Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002

United States Department of Agriculture • Office of Communications

Agriculture Fact Book2001-2002

Agriculture Fact B

ook 2001-2002

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

web site: [email protected]

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 asBraille, 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 providerand 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 Book2001-2002

March 2003http://www.usda.gov

Contents | iii

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

1. Current Topics: Selected Issues in American Agriculture Today ..............................1Homeland Security ................................................................................2Conservation Measures in the 2002 Farm Bill ....................................5Biotechnology in Brief ...........................................................................8Certified Organic: Update......................................................................8Energy Policy in the 2002 Farm Bill ....................................................11

2. Profiling Food Consumption in America .........................................13Meat Consumption at Record High....................................................15Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts Cheese Consumption….....................16...And Swells Use of Salad and Cooking Oils and Shortening .........17Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Continues To Rise......................18Consumers Eat Too Much Refined Grain, Too Little Whole Grain ..19Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners Hits Record High ...................20Food Expenditures and Prices.............................................................20How Much of the Cost of Food Services and Distribution Goes to Farmers? .................................................................................21

3. American Farms..................................................................................23Acres or Sales? .....................................................................................24Change by Sales Class, 1982 to 1997..................................................26Diversity Among American Farms .....................................................27Shares of Farms, Assets, and Production...........................................30Specialization and Diversification .....................................................30Government Program Participation ...................................................32Household Income...............................................................................34Farm Policy and Family Farms ...........................................................34

4. Rural America: Entering the 21st Century......................................37Rural Population Growth Levels Off, but the West Continues To Grow...............................................................................38Rural Areas Benefited From the Nation’s Economic Prosperity......39Rural Economies Are Based on Different Assets ..............................41Federal Funding for Rural Area Development Smaller Than for Urban Areas............................................................42

Contents

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture.........................................................45Departmental Administration............................................................47Office of the Chief Economist .............................................................52Office of the Inspector General ..........................................................54Office of the Chief Information Officer..............................................54Office of the Chief Financial Officer...................................................55Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations .............55

6. USDA Rural Development...................................................................57Rural Business-Cooperative Service ..................................................58Rural Housing Service .........................................................................60Rural Utilities Service ..........................................................................63Office of Community Development ...................................................64

7. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.........................................67Farm Service Agency ...........................................................................68Foreign Agricultural Service ...............................................................74Risk Management Agency...................................................................81

8. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ........................................85Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion .......................................86Food and Nutrition Service .................................................................87

9. Food Safety ..........................................................................................99Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................100

10. Natural Resources and Environment.............................................111Forest Service .....................................................................................112Natural Resources Conservation Service ........................................126

11. Research, Education, and Economics ...........................................133Agricultural Research Service ..........................................................134Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ...137Economic Research Service ..............................................................140National Agricultural Statistics Service ..........................................143

12. Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................147Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................148Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................................154Grain 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. De-

partment 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 Administra-

tion’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 Issuesin American Agriculture Today

2 | Agriculture Fact Book | Chapter 1

This section gives a brief overview of a few current issues facing Americanagriculture–and therefore the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA). Furtherinformation on these current topics canbe found on the Web sites indicated.

Homeland Security

What is USDA doing to ensure the well-being of America’s agriculture and foodsupply? The Department has in place anoverall biosecurity system designed to prevent the harmful introduction of plant and animal pathogens into America’ssystem of agriculture and food produc-tion. From the farm to the table, USDAenforces biosecurity measures designedto protect against all animal and plantpathogens.

Following September 11, 2001, USDAtook immediate steps to secure sensitivefacilities and examine vulnerabilitiesthroughout the food chain, and it con-ducted assessments to identify the criti-cal needs to fill security gaps. USDAcontinues to take the necessary steps toensure that its programs and servicesare responsive to potential biosecuritythreats. USDA programs aim to meet twovery important objectives: first, to prevent the entry of plant or animal diseases,and second, to contain and eradicate theproblem if we do face an emergency.

USDA is looking at short- and long-termneeds to ensure that the Departmentcontinues to protect America’s foodsupply and agriculture against pests anddiseases of any kind. In 2001 and 2002,USDA took steps to strengthen USDA’sagricultural infrastructure—the pro-grams, the research, the coordination,and the resources—to ensure that theDepartment has the ability to preventpests and diseases from harming agri-culture and our food system.

The Department’s efforts on homelandsecurity are based on a longstandingcommitment to food safety and to se-curing the food supply and agriculturefrom threats. For example, in 2001, theDepartment dealt with the threat offoot-and-mouth disease as a widespreadoutbreak occurred in the United King-dom and other parts of Europe. USDAstrengthened surveillance and responsesystems as it dealt with the threat of thisdisease that we had not seen in thiscountry for over 70 years.

However, since September 11, 2001, USDA is also examining threats to our foodsupply as homeland security issues. TheDepartment is now concerned about in-tentional 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 effortsto protect American agriculture againstpotential threats. Key homeland securityactivities include protecting the food sup-ply and agricultural production, as well as protecting USDA staff and facilities andensuring emergency preparedness. Someof the key biosecurity enhancements be-ing implemented include the following:

■ Security has been increased at appro-priate USDA facilities.

■ At ports of entry, personnel are con-ducting intensified product and cargoinspections of travelers and baggage toprevent the entry of animal or plantpests and diseases. The AgriculturalQuarantine Inspection program has beenstrengthened, and an automated systemof inspections is being developed in co-ordination with the U.S. Customs Service.USDA is purchasing 100 rapid pathogenidentification devices and hiring addi-tional inspection personnel. USDA alsohas doubled its inspection dog teams.Port inspection responsibilities will betransferred to the Department of Home-land Security during 2003.

■ Food safety inspectors have been giv-en additional guidance to be alert to anyirregularity at food processing facilities.USDA constantly reviews and updates itsbiosecurity procedures as laboratorymethods and science improve. FSIS hasincreased monitoring, provided trainingto inspectors, hired additional inspectorsfor imported meat and poultry, and ex-panded technical capabilities.

Modern information technologies allowfor improved responses to plant and ani-mal pest and disease outbreaks. For ex-ample, USDA is also developing a systemthat relies on geographic informationsystem technologies to provide capabili-ties for real-time mapping to predictspread and consequences of outbreaks.And the Agricultural Research Service isimproving rapid detection technologiesfor foot-and-mouth disease as well asother animal diseases. The Departmentis also addressing the possible disruptionto its computer systems.

Training exercises, as well as more com-munications and technical assistance,have been conducted and improved toensure readiness should we face an ani-mal, pest, or food emergency.

Federal and State CoordinationUSDA works with the Congress, States,other Federal agencies, academia, andthe private sector to make sure that theNation has a strong line of defense.USDA is coordinating with other Federalagencies—such as the Food and DrugAdministration, the Centers for DiseaseControl, the U.S. Customs Service, andlaw enforcement agencies—on biosecu-rity issues, and with appropriate State and local agriculture offices and industryorganizations on emergency prepared-ness, in order to provide training andstrengthen resources where appropriate.

State grants and cooperative agreementshelp bolster food and agricultural home-land security protections. These grantsare an important component of U.S. ef-forts to strengthen homeland securityprotections as they relate to food andagriculture. States and local communi-ties, along with academia and the pri-vate sector, are critical partners in mak-ing sure the Nation is prepared in theevent of an emergency.

USDA conducts regular training, meet-ings, and conferences to discuss plan-ning and preparedness issues as theyrelate to pest and animal diseases andfood safety issues. USDA communicateswith producers, farmers, and food man-ufacturers via industry associations, in-dustry media, and cooperators on Stateand local levels regarding ongoing agri-cultural issues such as biosecurity. USDAofficials in every State continue to meetand discuss with producers and farmersthe importance of heightened awarenessas a protection measure against biosecu-rity threats, urging responsible and cau-tious monitoring of the Nation’s foodand agriculture system.

Protecting Meat and PoultryUSDA’s Food Safety and InspectionService (FSIS) has a team of more than6,000 food safety inspectors workingthroughout the United States at meatprocessing facilities. These are special-ists who are trained to look for andprevent adulteration and foodbornecontamination of meat and poultryproducts that could threaten the safety of our food supply.


■ Publishing an Advance Notice of Pro-posed Rulemaking to consider additionalregulatory options for the disposal ofdead stock on farms and ranches.

The FY 2002 budget included $13 millionfor additional BSE surveillance, research,and laboratory activities.

Furthermore, new inspection positionshave been added to improve FSIS’ capac-ity to detect and prevent food safetyproblems. In addition, supplementaryeducation and specialized training willbe provided for existing FSIS inspectionpersonnel. FSIS has hired 17 District Vet-erinary Medical Specialists. These newpositions will ensure that all plants, re-gardless of size, appropriately addresstheir humane handling responsibilitiesand other slaughter issues. Additionally,FSIS is training 75 Consumer Safety Offi-cers to conduct on-site food safety andother consumer protection assessmentsin meat and poultry establishments, andmake determinations about the scientif-ic efficacy of a plant’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point operating plan.

For More Information:For more information on USDA’s home-land security efforts, visit:www.usda.gov/homelandsecurity

For more information on food safetyissues, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov

Consumers concerned about their meator poultry products should contact USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline at: 1-800-535-4555. A USDA compliance offi-cer will follow up on reports of producttampering and adulteration.

Consumers who believe they have eatensuspect product should contact a physi-cian immediately.

FSIS continues to strengthen meat,poultry, and egg food safety systems thatprotect consumers, and it has takenactions that continually improve foodsafety protections.

USDA has a responsibility to protectpublic health, and it incorporates provenscientific principles throughout the foodsafety system to enhance our food safetyinfrastructure. The agency has the mostadvanced food safety system in theworld and it continually works to en-hance it.

This food safety system has achieved some measurable successes. For example,Salmonella testing data show that theprevalence of this pathogen has signifi-cantly decreased in all product categories,including turkey. Also, data from theCenters for Disease Control show signifi-cant reductions in foodborne illness.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, andpotential threats to the Nation’s foodsupply, FSIS has strengthened food pro-tection programs and is spending an ad-ditional $15 million to bolster food safety protections. Additional resources will beprovided to strengthen USDA’s foreignmeat inspection program and to en-hance laboratory systems and research.USDA has formed several homeland se-curity teams to specifically examineways to strengthen protections againstintentional threats to the food supply.

In November 2001, USDA released alandmark study conducted by HarvardUniversity that showed the risk of BSE(bovine spongiform encephalopathy, ormad cow disease) entering the UnitedStates is very low. Even so, USDA an-nounced several actions to strengthenprotection systems, including:

■ Doubling the number of BSE tests,

■ Publishing a policy options paper out-lining additional regulatory actions thatmay be taken to reduce potential risks,

■ Developing a proposed rule to prohibitthe use of certain stunning devices usedto immobilize cattle during slaughter,and


Conservation Measures in the 2002 Farm Bill

The Farm Security and Rural InvestmentAct of 2002 (called the Farm Bill), which governs Federal farm programs for 6 years,was signed into law on May 13, 2002. Itcontains record levels of support for envi-ronmental stewardship and conservation of soil and water quality on workinglands. 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 conserva-tion and environmental programs will rise by 80 percent to a projected 10-year total of $38.6 billion, according to Congression-al Budget Office (CBO) estimates (basedon the April 2002 baseline). It continuesand expands the programs that support conservation on land in production,including livestock operations. New pro-grams, including the Conservation Secu-rity Program and the Grassland ReserveProgram, further expand the objectivesand role of agri-environmental policy.

This legislation responds to a broad rangeof emerging natural resource challengesfaced by farmers and ranchers, including soil erosion, wetlands and wildlife habitatenhancement, and farmland protection.

Conservation Provisions in the 2002Farm BillUnder the 2002 Farm Act, producers canchoose from a wide range of voluntaryconservation and environmental pro-grams—including cost share, land rental,incentive payments, and technical assis-tance—designed to protect a wide rangeof resources. Like the three previousFarm Acts, the 2002 Act continues thetrend of increasing the size and scope ofagri-environmental programs. While pro-grams that support better conservationand environmental management onworking land have accounted for lessthan 15 percent of Federal conservationexpenditures over the past 15 years, theyreceive more than 60 percent of the$17.1-billion increase in conservationspending.

Here is a summary of existing conserva-tion programs covered in the 2002 FarmBill. Most of the following programs getacreage or funding increases:

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of-fers annual payments and cost sharing to establish long-term, resource-conservingcover on environmentally sensitive land.It provides technical and financial assis-tance to reduce soil erosion, protect the Nation’s ability to produce food and fiber,reduce sedimentation in streams andlakes, 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.


wildlife habitat, and enhance forest andwetland resources. CRP encouragesfarmers to convert highly erodible crop-land or other environmentally sensitiveacreage to vegetative cover. The acreagecap is increased from 36.4 million acresto 39.2 million acres. Funding is throughthe Commodity Credit Corporation(CCC). CBO estimates increased spendingof $1.5 billion over 10 years.

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Pro-gram (CREP) is part of the CRP. It is avoluntary program designed to addressspecific grassroots environmental issuesrelated to agriculture. The CREP com-bines the CRP with State programs toprovide a framework allowing USDA towork in partnership with State govern-ment and local interests. Because theFarm Bill increases acreage caps for the

CRP, it will provide more opportunities tocreate partnership agreements. More in-formation on the CRP and the CREP canbe found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/default.htm

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is USDA’s premier wetland restoration pro-gram. It provides cost sharing and/orlong-term or permanent easements forrestoring wetland on agricultural land.The acreage cap is increased from 1.075million acres to 2.275 million acres. TheSecretary of Agriculture is required (tothe greatest extent practicable) to enroll 250,000 acres per year. Funding is throughthe CCC. CBO estimates increased spend-ing of $1.5 billion over 10 years. The WRPis offered on a continuous signup basis.Applications are available at local USDAService Centers, NRCS field offices andconservation districts, or on the Web athttp://www.sc.egov.usda.gov

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP) provides technical assistance, costsharing, and incentive payments to as-sist livestock and crop producers withconservation and environmental im-provements. The Farm Bill reauthorizesEQIP through 2007. EQIP is slated to re-ceive $5.8 billion in CCC funding for FY2002-07 and a total of $9 billion over 10years. Funding is phased up to $1.3 bil-lion annually by FY 2007, compared withannual funding of roughly $200 millionper year under the 1996 Farm Act. Addi-tional CCC funding of $250 million overFY 2002-07 is provided for ground andsurface water conservation. An addition-al $50 million is allocated to water con-servation activities in the Klamath Basin.

The Farm Bill reauthorizes the popularWildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) toimprove fish and wildlife habitat on pri-vate lands. Through WHIP, landownerscan receive financial and technical assis-tance to help reverse the trend in thedecline of available wildlife habitat andcontribute to the recovery of many ofthe Nation’s species that are currently atrisk. Total CCC funding of $360 million ismandated over FY 2002–07, ranging from$15 million in FY 2002 to $85 million inFY 2005–07, and a total of $700 millionover 10 years. WHIP is offered on a con-


tinuous signup basis. Applications areavailable at local USDA Service Centers,at NRCS field offices and conservationdistricts, or on the Web athttp://www.sc.egov.usda.gov

The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) pro-vides funds to State, tribal, or local gov-ernments and private organizations tohelp purchase development rights andkeep productive farmland in agriculturaluse. The Farm Bill reauthorizes this pro-gram and extends it to nongovernmentalorganizations to purchase conservationeasements. It also expands the programto protecting farms and ranches that contain historical and archaeological sites.

Total CCC funding of $597 million ismandated over FY 2002–7, ranging from$50 million in FY 2002 to $125 million inFY 2004–05, and totaling $985 millionover 10 years.

The Farm Bill permanently reauthorizesthe Resource Conservation and DevelopmentProgram (RC&D). This program providestools and technical support to help localpeople improve their quality of life; ad-dress social, economic, and environmen-tal concerns; and use natural resourceswisely. The focus on local direction andcontrol has made RC&D one of the mostsuccessful rural development programsof the Federal Government.

The following new programs will also re-ceive significant funding while expand-ing the overall scope of USDA conserva-tion programs:

The Farm Bill creates a new ConservationSecurity Program to financially recognizeongoing stewardship efforts and to helpproducers address additional resourceconcerns on agricultural working lands.The Conservation Security Program willprovide payments to producers for main-taining or adopting a wide range ofstructural and/or land managementpractices that address a variety of localand/or national resource concerns. TheFarm Bill establishes the program for FY2003 through 2007. CSP will be fundedthrough the CCC. CBO estimates spend-ing of $369 million for FY 2003–07 and$2 billion over 10 years.

The Grassland Reserve Program will protectup to 2 million acres of grassland. CCC funding of up to $254 million is available.

Also included in the Farm Bill are new ini-tiatives that address challenges in waterquality and quantity. A new ground andsurface water conservation initiative willhelp farmers improve irrigation, grow less water-intensive crops, or convert to dry-land farming. A new grassroots source-water protection initiative will providefor wellhead and groundwater protec-tion by working with State programs.

For More InformationThe day after President Bush signed theFarm Security and Rural Investment Actof 2002 into law, USDA launched a newWeb site aimed at helping farmers,ranchers, and the general public learnthe latest information about the newFarm Act. The Farm Act is very broadand contains many new programs. Thenew Web site helps users find informa-tion at one site that includes Farm Billprogram details, questions and answers,program applications and signup forms,as well as other important materials from USDA agencies on Farm Bill implemen-tation. The Web site will also contain ad-vanced electronic applications to helpprogram applicants receive programbenefits faster and more efficiently.

The Web site can be directly accessed at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill, or by sim-ply clicking on the 2002 Farm Bill icon on USDA’s main Web site at http://www.usda.gov

The Farm Service Agency administersthe Conservation Reserve Program, theConservation Reserve Enhancement Pro-gram, and other conservation programs.Its Web site is http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp

The Natural Resources ConservationService administers the EnvironmentalQuality Improvement Program, WetlandReserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Im-provement Program, Farmland Protec-tion Program, and other conservationprograms. Its Web site ishttp://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.


Biotechnology in Brief

USDA is one of three Federal agencies—along with the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the U.S. Food and Drug Ad-ministration—that have primary respon-sibility for regulating biotechnology inthe United States. Products are regulatedaccording to their intended use, withsome products being regulated undermore than one agency.

Agricultural biotechnology has been ad-vancing rapidly; and for all the promisesit offers, it poses as many questions.Agricultural biotechnology is rewritingthe rules in several key areas—agricul-tural research policy, industry structure,production and marketing, consumerpreference, and world food demand—and public policy is struggling to keepup. Much of the current interest inbiotechnology stems from the rapiddiffusion in North America and otherexporting countries, such as Argentina,of genetically engineered crops such ascotton, soybeans, corn, and canola, andfrom the uneasy consumer response inEurope as compared with the UnitedStates.

The emergence of agricultural biotech-nology is occurring at a time when thewhole world is the marketplace. Withrapid economic growth in much of theworld, consumers are more affluent anddemand more variety and higher qualityin the food they eat. Agricultural bio-technology provides a means to meetthese demands. But at the same time, in-ternational consumer preferences cansteer the development of technology andheighten the uncertainty surroundingthe use of agricultural biotechnology.

The array of issues surrounding biotech-nology includes the legal, ethical, envi-ronmental, and economic–including therate of and reasons for adoption of bio-technology by farmers. Other issues in-clude marketing, labeling, and trade inbiotechnology products. Variety approvalprocesses here, labeling requirements,and expressed market demand for crops that have not been genetically engineered could contribute to the transformation ofthe global food marketing system.

Intellectual property rights and marketconcentration in the agricultural inputindustries are intertwined areas that areshaped by public policy. Large biotechfirms have merged with seed companiesto obtain sources of germplasm to spinoff genetically modified seed varietiesand to secure outlets for delivering thenew products. Concentration in the in-put industry raises questions about the direction for future agricultural research.Critical to the efficient and equitable ad-vance of agricultural biotechnology isdetermining the unique role of public re-search and when and how the publicsector should interact with the privatesector.

For more information, see USDA’sAgricultural Biotechnology Web site:http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/index.html

Certified Organic: Update

Organic farming became one of thefastest growing segments of U.S. agricul-ture during the 1990s. State and privateinstitutions also began emerging duringthis period to set organic farming stan-dards and provide third-party verificationof label claims, and legislation requiringnational standards was passed in the1990s. Although farmers have been de-veloping organic farming systems in theUnited States for decades, more U.S.producers are now considering organicfarming systems in order to lower inputcosts, conserve nonrenewable resources,capture high-value markets, and boostfarm income.

Organic farming systems rely on ecologi-cally based practices such as culturaland biological pest management, andthey virtually prohibit the use of syn-thetic chemicals in crop production andantibiotics or hormones in livestock pro-duction. Many producers, manufactur-ers, distributors, and retailers specializein growing, processing, and marketing anever-widening array of organic food andfiber 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.


Organic Food Standards and Labels:The FactsThe U.S. Department of Agriculture hasput in place a set of national standardsthat food labeled “organic” must meet,whether it is grown in the United Statesor imported from other countries. AfterOctober 21, 2002, when consumers buyfood labeled “organic,” they can be surethat it was produced using the highestorganic production and handling stan-dards in the world.

What is organic food? Organic food isproduced by farmers who emphasize theuse of renewable resources and the con-servation of soil and water to enhanceenvironmental quality for future genera-tions. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, anddairy products come from animals thatare given no antibiotics or growth hor-mones. Organic food is produced with-out using most conventional pesticides,petroleum-based fertilizers or sewagesludge-based fertilizers, bio-engineering,or ionizing radiation. Before a productcan be labeled “organic,” a Government-approved certifier inspects the farmwhere the food is grown to make surethe farmer is following all the rules nec-essary to meet USDA organic standards.Companies that handle or process or-ganic food before it gets to your localsupermarket or restaurant must becertified, too.

