, 48

DOD. See U.S. Department of Defense

Doha Development Agenda, 75

Doing Business with USDA, 49

DOPP. See Dairy Options Pilot Program

Drug enforcement issues, 125

Dry milk

surplus, 69

Dutch elm disease, 134

E

E. coli O157:H7

FSIS monitoring program for, 101

hotline information, 106

population-based surveillance for, 105

EAPs. See Economic Action Programs

Eat. Smart. Play Hard.TM Campaign, 89

Eating out. See Away-from-home eating

EBT. See Electronic Benefit Transfer

Economic Action Programs, 120

Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, 142

Economic Research Service

agricultural trade, 140

commodity markets, 140

farm typology, 29–30

food calorie losses, 14

food consumption and prices, 141

food safety, 142

food security and hunger, 142

issues addressed by, 140

organizational structure, 143

per capita food and nutrient supplies estimates, 15

program function categories, 43

publications, 140

research reports, 142–143

resource trends and indicators, 141

rural economic indicators, 141

special topics, 141–142

Web site, 140, 142

World Trade Organization issues, 142

EdNet, 108

EEP. See Export Enhancement Program

EFNP. See Expanded Food and Nutrition Education

Program

Egg Products Inspection Act, 100

Eggs

consumption profile, 14

Federal inspection, 100–101

grading, 148, 151–152

Elderly persons

Forest Service programs, 124

housing loans and grants, 61

nutrition assistance programs, 92, 94–95, 150

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 92

Elm trees resistant to disease, 134

Emergency Conservation Program, 70

Emergency Food Assistance Program, 150

Emergency Watershed Protection, 129

Emerging Markets Program, 79

Employment

nonmetropolitan unemployment rate, 39

Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program, 64–65

Energy, Minerals, and Geology Program, 116

Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development

Program

description, 11

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update, 10

Energy issues

biofuels, 9–10

renewable energy and bioproducts, 9

Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of, 10, 53

“Entitlement” foods, 94

Environmental cleanup, 50

Environmental Protection Agency

biosecurity threats, 103

pesticide registration, 150

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 6, 73,

128

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP. See Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Equal employment opportunity

complaints, 48

employee training, 48

ERS. See Economic Research Service

Estate taxes, 143
166 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

Ethanol

energy efficiency of, 10

Ethics, Office of, 52

EU. See European Union

European Union

dairy product exports, 153

exports to, 74

grain import restrictions, 75

EWP. See Emergency Watershed Protection

Executive Order 13175, 52

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program,

139

Export Enhancement Program, 78

Exports. See also Imports; International issues

barriers to export of specialty crops, 79

bonus programs, 78–79

commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78

to emerging markets, 78

export credit guarantees, 77–78

export value in fiscal year 2002, 74

food testing services, 148

grading and certification for, 152–153

inspection and weighing of grains and oilseeds,

161

laboratory testing, 153

as percentage of total farm sales, 75

samples program, 79

U.S. farm income generated by, 68

Extension service, 137–139

EZ/EC Program. See Empowerment Zones/Enterprise

Communities Program

F

Facility Guarantee Program, 78

Faculty Exchange Program, 81

Fair trade practices, 151–152, 161

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 87

Farm Bill. See Farm Security and Rural Investment

Act of 2002

Farm Labor Housing, 62

Farm Loan Program, 71–72

Farm Sector Performance Briefing Room, 141

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

conservation provisions, 5–7

energy provisions, 11

Farm Service Agency provisions, 68

nutrition assistance programs, 77

Farm Service Agency

administration responsibilities, 7

assistance programs, 71–72

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

commodity purchase programs, 69–70

conservation programs, 73

disaster assistance, 70

Emergency Conservation Program, 70

emergency declarations, 71

emergency loans, 70–71

Farm Bill and, 68

farm loans, 71–72

Livestock Compensation Program, 71

marketing assistance loan programs, 68–69

mission, 68

purpose, 68

Web site, 73

Farm typology, 29–30, 142

Farm workers

housing for, 62

Farmers Home Administration, 68

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97

Farming-occupation farms

typology for, 29

Farmland Protection Program, 7, 128

Farms. See also specific types of farms

acreage versus level of sales, 24–26

carbon dioxide reduction, 134

change by sales class, 1982-1997, 26–27

decline in number of, 24

diversity among, 27–29

estate taxes and, 143

government program participation, 32–34

household income, 34, 140–141

information sources, 35

point farms, 27

policy implications, 34–35

rural areas and, 38

share of farms, assets, and production, 30

specialization and diversification, 30–32

Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S.

Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report, 142

typology for, 29–30, 142

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Fast food. See Away-from-home eating

Fats and oils

consumption profile, 14, 17–18

FCIC. See Federal Consumer Information Center

FDA. See Food and Drug Administration

FDPIR. See Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations

Federal Consumer Information Center

Listeria monocytogenes brochure, 107

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 68

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 62

Federal Financing Bank

Rural Development loans, 10

Federal funding. See Government funding

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161

Federal Home Loan Bank System, 62

Federal Meat Inspection Act, 100

Federal Register Uniform Procedures for the Acquisition and Transfer of Excess Personal Property, 49

Federal Seed Act, 151

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, 152

Feline leukemia virus, 158

Fertilizers

insurance for losses, 82–83

FFB. See Federal Financing Bank

FFE. See McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education and Child Nutrition Program

FFP. See food For Progress Program

FGP. See Facility Guarantee Program

Fight BAC!® Campaign, 107, 108, 109

Fire-hazard education program, 139

Fire prevention, 122

Fish and shellfish. See also Aquaculture; Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program

consumption profile, 15

fish habitat structures made from donated Christmas trees, 114

national forest habitats, 114

wildlife depredation losses, 159

Flavored teas

consumption profile, 16

Flood Control Act of 1944, 129

Flood prevention, 129

Florida

boll weevil eradication, 157

citrus canker eradication program, 157

Flour. See Grains

FMD. See Foot-and-mouth disease

FMNP. See WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

FNS. See Food and Nutrition Service

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College

St. Louis River Watch Program, 139

Food and Drug Administration

biosecurity threats, 103

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 108

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network 

(FoodNet), 105

Foodborne Illness Education Information Center,

108

Listeria monocytogenes risk ranking, 104

Food and Nutrition Service

“bonus” commodities, 94

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 89

description, 88

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 89, 97

Eat. Smart. Play Hard.TM Campaign, 89

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, 90–91

“entitlement” foods, 94

fiscal year 2002 funding, 88

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,

91, 97

Food Stamp Program, 92

National School Lunch Program, 69, 92–94

Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands, 94

Nutrition Services Incentive Program, 94–95

partnership with States, 88

School Breakfast Program, 95

School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 93

Special Milk Program, 96
Index | 167

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children, 95–96

Summer Food Service Program, 96–97

Team Nutrition, 89–90, 93

Web site, 88

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97

Food assistance programs, 76–77, 88–90, 92–94,

95–97, 150

Food consumption profile. See also specific commodities

caloric sweeteners, 10

calories consumed per day, 14

cheese, 16–17

cost of marketing farm foods, 21

factors responsible the consumption pattern

changes, 14–15

fats and oils, 17–18

food expenditures and prices, 20–21, 141

fruits, 18

grains, 19

labor cost, 21

meats, 15–16

milk, 16

overweight and obesity, 14

vegetables, 18

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,

91, 97, 150

Food expenditures, 20–21, 141

Food for Progress Program, 70, 76–77

Food Guide Pyramid, 19, 86, 90

Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, 86

Food Marketing Institute

“Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket,” 14

Food Plans, 86–87

Food prices, 20–21

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, 150

Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities, 100

bovine spongiform encephalopathy prevention, 4,

104–105

consumer education programs, 105

E. coli O157:H7, 101, 103

emerging issues, 103–105

Food Thermometer Education CampaignThermyTM, 107

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network,

105–106

FoodNet, 105–106

foreign meat inspection, 4

HACCP Systems, 101–103

homeland security issues, 3–4, 103

international trade agreements and, 75

Listeria monocytogenes, 103–104

National Food Safety Education MonthSM, 108

National Food Safety Information Network, 108

new inspection positions, 4

Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!R Campaign, 107, 108, 109

PulseNet, 105–106

responsibilities, 100

Salmonella prevalence decrease, 4, 100

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108

Web site, 101, 107, 108

Food security, 142

Food Security Act, 161

Food Stamp Program, 92

Food supply, security of, 79–80

Food testing services, 148

Food Thermometer Education Campaign-ThermyTM,

107

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network,

105–106

Foodborne Illness Education Information Center, 108

FoodNet, 105–106

FoodSafe online discussion group, 108

Foot-and-mouth disease, 2, 3, 154–155

Foreign Agricultural Service

agricultural exports, 74–75

budget, 74

commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78

export bonus programs, 78

food assistance programs, 76–77

food security, 79–80

foreign food assistance programs, 69–70

international cooperation, 79

international organization liaison, 80

international trade agreements, 75–76

market development programs, 78–79

mission, 74

overseas representation, 74

scientific collaboration, 80

technical assistance, 80

training, 80–81

Web site, 74

Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States database, 140

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program,

78–79

Foreign service officers, 49

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 112

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978, 112

Forest Legacy Program, 120, 121

Forest Products and Conservation Recycling Program, 120

Forest Products Laboratory, 123

Forest Service

civil rights issues, 124

community-based partnerships, 113–114

ecosystem management, 112

hosted programs, 124

Interagency Hydropower Committee, 9

key facts, 113

Law Enforcement and Investigations program, 125

mission, 112

National Forest System, 112–119

Natural Resource Agenda, 112

Office of International Programs, 124–125

organizational structure, 112–113

principal laws, 112

renewable energy research, 9

Research & Development, 113, 123–125

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 124

service ethic, 112

State and Private Forestry, 112–113, 119–123

strategic goals, 112

Volunteers in the National Forests program, 124

Youth Conservation Corps, 124

Forest Stewardship Program, 120, 121

Forest vegetation management, 118

Fort Peck Community College, 65

FPP. See Farmland Protection Program

Free Trade Area of the Americas, 75

Fresh produce. See Fruits; Vegetables

Fruit drinks and ades

consumption profile, 16

Fruits

Apple Market Loss Assistance Program II and III,

71

citrus canker, 156, 157

consumption profile, 14, 18

crop insurance, 81–82

exports of, 79

fair trade practices, 151

farmer’s markets and, 97

Food Stamp Program and, 93

grading, 148

imports, 153

invasive diseases, 155

marketing orders, 151

pesticide program, 150

plum pox eradication, 156

wildlife depredation losses, 159

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal Seed Act

FSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection Service

FSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Improvement

Program

FTAA. See Free Trade Area of the Americas

Fuel cell technology, 11

Fugitive apprehension, 54

G

Gay and Lesbian Employee Advisory Council, 49

Genetic engineering

crops, 8

vaccines and veterinary biologics, 158

George Washington Carver Center, 50

Georgia

4-H community service club reading program, 139

boll weevil eradication, 157

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

GFE. See Global Food for Education Initiative
168 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Global Change Program Office, 53