USDA makes no claims that organicallyproduced food is safer or more nutri-tious than conventionally producedfood. Organic food differs from conven-tionally produced food in the way it isgrown, handled, and processed. At thesupermarket, in order to distinguish or-ganically produced food from conven-tionally produced food, consumers mustlook at package labels and watch for dis-play signs. Along with the national or-ganic standards, USDA developed strictlabeling rules to help consumers knowthe exact organic content of the foodthey buy. The USDA Organic seal alsotells you that a product is at least 95 per-cent organic.

The word “organic” and a small stickerversion of the USDA Organic seal will beon organic vegetables or pieces of fruit,or they may appear on the sign abovethe organic produce display. The word“organic” and the seal may also appearon packages of meat, cartons of milk oreggs, cheese, and other single-ingredientfoods.

The use of the Organic seal is voluntary.People who sell or label a product “or-ganic” when they know it does not meetUSDA standards can be fined up to$10,000 for each violation.

“Natural” foods are not necessarily or-ganic foods. Truthful claims, such as free-range, hormone-free, and natural, canstill appear on food labels. However, thisdoes not mean that they are “organic.”Only food labeled “organic” has been cer-tified as meeting USDA organic standards.

For More Information About Organic FoodsFor more detailed information on theUSDA organic standards, visit the Agri-cultural Marketing Service’s NationalOrganic Program Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. The site contains acomplete list of applicants for accredita-tion, application information, and moreinformation on the National OrganicProgram. You may also call the NationalOrganic Program at 202-720-3252, orwrite USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4008 S.Bldg., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 IndependenceAve., SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Energy and Agriculture

Implementing the National EnergyPolicy at USDAIn May of 2001, President Bush unveiledhis national energy policy, which includ-ed a greater reliance on alternative andrenewable energy sources, including theuse of biofuels and biomass energysources. The U.S. Department of Agricul-ture has made important efforts to im-plement these recommendations.

One major effort at USDA is to develop renewable energy and bioproducts. USDA ordered increased use of biofuels in itsmotor vehicles and improved energyconservation at its facilities around thecountry. USDA is also evaluating the po-tential to convert USDA fuel tanks tobiodiesel and ethanol use. The Commod-ity Credit Corporation (CCC) BioenergyProgram signed up increases of 141.3million gallons in ethanol productionand 6.4 million gallons in biodiesel pro-duction in FY 2001. The program is ex-tended through FY 2002, with $150 mil-lion in funding for production incentivesfully subscribed. Also, USDA’s rural busi-ness program area has increased loanguarantees and grants to support new ethanol and bioproduct plants. And USDAhas an increased research budget for re-newable energy.

A second key effort involves the manage-ment of public lands. For example, the USDA Forest Service is working withother Federal Departments on an Inter-agency Hydropower Committee to im-plement agreements from the oldHydropower Task Force to improve thehydropower licensing process, and hasparticipated in a national energy indus-try review group in discussing changesto improve hydropower licensing. TheForest Service is also increasing researchand development for renewable energy,including biomass heat and energy dis-tribution projects and development ofwell-designed combined heat and powerunits, and is cooperating with DOE topurchase 6 turbines to place in smallcommunities to produce electricity as ademonstration project.

In a third key area, USDA’s Rural UtilitiesService is actively seeking to make loansand loan guarantees to rural electric co-operatives interested in developing elec-tric power generation fueled partially ortotally by renewable feedstocks.


Here are some further specific effortsthat USDA has undertaken in support ofthe national energy policy:

Iowa State and USDA Cooperative Agreement. InSeptember 2002, Secretary Ann M. Vene-man announced a cooperative agree-ment between the U.S. Department ofAgriculture and Iowa State University tohelp implement provisions of the 2002Farm Bill Energy Title that provides forpreferred procurement of biobased prod-ucts by Federal agencies. This initiativewill help expand markets for farmersand foresters through the use of value-added bioenergy agricultural products.Under the cooperative agreement, USDAwill provide $1 million annually for test-ing biobased products which will helpenable USDA to move more quickly toget the biobased product procurementprogram in operation.

USDA, DOE Team Up To Produce Bioenergy.USDA and the Department of Energy areevaluating whether a microturbine gen-erator that runs on methane biogas fromanimal manure can be a good source ofelectricity and heat for a research dairyfarm. This cooperative project involvesUSDA’s Agricultural Research Service,the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office ofBio-Power, and the National Energy Tech-nology Laboratory. The microturbine sys-tem could generate as much as 26 kilo-watts of electricity and approximately400,000 British thermal units per hour ofheat for small dairy operations of lessthan 250 cows. The project will be con-ducted at the Henry A. Wallace BeltsvilleAgricultural Research Center (BARC) atBeltsville, MD.

This technology provides an alternateuse of dairy cow manure. Tons of ma-nure are produced by the 1,400-pounddairy cows and pumped from the barninto an anaerobic digester, where theliquid and solids are separated. Thesolids go to composting and the liquidsare further processed in the digester toproduce a biogas that contains methane.The methane gas is captured and usedin the microturbine generator, and theremaining liquid—with odor significantlyreduced—is used for fertilizing the cropsat BARC.

The ARS research team will also evalu-ate the technology’s environmental andeconomic impact. If this type of systemproves to be efficient and cost-effective,it could provide an alternative energysource for dairy farmers. Energy costsare a large portion of dairy operatingcosts. The system also could help reducemethane emissions that contribute togreenhouse gas concentrations in the at-mosphere.

Rural Development Funds to Help Support RuralEnergy and Business Efforts. In December2001, USDA announced over $260 millionin loan and grant funds for 24 States toboost bioenergy production, expand ru-ral business ventures, and improve eco-nomic and community development.

These loan and grant funds are beingprovided through USDA’s Rural Develop-ment programs. Over 90 percent of thefunds announced will provide guaran-teed loans to electric cooperatives in 14States to increase access for nearly19,000 rural consumers to rural electricservice. The guaranteed loans are pro-vided in cooperation with the FederalFinancing Bank (FFB).

Office of Energy Policy and New UsesUSDA established an Office of EnergyPolicy and New Uses (OEPNU) to assistthe Secretary of Agriculture in develop-ing Departmental energy policy and co-ordinating Departmental energy pro-grams and strategies. The Office provideseconomic analysis on energy policy is-sues, coordinates USDA energy-relatedactivities within and outside the Depart-ment, and studies the feasibility of newuses of agricultural products.

Research is currently underway onbiodiesel fuels, ethanol fuels, and othersources of biomass energy. Measurementof atmospheric emissions associatedwith renewable energy also is understudy. The potential effects of deregula-tion of electric utilities on rural commu-nities are being studied in cooperationwith the Department’s Rural UtilitiesService.

In August 2002, the OEPNU released a re-port that confirmed the energy efficiencyof ethanol and its positive role in reduc-ing U.S. dependence on imported oil. Thereport, The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol:An Update, concludes that ethanol pro-duction is energy efficient because ityields 34 percent more energy than isused in growing and harvesting the cornand distilling it into ethanol.

The report says that the net energy val-ue of corn ethanol has become positivein recent years due to technological ad-vances in ethanol conversion and in-creased efficiency in farm production.Ethanol produces much more energythan it consumes when compared toother products such as petroleum. More-over, ethanol production uses abundantdomestic supplies of energy to convertcorn into a premium liquid fuel that candisplace petroleum imports.

Ethanol production has grown in theUnited States from a few million gallonsin the late 1970s to about 1.8 billion gal-lons in 2001, spurred by national energysecurity concerns, new Federal gasolinestandards, and government incentives.The increase in ethanol production hasstimulated the U.S. agricultural economybecause most ethanol is made from corn.The boost in ethanol demand has creat-ed a significant new market for corn.

According to the report, today’s highercorn yields, lower energy use per unit ofoutput in the fertilizer industry, and ad-vances in fuel conversion technologieshave greatly enhanced the economic and technical feasibility of producing ethanol.Studies using older data tend to overesti-mate energy use because the efficiencyof growing corn and converting it toethanol has improved significantly overthe past 20 years. The report is availableon the Web at http://www.usda.gov/oce.


Energy Policy in the 2002 Farm Bill

The 2002 Farm Bill was the first in histo-ry to contain a separate energy title, re-flecting a fundamental policy linking ofagriculture to energy. Title IX of the FarmBill establishes new programs and grantsfor procurement of biobased products tosupport development of biorefineries; toeducate the public about benefits ofbiodiesel fuel use; and to assist eligiblefarmers, ranchers, and rural small busi-nesses in purchasing renewable energysystems. Here are some of the key newprovisions of this legislation:

■ Federal procurement of biobased products es-tablishes a new program for purchase ofbiobased products by Federal agencies,modeled on the existing program forpurchase of recycled materials. A volun-tary biobased labeling program is includ-ed. It mandates funding of $1 million an-nually through the CCC for FY 2002–07for testing biobased products.

■ A competitive Biorefinery Grants Programsupports development of biorefineries toconvert biomass into multiple productssuch as fuels, chemicals, and electricity.For FY 2002–07, appropriations are au-thorized as necessary to implement thisprovision.

■ The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program estab-lishes a competitive grant program toeducate government and private entitieswith vehicle fleets, as well as the public,about the benefits of biodiesel fuel use.The program is funded at $1 million an-nually through the CCC for FY 2003–07.

■ The Energy Audit and Renewable EnergyDevelopment Program authorizes a competi-tive grant program for entities to admin-ister energy audits and renewable ener-gy development assessments forfarmers, ranchers, and rural small busi-nesses. For FY 2002–07, appropriationsare authorized as necessary to imple-ment this provision

■ The renewable energy systems and energyefficiency improvements establish a loan,loan guarantee, and grant program to as-sist eligible farmers, ranchers, and ruralsmall businesses in purchasing renew-able energy systems and making energyefficiency improvements. This effort pro-vides CCC funding of $23 million annu-ally for FY 2003-07.

■ Under a provision concerning hydrogenand fuel cell technologies, the Secretaries ofAgriculture and Energy are directed toenter into a Memorandum of Under-standing regarding hydrogen and fuelcell technology applications for agricul-tural producers and rural communities.The Secretary of Agriculture is requiredto disseminate information on thesetechnologies to agricultural producersand rural communities.

In addition, previously existing programswere expanded under provisions of the2002 Farm Bill:

■ The Biomass Research and Develop-ment Act of 2000 had directed the Secre-taries of Agriculture and Energy to coop-erate and to coordinate policies andprocedures that promote research anddevelopment leading to the productionof biobased industrial products. The 2002Farm Bill extends the termination dateto September 30, 2006, and provides $5million of CCC funds for FY 2002 and $14million annually for FY 2003-–07.

■ Under the Bioenergy Program, the Sec-retary of Agriculture makes paymentsthrough the CCC to eligible producers toencourage increased purchases of eligi-ble commodities (energy feedstocks) forthe purpose of expanding production ofbioenergy and supporting new produc-tion capacity. Payments to eligible pro-ducers are based on the increase inquantity of bioenergy they produce dur-ing a fiscal year over the quantity theyproduced during the preceding fiscalyear. The new Farm Bill reauthorizes theprogram and broadens the list of eligiblefeedstocks to include animal byproductsand fat, oils, and greases (including recy-cled fats, oils, and greases). The Secre-tary is required to use up to $150 millionannually for FY 2003–06.

■ Under the Renewable Energy Develop-ment Loan and Grant Program, USDAbusiness loan programs provided finan-cial assistance to various kinds of busi-nesses, including value-added agricul-tural enterprises. Under the newlegislation, business and industry loansand guarantees will be allowed for moretypes of renewable energy systems, suchas wind energy systems and anaerobicdigesters.

The Biobased Products and BioenergyCoordination Council The Biobased Products and BioenergyCoordination Council was established bythe Secretary of Agriculture to provide aforum through which USDA agencieswill coordinate, facilitate, and promoteresearch, development, transfer of tech-nology, commercialization, and market-ing of biobased products and bioenergyusing renewable domestic agriculturaland forestry materials.

CHAPTER 2

Profi l ing Food Consumption in America


Americans at the beginning of the 21stcentury are consuming more food andseveral hundred more calories per per-son per day than did their counterpartsin the late 1950s (when per capita calorieconsumption was at the lowest level inthe last century), or even in the 1970s.The aggregate food supply in 2000 pro-vided 3,800 calories per person per day,500 calories above the 1970 level and 800calories above the record low in 1957and 1958 (fig. 2-1).

Of that 3,800 calories, USDA’s EconomicResearch Service (ERS) estimates thatroughly 1,100 calories were lost tospoilage, plate waste, and cooking andother losses, putting dietary intake ofcalories in 2000 at just under 2,700 calo-ries per person per day. ERS data suggestthat average daily calorie intake in-creased by 24.5 percent, or about 530calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly re-fined grain products) contributed 9.5percentage points; added fats and oils,9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7percentage points; fruits and vegetablestogether, 1.5 percentage points; meatsand nuts together, 1 percentage point;and dairy products and eggs together,-1.5 percentage point.

Some of the observed increase in caloricintake may be associated with the in-crease in eating out. Data from USDA’sfood intake surveys show that the food-away-from-home sector provided 32 per-cent of total food energy consumption in1994-96, up from 18 percent in 1977-78.The data also suggest that, when eatingout, people either eat more or eat highercalorie foods—or both—and that thistendency appears to be increasing.

According to the National Center forHealth Statistics, an astounding 62 per-cent of adult Americans were overweightin 2000, up from 46 percent in 1980.Twenty-seven percent of adults were sofar overweight that they were classifiedas obese (at least 30 pounds above theirhealthy weight)—twice the percentageclassified as such in 1960. Alarmingly, anupward trend in obesity is also occurringfor U.S. children.

Although multiple factors can accountfor weight gain, the basic cause is an ex-cess of energy intake over energy expen-diture. In general, Americans’ activitylevels have not kept pace with their in-crease in calorie consumption. Manypeople apparently are oblivious to thenumber of calories they consume. Calo-ries consistently rank toward the bottomof consumer nutrition concerns, accord-ing to the annual national probabilitysurveys “Trends—Consumer Attitudesand the Supermarket” conducted by theFood Marketing Institute. Of respondentsin the 2002 survey who said they wereeither “very concerned” or “somewhatconcerned” about the nutritional contentof what they eat, only 13 percent citedcalories as one of their concerns. Thatcompared with fat (49 percent), sugar (18percent), salt (17 percent), and choles-terol (16 percent).

A variety of factors are responsible forthe changes in U.S. consumption pat-terns in the last 50 years, includingchanges in relative prices, increases inreal (adjusted for inflation) disposableincome, and more food assistance forthe poor. New products, particularlymore convenient ones, also contribute toshifts in consumption, along with moreimports, 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 PercentBetween 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 pro-grams, and increases in nutrient-enrich-ment standards and food fortification.Sociodemographic trends also drivingchanges in food choices include smallerhouseholds, more two-earner house-holds, more single-parent households, ataller population, an aging population,and increased ethnic diversity.

ERS estimates per capita food and nutri-ent supplies based on food disappear-ance data. These data are used as aproxy to estimate human consumption.The data reported in tables 2-1 through2-6 are unadjusted for spoilage andwaste, so they may overstate what isactually eaten. The data are used moreappropriately as indicators of trends inconsumption over time.

Meat Consumption at Record High

Now more than ever, America is a Nationof meat eaters. In 2000, total meat con-sumption (red meat, poultry, and fish)reached 195 pounds (boneless, trimmed-weight equivalent) per person, 57 pounds above average annual consumption in

the 1950s (table 2-1). Each Americanconsumed an average of 7 pounds morered meat than in the 1950s, 46 poundsmore poultry, and 4 pounds more fishand shellfish. Rising consumer incomes,especially with the increase in two-in-come households, and meat prices in the1990s that were often at 50-year lows,when adjusted for inflation, explainmuch of the increase in meat consump-tion. In addition, the meat industry hasprovided scores of new brand-name, val-ue-added products processed for con-sumers’ convenience, as well as a host ofproducts for foodservice operators.

Nutritional concern about fat and cho-lesterol has encouraged the productionof leaner animals (beginning in the late1950s), the closer trimming of outside faton retail cuts of meat (beginning in1986), the marketing of a host of lowerfat ground and processed meat products,and consumer substitution of poultry forred meats since the late 1970s—signifi-cantly lowering the meat, poultry, andfish group’s contribution to total fat andsaturated fat in the food supply. Despitenear record-high per capita consump-tion 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 138.2 161.7 177.2 182.2 189.0 195.2Red meats 106.7 122.34 129.5 121.8 112.4 113.5

Beef 52.8 69.2 80.9 71.7 63.2 64.4Pork 45.4 46.9 45.0 47.7 47.6 47.7Veal 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 66.5Chicken 16.4 22.7 28.4 36.3 47.9 52.9Turkey 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.


in consumption of salty snack foods fa-vored soft drink consumption.

The beverage milk trend is toward lowerfat milk. Whole milk represented 92 per-cent of all beverage milk (plain, flavored,and buttermilk) in the 1950s, but itsshare dropped to 36 percent in 2000.

Average annual consumption of cheese (excluding full-skim American and cot-tage, pot, and baker’s cheeses) increased287 percent between the 1950s and 2000,from 7.7 pounds per person to 29.8pounds. Lifestyles that emphasize con-venience foods were probably major forcesbehind the higher consumption. In fact,more than half of our cheese now comesin commercially manufactured and pre-pared foods (including food service), such as pizza, tacos, nachos, salad bars, fast-food sandwiches, bagel spreads, saucesfor baked potatoes and other vegetables,and packaged snack foods. Advertisingand new products—such as reduced-fatcheeses 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 27.8Ice cream lb 18.1 18.3 17.7 17.7 16.0 16.5Lowfat ice cream lb 2.7 6.2 7.6 7.2 7.5 7.3Sherbet lb 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2Other (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 18.6Yogurt 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 22.6Whole gal 33.5 28.8 21.7 14.3 9.1 8.1Lower 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 per-cent in the 1950s to 24 percent in 2000.Similarly, the proportion of saturated fatcontributed by meat, poultry, and fishfell from 33 percent in the 1950s to 26percent in 2000.

Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts CheeseConsumption…

In 2000, Americans drank an average of38 percent less milk and ate nearly fourtimes as much cheese (excluding cot-tage, pot, and baker’s cheese) as in the1950s (table 2-2).

Consumption of beverage milk declinedfrom an annual average of 36 gallons perperson in the 1950s to less than 23 gal-lons in 2000. Consumption of soft drinks,fruit drinks and ades, and flavored teasmay be displacing beverage milk in thediet. Big increases in eating away fromhome, especially at fast-food places, and


cheeses, including cheese blends tailoredfor use in Italian and Mexican recipes—also boosted consumption.

…and Swells Use of Salad and CookingOils and Shortening

Americans’ mid-1990s push to cut di-etary fat is apparent in the recent percapita food supply data, which show amodest (8 percent) decline in the use ofadded fats and oils between 1993 and1997, from 69 pounds (fat-content basis)per person to just under 64 pounds. As aresult of consumer concerns about fatand mandatory nutrition labeling begin-ning in July 1994, food processors intro-duced over 5,400 lower fat versions offoods in U.S. supermarkets in 1995–97,according to New Product News, a trademagazine based in Albuquerque, NM.

But the decline in average consumptionof added fats was short lived. Between1997 and 2000, per capita consumptionof added fats jumped 17 percent, from64 pounds per person to 74.5 pounds. Fatplays an important role in enhancing theflavor of foods. Many consumers foundthe taste of the new low fat (3 grams offat or less per serving) and fat-free ver-sions of foods unacceptable. Accordingly,

many companies reformulated theirlow-fat and fat-free products in the late1990s, adding some fat to improve taste.Some consumers, who rejected the low-fat and fat-free versions, have acceptedreduced-fat products (1/3 less fat thanfull-fat versions). Many other consumershave resumed eating full-fat versions.According to a 2000 Roper Reports surveyof a nationally representative sample of2,000 Americans 18 or older, the percent-age of Americans who say they are eat-ing “pretty much whatever they want”was at an all-time high of 70 percent in2000, up from 58 percent in 1997.

Although Americans apparently have re-laxed their efforts to curb consumptionof added fats, they are choosing to eathealthier fats. Olive oil and canola oil—high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fats that lower blood levels of bad choles-terol but not good cholesterol—captured23 percent of the salad and cooking oilmarket in 2000, up from less than 4 per-cent in 1985.

Average use of added fats and oils in2000 was 67 percent above annual aver-age use in the 1950s (table 2-3). Addedfats include those used directly by con-sumers, such as butter on bread, as wellas shortenings and oils used in commer-

Table 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 29.0Shortening 10.9 14.6 17.4 20.5 22.7 23.1Lard 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 12.8Butter 9.0 6.6 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.6Margarine 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, andfried foods. All fats naturally present infoods, such as in milk and meat, areexcluded.

Americans in 2000 consumed, on aver-age, three-and-three-fifths times moresalad and cooking oil than they did an-nually in the 1950s, and more than twiceas much shortening. Average use of tablespreads declined by 25 percent duringthe same period.

In the 1950s, the fats and oils group(composed of added fats and oils) con-tributed the most fat to the food supply(41 percent), followed by the meat, poul-try, and fish group (32 percent). By 1999,the fats and oils group’s contribution tototal fat had jumped 12 percentagepoints to 53 percent, probably due to thehigher consumption of fried foods infoodservice outlets, the increase in con-sumption of high-fat snack foods, andthe increased use of salad dressings.Margarine, salad dressings and mayon-naise, cakes and other sweet bakedgoods, and oils continue to appear in thetop 10 foods for fat contribution, accord-ing to recent USDA food intake surveys,which indicates the ongoing prevalenceof discretionary fats in Americans’ diets.