Global Food for Education Initiative, 77

Global Food for Education program, 69

Goats

Livestock Compensation Program, 71

production and marketing of, 60

scrapie in, 134

Government funding. See also specific programs

farms, 32–34

program function categories, 43

rural areas, 42–43

“Government Gateway to Food Safety Information,”

108

Government Paperwork Elimination Act, 55

Government Printing Office

Listeria monocytogenes brochure, 107

Grading standards and services, 148–149, 152–153,

160

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

analysis of structural change, 161

anti-competitive activities, 161

Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act, 161

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161

fraudulent trade practices, 161

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 161

payment protection, 161

scales and weighing activities, 161

violation hotline, 161

Web site, 161

Grain Standards Act, 160

Grains

consumption profile, 14, 19

EU grain import restrictions, 75

exports, 74, 161

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161

grading, 160

pesticide program, 150

U.S. standards for, 161

Grants. See specific grant programs

Grapes

export of, 76

Grassland Reserve Program, 5, 7

Grasslands. See National Forest System

Grazing land conservation, 130

Grazing privileges, 115

GRIP. See Group Risk Income Protection

Group Risk Income Protection, 82

Group Risk Plan, 82

GRP. See Group Risk Plan

GSM-102 program, 77

GSM-103 program, 77

Guatemala

Medfly infestations, 156

Gypsy moth control program, 139

H

HACCP. See Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Point Systems

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project, 102–103

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

bovine spongiform encephalopathy study, 104–105

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point operating

plan, 4, 101, 148

Hazardous Materials Management Group, 50

Hazardous Materials Management Program, 50

Healthy Eating Index, 86

Hearing impaired persons

food safety hotline information, 106

Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center

biogas research, 10

Heritage College, 65

HHS. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HIMP. See HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project

Hispanic Advisory Council, 49

Hispanic population

extension nutrition programs for, 139

in rural areas, 39

Hispanic-serving institutions, 83, 137

Historically Black colleges and universities, 137

HMMG. See Hazardous Materials Management

Group

HMMP. See Hazardous Materials Management Program

Hogs. See also Swine

African swine fever, 155

Federal inspection, 102

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants,

61, 62

Homeland security

biosecurity system, 2–3, 103

Federal and State coordination, 3

key biosecurity enhancements, 3

objectives, 2

plant and animal pest and disease outbreaks, 3,

103

ports of entry product and cargo inspections, 3

threats to food supplies, 2

Homeless persons

food assistance programs, 88–89

Horse Protection Act, 159–160

Hotlines

Meat and Poultry, 4, 100, 106, 108

violations and abuses in the grain, livestock, meat

and poultry industries, 161

Household Food Security in the United States, 142

Housing

farm workers, 62

loan programs, 60–62

“sweat equity,” 61

Housing Preservation Grants, 61

How to Start a Cooperative, 60

How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Taxes Affect

Farmers?, 143

HPA. See Horse Protection Act

HSIs. See Hispanic-serving institutions

Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, 90

Hurricane recovery efforts, 80

Hydrogen and fuel cell technology applications, 11

Hydropower Task Force, 9

I

Illegal drug smuggling operations, 125

Illinois

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

Imidacloprid

Asian longhorned beetle eradication, 157

Immigrants

Agricultural Labor Affairs and, 53

to rural areas, 38

Imports. See also Exports; International issues

animals, 155–156

grading of, 153

livestock and poultry, 156–157

meat and poultry, 101

plants, 157

total for 2002, 75

Income Protection Insurance, 82

Indonesia

food labeling training, 81

Infant formulas, 96

Information Resources Management projects, 55

Information technology

Alaska Native small IT businesses, 52

cybersecurity, 54–55

Input industries

biotechnology and, 8

Inspector General, Office of, 54

Inspector General Act of 1978, 54

Intellectual property rights

biotechnology and, 8

plant breeders, 151

Interactive Food Supply, 87

Interactive Healthy Eating Index, 86

Interagency Hydropower Committee, 9

Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of, 55

Intermediary Relending Program Loans, 59

International Food Safety Council, 108

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990, 112

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 123

International issues. See also Developing countries;

Exports; Imports

food safety, 4, 103, 104–105

Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States

database, 140

foreign trade disputes, 155

global food consumption patterns report, 142

grading and certification for exports, 152–153
Index | 169

Natural Resources Conservation Service programs,

131

plant and animal pests and diseases, 155

riparian buffer effort, 139

trade agreements, 75–76

International Organization for Standardization-based

programs, 148

International organization liaison, 80

International Programs, Office of, 124–125

International Services, 156

International trade agreements, 75–76

Internet. See also Web sites

ABCs of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Science and Application, 87