In the last two decades, Americans havebeen more successful in reducing the fatdensity in home foods than in away-from-home foods, according to food in-take surveys. In 1977–78, both home andaway-from-home foods provided slightlymore than 41 percent of their caloriesfrom fat. By 1987-88, the fat density ofhome foods had declined to 36.4 percentof total calories from fat, compared with38.7 for away-from-home foods. Sincethen, the fat density of home foods de-clined steadily to 31.5 percent of caloriesfrom fat, but fat from away-from-homefoods declined only slightly to 37.6 per-cent of calories.

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Continues To Rise

Americans in 2000 consumed a fifth (20 percent) more fruit and vegetablesthan did their counterparts in the 1970s(table 2-4).

Total fruit consumption in 2000 was 12percent above average annual fruit con-sumption in the 1970s. Fresh fruit con-sumption (up 28 percent during thesame period) outpaced processed fruitconsumption (up 2 percent). Noncitrusfruits accounted for all of the growth infresh fruit consumption.

Total vegetable consumption in 2000was 23 percent above average annualvegetable consumption in the 1970s. Asin the case of fruit, fresh vegetable use(up 26 percent during the same period)outpaced processed vegetable use (up 21percent). The introduction of pre-cut andpackaged value-added products and in-creasing health consciousness among consumers boosted average fresh broccoliconsumption by a third between 1995and 1998 and average fresh carrot con-sumption by more than a fifth. Highlypublicized medical research linkingcompounds in broccoli with strong anti-cancer activity in the body has added apowerful incentive to consumption.

The popularity of pizza and other ethnicfoods in the 1990s boosted average con-sumption of canned tomato products, but consumption of other canned vegetablesdeclined 13 percent between the 1970sand 1997. The popularity of french fries,eaten mainly in fast-food eateries,spawned a 63-percent increase in average consumption of frozen potatoes duringthe same period; consumption of otherfrozen vegetables rose 41 percent.

Table 2-4

Per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables increased by one-fifth between 1970–79and 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 99.4 113.1 123.7 126.8Citrus 27.2 24.2 23.7 23.4Noncitrus 72.2 88.9 100.0 103.3

Processed fruit 149.3 155.9 156.5 152.7Frozen fruit, noncitrus 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.7Dried fruit, noncitrus 9.9 12.2 11.7 10.5Canned fruit, noncitrus 24.7 21.3 19.7 17.4Fruit juices 110.7 118.6 120.8 120.6

Total vegetables 338.8 353.1 408.2 428.3

Fresh vegetables 147.9 157.2 181.9 201.7Potatoes 52.5 48.5 48.8 47.2Other 95.4 108.7 133.1 154.5

Processing vegetables 190.9 195.9 226.3 226.6Vegetables for canning 101.1 98.9 109.4 104.7

Tomatoes 62.9 63.5 74.4 69.9Other 38.2 35.4 35.0 34.8

Vegetables for freezing 52.1 61.0 76.8 79.7Potatoes 36.1 42.8 54.9 57.8Other 16.0 18.2 21.9 21.9

Dehydrated vegetables and chips 30.8 29.4 32.0 33.7Pulses 7.0 6.5 8.1 8.6

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.


Consumers Eat Too Much Refined Grain,Too Little Whole Grain

Per capita use of flour and cereal prod-ucts reached 200 pounds in 2000 froman annual average of 155 pounds in the1950s and 138 pounds in the 1970s,when grain consumption was at a recordlow (table 2-5). The expansion in sup-plies reflects ample grain stocks; strongconsumer demand for variety breads,other instore bakery items, and grain-based snack foods; and increasing fast-food sales of products made with buns,doughs, and tortillas.

Many consumers’ diets now meet orexceed the Food Guide Pyramid servingrecommendation for grain products. ThePyramid recommends 9 daily servings ofgrain products for a 2,200-calorie diet, 6servings for a 1,600-calorie diet, and 11servings for a 2,800-calorie diet. The foodsupply, adjusted for waste in the homeand 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 fromwheat flour or bulgur. That is, it excludeswheat bran, wheat germ, wheat berries and products manufactured directly from these items, such as Wheaties (cooked,flattened, toasted wheat berries), Shred-ded Wheat, Puffed Wheat, and All-Branbreakfast cereals and Triscuit crackers.Similarly, it excludes whole-grain foods made directly from field corn (for exam-ple, Tostito and Dorito brand corn tortillachips, corn bran (used in some breakfast

cereals), and popcorn. ERS estimates thatthese missing items would add an addi-tional serving of grains for an average of11 daily servings of grain in 2000—theamount recommended for teenage boysor men who engage in heavy physicalactivity.

However, most people’s diets fall wellshort of the recommended minimumthree daily servings of whole grain prod-ucts. The mean daily intake of foodsmade from whole grains was one servingin USDA’s 1996 Continuing Survey of FoodIntakes by Individuals. According to thesurvey, only 7 percent of Americans atethe recommended three or more serv-ings 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 155.4 142.5 138.2 157.4 190.6 199.9Wheat flour 125.7 114.4 113.6 122.8 141.8 146.3Corn products 15.4 13.8 11.0 17.3 24.5 28.4Rice 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.


Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners HitsRecord High in 1999

Americans have become conspicuousconsumers of sugar and sweet-tastingfoods and beverages. Per capita con-sumption of caloric sweeteners (dry-weight basis)—mainly sucrose (tablesugar made from cane and beets) andcorn sweeteners (notably high-fructosecorn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 43pounds, or 39 percent, between 1950-59and 2000 (table 2-6). In 2000, each Amer-ican consumed an average 152 poundsof caloric sweeteners, 3 pounds below1999’s record average 155 pounds. Thatamounted to more than two-fifths of apound—or 52 teaspoonfuls—of addedsugars per person per day in 2000. Ofthat 52 teaspoons, ERS estimates thatAmericans wasted or otherwise lost 20teaspoons, resulting in an average intakeof about 32 teaspoons of added sugarsper person per day.

USDA recommends that the average per-son on a 2,000-calorie daily diet includeno 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 thenumber one food additive. It turns up in some unlikely places, such as pizza, bread,hot dogs, boxed mixed rice, soup, crack-ers, spaghetti sauce, lunch meat, cannedvegetables, fruit drinks, flavored yogurt,ketchup, salad dressing, mayonnaise,and some peanut butter. Carbonated so-das provided more than a fifth (22 per-cent) of the refined and added sugars inthe 2000 American food supply, com-pared with 16 percent in 1970.

Food Expenditures and Prices

What does it cost Americans to eat whatthey eat? Total food expenditures, whichincludes imports, fishery products, andfood originating on farms, were $844.2billion in 2001, an increase of 3.8 percentover those in 2000. Average food expen-ditures came to $2,964 per capita, 2.8percent above the 2000 average. Away-from-home meals and snacks captured47 percent of the U.S. food dollar in 2001,up from 45 percent in 1991 and 40 per-cent 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 85.3High fructose corn syrup .0 .0 5.5 37.3 56.8 63.8Glucose 7.4 10.9 16.6 16.0 19.3 18.1Dextrose 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.


While personal food expenditures rose3.7 percent, disposable personal incomeincreased 5.5 percent from 2000 to 2001.U.S. consumers in 2001 spent 10.0 per-cent of their disposable personal income(after taxes) on food. This figure com-pares with 11.6 percent in 1991, 13.0 per-cent in 1981, and 13.4 percent in 1971.

In the United States, retail food prices(including meals served in restaurantsand food purchased at grocery stores)rose 27.0 percent over the last 10 years(1991-2001). Prices of food eaten awayfrom home increased 26.1 percent, whileretail food store prices increased 27.7percent. Prices of all goods and servicesin the Consumer Price Index climbed30.0 percent over the same 10 years.

How Much of the Cost of Food Servicesand Distribution Goes to Farmers?

The estimated bill for marketing domes-tic 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 billionconsumers spent for these foods. The re-maining 20 percent, or $121 billion, rep-resents the gross return paid to farmers.

The cost of marketing farm foods hasincreased considerably over the years,mainly because of rising costs of labor,transportation, food packaging materi-als, and other inputs used in marketing,and also because of the growing volumeof food and the increase in services pro-vided with the food.

In 1990, the cost of marketing farmfoods amounted to $343 billion. In thedecade after that, the cost of marketingrose about 57 percent. In 2000, the mar-keting bill rose 6.9 percent. These risingcosts have been the principal factor af-fecting the rise in consumer food expen-ditures. From 1990 to 2000, consumerexpenditures for farm foods rose $211billion. Roughly 92 percent of this in-crease resulted from an increase in themarketing bill.

The cost of labor is the biggest part ofthe total food marketing bill, accountingfor nearly half of all marketing costs. La-bor used by assemblers, manufacturers,wholesalers, retailers, and eating placescost $252 billion in 2000. This was 4.7percent higher than in 1999 and 64 per-cent more than in 1990. The total num-ber of food marketing workers in 2000was about 14.3 million, about 17 percentmore than in 1990. About 80 percent ofthe growth in food industry employmentoccurred in public eating places. A widevariety of other costs comprise the bal-ance of the marketing bill. These costsinclude packaging, transportation, ener-gy, advertising, business taxes, net inter-est, depreciation, rent, and repairs. Theirrelative proportions are illustrated in theaccompanying dollar chart.

Figure 2-2

What a dollar spent on food paid for in 2000La

bor

Pack

agin

g

Tran

spor

tatio

nEn

ergy

Prof

itsAd

verti

sing

Depr

eciat

ionRe

ntIn

tere

st (n

et)

Repa

irs

19¢ 38¢ 8¢

4¢

3.5¢

4.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

Busin

ess T

axes

Othe

r cos

ts4¢ 3.5¢

4¢

Farm value Marketing bill

2.5¢1.5¢

CHAPTER 3

American Farms


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 power-ful symbols in American culture, despitethe long-term decline in their numbers.The number of farms fell dramaticallyafter its peak of nearly 7 million in 1935,with most of the decline occurring dur-ing the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (fig. 3-1).The decline in farm numbers continues,but at a slower pace. By 1997, about 1.9million farms remained. Because theamount of farmland did not decrease asmuch as the number of farms, the re-maining farms have a larger averageacreage.

The trend in the number of farms differsby acreage class. The number of farmswith at least 500 acres increased steadilyfrom 1880 through the 1960s, before sta-bilizing at 350,000 to 370,000 farms (fig. 3-2). Farms with 1 to 49 acres de-clined from their maximum of 2.7 mil-lion in 1935 to about half a million in1974. After 1974, the count of thesefarms has ranged between 540,000 and640,000. In contrast, the number offarms with 50-499 acres declined from3.9 million in 1935 continuously to about1 million farms in 1997. As a result of

these changes, farms with fewer than 50acres and farms with more than 500acres have both increased their share oftotal farms since 1974, but midsizefarms’ share has declined.

Acres or Sales?

When following changes in farm size overlong periods of time, acres are generallyused to indicate farm size. Nevertheless,the level of sales of farm products is abetter indicator of farm size, since it un-ambiguously measures economic activi-ty in dollars. In contrast, farm acreagejust measures an input, land, with no in-dication of the value of what is actuallyproduced. The number of acres neces-sary to produce a given dollar amount offarm products varies with the character-istics of the land and the value of theproducts produced. Cattle operations, forexample, may have a low volume ofsales, but encompass many acres of pas-ture or range. Thus, not all farms thatare large in acreage have high sales. Infact, most farms with more than 500acres in 1997 were not classified as large

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1850 70 80 9060 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 9287827874 97

Figure 3-1

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

5Million farms

1880 90 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 9287827874 97

Figure 3-2

Distribution of farms by acreage class, 1880-1997The 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


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Percent of farms

1880 90 1900 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 69 9287827874 97

Census year


Figure 3-3

Distribution of farms with 500 acres or more by sales class, 1997Farms 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 class500 acres or more 2,000 acres or more500 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


500 acres or more 2,000 acres or more500 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 Commis-sion on Small Farms (1998) as farmswith sales of $250,000 or more (fig. 3-3).

Changes in the distribution of farms bysales class in the last four censuses canbe compared across time by using theproducer price index for farm productsto adjust for price changes. Unfortunate-ly, constant-dollar sales classes cannotbe prepared before 1982, due to incom-plete census records for individual farmsprior to that year.

Change by Sales Class, 1982 to 1997

Changes in the counts of farms by con-stant-dollar sales class—from 1982 on-ward—are consistent with the trends inthe counts by acreage class that werediscussed earlier. Only one sales classgrew consistently over the 16-year peri-od (fig.3-4). Large farms increased theirnumbers by 53,000, growing from104,000 in 1982 to 157,000 by 1997. Theshare of all farms in this group alsogrew, from 5 percent to 8 percent overthe same period. Most farms in the largefarm group had sales between $250,000and $499,999, but the number of farmswith sales of at least $500,000 grew morerapidly (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 agri-cultural 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 sys-tem” assigns values for acres of various crops and head of various livestock species to estimate a nor-mal 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 experi-ence low sales in a particular year due to bad weather, disease, or other factors. Both the AgriculturalResource Management Survey (ARMS) and the census of agriculture use the point system to helpidentify farms meeting the current definition.

Note that the farms and point farms identified in the figures and table are defined in current dollars, notconstant dollars. Farms and point farms are determined for each census, based on current dollars.

The number of farms in the other salesclasses declined in each inter-census pe-riod, with the exception of farms withsales less than $10,000 (fig. 3-4). There,the number of farms declined from 1982to 1987 and from 1987 to 1992, but in-creased from 1992 to 1997. As shown intable 3-1, most of the increase from 1992to 1997 occurred among “point farms,” orfarms with sales less than $1,000 thatmight normally have sales that high andsatisfy the criteria necessary to be con-sidered a farm. (See the box, DefiningPoint Farms.) Because of this growth,farms with sales less than $10,000 nowaccount for half of all U.S. farms.

Most of the increase in point farms,however, is due to a change in the classi-fication of farms that enroll all theircropland in the Conservation Reserve orWetlands Reserve Programs (CRP orWRP). The agricultural census did notcount such operations as farms in 1992,if they did not sell at least $1,000 worthof farm products (U.S. Bureau of the Cen-sus, 1994, p. B-1). They were counted aspoint farms in the 1997 Census, however,on the grounds that they normally couldhave sold $1,000 worth of products (U.S.Department of Agriculture, 1999, p. A-2).

There were 66,716 of these CRP/WRP es-tablishments in 1992. When these farmsare added to the 1992 count of pointfarms to be consistent with the 1997Census, the 1992-97 change in the num-ber of point farms shifts from a gain of30 percent (as shown in table 3-1) to aloss of 1 percent. In addition, the 9-per-cent increase in the number of farmswith sales less than $10,000 decreases to2 percent.

Diversity Among American Farms

Despite the rapid growth in the numberof farms with sales of $250,000 or more,most farms have sales below that leveland are classified as small. While somedefinitions would set a lower sales limitto classify a farm as small, farms withsales under $250,000 are small business-es compared with other businesses inthe general economy.

Figure 3-4

Distribution of farms by constant dollar sales class, 1982-1997Farms with sales less than $10,000 or sales of $250,000 or more increased their share of farms

Thousand farms2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Census year1982 1987 1992 1997

Census year1982 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


$50,000 to $99,999$10,000 to $49,000 Less than $10,000


Table 3-1.

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

Census year ChangeSales 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 9.4Point farms 1 253,147 235,562 212,580 277,248 -6.9 -9.8 30.4Other 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 aredefined 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, 1978-97Nonfamily 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


1Includes cooperatives, estates or trusts, and institutional farms.

1978 92 9782 87 1978 92 9782 87

Family corporationPartnership Sole proprietorship

Family farms may be organized as propri-etorships, partnerships, or family corpo-rations. Nonfamily farms include thoseorganized as nonfamily corporations orcooperatives, as well as any proprietor-ships, partnerships, or family corporationswith hired managers. Most farms (98percent) are family farms. Large familyfarms are often organized as family cor-porations, and these account for growingshares of farm sales, but—contrary topopular belief—the share of farms andsales accounted for by nonfamily corpo-rations is small and has been relativelystable since 1978 (fig. 3-5).

Farms vary widely in their characteristics,ranging from very small retirement andresidential farms to establishments withsales in the millions. A farm typology de-veloped by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) categorizes farms into morehomogeneous groups than classifica-tions based on sales volume alone. (Seethe box, Defining the Farm Typology.)

The typology is based on the occupationof operators and the sales class of farms.In the case of limited-resource farmers,the asset base and total household in-come—as well as sales—are low. Com-pared with classification by sales alone,the ERS typology is much more reflectiveof operators’ expectations from farming,stage in the life cycle, and dependenceon agriculture.

The typology identifies five groups of smallfamily farms: (1) limited-resource farms,(2) retirement farms, (3) residential/lifestyle farms, (4) farming-occupation/low-sales farms, and (5) farming-occupa-tion/high-sales farms. To cover the re-maining farms, the typology identifiestwo groups of larger family farms (largeand very large family farms) plus non-family farms.

The groups differ in their contribution toagricultural production, their productspecialization, farm program participa-tion, and dependence on farm income.Differences among farm typology groups(e.g., product specialization, programparticipation) are illustrated in a seriesof charts using 2000 data from the Agri-cultural Resource Management Survey

Defining the Farm Typology

Small Family Farms(sales less than $250,000)

• Limited-resource farms. Small farms withsales 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 farmswhose operators report a major occupation other than farming.*

• Farming-occupation farms. Small farmswhose 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, aswell as farms operated by hired managers.


Figure 3-6

Share of total farms and value of production, 2000Large, very large, and nonfamily farms account for 68 percent of the value of production

Percent of total farms or production

Farms45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Value of production

Limited-resource

Retirement Residential Low-sales High-sales Large

Farming-occupation

Nonfamily

Other family farmsSmall 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, 2000Small farms account for most of the assets (including land) owned by farms

Percent of total farm assets or acres owned

Assets30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Land owned

Limited-resource


Farming-occupation

Nonfamily


Very large


(ARMS). The ARMS is an annual surveyconducted by ERS and by USDA’s Nation-al Agricultural Statistics Service.

Share of Farms, Assets, and ProductionMost farms are small, but small farmsaccount for a modest share of produc-tion.

■ Ninety-two percent of U.S. farms aresmall (fig. 3-6), and small farms accountfor 71 percent of the assets involved in

farming, including 67 percent of the landowned by farmers (fig. 3-7).

■ But, large family farms, very largefamily farms, and nonfamily farms (8percent of all farms) account for about68 percent of production (fig. 3-6).

Specialization and DiversificationSpecialization and diversification varyamong the farm typology groups.

American Farms | 31

Figure 3-8

Share of farms by specialization, 2000Small 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.

1Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and general crops. Also includes farms with all cropland in the ConservationReserve or Wetlands Reserve Programs (CRP & WRP).

2Vegetables, fruits & tree nuts, and nursery & greenhouse. Included in “other field crops” for limited-resourcefarms.

3Included in “other livestock” when not shown separately.4Includes sheep, goats, horses, mules. ponies, fur-bearing animals, bees, fish, and any other livestock.


Limite

d-res

ource

Retire

ment

Resid

entia

l

Low-sa

les

High-

sales

Large

Very

large

Nonfam

ily

Hogs3

Other field crops1 Beef cattle Dairy3Poultry3

Other livestock4


■ About two-fifths of the limited-re-source, retirement, residential/lifestyleand low-sales small farms specialize inbeef cattle (fig 3-8). Beef cattle—particu-larly cow-calf operations—often havelow and flexible labor requirementscompatible with off-farm work and re-tirement.

■ In contrast, two commodity groups—cash grains and dairy—account for overhalf of all high-sales small farms andlarge family farms.


Figure 3-9

Share of farm by number of commodities produced, 2000Few 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

Limite

d-res

ource

Retire

ment

Resid

entia

l

Low-sa

les

High-

sales

Large

Very

large

Nonfam

ily


Based on 26 commodities or commodity groups

1Includes the estimate for four or more commodities, when not shown separately.2In the nonfamily farm group, includes farms producing no commodities.3Largely farms with all cropland in the Conservation Reserve Wetlands reserve programs (CRP & WRP)


■ Many small farms specialize in a sin-gle commodity, but high-sales smallfarms, large family farms, and very largefamily farms tend to produce multiplecommodities (fig. 3-9).

Government Program Participation

All farm typology groups participate ingovernment farm programs to some ex-tent, but the relative importance of theprograms varies.

American Farms | 33

Figure 3-10

Share of farms receiving commodity program payments and payments from theConservation 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

Limited-resource


Farming-occupation

Nonfamily


Very large


1Agricultural 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 payments130

25

20

10

15

5

0

Value of production, selectedcommodities2

Limited-resource


Farming-occupation

Nonfamily


Very large


1Agricultural disaster payments, loan deficiency payments, and transition payments.2Barley, corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, and oats

■ High-sales small farms, large familyfarms, and very large family farms aremost likely to receive commodity pro-gram payments (fig. 3-10).

■ These three groups receive nearlythree-fourths of commodity programpayments, reflecting their production ofprogram commodities (fig. 3-11).


■ Retirement, residential/lifestyle, andlow-sales small farms, on the otherhand, account for nearly two-thirds ofCRP and WRP payments and the acresenrolled in the programs (fig. 3-12).

Household IncomeSmall-farm households rely heavily onoff-farm income.