AGRICultural Online Access, 136

FoodSafe online discussion group, 108

Interactive Food Supply, 87

Interactive Healthy Eating Index, 86

Invasive species, 154–155

Inventory, Assessment, Land Management Planning,

and Monitoring, 117

Iowa

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

Iowa State University and USDA Cooperative

Agreement, 10

IT. See Information technology

J

Japan

exports to, 74, 75

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, 124

Junior Forest Ranger program, 122

Junior Snow Ranger program, 122

K

Kansas

boll weevil eradication, 157

Kansas City Commodity Office, 69

Kentucky

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

L

“La Cucina Saludable,” 139

Labeling

organic food, 9, 152

Labor. See also Employment

cattle and, 31

food marketing costs and, 21

Lamb

grading, 148

mandatory price reporting program, 149

Land-grant universities, 83, 137–139

Land Use and Value Briefing Room, 141

Large family farms

commodity programs and, 35

government program participation, 33

growth in number of, 34

household income, 34

increase in number of, 26

production, 30

specialization and, 31, 32

typology for, 29

Law Enforcement and Investigations program, 125

Lead production, 116

LEI program. See Law Enforcement and Investigations program

Limited-resource farms

specialization and, 31

typology for, 29

Listeria monocytogenes

FSIS testing for, 100

hotline information, 106

population-based surveillance for, 105

pregnant women outreach program, 107

risk assessment for, 103–104

Listeriosis and Food Safety Tips, 107

Listeriosis and Pregnancy: What Is Your Risk? Safe

Food Handling for a Healthy Pregnancy, 107

Livestock. See also specific types of livestock

bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 4

Federal inspection, 100

foot-and-mouth disease, 2, 3

grazing privileges on national forests and grasslands, 115

imports, 156–157

loans for purchase of, 58

methane biogas, 10

payment protection, 161

Process Verification Program, 149

wildlife depredation losses, 159

Livestock Compensation Program, 71

Livestock Gross Margin Insurance, 82

Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999,

149

Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting program, 149

Livestock Risk Protection, 82

Loan programs. See also specific loans and programs

business and industry loans, 58–59

emergency loans, 70–71

housing, 60–62

loan deficiencies payments, 68

“nonrecourse” loans, 69

renewable energy systems and energy efficiency

improvements, 11

Rural Development funds, 10

Rural Utilities Service, 9, 59, 63

Long-Term Improvement Plan, 47

Low-income persons. See also Poverty

commodity procurement programs for, 150

housing loans and grants, 60–62

nutrition assistance programs, 89, 90–92, 94–96,

97

LTIP. See Long-Term Improvement Plan

M

“Mad cow disease,” 4, 104–105, 156

MAP. See Market Access Program

Market Access Program, 78

Market News, 149–150

Marketing. See also Agricultural Marketing Service

cost of marketing farm foods, 21

loan programs, 68–69

market development programs, 78–79

Marketing orders, 151

Maryland

Chesapeake Bay riparian buffers, 139

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and

Child Nutrition Program, 77

Meals-on-Wheels programs, 94

Meat packers, 161

Meats. See also Beef; Fish and shellfish; Poultry

consumption profile, 14, 15–16

foreign disease organisms, 155

foreign meat inspection, 4

grading, 148

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108

pathogen reduction, 101–106

Medfly infestations, 156

Mentoring programs

for Alaska Native small IT businesses, 52

persons with disabilities, 49

Methane biogas, 10

Metropolitan areas

asset base, 41

migration from, 38

unemployment rate, 40

Mexico

animal imports, 156–157

exports to, 74, 75

food labeling training, 81

Medfly infestations, 156

Migrant workers

housing for, 62

Milk. See also Dairy products; Dry milk

consumption profile, 16

marketing orders, 151

pesticide program, 150

Special Milk Program, 96

Minerals, 116

Minnesota

population-based surveillance for foodborne 

diseases, 105

Minorities. See also specific minorities

extension nutrition programs for, 139

loans and loan guarantees to, 72

percent of USDA workforce, 48

Mississippi

beaver damage management programs, 159
170 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

Mississippi Delta

poverty in, 38

Mortgages. See Loan programs; Rural Housing 

Service; specific loan and grant programs

MOSCAMED program, 156

MPCI. See Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 82

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 112

Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 61, 62

N

NAFTA. See North American Free Trade Agreement

NAL. See National Agricultural Library

NAP. See Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 

Program

NAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest Information

System

NASS. See National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Academy of Sciences, 103, 148–149

National Agricultural Library

AGRICOLA bibliographic database, 136

goals, 135

highlights, 136

hours of operation, 136

mission, 135

visiting scholar program, 136

Web site, 136

National Agricultural Pest Information System, 158

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 82

current surveys, 145

description, 143

farm typology group differences, 29–30

importance of agricultural statistics, 143

mission, 143

producer reports as source for statistics, 144

Web site, 145

wildlife depredation losses, 159

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 131

National Animal Health Reserve Corps, 155

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 156

National Boll Weevil Eradication Program, 157

National Center for Health Statistics

percent of adults who are overweight or obese, 14

National Centers of Excellence, 65

National Commission on Small Farms, 26

National Conservation Buffer Initiative, 130–131

National Cooperative Soil Surveys, 128–129

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 10

National Environmental Policy Act, 115

National Finance Center, 55

National Food Safety Education MonthSM, 108

National Food Safety Educators Network, 108

National Food Safety Information Network, 108

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 112

National Forest System. See also Forest Service

Energy, Minerals, and Geology Program, 116

inventory, assessment, and planning, 117

lands and realty management activities, 114

noxious weed management program, 115

partnerships, 114

Passport in Time program, 118–119

rangeland, 115

recreation, heritage, and wilderness resources,

116–117

stewardship demonstration projects, 118

vegetation management, 118

watershed, soil, and air management programs,

114–115

wildlife, fish, and sensitive species, 114

National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986,

125

National Forests and Grasslands, 112

National Information Technology Center, 55

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin, 53

National Organic Program, 9

National Plant Board, 156

National Register of Historic Places, 118

National Research Initiative, 137

National Resources Inventory, 130

National School Lunch Program, 69, 92–94, 96, 148,

150

National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 60

National Symbols Program, 122

National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 158

National Wilderness Preservation System, 112

National Wildlife Research Center, 159

Native American land-grant institutions, 137

Native Americans. See also American Indian and

Alaska Native Programs

housing loans and grants, 62

nutrition assistance programs, 89, 91, 150

tribal utilities, 63

“Natural foods”

organic foods and, 9

Natural Resource Agenda, 112

Natural Resources Conservation Service

administration responsibilities, 7

Conservation Technical Assistance, 127–128

erosion and sediment control, 127

Farm Service Agency and, 73

field offices, 126

important farmland protection, 127

international programs, 131

mission, 126

partnerships, 126–127

programs, 128–131

soil mapping, 115

Web site, 131

NCE. See National Centers of Excellence

Nebraska

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

Neighborhood Reinvestment, 62

NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act

Nevada

fire-hazard education program, 139

New Century of Service, 123

New York

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

NFC. See National Finance Center

NFS. See National Forest System

NFSEM. See National Food Safety Education MonthSM

1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by 

Individuals, 19

NIPF landowners. See Nonindustrial private 

landowners

Nonfamily farms

production, 30

typology for, 29

Nonindustrial private landowners, 120

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 70

Nonmetropolitan areas. See also Metropolitan areas;

Rural areas

employment rate, 39–40

Federal funding for development, 42–43

population growth, 38

unemployment rate, 40

“Nonrecourse” loans, 69

North American Free Trade Agreement, 75, 141

North American Waterfowl Management Plan,

113–114

North Carolina

beaver damage management programs, 159

boll weevil eradication, 157

North Dakota

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 94

Noxious weed management program, 115

NRI. See National Resources Inventory

NSIP. See Nutrition Services Incentive Program

NSLP. See National School Lunch Program

Nutrient Management/Best Management Practice 

Insurance Program, 82–83

Nutrition. See also Food and Nutrition Service

extension programs for minorities, 139

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

and Child Nutrition Program, 77

research papers on food and nutrition topics, 87

Nutrition assistance programs, 76–77, 88–90,

92–94, 95–97, 150

Nutrition Program for the Elderly. See Nutrition 

Services Incentive Program

Nutrition Services Incentive Program, 94–95, 150

Nuts

consumption profile, 14

crop insurance, 81–82

imports, 153

markets for, 151

wildlife depredation losses, 159

NVSL. See National Veterinary Services Laboratories

NWRC. See National Wildlife Research Center
Index | 171

O

Obesity, 14

OCE. See Office of the Chief Economist

OCFO. See Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCIO. See Office of the Chief Information Officer