■ Most small-farm households havepositive household income, even whenthey incur losses from farming (fig 3-13).

■ Households operating very largefarms, large farms, and high-sales smallfarms receive a significant share of theirincome from farming (fig. 3-14).

■ For the remaining small-farm house-holds, off-farm income makes a substan-tial contribution to economic well-being.

Farm Policy and Family Farms

The number of farms has fallen dramat-ically since its peak in 1935. In themeantime, the number of large farmshas grown, which means that largefarms now form a larger share of the to-tal U.S. farms. Nevertheless, most of theremaining farms are family run busi-nesses with sales less than $250,000. Thediversity of today’s farms has some im-plications that are discussed below.

■ Production is concentrated amonglarge family farms, very large familyfarms, and nonfamily farms. The Na-tion relies on larger farms for most of itsfood and fiber, despite the large numberof small farms.

■ There is unlikely to be a “one-size-fits-all” policy for family farms. The va-riety of farm types—what they produceand their differences in characteristics,economic situation, and household andbusiness arrangements—makes any onepolicy instrument appropriate for only aportion of the family farm population.

Figure 3-12

Distribution of total payments from the Conservation Reserve or Wetlands ReservePrograms and acres enrolled in the programs, 2000Retirement, residential/lifestyle, and low-sales farms account for nearly two-thirds ofCRP and WRP payments and acres

Percent of total CRPand WRP payments or acres

CRP and WRP payments25

20

10

15

5

0

CRP and WRP acres

Limited-resource


Farming-occupation

Nonfamily


Very large


Figure 3-13

Operator households with negative income, 2000Off-farm income supported many small-farm households

Percent of householdsPositive household income, loss from farmingPositive household income, gain from farmingNegative household income

60

90

80

50

70

40

20

30

10

0Limited-resource


Family-occupationOther family farmsSmall 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 rele-vant to high-sales small farms, largefamily farms, and very large familyfarms. These farms produce most of thecommodities that farm programs havetraditionally supported.

■ The nonfarm economy is criticallyimportant to households operatingsmall family farms. Because small-farmhouseholds rely on off-farm work formost of their income, general economicpolicies, such as tax or economic devel-opment policy, can be as important tothem as traditional “farm” policy.

■ Small family farms manage and op-erate the bulk of farm assets, includingthe soil, water, energy, and naturalhabitat resources associated with farm-land use. In this regard, policies address-ing natural resource quality and conser-vation can play a major role in theportfolio of policy instruments address-ing the American family farm.

References

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NationalAgricultural Statistics Service. 1997Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1: GeographicArea Series, Part 51: United States Sum-mary and State Data. AC97-A-51. March1999.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NationalCommission on Small Farms. A Time toAct: A Report of the USDA National Com-mission on Small Farms. MiscellaneousPublication 1545 (MP-1545). Jan. 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofthe 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, 2000Households operating residential/lifestyle, large, or very large farms havehousehold income above the U.S. average

Dollars per household

Farm earningsOff-farm income

175,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

-25,000

0

150,000

125,000

100,000

Limited-resource


Average income ofall U.S. households

($57,045)

Small family farms(sales less than $250,000)

Other family farms

Very large


CHAPTER 4

Rural America: Entering the 21ST Century


Today, rural America comprises 2,305counties, contains 80 percent of U.S.land, and is home to one-fifth (56 mil-lion) of its people. Rural America is di-verse. At the dawn of the 21st century, noone industry dominates the rural land-scape, no single pattern of populationdecline or growth exists for all rural ar-eas, and no statement about improve-ments and gaps in well-being applies toall rural people. Some rural areas haveshared in the economic progress of theNation, while others have not. The op-portunities and challenges facing ruralAmerica are as varied as rural Americaitself.

Farming no longer anchors most ruralcommunities and economies as it didthrough the mid-20th century. Small fam-ily farms are now more closely associat-ed with diversified rural economies thatoffer off-farm income opportunities.Large farms still enhance some localeconomies, but developments in long-distance purchasing of inputs and mar-keting of products reduce their contribu-tion. Seven out of eight rural countiesare now dominated by varying concen-trations of manufacturing, services, andother nonfarming activities. Today, ruralregions of the country survive economi-cally on one or more of three basic as-sets: natural amenities for tourism andretirement; low-cost, good quality laborand land for manufacturing; and naturalresources for farming, forestry, and min-ing.

During the 1990s, the U.S. economy en-joyed an unprecedented period of eco-nomic growth. Rural areas generallyshared in the good economic times, asearnings and income increased and un-employment and poverty fell. The ruralpopulation grew as urban residents andimmigrants chose to live in rural areas;almost 8 percent of nonmetro counties,many in the West, increased in popula-tion at more than twice the national av-erage. Still, areas of the Great Plains andwestern Corn Belt lost population asthey wrestled with declining agriculturalemployment and the lack of replace-ment jobs in other industries. Highpoverty and unemployment persisted inrural pockets, particularly in Appalachia,

the Mississippi Delta, and the Rio GrandeValley.

The diversity of rural economies sug-gests the need for a variety of rural de-velopment strategies to enhance theeconomic well-being of rural Americans,including improved educational oppor-tunities and capitalization on naturalamenities to attract new growth. A re-cent trend in Federal development policyhas been to support new developmententities that assist specific regions. Someof these entities cover large regions withsignificant rural populations, while oth-ers cover smaller areas. At the sametime, Federal funding for community re-source programs, such as housing, infra-structure, business assistance programs,and other programs important for stim-ulating rural development, continues al-though at a lower per capita level in ru-ral than urban areas.

Rural Population Growth Levels Off,but the West Continues To Grow

For most of the past decade, rural Amer-ica enjoyed widespread populationgrowth, rebounding from the wide popu-lation losses of the 1980s. The nonmetropopulation grew by 10.3 percent duringthe 1990s, below the 13.9 percent growthrate of metro areas. Net migration frommetro areas and an increasing flow ofimmigrants accounted for most of thisnonmetro population increase. The paceof nonmetro population growth slowedafter mid-decade, however, fallingsteadily from 1.2 percent in 1994-95 to0.6 percent in 1999-2000. Metro popula-tion growth remained steady at around1.2 percent.

Regional trends show the continuing at-traction of both the West and the South,which together accounted for over three-quarters of rural population growth dur-ing the 1990s (figure 4-1). Boosted byboth high in-migration and high birthrates, the rural West grew by 20 percent,twice the national average. Moderate cli-mates, scenic features, and other naturalamenities stimulated rapid populationgrowth, particularly retirement migra-tion, 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 Ap-palachians, and the upper Great Lakes.High population growth in the ruralSouth resulted in part from urbansprawl, especially around large metro ar-eas of the South. As urban areas expand-ed, more rural residents fell within com-muting zones. As a whole, the GreatPlains turned around from substantiallosses in the 1980s, achieving some pop-ulation growth, although the majority ofcounties in this area continued to losepopulation.

Growing numbers of Hispanics are set-tling in rural America. Data from the2000 Census show that Hispanics consti-tuted 5.5 percent of the rural populationbut accounted for 25 percent of the pop-ulation growth in these areas during the1990s. The nonmetro Hispanic popula-tion grew by over 60 percent during thedecade. Almost half of all nonmetro His-panics now live outside traditional set-tlement States in the Southwest. Withhigher fertility and younger age struc-

ture, natural increase alone now propelsthe growth of rural Hispanics at a higherrate than for other major race/ethnicgroups (Figure 4-2).

Rural Areas Benefited From the Nation’sEconomic Prosperity

Rural areas as a whole shared in thegood economic times of the late 1990sand the longest U.S. economic expansionon record. The nonmetro unemploymentrate fell to its lowest levels in 20 years.Employment continued to expand andreal earnings increased, although moreslowly than earlier in the decade. Theshare of rural workers in low-wage jobsdeclined. In late summer 2000, the man-ufacturing industry went into a down-turn, as one of the first signs of oncom-ing recession.

Nonmetro employment declined byabout 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.


Nonmetro and metro unemploymentrates moved together, declining duringthe economic expansion of the 1990sand increasing during the recession.Nonmetro unemployment rates havebeen higher than metro rates since 1996.The nonmetro unemployment rate was4.9 percent in 2001, compared with 4.7percent in metro areas (figure 4-3).

steady despite the recession. Some non-metro counties, including areas of theGreat Plains, had large employmentgains despite the recession. Much of thenonmetro South suffered large job lossesin 2000-2001, fueled in part by the recentmanufacturing downturn. Employmentchange in the nonmetro West wasmixed, with some counties reportinglosses and others gains.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9Percent

Figure 4-3

Unemployment rates rise during recession

Nonmetro unemployment rate

Metro unemployment rate

Census year1989 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

Percent80

60

40

20

0

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

White Asian HispanicBlack Native American


Rural areas benefited economically fromthe economic expansion of the 1990s,with poverty rates falling to 13.4 percent,the lowest level since the 1960s. Almost7 million rural people lived in poverty in2000, down half a million from 1999. De-spite this improvement, poverty ratescontinued to be higher in rural than ur-ban areas and almost one in five ruralchildren under 17 years old were inpoverty in 2000. In addition, rural areaslagged behind urban places in medianhousehold income, per capita income,and earnings per job.

Rural Economies Are Based on Different Assets

A century ago, rural America was thecenter of American life. It was home tomost of the population and most ruralresidents were involved in producingfood and fiber for the Nation. The ruraleconomy has changed, shifting from adependence on farming, forestry, andmining to a diversity of economic activi-ty. This diversity means that nonmetroareas are differentially affected by glob-al, macroeconomic, and financial events,resulting in different labor market con-ditions.

Rural regions of the country survive eco-nomically on one or more of three basicassets: (1) natural amenities for tourism,second homes, and retirement; (2) low-cost, good quality labor and land formanufacturing, but also services such asprisons and extended care health facili-ties; and (3) natural resources for farm-ing, forestry, and mining. Most rural jobsare not directly related to these assets,but instead are in consumer services—retail trade, education, health, and otherconsumer services primarily for localresidents. Yet, consumer services cannotthrive without agriculture, recreation,manufacturing, and/or other activitiessuch as commuting that bring money in-to the community. In contrast, urban ar-eas draw from a different asset base andtend to specialize in more knowledge-in-tensive activities, particularly producerservices. This sector, which includes le-gal, financial, research, and businessservices, has grown rapidly in recentdecades, with virtually all of the 1989-99employment earnings growth occurringin 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 MetroChange Change

Industry sector 2000 1990-2000 2000 1990-2000

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 5.0 -6.6 1.0 23.3Mining 2.0 -16.2 0.7 30.7Recreation 4.0 51.6 3.9 47.1Manufacturing 21.3 14.5 15.1 14.8Producer services 8.7 45.6 25.3 85.6

Construction 6.5 37.9 5.9 40.1Transportation, utilities, and wholesale 9.4 28.8 11.1 35.8Consumer services 22.6 43.3 22.2 39.9Government 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.


Federal Funding for Rural Area DevelopmentSmaller 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 percentFederal funding gap. Most of the non-metro funding gap is explained by signif-icantly lower nonmetro receipts from defense and space and other nationalfunctions. However, nonmetro areas alsoreceived significantly less Federal fundsfrom the community resource programs,which include housing, infrastructure,and business assistance programs thatare viewed as important for stimulatingrural development.

The Bureau of the Census provides dataon the geographic distribution of Federalfunding through its Consolidated FederalFunds Reports. They include Federalgrants, loans, salaries, procurement, andother Federal payments. The data focuson the 90 percent of funding that canmost accurately be followed to the coun-ty level and includes the total amountsreceived by metro and nonmetro coun-ties, classified by major program func-tion (see box for definitions used in ta-bles), and for nonmetro areas brokendown by Census regions. The fundingamounts are expressed in per capitaterms so that meaningful comparisonscan be made between more and lesspopulated regions.

Table 4-2.

Federal Funds Per Capita, FY 2000Metro Nonmetro

Federal program function All counties counties counties

Dollars

All Federal funds 5,690 5,743 5,481Agriculture and natural resources 116 39 427Community resources 680 728 486Defense and space 678 771 303Human resources 119 113 143Income security 3,276 3,182 3,656National 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 WestFederal program function Region Region Region Region

Dollars

All Federal Funds 5,624 5,258 5,287 5,588Agriculture and natural resources 334 42 767 278

Community resources 463 463 434 666Defense and space 321 467 171 401Human resources 154 116 111 189Income security 3,935 3,731 3,443 3,225National 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.


Definitions Used in Tables

Program FunctionsSix broad function categories for Federalprograms are as follows:

■ Agriculture and natural resources(agricultural assistance, agricultural re-search and services, forest and landmanagement, water and recreation re-sources); ■ Community resources (business as-sistance, community facilities, communityand regional development, environmentalprotection, housing, Native American pro-grams, and transportation); ■ Defense and space (aeronautics andspace, defense contracts, defense payrolland administration); ■ Human resources (elementary andsecondary education, food and nutrition,health services, social services, training,and employment); ■ Income security (medical and hospitalbenefits, public assistance and unem-ployment compensation, retirement anddisability—includes Social Security); ■ National functions (criminal justiceand law enforcement, energy, higher edu-cation and research, and all other pro-grams excluding insurance).

For more details on these definitions andon the data and methods used, see theFederal Funds Briefing Room on the ERSWeb site, www.ers.usda.gov. This Website also provides maps for different pro-gram functions, access to individualcounty level data, plus research focusingon selected rural regions (such as Ap-palachia, the Black Belt, and the GreatPlains).

Total nonmetro Federal funding levelswere highest in the South, $5,624, andlowest in the Northeast, $5,258 (table 4-3). Most rural and urban Federal fundscome from income security programs,such as Social Security, Medicare, andMedicaid, which provide significantamounts of transfer payments directlyto individuals or to service providers.These programs are allocated largelybased on demographic and socioeco-nomic characteristics. This explains whythe nonmetro South, which has thelargest concentration of low-income res-idents, received more in total Federalfunds, per capita, than nonmetro areasin other regions.

However, other regions outpaced theSouth when it came to nonmetro re-ceipts from other Federal program func-tions. Nonmetro areas in the Northeastranked first in defense and space fund-ing; the nonmetro Midwest ranked firstin agricultural and natural resource pay-ments; and the nonmetro West rankedfirst in funding from human resources,community resources, and other nation-al functions.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) isthe main source of economic informa-tion and research from the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture. ERS provides com-prehensive economic analysis on issuesrelated to agriculture, food, the environ-ment, and rural America. For more infor-mation on the conditions and trends inrural areas, visit the ERS Web site athttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Rural.

CHAPTER 5

U.S. Department of Agriculture


GeneralCounsel

InspectorGeneral

ExecutiveOperations

Director ofCommunications

Chief FinancialOfficer

Chief InformationOfficer

Under Secretary forRural Development

Under Secretary forFood, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Under Secretary forFarm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Under Secretary forResearch, Education,and Economics

Under Secretary for Food Safety

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

Under Secretary forNatural 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) pro-vides leadership and guidance in manag-ing USDA’s administrative support pro-grams and services effectively, efficientlyand fairly. DA staff offices support policyofficials throughout the Department. DAalso manages the buildings that com-prise the headquarters complex, andprovides direct customer service to de-partmental-level employees in theWashington area.

Departmental Administration encom-passes the following offices: Office ofCivil Rights; Office of Human ResourcesManagement; Office of Procurement andProperty Management; Office of Opera-tions; Office of Small and DisadvantagedBusiness Utilization; Office of Ethics; Of-fice of Administrative Law Judges; Officeof the Judicial Officer; and the Board ofContract Appeals.

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

Office of Civil RightsUSDA Civil Rights Policy Statement. It is USDApolicy to ensure that no person is sub-jected to prohibited discrimination inUSDA employment or in federally assist-ed or conducted programs or activitiesadministered by USDA based on race,color, national origin, age, disability, andwhere applicable, sex, marital status, fa-milial status, parental status, religion,sexual orientation, genetic information,political beliefs, reprisal, or because allor part of an individual’s income is de-rived from any public assistance program.

The Office of Civil Rights (CR) works incollaboration with the USDA mission ar-eas and their agencies in implementingcivil rights laws, regulations, and bestpractices relating to both employmentand program delivery.

Office of Civil Rights Mission Statement. CR’smission is to facilitate the fair and equi-table treatment of USDA customers andemployees while ensuring the deliveryand enforcement of civil rights programsand activities.

Continuous Process Improvement Plan. In FY2001, CR published the Long-Term Im-provement Plan (LTIP). The LTIP is aroadmap for effecting long-term im-provements in CR’s employment andprogram functions. It is the result of acomprehensive analysis of civil rightssystems, processes, procedures, andstaffing needs, levels of knowledge,skills, and abilities, automation needs,and administrative support.

The following are some recent improve-ments in CR attributable to LTIP:

■ Development of an automated com-plaint tracking system to provide moreefficient, accurate tracking and reportingon employment and program com-plaints.

■ Identification of resources and func-tions needed to support complaint pro-cessing.

■ Implementation of an online technicalresource library to expedite legal re-search in case processing.

■ Institution of a central records man-agement system that ensures the in-tegrity of complaint files and facilitatesfile retrieval.

■ CR employees receiving training indiscrimination complaint investigationand 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 cost-

effective 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.


Continuing Policy Review. A performance ob-jective of CR is to conduct civil rightsimpact analyses (CRIAs) of all USDA reg-ulations to assess impacts on under-served customers. Since FY 1999, CR hasperformed 632 CRIAs, meeting its targetof 100 percent review of all new andamended USDA regulations.

Increased Employee Education and Training.During FY 2001, USDA saw an increasein emphasis on civil rights and equalemployment opportunity (EEO) trainingand education. Civil rights, EEO, and sex-ual harassment training were providedto each of USDA’s more than 110,000 em-ployees. Additionally, at the direction ofthe Secretary, all USDA managers and supervisors received specific diversi-ty training designed to enhance theirability to recruit, retain, train, and man-age a diverse workforce.

In FY 2001, a 5-year CR Training Plan wasdeveloped for the period FY 2002 to FY2006. The plan focuses on improving em-ployee skills. Additionally, a USDA pam-

phlet, Dealing with Workplace Conflict andConcerns: A Guide for Employees, was dis-tributed to educate employees on ap-proaches to resolving workplace dis-putes.

Progress in Complaint Resolution. Effectiveand timely resolution of EEO and program complaints enhances USDAprogram delivery. The average processingtime for EEO cases has been reduced 20percent since the close of FY 2001, andfor program cases the time to processthe complaint fell 49 percent.

Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints. CRissued 650 reports of investigation (ROIs)in FY 2001 compared to 315 in FY 2000, a106-percent increase. The processing time for complaints closed in FY 2001was 571 days, reflecting a 15.8-percentdrop in average days to close EEO com-plaint cases, compared to FY 1999. Near-ly 94 percent of complaint cases closedin FY 2001 constituted cases filed be-tween calendar years 1998 and 2000. Theprocessing time for complaints filed andresolved in FY 2001 was 230 days.

Continuing Progress in Workforce Diversity.Building and maintaining a highly skilled, competent, diverse workforce isan ongoing priority at USDA. The num-bers prove the agency’s efforts to elimi-nate under-representation of minorities,women, and persons with disabilities inthe workforce are successful. From entrylevel to top management, USDA’s initia-tives to recruit and retain a diverseworkforce reflect strong commitmentand steady progress.

Minorities comprised 20.82 percent ofthe 2001 USDA permanent workforce, upfrom 20.07 percent in FY 1999. Employ-ment increases were realized in all diver-sity groups.

A matter of continuing concern is thatthe number of permanent employees re-porting disabilities continues to decline.In FY 1999, employees with reportabledisabilities accounted for 7.9 percent ofthe permanent USDA workforce. Thatdistribution declined to 7.7 percent in FY2000, and 7.4 percent in FY 2001. Perma-nent employees with “targeted” (general-

Figure 5-1

USDA workplace profile by race and gender group, 2001

Black males4%

Asian American males 1.5%

Native American males 1.5%

Black females6.8%

White males47%

White females31.4%

Hispanic males3.6

Hispanic females2.1%

Asian American females 1%

Native American females 1%


Human Capital Management Projects: The De-partment has set an aggressive goal ofhiring 9,000 individuals with disabilitiesover the 5-year period beginning October 1, 2000. USDA has developed a mentor-ing program with the assistance of theUSDA Graduate School. This is a result ofthe successful pilot conducted by theSecretary’s Advisory Committee for Em-ployees with Disabilities (SACED) in2000–2001. Phase I of the Skills GapAnalysis was completed in FY 2002.

USDA has developed an agencywideCareer Intern Program, geared to hiring recent college graduates and currentemployees almost “on the spot.The pro-gram should help USDA attract the “bestand brightest” for a 2-year intern program with minimal hiring require-ments. In FY 2001, USDA hired 8,765 stu-dents, representing a 65-percent in-crease over the 5,320 hired in FY 2000.The increased student hiring is a directresult of outreach at historically blackcolleges and universities, Hispanic-serv-ing institutions, tribal colleges, and othercolleges and universities.

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council: On May10, 2002, Secretary of Agriculture Ann M.Veneman signed the Charter for the Di-versity Advisory Council, to provide herwith advice on issues raised by the sevenUSDA employee advisory councils. TheSecretary’s Diversity Advisory Council(DAC), co-chaired by the Assistant Secre-tary for Administration and the Associ-ate Assistant Secretary for Administra-

ly, more severe) disabilities decreasedfrom 1.2 percent in FY 1999 to 1.1 per-cent in FY 2001. USDA is responding byredoubling its efforts to hire employees with disabilities.