OEPNU. See Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

Office of Bio-Power, 10

Office of Civil Rights, 47–49

Mission Statement, 47

Office of Community Development, 64–65

Office of Congressional Relations, 55

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 10, 53

Office of Ethics, 52

Office of Human Resources Management, 49

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 55

Office of International Programs, 124–125

Office of Operations, 50

Office of Outreach, 52

Office of Procurement and Property Management, 49

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis,

53

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization, 50, 52

Office of the Chief Economist, 52

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 55

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 54–55

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 62

Office of the Inspector General, 54

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 75

Office of Thrift Supervision, 62

Official U.S. Standards for Grain, 161

OHRM. See Office of Human Resources 

Management

OIA. See Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

OIG. See Office of the Inspector General

Oilseeds. See also Seeds

inspection and weighing of, 161

Older Americans Act of 2000, 94

OO. See Office of Operations

OOA. See Older Americans Act of 2000

Operation Talon, 54

Operations, Office of, 50

OPPM. See Office of Procurement and Property

Management

Oregon

population-based surveillance for foodborne 

diseases, 105

Organic Administration Act of 1897, 112

Organic farming

certification program, 152

description, 8

“natural foods” and, 9

organic food definition, 9

organic food standards and labels, 9

Organic Seal, 9, 152

OSDBU. See Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization

Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, 140

Outreach, Office of, 52

Outreach programs

housing loans, 62

Listeria monocytogenes and pregnant women, 107

risk management, 83

Spanish language food safety information, 106

P

PACA. See Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 161

Paperwork Reduction Act, 55

Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!R Campaign, 107, 108, 109

Partnerships

college and universities, 65

conservation buffers, 130–131

Forest Service community-based partnerships,

113–114

housing programs, 62

States and the Food and Nutrition Service, 88

wildlife, fish, and sensitive species on the national

forests and grasslands, 114

Passport in Time program, 118–119

Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point Systems, 4, 101, 148

PDP. See Pesticide Data Program

Peanuts

imports, 153

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 151

Personal property

excess, 49

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996, 92

Persons with disabilities

housing loans, 61

nutrition assistance programs, 96–97

in the USDA workforce, 48–49

Pesticide Data Program, 150

Pets

humane care, 159–160

Phosphate production, 116

Pigs. See Hogs; Swine

Pinchot, Gifford, 123

Plant Materials Centers, 129

Plant Protection Act of 2000, 155

Plant Protection and Quarantine, 155

Plant Variety Protection Act, 151

Plant Variety Protection Office, 151

Plants. See also specific types of plants

domestic plant health programs, 157

imports, 157

rare plants, 114

Plum pox eradication, 156

Point farms, 27

Popcorn, 19

Potatoes

bioplastics from, 138

consumption patterns, 18

disease-resistant, 135

virus-resistant, 158

Poultry

adding alum to poultry litter, 134–135

consumer substitution of poultry for red meats, 15

consumption profile, 15

Federal inspection, 100, 102

grading, 148

imports, 156–157

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108

pathogen reduction, 101–106

payment protection, 161

wildlife depredation losses, 159

Poultry Products Inspection Act, 100

Poverty. See also Low-income persons

decline in rates of, 41

rural areas, 38

Power PantherTM, 89

Price reporting program, 149

Private voluntary organizations, 76–77

Process Verification Program, 149

Produce. See Fruits; Vegetables

Pseudorabies, 158

Public Law 480, Title II/III Programs, 70, 76–77

Puerto Rico

nutrition assistance program, 94

PulseNet, 105–106

Purchase Card Management System, 49

Purdue University

mentoring program, 139

PVOs. See Private voluntary organizations

Q

QA. See Quality assurance services

QSP. See Quality Samples Program

Quality assurance services, 148–149

Quality Samples Program, 79

Quality Systems Verification Program, 153

Quarantines, 155–156, 157, 158

R

Raisins

markets for, 151

Rangeland programs, 115

Rapid pathogen identification devices, 3

Rare plants, 114

RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RCAP. See Rural Community Advancement Program

RC&D. See Resource Conservation and Development

Program

RCRA. See Resource, Conservation and Recovery

Act

REAP Zones. See Rural Economic Area Partnership

Zones

Recipes and Tips for Healthy, Thrifty Eating, 86–87

Recreation

Forest Service options, 116–117, 118–119

Remote Sensing Coordination Committee, 53
172 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