Enforcement. USDA has been strengthen-ing its efforts to ensure accountabilityfor discrimination. The Office of HumanResources Management tracks correctiveand disciplinary action taken on mattersrelating to employment and programdiscrimination as well as other civilrights-related actions. Between January1998 and December 2001, 218 civilrights-related corrective and disciplinaryactions were taken.

Continuing Vigilance and Commitment. A strongCR program supports USDA’s goals. It en-sures that customers have full access toall USDA programs and activities, thatprogram and employment complaintsare handled fairly and expeditiously, andthat the best supervisory and manage-ment practices are followed to build andmaintain a diverse, competent, highlyproductive and effective workforce.

Office of Human ResourcesManagementThe Office of Human Resources Manage-ment (OHRM) provides leadership,guidance, and oversight for USDA hu-man resources management programs,establishes human resources manage-ment policy, and provides liaison and coordination with the U.S. Office of Per-sonnel Management and other central oversight agencies. OHRM programs in-clude employment, recruitment, merit promotion, compensation, classification,position management, employee recog-nition, employee and executive develop-ment, employee assistance, retirement,benefits, workers and unemploymentcompensation, employee and labor rela-tions, personnel and classified informa-tion security, executive resources, safetyand health, and organizational develop-ment. OHRM also provides staff supportfor the Secretary’s Diversity AdvisoryCouncil and seven employee councils,and provides day-to-day operational per-sonnel services for the Office of the Sec-retary and departmental staff offices.

tion, is committed to expanding Presi-dent Lincoln’s vision of the Departmentof Agriculture as “the People’s Depart-ment.” Seven employee advisory councils comprise the DAC: the AfricanAmerican Employee Advisory Council,American Indian/Alaska Native Employ-ee Advisory Council, Asian American and Pacific Islander Employee AdvisoryCouncil, Gay and Lesbian Employee Ad-visory Council, Secretary’s AdvisoryCommittee for Employees with Disabili-ties, Hispanic Advisory Council, and theWomen Employees Advisory Council.

Office of Procurement and PropertyManagement The Office of Procurement and PropertyManagement (OPPM) provides leadership and policy guidance concerning procure-ment, property management, and energy conservation. OPPM also promotes andestablishes USDA policy for alternativefuel vehicles and the purchase ofbiobased, environmentally preferable,and recycled products.

OPPM is working to simplify and reducethe cost of procurement, and to improve access to information about procure-ment and property management policyfor businesses and other members of thepublic. The cost of procurement hasbeen reduced by expanding the use ofcommercial credit cards (purchasecards) and the Purchase Card Manage-ment System to make small purchases.OPPM posts USDA procurement andproperty management policy and proce-dures on the Departmental Administra-tion Web site, http://www.usda.gov/da.html.Businesses interested in selling to USDAmay view Doing Business with USDA atthe Web site.

In October 1998, USDA published in theFederal Register Uniform Procedures for the Acquisition and Transfer of Excess Per-sonal Property, in accordance with the provisions of Section 923 of the FederalAgriculture Improvement and ReformAct of 1996. Since then, USDA has trans-ferred excess personal property worthover $10.6 million to 1994 land-grant in-stitutions (tribal), 1890 land-grant insti-


Office of OperationsThe Office of Operations (OO) performsfacilities management, physical security,and operational support functions for allUSDA activities in the Agriculture head-quarters complex, the George Washing-ton Carver Center in Beltsville, MD, andat leased facilities throughout the Wash-ington metropolitan area. OO providescost-efficient, centralized services, in-cluding: information technology man-agement; architect and engineering serv-ices; space planning and design;occupational health services; interpreter services for deaf and hard-of-hearing in-dividuals; mail, courier, copier and dupli-cating services; supply and personalproperty management; accessible tech-nology resources and ergonomic assess-ment services for employees with dis-abilities from USDA and other Federalagencies; and forms and publications ac-quisition and printing services.

South Building Renovation. USDA is currentlyengaged in a 10-year, multi-phase project to renovate and modernize theSouth Agriculture Building. Architecturaldesign, engineering, hazardous materialsabatement, and construction servicesare contracted for or directly provided bythe Office of Operations. Phase 1 of the renovation, which included a modern-ized Wing 3 from the basement to the at-tic, was completed and dedicated at a

ceremony on December 5, 2000. The de-sign for Phase 2 of the renovation inWing 4 was completed in February 2001and a construction contract was award-ed in June 2001. Most future phases arebased on a wing-by-wing approach, withapproximately 1 year required to com-plete each phase.

Office of Small and DisadvantagedBusiness UtilizationThe Office of Small and DisadvantagedBusiness Utilization (OSDBU) provides departmentwide leadership and over-sight for implementing and executingthe Small and Small DisadvantagedBusiness Procurement Preference Pro-grams, including minorities, veterans,and women business programs, as pre-scribed under Sections 8 and 15 of theSmall Business Act of 1958, as amended.OSDBU is USDA’s lead agency in provid-ing an integrated focus for the imple-mentation and execution of programs to assist small and special emphasis small businesses in supporting USDA’s missions.

OSDBU develops and coordinates techni-cal assistance services designed to elimi-nate barriers that prevent or severely re-strict small business access andparticipation in USDA program and contract activities. Through partnershipswith USDA program offices, professionalassociations and universities, OSDBUpromotes the growth and competitive-ness of small and small disadvantagedbusinesses located in rural America.

OSDBU’s goal is to provide quality infor-mation, guidance, and technical assis-tance services to ensure continuousgrowth in the rate of small business par-ticipation in USDA program and contractactivities, with increased emphasis onsmall businesses owned by minorities,women, and veterans.

If you are interested in business oppor-tunities with the Department of Agricul-ture, visit the Web site at http://www.us-da.gov/osdbu or call (202) 720-7117 formore details.

Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities Pro-gram (BRAVO): BRAVO partners tribally

tutions, and Hispanic-serving institu-tions.

Hazardous Materials Management Group. TheHazardous Materials Management Group (HMMG) administers USDA’s Haz-ardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) and provides departmentalleadership for Resource, Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance. Inaddition, HMMG develops proceduresand guidance in the areas of environ-mental compliance, pollution preven-tion, and response under the Compre-hensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-CLA), commonly referred to as Super-fund. The working cost estimate for theenvironmental cleanup portion of theHMMP exceeds $4 billion.

The HMMP has been focused for the lastseveral years on environmental cleanup results, prioritization of needs, and inte-gration of budgets and performance. The strategic plan defines two goals: cleaningup and restoring facilities and lands contaminated from releases or threat-ened releases of hazardous substancesand materials, and improving regulatorycompliance and reducing environmental contamination through pollution pre-vention and improvements in manage-ment practices.


Table 5-1.

Where do USDA employees work?

Number of Number of Number ofState employees State employees State employees

Alabama 1,195 American Samoa 8 United Arab Emirates 1Alaska 940 Argentina 3 Thailand 1Arizona 1,755 Australia 3 Turkey 1Arkansas 1,972 Austria 3 United Kingdom 1California 7,676 Belgium 5 Ukraine 1Colorado 2,867 Brazil 4 Venezuela 2Connecticut 153 Bulgaria 2 Vietnam 1Delaware 218 Canada 4 Virgin Islands 26Dist of Columbia 6,672 China 6 Total 88,593Florida 1,818 Chile 2Georgia 2474 Columbia 2Hawaii 450 No. Mariana Islands 7Idaho 2,814 Costa Rico 3Illinois 1,566 Dominican Republic 3Indiana 779 Egypt 1Iowa 1,940 FED ST Micronesia 10Kansas 1,092 France 9Kentucky 1,153 Germany 3Louisiana 2,868 Guam 35Maine 256 Guatemala 4Maryland 3,191 Hong Kong 1Massachusetts 341 Indonesia 3Michigan 1,166 India 2Minnesota 1,807 Italy 1Mississippi 1,957 Cote D’Ivoire 1Missouri 4,075 Japan 8Montana 2,932 Jamaica 2Nebraska 1,412 Kenya 1Nevada 391 Republic of Korea 4New Hampshire 300 Morocco 1New Jersey 517 Mexico 19New Mexico 1,505 Malaysia 1New York 1,121 Nigeria 1North Carolina 1,848 Netherlands 2North Dakota 805 Nicaragua 2Ohio 829 New Zealand 1Oklahoma 961 Peru 1Oregon 4,621 Pakistan 1Pennsylvania 1,529 Poland 2Rhode Island 36 Panama 5South Carolina 878 Republic of Palau 3Tennessee 1,084 Marshall Islands 1Texas 3,575 Philippines 1Utah 1,657 Puerto Rico 573Vermont 267 Russia 4Virginia 2,083 Saudi Arabia 1Washington 2,302 South Africa 2West Virginia 718 Spain 2Wisconsin 1,539 Sweden 1Wyoming 804 Switzerland 5


owned 8(a) firms and Alaskan Nativesmall information technology (IT) busi-nesses with experienced Federal con-tractors in mentor-protégé relationships.The program gives these firms an oppor-tunity to become prime and/or subcon-tractors for USDA (and other Federalagencies) and furnishes the hands-onexperience necessary to compete in theFederal contracting arena. Mentoringand assistance by established IT corpo-rations provides a high level of assur-ance to USDA and other customer agen-cies that contract work can beaccomplished in a timely and satisfacto-ry manner.

Outreach. The USDA Office of Outreachprovides leadership and coordination onoutreach issues at the national level toassure that all potential customers havefull access to USDA programs and serv-ices. Through cooperative efforts, the Of-fice of Outreach and USDA agenciesplace special emphasis on outreach tothe under-served populations. In addi-tion, the Office of Outreach serves as acontact point for those community-based organizations making requests ofUSDA agencies at the national level.

Office of EthicsThe Office of Ethics was created in 1998to direct and coordinate the ethics pro-grams within the various mission areasof the Department and to service head-quarters staff directly. The Office ofEthics develops departmentwide policiesand regulations; provides training to US-DA staff on the various rules governingemployee conduct, conflicts of interest,and political activity; administers per-sonal financial disclosure reporting bysenior staff; and counsels employees onethics matters. Over the past 3 years, theOffice of Ethics has used Internet tech-nology to provide online training mod-ules for USDA staff all over the world.USDA was the first Federal agency to of-fer financial disclosure reportingthrough a secure, online Web-based sys-tem. In addition to USDA staff, a largeand growing number of Federal agenciesand the public rely upon the Office ofEthics Web site, located atwww.usda.gov/ethics, for ethics trainingand financial disclosure.

American Indian and Alaska NativeProgramsThe USDA Tribal Liaison is the primarycontact with tribal governments andtheir members and serves as the princi-pal adviser and representative on USDAprograms involving assistance to Ameri-can Indians and Alaska Natives (with theexception of civil rights activities, whichare coordinated by the Office of CivilRights, and recruitment and employ-ment, which are handled by USDA’s Of-fice of Human Resources Management).

The USDA Tribal Liaison also coordinatesUSDA’s activities under Executive Order13175, which requires Federal agenciesto establish meaningful and regular co-ordination with tribal officials in the de-velopment of Federal policies havingtribal implications. The Executive Orderis designed to strengthen U.S. Govern-ment relationships with Indian tribesand reduce the imposition of unwarrant-ed mandates upon tribes. In September2002, USDA conducted its first compre-hensive, departmentwide consultationwith the Navajo Nation in Window Rock,AZ.

USDA also has an American Indian/Alas-ka Native Employee Advisory Council,co-chaired by two senior USDA officials,and consisting of members from Ameri-

can Indian employee groups and all mis-sion areas of the Department.

A comprehensive guide to USDA pro-grams for American Indians and AlaskaNatives may be found athttp://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 onpolicies and programs affecting U.S. agri-culture and rural areas. This advice in-cludes assessments of USDA programproposals, legislative proposals, and eco-nomic developments of importance toagriculture and rural areas. In addition,the Office of the Chief Economist coordi-nates activities across USDA agencies.These activities are described below.The World Wide Web address for the Of-fice of the Chief Economist ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/

World Agricultural Outlook BoardThe World Agricultural Outlook Board isUSDA’s focal point for forecasts andprojections of global commodity mar-kets. Each month the Board brings to-gether interagency committees of ex-perts to forecast the supply, use, and


Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit AnalysisThe Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis is responsible forcoordinating, reviewing, and approvingall risk assessments and cost-benefitanalyses of mitigation measures associ-ated with major regulations of the De-partment. Major regulations are eco-nomically significant (with an impact ofat least $100 million each year) and havea primary purpose of addressing issuesof human health, human safety, or theenvironment. The Office provides direc-tion to USDA agencies on appropriatemethods for these analyses and servesas a focal point on matters relating torisk assessment in interagency reviews.The World Wide Web address for the Of-fice of Risk Assessment and Cost-BenefitAnalysis is http://www.usda.gov/oce/ orac-ba/index.htm

Agricultural Labor AffairsThe coordinator of agricultural labor af-fairs is responsible for coordinatingUSDA’s agricultural labor policy. Areas ofconcern include immigration, the H-2ATemporary Agricultural Worker Program,worker protection standards for pesti-cide use, farm labor supply, and agricul-tural employment issues. The WorldWide Web address for this office ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor-affairs/af-fairs.htm

Sustainable DevelopmentOCE’s director of sustainable develop-ment works to integrate the principals ofsustainable development into the De-partment’s policies and programs, ensur-ing that economic, social, and environ-mental considerations are balanced indecisionmaking. The director also directsand coordinates the Department’s do-mestic and international policies andprograms in sustainable development,including sustainable agriculture,forestry, and rural communities. TheWorld Wide Web address for this office ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/sd/index.htm. TheWorld Wide Web address for sustainabledevelopment activities at USDA ishttp://www.usda.gov/sustainable/

Global Change Program OfficeThe Global Change Program Office func-tions as the departmentwide coordinatorof agriculture, rural, and forestry-relatedglobal change program and policy issues.The Office is responsible for coordinatingactivities with other Federal agencies, in-teracting with the legislative branch onclimate and other global change issuesaffecting agriculture and forestry, andrepresenting USDA on U.S. delegations tointernational climate change discus-sions. The Office ensures that USDA is asource of objective, analytical assess-ments of the effects of global changeand proposed mitigation strategies, andhas a coordinated research program toaddress the multidisciplinary dimen-sions of global change. The World WideWeb address for the Global Change Pro-gram Office ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm

Office of Energy Policy and New UsesThe Office of Energy Policy and New Us-es provides leadership for developmentof departmental energy policy and coor-dination of departmental energy pro-grams and strategies. The Office provideseconomic analysis on energy policy is-sues, coordinates USDA energy-relatedactivities within and outside the Depart-ment, and studies the feasibility of newuses of agricultural products. The WorldWide Web address for the Office of Ener-gy Policy and New Uses ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/index.htm

prices of major commodities in the Unit-ed States and abroad. The committeesalso clear agricultural forecasts pub-lished by other USDA agencies. Thisteamwork ensures that USDAforecasts are objective and consistent.

Because growing-season weather is vitalto crop forecasts, specialists from theBoard work side by side with weatheranalysts from the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration to monitorthe weather and assess its effect oncrops. They provide timely informationon potential changes in global produc-tion and publish a Weekly Weather andCrop Bulletin (http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/jawf.htm). The Board also coordi-nates departmentwide activity on long-term economic projections, remote sens-ing, and climate. The Department is oneof the largest users of remote sensing inthe Federal Government. The Board coor-dinates remote sensing activities at US-DA and chairs the Department’s RemoteSensing Coordination Committee. TheBoard also hosts the Department’s ChiefMeteorologist, who serves as the princi-ple spokesperson on weather and cli-mate issues, chairs a departmentalweather and climate coordinating com-mittee, and serves as president of theWorld Meteorological Organization’sCommission for Agricultural Meteorolo-gy. The World Wide Web address for theWorld Agricultural Outlook Board ishttp://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/index.htm


Office of Inspector General

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG),the first civilian OIG in the Federal Gov-ernment, was established in 1962 andbecame fully operational in 1963. The In-spector General Act of 1978 expandedand provided specific statutory authori-ties for the activities of OIG which hadpreviously been carried out under thegeneral authorities of the Secretary ofAgriculture. OIG conducts and supervis-es audits and evaluations, as well as in-vestigations and law enforcement effortsrelating to USDA’s programs and opera-tions. It provides leadership and coordi-nation and recommends policies for ac-tivities that will prevent and detectcriminal violations and promote econo-my, efficiency, and effectiveness in USDAprograms and operations. Furthermore,OIG keeps the Secretary and Congressfully informed of problems and deficien-cies related to the administration of US-DA programs and operations and of theactions designed to correct such prob-lems and deficiencies.

During the period April 1, 2000, throughMarch 31, 2001, audit and investigativeefforts resulted in approximately $133million in recoveries, collections, fines,restitutions, claims established, andcosts avoided. Further, managementagreed to put nearly $276 million to bet-ter use. OIG also identified more than$22 million in questioned costs that can-not be recovered. Investigative efforts re-sulted in 417 indictments and 431 con-victions.

During the period April 1, 2001, throughMarch 31, 2002, audit and investigativeefforts resulted in nearly $65 million inrecoveries, collections, fines, restitutions,claims established, administrativepenalties, and costs avoided. Further,management agreed to put approxi-mately $101 million to better use. OIG al-so identified more than $85 million inquestioned costs that cannot be recov-ered. Investigative efforts resulted in 394indictments and 396 convictions.One highly successful initiative is “Oper-ation Talon,” which was designed andimplemented by OIG to locate and ap-prehend fugitives, including offenders

who are current or former food stamprecipients. This nationwide initiative wasmade possible by legislative changes inwelfare reform. As of March 31, 2002,Operation Talon had resulted in about8,000 arrests of fugitive felons duringjoint OIG, Federal, State, and local lawenforcement operations throughout thecountry.

The events of September 11, 2001, andthe subsequent anthrax attacks gavenew urgency to the issues of securityover USDA’s infrastructure and the agri-cultural economy. OIG continues to redi-rect its resources toward two fronts—maintaining the integrity of Departmentprograms and helping the Departmentstrengthen its defenses against activitiesthat might threaten Government facili-

ties, production agriculture, and the Na-tion’s food supply. In addition to protect-ing the food supply, key areas of empha-sis include enhancing cybersecurity andensuring financial integrity in USDA. Atthe same time, OIG remains vigilant incountering public corruption and work-place violence.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Chief Information Officer is the De-partment’s senior information technolo-gy official. The Office of the Chief Infor-mation Officer (OCIO) supports programdelivery in USDA by overseeing the man-agement of the Department’s informa-tion technology (IT) resources.


vironment of one-stop, quality servicefor customers of USDA’s Farm ServiceAgency, Natural Resources ConservationService, and Rural Development missionarea agencies.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer(OCFO) is responsible for overall finan-cial management activities in USDA andfor direct management of 1,750 employ-ees in the OCFO at USDA headquartersin Washington, DC, and the National Fi-nance Center (NFC) in New Orleans, LA.OCFO’s duties include accounting andreporting responsibilities for programfunds totaling about $100 billion andmanagement responsibilities for nearly41 percent of all debt owed to the U.S.Government. A major cross-servicingand operation facility, the NFC processesthe payroll for 468,000 individuals of theFederal workforce and administers theFederal Government’s $98 billion ThriftSavings Plan, which is the world’s largestretirement plan, with 2.8 million partici-pants. In addition, OCFO administersand manages the Department’s WorkingCapital Fund.

OCFO maintains an integrated depart-mental accounting and financial man-agement system that provides complete,reliable, consistent, and timely financialinformation. OCFO is the chief architectof the departmentwide strategic planand coordinates its distribution to Con-gress and other external entities. OCFOalso leads the Department’s efforts toproduce auditable financial statementsand to comply with congressional man-dates related to financial management.

The OCFO coordinates and providesguidance to USDA agencies for the debtmanagement program. As of September30, 2001, USDA’s gross account and loanreceivables were $103.2 billion, downfrom $107.5 billion in FY 1996. The creditportfolio includes loans for farm opera-tions, housing, utilities, business cooper-atives, and other economic assistance torural residents and organizations. As ofSeptember 30, 2001, USDA’s delinquent

receivables were $6.2 billion, down byabout 28 percent from the $8.8 billion inFY 1996. During FY 2001, USDA collected$286.8 million of delinquent debtthrough administrative offset and othertools authorized under the Debt Collec-tion Improvement Act of 1996. This rateof collection is more than quadrupledthe $63.2 million collected in FY 1996. InFY 2001, $363 million of delinquent debtwas written off. This represents an 80-percent decrease from the $1.8 billionwritten off in FY 1996. OCFO’s currentefforts are focused on providing guid-ance and assisting USDA agencies in re-ferring eligible debts to the Treasury off-set and cross-servicing programs,implementing administrative wage gar-nishment, and revising debt manage-ment regulations.

Office of Congressional andIntergovernmental Relations

Office of Congressional RelationsUSDA’s Office of Congressional Relationsserves as the Department’s primary liai-son with Members of Congress and theirstaffs, providing information on the De-partment’s legislative agenda, budgetproposals, programs, and policies.

Office of Intergovernmental AffairsThe Office of Intergovernmental Affairs(OIA) works closely with the Nation’sGovernors and State Commissioners ofAgriculture, and other State and localelected officials, on various issues relat-ing to their States. OIA is responsible fordisseminating information on programsinvolving the implementation of USDApolicies and procedures applicable to theDepartment’s intergovernmental rela-tions.

OIA participates with the Secretary,Deputy Secretary, and the Assistant Sec-retary for Congressional Relations in theoverall planning, formulation, and direc-tion of the activities of the Office relatingto intergovernmental affairs. OIA servesas the USDA liaison with the WhiteHouse and other executive branch agen-cies and departments with respect to in-tergovernmental affairs.