Renewable energy, 9, 11

Renewable Energy Development Loan and Grant 

Program

description, 11

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, 112

Rental assistance, 61

Rental housing

loans for, 61

Rescissions Act of 1995, 115

Research. See specific agencies

Research and Promotion Programs, 151

Residential/lifestyle farms

government program participation, 34

specialization and, 31

typology for, 29

Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, 50

Resource Conservation and Development Program,

7, 130

Retirement farms

government program participation, 34

specialization and, 31

typology for, 29

Revenue Assurance, 82

Revenue Insurance policies, 82

RHLP. See Rural Home Loan Partnership

RHS. See Rural Housing Service

Rice

bioplastics from, 138

import permits, 75

Rio Grande Valley

poverty in, 38

Riparian buffers, 139

Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office

of, 53

Risk Management Agency

anticipated growth, 83

crop insurance, 81–83

insurance plans, 82–83

mission, 81

outreach, 83

risk management education, 83

Web site, 82

RMA. See Risk Management Agency

Roper Roberts surveys

food consumption patterns, 17

RTB. See Rural Telephone Bank

Rural Alliance, 62

Rural areas. See also Metropolitan areas; Nonmetropolitan areas

asset diversity, 41

diversity of economies, 38

farming and, 38

Federal funding for development, 42–43

Hispanic population, 39

Nation’s economic prosperity and, 39–41

population growth, 38–39

regional trends, 38–39

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 58–60

Rural Business Enterprise Grants, 59

Rural Business Opportunity Grants, 59

Rural Community Advancement Program, 65

Rural Community Assistance Program, 120

Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 59

Rural Cooperatives, 60

Rural Development

Briefing Room, 141

goals and mission, 58

loans to help support rural energy and business 

efforts, 10

Office of Community Development, 64–65

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 58–60

Rural Housing Service, 60–62

Rural Utilities Service, 63

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 65

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants, 59

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees, 63

Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 63

Rural Home Loan Partnership, 62

Rural Housing Service, 60–62

Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 62

Rural Rental Housing loans, 61

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan 

Guarantees, 63

Rural Telephone Bank, 63

Rural Utilities Service

deregulation effects on rural communities, 10

loans, 59

loans to rural electric cooperatives for developing

electric power using renewable feedstocks, 9

programs, 63

RUS. See Rural Utilities Service

S

SACED. See Secretary’s Advisory Committee for 

Employees with Disabilities

Salad oils. See Fats and oils

Salmonella

FSIS testing for, 100

hotline information, 106

population-based surveillance for, 105

prevalence of, 4, 101, 102

Salud! nutrition program, 139

SAN. See Sustainable Agriculture Network

San Diego State University, 65

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, 75

SARE Program. See Sustainable Agriculture 

Research and Education Program

SBP. See School Breakfast Program

Scales and weighing activities, 161

SCGP. See Supplier Credit Guarantee Program

School Breakfast Program, 95, 96, 150

School Lunch Program, 92–94, 96, 148, 150

School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 93

Scientific collaboration, 80

SCMI. See Service Center Modernization Initiative

Scrapie, 134

Screwworm eradication program, 156

SCSEP. See Senior Community Service Employment

Program

Secretary of Agriculture

Advisory Committee for Employees with 

Disabilities, 49

Diversity Advisory Council, 49

Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary

of Energy regarding hydrogen and fuel cell 

technology applications, 11

Secretary of Energy

Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary

of Agriculture regarding hydrogen and fuel cell

technology applications, 11

Secretary’s Advisory Committee for Employees with

Disabilities, 49

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council, 49

Section 416(b) program, 77

Seeds. See also Oilseeds

State seed laws, 151

testing service for exporters, 153

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 124

Senior Community Service Employment Program,

124

Sensitive species, 114

Service Center Modernization Initiative, 55

Sexual harassment training, 48

SFSP. See Summer Food Service Program

Sheep

Livestock Compensation Program, 71

production and marketing of, 60

scrapie in, 134

Shell Egg Surveillance Program, 151–152

Shell eggs

grading, 151–152

Shigella

population-based surveillance for, 105

Shortening. See Fats and oils

Single Family Housing loans, 60–61, 62

Slaughter plants

pathogen reduction performance standards, 101

Small and Disadvantaged Business Procurement

Preference Programs, 50

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office

of, 50, 52

Small Business Act of 1958, 50

Small Business Innovation Research program, 137

Small family farms

assets, 30

commodity programs and, 35

government program participation, 33

household income, 34

nonfarm economy and, 35

outreach conference, 83

specialization and, 31, 32

typology for, 29

Small Farm Digest, 138

Small Farm Program, 138–139

Small Watershed Program, 129
Index | 173

Smokey Bear fire prevention campaign, 122

SMP. See Special Milk Program

Smuggling

agricultural products, 155

illegal drugs, 125

Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance unit,

155

Snack foods

after-school care center programs, 88, 93, 94

consumption profile, 16

fat content, 17

SNOTEL, 129

Snow surveys, 129

Snow Telemetry, 129

Soft drinks

consumption profile, 16

sugar content, 20

Soil management program, 114–115

Soil surveys, 128–129

Somerset Community College, 65

Soup kitchens, 91

South Agriculture Building renovation, 50

South Carolina

boll weevil eradication, 157

South Dakota

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

South Korea

exports to, 75

Soybeans

exports, 74

genetically engineered, 8

Special Milk Program, 96

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children, 95–96

Specialization of farms, 30–32

St. Louis River Watch Program, 139

Staphylococcal enterotoxin

FSIS testing for, 100

State and Private Forestry Action Strategy, 113

State and Private Forestry programs

Conservation Education, 121–122

Cooperative Forestry, 120

description, 112–113

Economic Action Programs, 120

forest health protection, 119

Forest Legacy Program, 120, 121

Forest Stewardship Program, 120

New Century of Service, 123

States. See also specific states

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

cooperation, 6, 73

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 137–139

emergency animal disease prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery systems, 155

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program,

152

Food and Nutrition Service partnership with, 88

grants and cooperative agreements for homeland

security, 3

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 156

statistical offices, 144

Stewardship programs, 118, 120

Stockyards, 161

Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S.

Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report, 142

Sucrose

consumption profile, 20

Sugar

consumption profile, 14, 20

Summer Camp program, 96–97, 150

Summer Food Service Program, 96–97

Supplemental food programs. See Food and Nutrition Service

Supplier Credit Guarantee Program, 77–78

Surveys

farm typology group differences, 29–30

food consumption patterns, 17

1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by 

Individuals, 19

“Survival Strategies for Small and Limited-Resource

Farmers and Ranchers,” 83

Sustainable Agriculture Network, 139

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 

Program, 139

Sustainable Development, 53

Swine. See also Hogs

African swine fever, 155

brucellosis, 158

Federal inspection, 100

mandatory price reporting program, 149

pseudorabies, 158

T

Table spreads. See Fats and oils

TASC. See Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops

program

Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality, 131

Tax issues

estate taxes, 143

Tax Treatment for Cooperatives, 60

Taxol, 134

Team Nutrition, 89–90, 93

Teas. See Flavored teas

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program, 79

Technical assistance projects, 80

TEFAP. See The Emergency Food Assistance 

Program

Telecommunications Services and Operations, 55

Telemedicine. See Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants

Telephone Bank, Rural, 63

Telephone numbers. See Hotlines

Temporary Agricultural Worker Program, 53

Tennessee 

population-based surveillance for foodborne 

diseases, 105

Texas A&M

cloning of cattle for disease resistance, 138

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, 90–91

ThermyTM, 107

Thrift Savings Plan, 55

Thrift Supervision, Office of, 62

Thrifty Food Plan, 86–87

Timber harvests, 118

Tomatoes

virus-resistant, 158

Tongass National Forest, 116

Trade agreements, 75–76

Trade Briefing Room, 140

Training

EEO training for employees, 48

foreign agriculturists, 80–81

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 152

“Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket,”

14

Tribal Liaison, 52

Turkeys. See Poultry

Tuskegee University, 137

Typology for farms, 29–30, 142

U

United Nations

technical assistance funding, 80

University of Texas-Pan American, 65

Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, 75

U.S. Action Plan on Food Security, 79–80

U.S. Agency for International Development

food assistance programs, 70

technical assistance funding, 80

U.S. Customs Service

biosecurity issues, 3

product and cargo inspections, 3

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Departmental Administration, 47–52

Foodborne Illness Education Information Center,

108

infrastructure strengthening, 2, 54

national energy policy implementation efforts,

9–10

number of employees, by State, Territory, or 

Country, 51

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of Energy, 11

Web site, 10

workplace profile by race and gender group, 2001,

48

U.S. Department of Defense

produce buying and distribution system, 93

troop ration specifications, 148

U.S. Department of Energy

cooperative project with USDA to produce 

bioenergy, 10

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 10

Office of Bio-Power, 10
174 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

Secretary of Energy Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture, 11

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

bovine spongiform encephalopathy protection, 104

Nutrition Services Incentive Program, 94–95

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

port inspection responsibilities, 3

U.S. Department of Labor

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest

Service land, 124

U.S. Grain Standards Act, 160

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

coordination with Office of Human Resources 

Management, 49

U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the, 75

USAID. See U.S. Agency for International 

Development

USDA Civil Rights Policy Statement, 47

USDA Graduate School

mentoring program, 49

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108

USDA Organic Seal, 9, 152

USTR. See Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Utah

water quality protection, 139

Utilities service, 9, 59, 63

V

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants, 59

Veal

grading, 148

Vegetables. See also specific vegetables

consumption profile, 14, 18

crop insurance, 81–82

exports, 79

fair trade practices, 151

farmer’s markets and, 97

Food Stamp Program and, 93

grading, 148

imports, 153

invasive diseases, 155

marketing orders, 151

pesticide program, 150

wildlife depredation losses, 159

Veneman, Ann M.

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council charter, 49

Venezuela

import licensing, 75

Very large family farms

commodity programs and, 35

government program participation, 33

household income, 34

production, 30

specialization and, 32

typology, 29

Veterinarians. See also Veterinary Service

National Animal Health Reserve Corps, 155

Veterinary Service, 158

Veterinary services

District Veterinary Medical Specialists, 4

Vibrio

population-based surveillance for, 105

Virginia

boll weevil eradication, 157

Virginia Tech, 138

Virus-Serum Toxin Act of 1913, 158, 160

Volunteers

Forest Service programs, 124

Volunteers in the National Forests program, 124

VS. See Veterinary Service

W

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants, 63

Water quality protection, 139

Water supply forecasts, 129

Watershed programs, 114–115, 129–130, 139

Weather forecasting, 52, 115

Web sites. See also Internet

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 53

Agricultural Marketing Service, 153

Agricultural Research Service, 135

American Indian/Alaska Native Programs, 52

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 160

biotechnology, 8

bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 105

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 87

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 6

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 139

crop insurance information, 82

Departmental Administration, 47, 49

Economic Research Service, 43, 140, 142

Farm Bill, 7

Farm Service Agency, 7, 73

Food and Nutrition Service, 88

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 101, 107, 108

food safety issues, 4

Foreign Agricultural Service, 74

Global Change Program Office, 53

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration, 161

homeland security, 4

National Agricultural Library, 136

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 145

National Food Safety Information Network, 108

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

53

National Organic Program, 9

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 7, 131

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 53

Office of Ethics, 52

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization, 50

Office of the Chief Economist, 52

outdoor recreation opportunities, 116

Plant Materials Centers, 129

Risk Management Agency, 82

Sustainable Development, 53

USDA, 10

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 106

water supply forecasts, 129

Wetlands Reserve Program, 6

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 7

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 53

Weed management program, 115

Weed seeds, 151

Welfare Reform Act of 1996, 88

West Nile virus, 159

Wetlands Reserve Program, 6, 27, 128

Wheat

bioplastics from, 138

crop insurance, 81–82

exports, 74

WHIP. See Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

WIC. See Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 112

Wildfire-rating maps, 139

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 6–7, 128

Wildlife Services program, 159

WNV. See West Nile virus

Women

Listeria monocytogenes and pregnant women 

outreach program, 107

loans and loan guarantees to, 72

nutrition assistance programs, 77, 95–96, 97

percent of USDA workforce, 48

Women Employees Advisory Council, 49

Wood in Transportation Program, 121

Woodsy Owl, 122

Workplace diversity, 48

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 52–53

World Bank

technical assistance funding, 80

World Food Summit, 1996, 80

World Meteorological Organization

Commission for Agricultural Meteorology, 53

World Trade Organization, 75–76, 142

World Wide Web. See Web sites

WRP. See Wetlands Reserve Program

WS. See Wildlife Services program

WTO. See World Trade Organization

Wyoming

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

Y

YCC. See Youth Conservation Corps

Yersinia

population-based surveillance for, 105

Yew trees, 134

Youth Conservation Corps, 124