In accordance with the Clinger-CohenAct of 1996 and similar legislation, regu-lations, and executive orders, OCIO pro-vides long-range-planning guidance, re-views all major technology investmentsto ensure that they are economical andeffective, coordinates interagency Infor-mation Resources Management projects,and promotes information exchange andtechnical interoperability.

OCIO is responsible for managing USDA’seGovernment activities, including:strategic and tactical planning; coordi-nating inter- and intra-departmentaleGovernment functions and budgeting;and information collection and manage-ment functions under the Paperwork Re-duction Act, Government PaperworkElimination Act, and related legislation.

OCIO also provides automated data pro-cessing (ADP) services to USDA andother Federal agencies through its Na-tional Information Technology Center lo-cated in Kansas City, MO; and telecom-munications services through itsTelecommunications Services and Oper-ations in Ft. Collins, CO, and Washington,DC. Direct ADP services are provided tothe Office of the Secretary, Office of theGeneral Counsel, Office of Communica-tions, Office of the Chief Financial Offi-cer, and Executive Operations.

OCIO is responsible for ensuring the pro-tection and safety of USDA’s informationtechnology resources. Cyber securityacts as an enabler for the programs touse highly productive information tech-nology while minimizing security risks.OCIO develops departmental cyber secu-rity policies, standards, processes, andprocedures; provides guidance and over-sight to assist USDA agencies; and en-sures compliance with industry bestpractices, Federal regulation, and legisla-tion.

OCIO has responsibility for the informa-tion technology investments of theService Center Modernization Initiative(SCMI), which is the cornerstone of theoverall reorganization and IT moderniza-tion effort of the Department. The ulti-mate goal of the SCMI is to create an en-

CHAPTER 6

USDA Rural Development


Helping the people of rural America de-velop sustainable communities and im-prove their quality of life is the goal ofUSDA’s Rural Development mission area,which works aggressively to increaseeconomic opportunities and empowerrural communities to grow.

USDA Rural Development is working toeliminate substandard housing from ru-ral America by helping families and indi-viduals buy, build, repair, or rent decenthousing.

It also creates jobs by providing fundingand technical assistance to support thegrowth and creation of rural businessesand cooperatives. In a typical year, Rural Development programs create or preserve more than 150,000 rural jobs, enable60,000 to 70,000 rural people to buyhomes, and help more than 450,000 low-income rural people rent apartments orother housing.

Other Rural Development programs help rural communities build or improvecommunity facilities, such as schools,health clinics, and fire stations. RuralDevelopment also has programs thathelp rural communities build or extendutilities, including water, electricity, andtelecommunications services. Rural De-velopment is also charged with leadershipin national, State, and local strategicplanning.

Program assistance is provided in manyways, including direct or guaranteedloans, grants, technical assistance, re-search, and educational materials. Toaccomplish its mission, USDA Rural De-velopment often works in partnershipwith State, local, and tribal governments,as well as rural businesses, cooperatives,and nonprofit agencies.

USDA Rural Development programs aredelivered through its three agencies—Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Hous-ing Service (RHS), and Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)—and branch,the Office of Community Development(OCD). Rural Development programs areprovided across the Nation through 47

State offices and 800 field offices. Thefollowing overviews describe the threeRural Development agencies andbranch—the Office of Community Devel-opment—and their main programs.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Creation of viable new and improvedcompetitive businesses and sustainablecooperatives in rural America is the toppriority of the Rural Business-Coopera-tive Service (RBS). This agency worksthrough partnerships with public andprivate community-based organizationsto provide financial assistance, businessplanning, and technical assistance to ru-ral businesses. It also conducts researchinto rural economic issues, including ru-ral cooperatives, and provides education-al material to the public.

Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loans helpto finance rural business and industryprojects that create employment oppor-tunities and improve the economic andenvironmental climate in rural commu-nities, including pollution abatementand control. Guaranteed loans are madefor projects that foster sustained com-munity benefits and open private creditmarkets. B&I loan guarantees can be ex-tended to loans made by commercial orother authorized lenders in rural areas(this includes all areas other than citiesof more than 50,000 people and their im-mediately adjacent urban or urbanizingareas).

Under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program,the Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority pro-vides financial assistance for the purchaseof cooperative stock for family-sizedfarms where the commodities producedare to be processed by the cooperative.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans aremade to public entities and private par-ties who cannot obtain credit from othersources. Loans to private parties can bemade for improving, developing, or fi-nancing business and industry, creatingjobs, and improving the economic andenvironmental climate in rural commu-nities (including pollution abatement).This type of assistance is available in ru-

An 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 otherthan cities of more than 50,000 peopleand their immediately adjacent urban orurbanizing areas).

Intermediary Relending Program Loans financebusiness facilities and community devel-opment projects in rural areas, includingcities of less than 25,000.

Loans to intermediaries are reloaned tosupport the establishment of new busi-ness facilities and community develop-ment projects in rural areas. Rural Econom-ic Development Loans and Grants financeeconomic development and job creationprojects in rural areas based on sound economic plans. This financing is avail-able to any Rural Utilities Service electricor telecommunications borrower to assistin developing rural areas from an eco-nomic standpoint, to create new job op-portunities, and to help retain existingemployment. Loans at zero interest aremade primarily to finance businessstartup ventures and business expan-sion projects.

Grants are made to these telephone andelectric utilities to establish revolvingloan programs operated at the local levelby the utility.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants help public bodies and nonprofit corporations financeand facilitate the development of smalland emerging private business enterpris-es located in rural areas (this includesall areas other than cities of more than50,000 people and their immediatelyadjacent urban or urbanizing areas).Grants may be used to acquire and de-velop land, buildings, plants, equipment,access streets and roads, parking areas,and utility and service extensions. Inaddition, funds may be used for refi-nancing, fees for professional services,technical assistance, financial assistancethrough loans to third parties—includingstartup costs and working capital, pro-duction of television programs targetedto rural residents, and rural distance-learning networks.

Rural Business Opportunity Grants can bemade to provide economic planning forrural communities, technical assistancefor rural businesses, or training for ruralentrepreneurs or economic developmentofficials. Funding must result in eco-nomic development of a rural area. Thisprogram is available to public bodies,non-profit corporations, Indian tribes,or cooperatives with members who areprimarily rural residents.

Rural Cooperative Development Grants financethe establishment and operation of cen-ters for cooperative development. Theprogram enhances the economy of ruralareas by developing new cooperativesand fostering improved operations forexisting co-ops.

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Develop-ment Grants are available to help farmersand their farmer-owned cooperatives or other businesses to expand the customerbase for their products or commodities.An expanded customer base gives pro-ducers access to a greater share of therevenues derived from adding value totheir crops.

The Agricultural Innovation Center Programprovides grants to fund a series of cen-ters to provide information and techni-cal assistance to producers in gettinginto value-added activities.


the cooperative form of business. Byworking together for their mutual bene-fit in cooperatives, rural residents areoften able to reduce costs for productionsupplies and consumer goods, obtainservices that might otherwise be un-available, and achieve greater returns for their products.

Cooperative Services accomplishes itsmission by (1) responding to requests fortechnical assistance from rural residentswho want to organize a cooperative orimprove operations of an existing coop-erative; (2) providing information andeducational materials relating to cooper-atives; (3) conducting research on coop-erative financial, structural, managerial,policy, member governance, legal, andsocial issues; and (4) collecting and dis-seminating statistics to support researchand technical assistance work.

Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housingand essential community facilities areindispensable to vibrant rural communi-ties. USDA’s Rural Housing Service (RHS)has the responsibility to make these es-sential elements available to rural Amer-icans. RHS programs help finance new orimproved housing for more than 60,000moderate-, low-, or very low-incomefamilies each year. These programs alsohelp rural communities finance con-struction, enlargement, or improvementof fire stations, libraries, hospitals, med-ical clinics, day care centers, industrialparks, and other essential communityfacilities.

Single Family Housing Loans provide assis-tance to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in rural communities,helping them to purchase, construct, orrepair a home. Very low- and low-income borrowers are offered 33- to 38-year directloans (depending on income) at fixed in-terest rates with payment assistance tobring the effective interest rate to as lowas 1 percent, depending on the family’sadjusted income. Low- and moderate-income rural residents can be assistedwith loan guarantees, which require nodownpayment or mortgage insurance,

The Agricultural Marketing Resource Centergrant program establishes a nationalelectronically based center to collect andinterpret information about value-addedagriculture. It aims to empower the Na-tion’s agricultural producers and proces-sors by providing publicly accessibleinformation on the Internet.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for RuralAreas program provides information to farmers and other rural users on a varietyof sustainable agricultural practices, in-cluding crop and livestock operations. Ithelps agriculture by giving reliable, prac-tical information on production tech-niques and practices that reduce costsand are friendly to the environment.

The National Sheep Industry ImprovementCenter promotes strategic developmentactivities to strengthen and enhance production and marketing of sheep, goats,and their products in the United States.The Center, which has a board of direc-tors to oversee its activities, makes loansand grants.

Cooperative Services helps improve the per-formance of the Nation’s cooperativesand 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.


that are offered through private lendersat terms up to 30 years. The loans, bothdirect and guaranteed, can cover up to100 percent of market value or acquisi-tion cost, whichever is less. This elimi-nates the need for a downpayment andprovides homeownership opportunitiesto many more rural Americans.

The innovative Mutual Self-Help Housing Pro-gram makes homes more affordable byenabling low- and very low-income fam-ilies to perform 65 percent of the labor toconstruct their homes. The family’s in-vestment or “sweat equity” reduces thetotal amount of money to be borrowed.Grants are awarded to nonprofit and lo-cal government organizations that provide technical assistance. They supervisegroups of families in the construction of their homes. The families work onhomes together, moving in only when all homes are completed. Usually, the homes are financed through an RHS SingleFamily Housing direct loan. In 2001, RHSmade 70 technical assistance grants to-taling $17.63 million, to nonprofit organi-zations in 26 States that helped about1,417 families build their own homes. Atotal of $165.3 million was loaned tothese families to help them pay for theirnew homes.

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grantsenable very low-income rural home-owners to remove health and safetyhazards from their homes and to makehomes accessible for people with disabil-ities. Loans have a maximum interest rate of 1 percent and are available to verylow-income homeowners regardless oftheir age.

Grants are available for people age 62and older who cannot afford to repay aloan. A combination of funds from aloan and grant can be used by eligibleelderly residents.

Rural Rental Housing Loans finance construc-tion of rental and cooperative housingfor low-income individuals and families with an average annual income of $8,105,including elderly or disabled persons.Loans have a maximum term of 30years, can equal up to 100 percent of the

appraised value or development cost,whichever is less, and can be used toconstruct new housing or to purchase orrehabilitate existing structures. In addi-tion to the direct lending program, USDAoffers loan guarantees to multi-familyhousing developers to extend the reachof Federal resources to moderate- andlow-income working families and elderlyindividuals.

Housing Preservation Grants are made to non-profit groups and government agenciesto finance rehabilitation of rental unitsfor low-income residents.

Rental Assistance payments subsidize rentcosts to ensure that low-income tenantswill pay no more than 30 percent of theirincome for rent.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, andGrants finance the construction, enlarge-ment, extension, or other improvementsfor community facilities providing essen-tial services in rural areas and towns with a population of 20,000 or less. Funds are available to public entities such asmunicipalities, counties, special-purposedistricts, Indian tribes, and nonprofitcorporations. Projects commonly fi-nanced include child care centers,schools, libraries, and medical facilities.In addition, funding may be used for thepurchase of firefighting equipment.


Housing for Farm Workers Farm workers are often among the mostpoorly housed and lowest paid workersin the United States. RHS provides hous-ing for migrant and farm laborers throughseveral programs. The Farm Labor Housingprogram, the only national farm laborhousing program, provides loans to pub-lic or nonprofit agencies or to farmers toenable them to build farm labor hous-ing. In States, such as California, manyfarm laborers are able to build their ownhomes through our Mutual Self-HelpHousing Program.

Outreach to American Indians andAlaskan Natives The Rural Housing Service is reachingout to better inform Native Americansabout its programs and is working toovercome institutional barriers to lend-ing on tribal land. In FY 2001, SingleFamily Housing direct loans worth $13.6million were made to buy or to repairhomes for 204 Native Americans, includ-ing $2.183 million to build approximately39 single family houses on tribal lands.An additional $17.4 million guaranteedanother 231 housing loans made to Na-tive Americans by private sector lenders.Loans and grants made through theHousing Repair program totaled over$1.3 million and repaired 216 dwellings.

The Community Facilities Program providedmore than $32 million in direct andguaranteed loans and grants to fund 77essential community facilities benefitingNative American tribes in 13 States.These projects included infrastructurefor a tribal housing project, tribal schooland college classroom buildings, physi-cians’ clinics, child care centers, muse-ums, fire trucks, a well for water, a foodpreparation center, and several commu-nity centers and general office buildings.

Expanding the Reach of FederalResources Through PartnershipsPartnerships with public bodies, such astowns, counties, and federally recog-nized Indian tribes, and the private andnonprofit sectors, form the foundation ofseveral RHS programs. USDA is activelyreaching out to organizations whosegoals and missions complement those of

the Department. The following are part-nerships found in RHS programs:

■ Some of USDA’s most important part-nerships are created through its guaran-teed loan programs, which are a collabora-tion with local lenders by which thelender funds the loan and RHS issues aguarantee for up to 90 percent of theamount of the loan.

■ The Rural Home Loan Partnership(RHLP), begun in 1996, makes privatecredit more accessible for eligible low-in-come borrowers. Partners include RHS,Rural Local Initiatives Support Corpora-tion, the Federal Home Loan Bank Sys-tem, the Neighborhood Reinvestment,Rural Alliance, the Office of Thrift Super-vision, the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation, and the Office of the Comp-troller of the Currency. The partnershipdelivers a new single-family mortgageproduct that enables families earning 80percent of area median income or belowto achieve homeownership. RHS providesa subsidized mortgage to cover part ofthe cost of a house, while a local bank fi-nances the remainder. Since RHLP beganin 1996, it has provided more than $341.8million to help 4,329 families in 36States attain the American dream ofhomeownership.

Community Development FinancialInstitution PartnershipThe Community Development FinancialInstitution Partnership was created in1998 to provide homeownership oppor-tunities to low-income applicants bycombining the resources of RHS andcommunity development financial insti-tutions.

CDFIs are specialized private institutionsthat serve populations whom traditionalfinancial institutions are not serving.They provide a wide range of financialproducts and services to underservedcommunities, including mortgage fi-nancing for first-time home buyers andbasic financial services needed by low-income households.


Rural Utilities Service

USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) pro-grams, including Rural Telephone Bank(RTB) programs administered by RUS,touch the lives of tens of millions of ruralpeople daily. Through project financingand technical assistance, RUS builds in-frastructure to provide rural businessesand households with modern telecom-munications, electricity, and water.

RUS is a partner with rural business andeconomic development efforts, providinginfrastructure that is the foundation forcompetitiveness. It is a technical and fi-nancial resource in a time of change forrural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and LoanGuarantees build modern rural communi-cations systems by making financingavailable for modern high-speed tele-communications facilities. Loans madeto rural telephone cooperatives andcompanies help bring reliable and af-fordable telecommunications services tomore than 15 million rural Americans.

Rural Electric Loans and LoanGuaranteesThe RUS Electric Program provides fi-nancing and technical assistance to up-grade, expand, and maintain the electricutility infrastructure in rural America.Under the authority of the Rural Electri-fication Act of 1936, RUS makes directloans and loan guarantees to electricutilities to serve customers in rural ar-eas. Repayment of RUS loans is securedthrough liens on the assets of borrowers,long-term power arrangements, and RUSoversight of borrower activities. RUS canalso make loans for renewable energyand demand-side management activitiesto boost rural economic developmentopportunities and contribute to a clean-er environment. With new authorityadded in the 106th Congress, RUS canmake grants and loans for rural commu-nities with extremely high energy costs.

Through RUS, the Federal Government isthe primary lender and majority note-holder for 697 rural electric systems in 46

States, Puerto Rico, the Marshall Islands,and the Virgin Islands. These active RUSborrowers directly serve over 25 million people. In 2000 RUS borrowers accounted for over 10.8 million retail meters (90 per-cent of them residential meters), 1,689,000miles of distribution lines, 96,000 milesof transmission lines, 162,699,000megawatt-hours (MWh) generated, and240,147,000 MWh in retail sales.

Of the 697 RUS-financed rural systems,nearly 96 percent are nonprofit coop-eratives, owned and operated by theconsumers they serve. The remaining 4 percent include municipal systems, pub-lic power districts, Native American tribalutilities, and other entities. RUS-financedelectric systems provide service to 523 of the 540 identified persistent povertycounties and 655 of the 700 countiesidentified as having net outmigration.

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans andGrants bring distance learning andtelemedicine to rural America. Educationand adequate medical care are crucial tothe survival of rural communities, butare becoming increasingly difficult toprovide. This program employs innova-tive ways to use telecommunicationsinfrastructure to extend the reach ofeducational and medical expertise intocommunities without those resources.The loan program has been expanded tobroaden the use of rural telecommuni-cations infrastructure.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants de-velop water and waste disposal systems(including solid waste disposal andstorm drainage) in rural areas and townswith populations of less than 10,000. Thefunds are available to public entitiessuch as municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, and non-profit corporations. RUS also guaranteeswater and waste disposal loans made bybanks and other eligible lenders. Thisprogram deals with over 7,000 communi-ties nationwide.

Telecommunications, electricity, water

and waste disposal systems, and

transportation infrastructure (such as

highways and airports) are essential

for rural development.


Office of Community Development

The Office of Community Development’sgoal is to create empowered communi-ties—no longer beset by hopelessness,pervasive poverty, unemployment, andgeneral distress. These communitiesshould be able to implement self-gener-ated strategic plans that solve some oftheir most difficult economic and socialchallenges. OCD promotes Federal, State,and local agencies, private sector, andnot-for-profit organizations working co-operatively and in partnership withcommunities.

USDA Rural Development’s Office ofCommunity Development (OCD) admin-isters the Rural Community Development program. This effort promotes self-sustaining, long-term economic andcommunity development in areas ofpervasive poverty, unemployment, andgeneral distress. The program works byhelping distressed communities developand implement innovative, comprehen-sive strategic plans, which are supportedby partnerships among private, public,and nonprofit entities. This assistance isavailable through USDA Rural Develop-ment field offices to rural communitiesthroughout the United States. This helpincludes technical assistance and sup-port in obtaining additional financial re-sources and assistance in forging localand regional partnerships.

USDA’s Office of Community Develop-ment administers three rural communi-ty empowerment efforts: EmpowermentZones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC),Champion Communities (CC), and theRural Economic Area Partnership (REAP)Zones. OCD also administers the RuralCommunity Advancement Program(RCAP) and other supported communi-ties, as well as the National Centers ofExcellence.

Empowerment Zones/EnterpriseCommunitiesThe Empowerment Zones/EnterpriseCommunities (EZ/EC) Program provideseconomically depressed rural areas andcommunities with real opportunities forgrowth and revitalization. Its mission isto help create long-term economic andcommunity development and assistcommunities in empowering themselvesto improve local conditions and becomeself-sustaining. EZ/EC efforts begin at agrassroots level, where communities, incooperation with State and local govern-ments, work together to write strategic plans to address the economic and social problems they face. The strategic planalso identifies partnerships and ways tocombine private and public resources toimplement 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 266New utility hookups 6,061 0 1,264 7,325Business loans made 953 59 21 1,033Businesses started or attracted 854 156 26 1,036Education program participants 69,608 6,729 0 76,337Youth participating in programs 27,155 1,396 0 28,551Jobs created or saved 32,137 3,307 756 36,200Houses constructed 1,447 506 0 1,953Houses rehabilitated 3,928 490 210 4,628New health care facilities 25 3 0 28New/improved recreation & tourism facilities 117 28 21 166Environmental & natural resources projects 39 0 0 39


Key features of the EZ/EC programinclude:■ Rural EZs receive substantial flexiblegrant dollars to help implement theirstrategic plans. Rural ECs receive some-what less for the same purpose.■ Rural EZs are eligible for tax credits,such as the Work Opportunity Tax Creditand Section 179 tax deductions, as wellas tax-free facility bonds.■ Both rural EZs and ECs receive pri-mary consideration for many other Fed-eral and State programs.

In 1994, the Round I EZ/EC designationsnamed three rural Empowerment Zonesand 30 Enterprise Communities. In 1998,five Round II rural Empowerment Zonesand 20 Enterprise Communities weredesignated. A third round of two addi-tional rural EZs was named in December2001. In 1999, USDA formalized theChampion Communities (CC) programby inviting all communities that submit-ted strategic plans for Round I and IIEZ/EC designations to continue imple-menting their plans through a partner-ship agreement with USDA.

Rural Economic Area Partnership(REAP) ZonesWhile poverty-related issues are the main challenge for some rural communities,many others face economic and commu-nity development issues of a very different character. Often, these challenges aredue to geographic isolation, low popula-tion density, over-dependence on agricul-ture, population loss, out-migration, and economic distress. To address these issues,USDA advocated a pilot concept for ruralrevitalization and community develop-ment called Rural Economic AreaPartnership Zones. Two zones in NorthDakota were designated in 1995 to be thefirst participants in the REAP initiative.In 1999, two areas in upstate New Yorkwere added, and in 2000 an area inVermont was designated as the fifthzone. The North Dakota zones and theVermont zone cover multi-county areas,while the two in New York are basicallysingle counties. Each REAP Zone devel-oped a strategic plan for economic revi-talization. Through grassroots efforts in

strategic planning and community ac-tion, millions of dollars in State, Federal,private, and nonprofit assistance arebeing brought to these areas.

Rural Community AdvancementProgram (RCAP)The 1996 Farm Bill established the RuralCommunity Advancement Program(RCAP). RCAP features strategic planningassistance, grants, loans, loan guaran-tees, and other assistance to meet thedevelopment needs of rural communi-ties. Special emphasis is placed on thesmallest communities with the lowestper capita income.

National Centers of Excellence: Collegeand University Partnership ProjectThe National Centers of Excellence (NCE)program has matured into a unique ef-fort to utilize local universities and col-leges as catalysts for rural economic andcommunity development. The NCE is apartnership between USDA and ruralcolleges and universities in the UnitedStates. The goal of the program is toimprove the economic self-sufficiency of historically overlooked, poor ruralcommunities. It specifically focuses onbuilding the economic and communitydevelopment educational and outreachcapacities of the rural colleges and uni-versities and linking them with impover-ished rural communities that they havehistorically served.

The National Centers of Excellence par-ticipating in 2002 include: University ofTexas-Pan American, Texas; SomersetCommunity College, Kentucky; HeritageCollege, Washington; Cankdeska CikanaCommunity College, North Dakota;Crownpoint Institute of Technology, NewMexico; Fort Peck Community College,Montana; San Diego State University-Imperial Valley, California; and Califor-nia State University-Fresno, California.

CHAPTER 7

Farm and Foreign AgriculturalServices


Farm Service Agency

The Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) missionis to ensure the well-being of Americanagriculture and the American publicthrough efficient and equitable adminis-tration of agricultural commodity, farmloan, conservation, environmental,emergency assistance, and domestic andinternational food assistance programs.

FSA is a customer-driven agency with adiverse and multi-talented workforce,empowered and accountable to deliverprograms and services efficiently, anddedicated to promoting an economicallyviable and environmentally sound Amer-ican agriculture.

What Is FSA?FSA was established under a USDA re-organization in 1994, incorporating pro-grams from several agencies, includingthe Agricultural Stabilization andConservation Service, the Federal CropInsurance Corporation (now a separateRisk Management Agency), and theFarmers Home Administration. Thoughits name has changed over the years, theagency’s relationship with farmers datesback to the 1930s.

Congress set up a unique system underwhich Federal farm programs are locallyadministered. Farmers who are eligibleto participate in these programs elect athree-to-five-person county committeethat reviews county office operationsand makes many of the decisions onhow to administer the programs. Thisgrassroots approach gives farmers amuch-needed say in how Federal actionsaffect their communities and their indi-vidual operations. After more than 60years, it remains a cornerstone of FSA’sefforts to preserve and promote Ameri-can agriculture.

2002 Farm BillThe Farm Security and Rural InvestmentAct of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), which gov-erns Federal farm programs, includesprovisions to support the production of areliable, safe, and affordable supply offood and fiber; promote stewardship ofagricultural land and water resources;facilitate access to American farm prod-

ucts at home and abroad; encouragecontinued economic and infrastructuredevelopment in rural America; and en-sure continued research to maintain anefficient and innovative agricultural andfood sector.

The 2002 Farm Bill also provides certain-ty and support for America’s farmers and ranchers by providing a generous safetynet for farmers without encouragingoverproduction and depressing prices.

Today, 25 percent of U.S. farm income isgenerated by exports. Foreign marketaccess is essential to farmers, ranchers,and the entire agricultural sector. The2002 Farm Bill helps keep internationaltrade commitments and support theagency’s commitment to fair trade bycomplying with U.S. obligations to theWorld Trade Organization.

The Farm Bill offers incentives for goodconservation practices on working lands,strengthens the farm economy over thelong term, and promotes farmer inde-pendence. It has increased record-levelfunding for almost every existing envi-ronmental stewardship program andrepresents an unprecedented invest-ment in conservation on America’s pri-vate lands, nearly $13 billion over thenext 6 years. The bill emphasizes conser-vation on working lands and providesthe most dramatic growth in the Envi-ronmental Quality Incentives Program,providing more than $5.5 billion over thenext 6 years.

Marketing Assistance Loan ProgramsFSA administers commodity loan pro-grams for dry peas, lentils, small chick-peas, barley, corn, honey, grain, sorghum,wool, mohair, oats, oilseeds, peanuts,rice, sugar, tobacco, wheat, and uplandand extra-long-staple cotton.

The agency provides the operating per-sonnel for the Commodity Credit Corpo-ration (CCC), which provides assistancewith respect to products of certain agri-cultural commodities through loans andloan deficiencies payments (LDP). Thisprovides farmers with interim financingand helps maintain balanced and ade-quate 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 theyear and during times of surplus andscarcity.

Instead of immediately selling the cropafter harvest, a farmer who grows an eli-gible crop can store the produce and,normally, take out a “nonrecourse” loanfor its value, pledging the crop itself ascollateral. “Nonrecourse” means that theproducer can discharge debts in full byforfeiting or delivering the commodity tothe Federal Government.

The nonrecourse loan, where available,allows farmers to pay their bills andother loan payments when they becomedue, without having to sell crops at atime of year when prices tend to be attheir lowest. Later, when market condi-tions are more favorable, farmers cansell their crops and repay the loan withthe proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price ofthe crop remains below the loan level setby CCC, farmers can keep loan proceedsand forfeit the crop to CCC instead. Therepayment rate may also be adjusted,in some instances, by USDA to minimizeforfeitures and the costs of storing com-modities and to allow commoditiesproduced in the United States to bemarketed freely and competitively, bothdomestically and internationally. Whenrepayment rates are set below the loanlevel during periods of low prices, pro-ducers realize a marketing loan gain.Loan deficiency payments may also beoffered in lieu of marketing assistanceloans when repayment rates are belowthe loan level.

Commodity Purchase ProgramsForeign food assistance in FY 2000 pro-vided nearly 6 million tons of commodi-ties, valued at $1.2 billion. During FY2001, FSA provided more than 5.5 millionmetric tons of commodities under for-eign food aid programs valued at $1.1billion. As part of that total, the GlobalFood for Education program was initiat-ed and provided approximately 470,000metric tons of commodities valued atover $106 million.

Domestic food assistance in FY 2000 andFY 2001 totaled approximately 400 mil-lion pounds each year at a cost of ap-proximately $300 million per year.

Under the Dairy Price Support Program,CCC buys surplus butter, cheese, andnonfat dry milk from processors at an-nounced prices to support the price ofmilk. These purchases help maintainmarket prices at the legislated supportlevel. Dairy purchases totaled about 500million pounds in FY 2000 and 400 mil-lion pounds in FY 2001, valued at ap-proximately $500 million in FY 2000 and$400 million in FY 2001.

CCC can store purchased food in over10,000 commercial warehouses approvedfor this purpose across the Nation. How-ever, commodity inventories are not sim-ply kept in storage. FSA employees workto return stored commodities to privatetrade channels. At the agency’s KansasCity Commodity Office in Kansas City,MO, FSA merchandisers regularly selland swap CCC inventories.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodi-ties fill the need for hunger relief both inthe United States and in foreign coun-tries. FSA employees work closely withUSDA’s Food and Nutrition Service topurchase and deliver foods for the Na-tional School Lunch Program and manyother domestic feeding programs. Forforeign food assistance programs, FSA

America should continue to be

a global agricultural leader in

the 21st century.


Emergency Conservation Program The Emergency Conservation Programprovides emergency cost-share fundingfor farmers and ranchers to rehabilitatefarmland damaged by natural disastersand for carrying out emergency waterconservation measures during periods ofsevere drought. The natural disastermust create new conservation problemswhich, if not treated, would:

■ Impair or endanger the land,■ Materially affect the productive capac-ity of the land,■ Represent unusual damage which isnot the type likely to recur frequently inthe same area,■ Be so costly to repair that Federal as-sistance is or will be required to returnthe land to productive agricultural use.

FSA allocated $93 million in EmergencyConservation Program assistance to 42States in FY 1999 and $105 million to 40States in FY 2000 to help farmers andranchers rehabilitate farmland damagedby the year’s droughts, floods, hurri-canes, and other natural disasters andfor water conservation measures for se-vere drought. In FY 2002, 10,000 produc-ers received $30 million in payments.

Emergency LoansFSA provides emergency loans to helpcover production and physical losses incounties declared disaster areas by thePresident, or designated as such by theSecretary of Agriculture or the FSA Ad-ministrator (physical loss loans only).Emergency loans also are available incounties contiguous to such disaster ar-eas. These loans are made to qualifyingestablished family farm operators. In ad-dition, to qualify for emergency loans,applicants must have operated a farm ina county declared as a disaster area bythe President, or designated as such bythe Secretary of Agriculture or the FSAAdministrator (physical loss loans only).Loans for crop, livestock, and non-real-estate losses are normally repaid in 1 to7 years, and in special circumstances, upto 20 years. Loans for physical losses toreal estate and buildings are normallyrepaid in 30 years, and in special circum-stances, up to 40 years. In FY 2002, FSA

employees purchase commodities forthe U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment and the USDA Foreign Agricul-tural Service. These agencies administerthe P.L. 480, Title II/III Programs and theSection 416(b) and Food For Progress Pro-grams, respectively.

Disaster Assistance Available From FSAFSA has programs that are activatedduring certain types of disasters. Amongthese are the Noninsured Crop DisasterAssistance Program, Emergency Conser-vation Program, and Emergency Loans.

Noninsured Crop Disaster AssistanceProgramThe Noninsured Crop Disaster AssistanceProgram (NAP) provides financial assis-tance to eligible producers affected bynatural disasters. This federally fundedprogram covers noninsurable crop lossesand planting prevented by disasters.

When damage to a crop or commodityoccurs as a result of a natural disaster,producers requesting NAP assistancemust meet certain criteria.

In FY 2002, 40,000 producers received$173 million in payments.


made 949 emergency loans totaling$57,609,000.

Emergency DeclarationsAs of November 25, 2002, 2,344 countiesof the total 3,141 in the United Stateshad received disaster declarations fordrought (as either primary or contiguouscounties) by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Cattle Feed Assistance ProgramIn 2002, USDA and FSA introduced theCattle Feed Assistance Program that pro-vides $150 million to help cow-calf oper-ators in Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming,and South Dakota. The eligible Stateswere selected because data showed thatat least 75 percent of the pasture andforage crops in these States is rated aspoor or very poor. Without this assis-tance, severe disruption could come tothe beef industry if producers are forcedto prematurely market foundation herdsof beef cattle due to lack of forage. Toimplement the program, USDA’s Com-modity Credit Corporation (CCC) entersinto agreements with feed mills locatedin the eligible areas, making availableexisting CCC stocks of nonfat dry milk tobe used in the production of livestockfeed. Eligible producers are able to ob-tain feed at reduced or no cost from par-ticipating manufacturers. At the timethe program was announced, CCC hadmore than 441 million pounds of nonfatdry milk that was at least 2 years old orolder in storage. In the past, CCC hassold similar nonfat dry milk stocks foranimal feed.

Livestock Compensation ProgramIn 2002, USDA and FSA announced theLivestock Compensation Program (LCP),a new program designed to help cattle,sheep, goat, and buffalo producers incounties that have received primary dis-aster designation due to drought in 2001and/or 2002. The program, which paysfarmers and ranchers a certain amountper head of livestock, provides close to$1 billion in financial assistance. Sign-upfor the program ran from October 1 toDecember13, 2002. As of Nov. 20, 2002,applications for LCP benefits had beenreceived from and payments issued tomore than 310,000 livestock producers in41 drought-impacted States. Between

October 1 and November 20, 2002, morethan $578 million had been paid.

Apple Market Loss Assistance ProgramII and III (AMLAP II and AMLAP III)In 2002, FSA administered the AMLAP II,which provided about $75 million to eli-gible growers to help offset economiclosses due to low prices in the U.S. applemarket in 2000. As of November 18, 2002,$73 million had been paid to more than6,330 growers.

In the fall of 2002, FSA held a sign-upperiod for AMLAP III, which was author-ized by the 2002 Farm Bill. The programprovides another $94 million to eligiblegrowers for their 2000-crop appleproduction.

Farm LoansFSA offers guaranteed farm ownershipand operating loans and direct farmownership, operating and emergencyloans to family-size farmers who aretemporarily unable to obtain privatecommercial credit and who meet all ap-plicable program eligibility criteria. Often,these are beginning farmers who cannotqualify for conventional loans becausethey have insufficient net worth. In addi-tion, FSA provides assistance to estab-lished farmers who have suffered finan-cial setbacks from natural disasters and


to farmers who have limited resources to improve their farming operation’sprofitability.

Under the guaranteed loan program, FSAguarantees loans made by conventionalagricultural lenders for up to 95 percent,depending on the circumstances. Thelender may sell the loan to a third party;however, the lender remains responsiblefor servicing the loan. All loans mustmeet qualifying criteria to be eligible forguarantees. FSA has the right to monitorthe lender’s servicing activities. Farmersinterested in guaranteed loans must ap-ply to a conventional lender, who thenarranges for the guarantee.

Farmers unable to qualify for a guaran-teed loan may apply for a direct loan.Direct loans are made and serviced byFSA officials who provide applicants andborrowers with supervision and creditcounseling. Funding authorities for di-rect loans are limited, and applicantsmay have to wait until funds becomeavailable. To qualify for a direct loan, theapplicant must be able to show suffi-cient repayment ability, pledge enoughcollateral to fully secure the loan, andmeet all other eligibility criteria.

In FY 2001, FSA dealt with a strong de-mand for loans and loan guarantees

from farmers unable to obtain vital cred-it elsewhere. FSA provided over 29,900loans and loan guarantees, totaling $3.2billion, including:

■ 17,554 direct loans totaling $943million■ 12,368 guaranteed loans totaling $2.3billion■ more than 8,000 loans and loan guar-antees to beginning farmers totaling$706 million■ 3,440 loans and loan guarantees tominority and women farmers totaling$288 million■ 1,679 emergency loans totaling $90million.

In FY 2000, FSA provided over 33,000loans and loan guarantees, totaling $3.7billion, including:

■ 18,559 direct loans totaling $1.048billion■ 14,930 guaranteed loans totaling $2.6billion■ over 8,100 loans and loan guaranteesto beginning farmers totaling $716million■ 3,370 loans and loan guarantees tominority and women farmers totaling$277 million■ 2,451 emergency loans totaling $150million.

In FY 2002, FSA’s Farm Loan Programsdivision made more than 14,500 directfarm operating loans totaling over$668,000,000. There were 9,462 guaran-teed farm operating loans valued at$1,549,666,000. Over 1,500 direct farmownership loans were made that totaled$177,861,000. American farmers andproducers, 3,905 to be exact, received$1,101,176,000 in guaranteed farm own-ership loans. (The remainder of the loanswere emergency loans.) In all, FSA mademore than 30,000 loans totaling$3,553,373,000 in FY 2002.


Conservation ProgramsIn the conservation arena, USDA’s CCCcontinued its progress in improving ournatural resources. During 2001, CCC ac-cepted 223,000 acres in the ConservationReserve Program (CRP) continuous sign-up (wherein producers can sign up atany time for certain high-priority con-servation practices, such as filter stripsand riparian buffers).

Also contracts representing more than2.3 million acres enrolled during Signup20 became effective in the regular (com-petitive) CRP, the Federal Government’ssingle largest environmental improve-ment program.

CRP protects our most fragile farmlandby encouraging farmers to stop growingcrops on highly erodible and other envi-ronmentally sensitive acreage. In returnfor planting a protective cover of grass ortrees on vulnerable property, the ownerreceives a rental payment each year of a multi-year contract. Cost-share paymentsare also available to help establish per-manent areas of grass, legumes, trees,windbreaks, or plants that improve wa-ter quality and giver shelter and food towildlife.

Another conservation program, theConservation Reserve Enhancement Pro-gram, is part of the CRP. This programshields millions of acres of Americantopsoil from erosion by encouraging theplanting of protective vegetation. By re-ducing wind erosion as well as runoffand sedimentation, it also protects airand groundwater quality and helps im-prove countless lakes, river, ponds,streams, and other bodies of water.

State governments have the opportunityto participate in this environmental im-provement effort. CCC provides incentivesto agricultural producers to participate,while State governments contribute spe-cialized local knowledge, technical help,and financial assistance. The result is anenvironmental enhancement effort tai-lored to the specific environmentalneeds of each State.

In 2001, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,and North Dakota signed agreements with FSA under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREPcombines State and Federal dollars withfunding from nongovernment sources totackle specific agriculture-related envi-ronmental issues. Financial incentivesencourage farmers and ranchers to en-roll targeted land in CREP and establishriparian buffers, grass filter strips, wet-lands, wildlife habitat, and other landimprovement practices. At the end of2001, 18 States had signed agreementswith USDA.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural ResourcesConservation Service and other agenciesto deliver other conservation programs,including the Environmental Quality In-centives Program (EQIP). EQIP helpsfarmers and ranchers improve theirproperty to protect the environment andconserve soil and water resources. Par-ticipants can take advantage of educa-tion in new conservation managementpractices, technical support, cost-shareassistance, and incentive payments.

Where To Get More Information on FSA ProgramsFurther information and applications forthe programs described in this chapterare available at local FSA offices. These are usually listed in telephone directories under “U.S. Department of Agriculture,Farm Service Agency.” FSA State officesare usually located in the State capitalor near the State land-grant university.

For further information on FSA pro-grams, the FSA homepage can be foundat http://www.fsa.usda.gov


Foreign Agricultural Service

The Agency and Its MissionUSDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)represents the diverse interests of theU.S. food and agricultural sector abroad.FAS serves U.S. farmers, ranchers, andother agricultural interests by working toexpand markets for U.S. agricultural,fish, and forest products overseas andpromoting world food security.

The agency collects, analyzes, and dis-tributes information about global supplyand demand, trade trends, and emergingmarket opportunities. FAS seeks im-proved market access for U.S. productsand implements programs designed tobuild new markets and to maintain thecompetitive position of U.S. products inthe global marketplace. FAS also carriesout food aid programs; operates a vari-ety of congressionally mandated importand export programs; and manages in-ternational technical assistance, re-search, and economic development ac-tivities. FAS helps USDA and otherFederal agencies, U.S. universities, andothers enhance the global competitive-ness of U.S. agriculture by mobilizing ex-pertise for agriculturally led economicgrowth to increase income and foodavailability in the developing world. FASalso coordinates and articulates USDAviews on a number of agricultural policyand program issues in international or-ganizations to promote and enhance theinterests of USDA and the U.S. agricul-tural community.

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganiza-tion, FAS is one of the smaller USDAagencies, with about 950 employees. FASoperates worldwide with staff in about100 offices covering around 130 coun-tries. Washington-based marketing spe-cialists, trade policy analysts, econo-mists, and others work closely with theoverseas staff. Roughly 70 percent of theannual FAS budget is used to build mar-kets overseas for U.S. farm products. Thisincludes the funding for all of FAS’ tradeand attaché offices overseas and its workwith U.S. commodity associations on co-operative promotion projects. The re-maining funds cover other trade func-tions, including gathering and

distributing market information, tradepolicy efforts, international training andresearch, and representation of U.S. agri-cultural interests in multilateral organi-zations. To get a complete picture of theservices offered and information avail-able for exporters, visit the homepage athttp://www.fas.usda.gov

Overseas Representation FAS foreign service officers wear manyhats, serving as diplomats, negotiators,analysts, and marketing representativesfor U.S. agricultural producers, proces-sors, and exporters. The officers provideinformation used to plan and developstrategies for improving market access,promoting world food security, protect-ing U.S. interests under trade agree-ments, and developing programs andpolicies to make U.S. farm products morecompetitive. They work with other USDAand Federal agencies, international or-ganizations, State and local govern-ments, and the U.S. private sector. Theyalso advise U.S. ambassadors on agricul-tural matters and represent U.S. agricul-ture before the government, tradegroups, and public of their host coun-tries.

Agricultural TradeThe United States exports more than $1billion a week in agricultural products.Export value in fiscal year 2002 (October2001-September 2002) reached $53.3 bil-lion, an $11-billion increase from thelevel of 10 years earlier. Sales to foreignmarkets of U.S. meats, fruits, and vegeta-bles, packaged grocery products, andother consumer foods totaled $21.6 bil-lion, close to 2001’s all-time high. Ex-ports of coarse grains, soybeans, wheat,cotton, and other bulk farm commodi-ties reached $19.1 billion. Exports of se-mi-processed and other intermediatefarm products climbed to a record $12.6billion.

In 2002, Canada replaced Japan as theleading market for U.S. agricultural ex-ports. Sales to Canada set a record at$8.6 billion, while exports to Japan were$8.3 billion. Mexico was our third largestmarket, taking $7.1 billion in U.S. agricul-tural exports. The 15-nation EuropeanUnion 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.


South Korea completed the top five at$2.7 billion. Together, Canada and Mexi-co, our two partners in the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), ac-counted for nearly 30 percent of totalU.S. agricultural export sales globally.

U.S. agricultural imports in 2002 totaled$41 billion, up 5 percent from the previ-ous year. Exports were substantiallyhigher than imports, resulting in a U.S.agricultural trade surplus of more than$12 billion. Agriculture is one of a fewmajor U.S. industries consistently pro-ducing a trade surplus.

Trade is critically important to the eco-nomic health and prosperity of the U.S.food and agricultural sector. Overall, ex-ports account for about 25 percent of to-tal farm sales. At the same time, importsprovide consumers with year-round ac-cess to a wider variety of foods at rea-sonable prices, including foods not pro-duced domestically.

International Trade AgreementsFAS works closely with other govern-ment agencies, including the Office ofthe U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), toprotect the trade interests of U.S. pro-ducers and processors. FAS monitors theagricultural provisions of existing agree-ments such as the World Trade Organi-zation (WTO) Uruguay Round TradeAgreement, and works on the agricultur-al provisions of new agreements such asthe bilateral free trade agreement withChile, and the Free Trade Area of theAmericas (FTAA).

The United States was the first WTOmember to put forward a comprehensiveand specific agriculture proposal for thenegotiations under the Doha Develop-ment Agenda. Along with a comprehen-sive tariff reduction formula, the UnitedStates proposed that WTO members en-gage in negotiations on a sector-specificbasis on further reform commitmentsthat go beyond the basic reductions.These would include deeper tariff reduc-tions, product-specific limits on trade-distorting domestic support, and othercommitments to more effectively ad-dress the trade-distorting practices inthe affected commodity sectors.

FAS works to help identify violations ofagreements and address them at the ap-propriate level. Besides working with theUSTR, FAS works closely with other US-DA agencies such as the Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service and theFood Safety and Inspection Service toform a team with the technical and poli-cy experience needed to resolve prob-lems. This team supports U.S. export in-terests in the day-to-day activities ofmultilateral organizations such as theCODEX Alimentarius Commission in theFood and Agriculture Organization andthe WTO Committees on Agriculture,and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea-sures. These groups help develop inter-national standards that affect trade inagricultural products and monitor com-pliance with existing trade agreements.

Monitoring of trade agreements is essen-tial to ensure that the benefits gainedthrough long, hard negotiations are real-ized. Our monitoring of the UruguayRound Trade Agreement on Agricultureand the Sanitary and PhytosanitaryAgreement ensured that nearly $1.8 bil-lion in U.S. trade was protected or ex-panded. Examples include the monitor-ing of China and Taiwan’s WTOaccession commitments, Venezuela’s im-port licensing for numerous commodi-ties, and Costa Rica’s rice import per-mits. In addition, we worked to secureaccess for U.S. organic exports to Japanand Europe, averted the imposition ofgrain 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

01990 2000 2001 200293 9491 92 97 9895 96

Fiscal years

99


helped open the Australian market toU.S. table grapes.

FAS is coordinating efforts with otherUSDA agencies to establish the newTrade Adjustment Assistance Programfor Farmers, a program established bythe Trade Act of 2002. Under the pro-gram, USDA is authorized to make pay-ments to eligible producer groups whenthe current year’s price of an agricultur-al commodity is less than 80 percent ofthe national average price for 5 market-ing years, and the Secretary determinesthat imports have contributed impor-tantly to the decline in price.

Food Assistance ProgramsWithin USDA, the Foreign AgriculturalService is the leader in developing andexecuting a number of food assistanceactivities under Title I of Public Law 83-480 (P.L. 480), the Food for Progress Act of1985, and Section 416(b) of theAgricultural Act of 1949. These programshelp developing nations make thetransition from concessional financingand donations to cash purchases. TheU.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) is responsible foradministering Titles II and III of P.L. 480.

P.L. 480 Title I - The objectives of the P.L.480 Title I concessional credit programinclude providing food assistance to de-veloping countries and promoting thedevelopment of future markets in thesecountries. The program promotes mar-ket development by encouraging im-porters in the recipient country to be-come familiar with U.S. trade practicesand to establish long-term trade rela-tionships. Title I funds also support theFood for Progress (FFP) program, whichis a grant program designed to assistcountries working to make the transitionto more market-oriented economies. At-tention is given to shifting countriesfrom Title I/FFP grant funding to regularTitle I long-term concessional creditterms.

In fiscal year 2002, Title I agreementswere signed for 504,000 metric tons ofcommodities to nine countries. The com-modities were valued at $102 million.

The funds and facilities of the Commod-ity Credit Corporation (CCC), a federallyowned and operated corporation withinUSDA, may also be used to support FFPprogramming. In all FFP programs, coop-erating sponsors (governments and pri-


vate voluntary organizations (PVOs))may monetize the commodities receivedunder an agreement with CCC to gener-ate local currencies to fund developmentprojects. In fiscal year 2002, USDA hadFFP programs in 25 countries. UnderCCC-funded Food for Progress programs,about 285,000 tons of commodities witha value of about $86 million were provid-ed.

Under the Title II emergency and privateassistance donations program, for fiscalyear 2002, 2.2 million metric tons ofcommodities valued at $493 millionwere programmed. The Title III programhas been inactive since fiscal year 2000.

The Section 416(b) program allows forthe donation of surplus agriculturalcommodities, made available throughCCC stocks, to assist needy people over-seas. In fiscal year 2002, approximately1.6 million metric tons valued at about$410 million were programmed underSection 416(b), including 274,000 metrictons for the Global Food for Education(GFE) Initiative. CCC purchased thesecommodities under its surplus removalauthority.

The McGovern-Dole International Foodfor Education and Child Nutrition Pro-gram, authorized by the 2002 Farm Act,is based on, and will replace, the pilotGFE initiative. This program (hereafterreferred to as FFE program) is now afourth USDA international food aid au-thority, in addition to P.L. 480, Section416(b), and Food for Progress. The FFEprogram is designed to encourage educa-tion and deliver food to improve nutri-tion for preschoolers, school children,mothers, and infants in impoverished re-gions. The 2002 Farm Act authorized theFFE program from FY 2003 through FY2007, providing for $100 million in CCCfunding for FY 2003. Funding in subse-quent years would need to be authorizedthrough congressional appropriations.

Commercial Export Credit GuaranteeProgramsThe primary objective of the export cred-it guarantee programs is to improve thecompetitive position of U.S. agriculturalcommodities in international markets by

facilitating exports to middle-incomecountries that do not have access to ade-quate commercial credit. These CCC pro-grams encourage U.S. lenders (typicallycommercial banks) to extend credit tooverseas customers. These guaranteeprograms encourage the involvement offoreign private-sector banks and private-sector importers in commercial tradetransactions with the United States.

The GSM-102 program guarantees re-payment of short-term credit (90 days to3 years) extended by U.S. financial insti-tutions in connection with exports ofU.S. agricultural products. For fiscal year2002, GSM-102 allocations of about $4.6billion were announced for exports to 22countries and 11 regional groupings, in-cluding the Baltic, Caribbean, CentralAmerican, Central Europe, China/HongKong, South America, Southeast Asia,Southeast Europe, Southern Africa, EastAfrica, and West Africa regions. Underthis availability, GSM-102 registrationstotaled about $3.0 billion for exports to11 countries and 6 regions.

The GSM-103 program helps developingnations make the transition from con-cessional financing to cash purchases.Guarantees issued under the GSM-103program can cover financing periods ofmore than 3 and up to 10 years. For fis-cal year 2002, $165 million in intermedi-ate credit guarantees was made avail-able for exports to eight countries andthree regions: Central America, SouthAmerica, and Southern Africa. No saleswere registered under this program infiscal year 2002.

The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program(SCGP) provides export credit guaranteesfor sales financed by foreign importersrather than financial institutions. Underthe program, CCC guarantees a portionof payments due from importers undershort-term financing that exporters haveextended directly to importers for thepurchase of U.S. agricultural commodi-ties and products. In fiscal year 2002, al-locations under the SCGP totaled $1.1billion in coverage for sales to 18 coun-tries and 11 regions, including the Baltic,Caribbean, Central America, Central Eu-rope, China/Hong Kong, South America,


Southeast Asia, Southeast Balkans,Southeast Europe, West Africa, andWestern Europe regions. Under the an-nounced fiscal year 2002 availability, reg-istrations totaled $452 million. The SCGPhas been growing steadily since its in-ception in 1997.

The Facility Guarantee Program (FGP) isdesigned to provide payment guaranteesin connection with projects that it deter-mines will benefit exports of U.S. agricul-tural commodities to emerging markets.In supporting these facilities, USDA in-tends to enhance sales of U.S. agricultur-

al commodities and products to emerg-ing markets where the demand for themmay be constricted due to inadequatestorage, processing, or handling capabili-ties. In fiscal year 2002, $285 million incoverage was announced to seven coun-tries and seven regions; however, nosales were registered.

Export Bonus ProgramsThe Export Enhancement Program (EEP)permits USDA to provide bonuses tomake U.S. commodities more competi-tive in the world marketplace and to off-set the adverse effects of unfair tradepractices or subsidies. The EEP was notused in fiscal year 2002.

The Dairy Export Incentive Program(DEIP) helps exporters sell certain U.S.dairy products at prices lower than theexporter’s cost of acquiring them. Themajor objective of the program is to in-crease exports of U.S. dairy products.This is done by developing export mar-kets for dairy products where U.S. prod-ucts are not competitive because of thepresence of subsidized products fromother countries. The DEIP operates on abid bonus system similar to EEP, withcash bonus payments. The major mar-kets targeted under the DEIP in fiscalyear 2002 included Asia and Latin Amer-ica, with $54.5 million in bonuses award-ed, to facilitate the export of 86,473 met-ric tons of dairy products.

Market Development ProgramsThe Market Access Program (MAP) usesCCC funds to aid in the creation, expan-sion, and maintenance of foreign mar-kets for U.S. agricultural products. TheMAP forms a partnership between non-profit U.S. agricultural trade associations,U.S. agricultural cooperatives, non-profitState-regional trade groups, and smallU.S. businesses to share the costs ofoverseas marketing and promotional ac-tivities such as consumer promotions,market research, trade shows, and tradeservicing.

The Foreign Market Development Coop-erator Program, also known as the Coop-erator Program, uses CCC funds to aid inthe creation, expansion, and mainte-nance of long-term export markets for


U.S. agricultural products. The Coopera-tor Program fosters a trade promotionpartnership between USDA and U.S. agri-cultural producers and processors whoare represented by non-profit commodi-ty or trade associations called Coopera-tors. Under this partnership, USDA andthe Cooperator pool their technical andfinancial resources to conduct overseasmarket development activities. Activitiesmust contribute to the maintenance orgrowth of demand for the agriculturalcommodities and generally addresslong-term foreign import constraintsand export growth opportunities.

The Emerging Markets Program assistsU.S. public and private organizations inimproving market opportunities in low-to middle-income countries that offer vi-able markets for U.S. agricultural com-modities and products. The programsupports a broad range of generic tech-nical assistance activities that U.S. or-ganizations undertake to improve mar-ket access and to promote, enhance, orsustain U.S. agricultural exports in theseemerging markets. For fiscal year 2002,USDA allocated $10 million for 82 proj-ects in Africa, Asia, Eastern and CentralEurope, South America, and theCaribbean.

The Quality Samples Program (QSP) wasestablished in 1999 to help U.S. agricul-tural trade organizations provide sam-ples of U.S. agricultural products to po-tential importers in foreign markets.Focusing on industry and manufacturinguses, this program stimulates interest inU.S. products by giving potential cus-tomers the opportunity to test the prod-ucts and discover U.S. quality. The QSP isused to fund projects that broadly bene-fit agricultural industries rather than in-dividual exporters. Under the program,participants export samples of U.S. agri-cultural products to foreign buyers andprovide technical demonstrations onhow to properly use or further processthe products. For fiscal year 2002, USDAannounced allocations of $1.6 million to21 organizations.

The Technical Assistance for SpecialtyCrops (TASC) program was establishedby the 2002 Farm Act to address unique

barriers that prohibit or threaten exportsof U.S. fruits, vegetables, and other spe-cialty crops. The legislation calls for $2million in CCC resources to be providedeach fiscal year through 2007 to assistorganizations in removing, resolving, ormitigating phytosanitary or related tech-nical barriers to U.S. specialty crops.These crops include all cultivated plantsand their products produced in the Unit-ed States, except wheat, feed grains,oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, andtobacco. For fiscal year 2002, USDA an-nounced allocations of $2 million to 18organizations for projects to help ad-dress current or potential barriers thathinder trade in specialty crops.

International CooperationThe Foreign Agricultural Service coordi-nates, supports, and delivers a diversi-fied program of international agricultur-al cooperation and development withdeveloping, middle-income, and emerg-ing market countries. These programsenhance the competitiveness of U.S.agriculture, promote agribusiness andtrade, preserve natural resource ecosys-tems, and help partner countries pursuesustainable economic developmentworldwide by mobilizing the resources ofUSDA and its affiliates throughout theU.S. agricultural community.

Food SecurityThe U.S. Action Plan on Food Security,which FAS coordinated, is the U.S. strate-


and alleviate hunger and poor nutritionin developing nations, to mitigate theimpact of natural and civil disasters, toconserve the natural resource base, andto build the capacity to engage in inter-national trade. The projects are fundedby a variety of donors such as the U.S.Agency for International Development(USAID), the World Bank, regional devel-opment banks, United Nations agencies,foreign governments, and private organi-zations. Technical assistance is providedin areas such as food safety, plant andanimal health, collection and analysis ofagricultural statistics, private sector andagribusiness development, agriculturalmarketing, soil and water conservation,and community forest management.

Recent efforts include coordination of$13 million of funding from USAID toundertake hurricane recovery efforts inthe Caribbean and Central America inthe fall of 1998, provide grants to smallfarmers in the Dominican Republic, andassist African businesses with develop-ing and marketing high-quality naturalproducts for local, regional, and interna-tional markets. FAS is working withtransportation and standards officials inSouthern Africa to enhance public/pri-vate partnerships, harmonize trans-portation and standards policies andprocedures, and foster trade and invest-ment opportunities. Other technical as-sistance activities designed to promoteU.S. trade and investment in middle-in-come and emerging market countries in-clude cold chain improvement, agricul-tural biotechnology training andtechnical assistance, WTO trade policytraining, food safety programs, andagribusiness opportunity missions.

TrainingCareer-related training for foreign agri-culturists provides long-term benefits toeconomic development and trade forboth the United States and recipientcountries. Working collaboratively withUSDA agencies, U.S. universities, and pri-vate-sector companies and organiza-tions, FAS designs and implements studytours, academic programs, and short-term courses and training in a variety ofareas such as agribusiness, extension ed-

gy for meeting the goal established atthe 1996 World Food Summit to halvethe number of undernourished peopleby 2015. It represents commitments ofboth the public sector and civil society toaddress hunger at home and abroad inseven priority areas: an enabling eco-nomic and policy environment, tradeand investment, research and education,sustainable agricultural practices, astrong safety net, improved identifica-tion of the food insecure, and safe foodand water. FAS coordinates the efforts ofall U.S. Government agencies in partner-ship with civil society to monitor andimplement the U.S. Action Plan and oth-er U.S. followup to the 1996 World FoodSummit.

International Organization LiaisonFAS coordinates U.S. participation in in-ternational organizations related to foodand agriculture and monitors the policyand programs of international organiza-tions to ensure that they reflect U.S. pri-orities.

Scientific Collaboration Short-term exchange visits between U.S.and foreign scientists, as well as longerterm collaboration on research projects,allow participants to use science to helpsolve critical problems affecting food,agriculture, and the environment in boththe United States and collaboratingcountries. The activities reduce threatsto U.S. agriculture and forestry, developnew technologies, establish systems toenhance trade, and provide access to ge-netic diversity essential to maintainingcrops that are competitive in the worldmarketplace. In FY 2001, FAS collaborat-ed with a diverse group of U.S. institu-tions in research partnerships with 51countries in scientific cooperation. Re-search and exchange activities promotedthe safe development and application ofbiotechnology, improved food safety, en-hanced nutritive value of crops and live-stock, environmental sustainability, andaddressed other priority food and agri-culture issues.

Technical AssistanceFAS implements a variety of technicalassistance projects to increase income


ucation, natural resource management,policy and economics, and human re-source development.

The Cochran Fellowship Program pro-vides short-term training in the UnitedStates for mid- and senior-level special-ists and administrators from developing,middle-income, and emerging marketcountries to promote food security andstrengthen U.S. agricultural trade andmarket development opportunities. TheFaculty Exchange Program helps over-seas universities equip their students tocompete in the global economy by pro-viding training in the United States touniversity educators to help them devel-op market-oriented agricultural educa-tion programs. Other training efforts in-clude training officials from Mexico andIndonesia on food labeling to alleviatetechnical barriers to trade between theUnited States and these countries andtraining programs in emerging marketsthroughout Asia, Africa, and Latin andSouth America to help improve under-standing of agricultural biotechnology.

Risk Management AgencyThe mission of the Risk ManagementAgency (RMA) is to provide and supportcost-effective means of managing riskfor agricultural producers in order to im-prove the economic stability of agricul-ture. Crop insurance is USDA’s primarymeans of helping farmers survive a ma-jor crop loss. In 2002, nearly $37.3 billionin protection was provided on 215 mil-lion acres through more than 1.3 millionpolicies; this level of protection is almost2.7 times the $13.6 billion protection onthe 100 million acres insured in 1994.

Crop insurance helps farmers recoverfrom crop losses, secure operating loans,and aggressively market a portion oftheir crop. In 2002, more than 70 percentof the acreage planted to major U. S.crops was insured.

Under current law, producers are re-quired to report their actual yields andall such yields are used in computing ayield guarantee for the insured crop.Transitional yields (T-yields), based onaverage county yields, are used whenthere is an insufficient number of actual

yields to establish the yield guarantee.Producers suffering multiple years of se-vere losses often find themselves withprotection so low that they are unable tosecure operating loans.

Crop insurance is sold and serviced by17 insurance companies in conjunctionwith a network of 15,000 agents acrossthe country. Crop insurance is widelyavailable for major commodities such as


corn, wheat, and cotton. Coverage is alsoavailable on a growing number of fruit,nut, and vegetable crops. Nationally, over100 crops are insurable (counting all in-surable varieties would greatly increasethe number of crops insured), althoughnot everywhere they are grown. Crop in-formation is available athttp://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/

RMA continues to assist in the develop-ment and approval of new pilot pro-grams, such as avocado, cabbage, cherry,pecan, processing chili pepper, forageseed, hay, rangeland, and raspberry/blackberry crops. By increasing the num-ber and types of insurance plans, theprogram will help producers better man-age their production risks.

Insurance Plans Available

Multiple-Peril Crop InsuranceMultiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI)policies insure producers against lossesdue to unavoidable causes such asdrought, excessive moisture, hail, wind,frost, insects, and disease. Indemnitiesare paid based on the difference be-tween what was produced and the yieldguarantee. Yield guarantees are based onthe producer’s actual production historyand the coverage level percentage elect-ed. Coverage levels generally range from50 to 75 percent, but up to 85 percent isavailable for some areas and crops. Theprices used to pay losses are between 55and 100 percent of the commodity priceestablished annually by RMA.

Group Risk PlanThe Group Risk Plan (GRP) policies use acounty index as the basis for determin-ing a loss. When the county yield for theinsured crop, as determined by USDA’sNational Agricultural Statistics Service(NASS), falls below the trigger level cho-sen by the farmer, an indemnity is paid.Yield levels are available for up to 90percent of the expected county yield.GRP protection involves less paperworkand costs less than the farm-level cover-age described above. However, individualcrop losses may not be covered if thecounty yield does not suffer a similarlevel of loss.

Group Risk Income ProtectionGroup Risk Income Protection (GRIP) issimilar to the Group Risk Plan of insur-ance except revenue rather than yield isthe focus. The GRIP policies provide pro-tection against low county revenuecaused by low prices, low yields, or acombination of both. GRIP uses ChicagoBoard of Trade (CBOT) futures prices tocalculate the expected price and harvestprice. NASS data are used to calculatethe expected and final county yields. Theexpected price and expected countyyield are used to calculate the expectedcounty revenue. An indemnity is paidwhen the county revenue per acre (har-vest price times NASS county yield peracre) falls below the trigger revenue (ex-pected county revenue per acre timescoverage percent). Coverage is on an en-terprise unit and is available up to 90percent of the expected county revenue.

Dairy Options Pilot ProgramRMA currently operates the Dairy Op-tions Pilot Program (DOPP) to help dairyproducers protect their income againstthe risk of falling milk prices. Duringeach round of DOPP, producers in select-ed pilot counties receive training in theuse of futures and options as price riskmanagement tools. Within programguidelines, they may then purchasedairy put options (right to sell) throughfutures brokers registered with U.S. ex-changes. When prices fall, the value ofput options increase, thereby protectingthe value of at least a portion of the pro-

ducer’s dairy production. USDA assistsparticipating farmers by funding 80 per-cent of the cost of the options and bypaying $30 per contract toward the com-mission charged by the broker. In 2001,the Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP)was expanded to 300 counties.

Revenue Insurance PlansRevenue Insurance policies include sixplans: Adjusted Gross Revenue, CropRevenue Coverage, Income Protection,Livestock Gross Margin, Livestock RiskProtection, and Revenue Assurance. Rev-enue policies are different from standardMPCI policies in that they provide farm-ers with a measure of price risk protec-tion. Four of the policies, Crop RevenueCoverage, Livestock Gross Revenue, Live-stock Risk Protection, and Revenue As-surance, were developed by private-sec-tor insurance companies. Adjusted GrossRevenue and Income Protection were de-veloped by RMA. All the revenue policiesguarantee a level of revenue that is de-termined differently depending on thepolicy. Visit RMA’s Web site at:www.rma.usda.gov

New PlansThe pilot Nutrient Management/BestManagement Practice (BMP) InsuranceProgram provides insurance protectionfrom crop production loss when a pro-ducer applies a rate of fertilizer (nitro-gen, phosphorus or both) for maximumcrop yield as recommended by a BestManagement Practice (BMP). A certifiedcrop consultant will recommend a BMP

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 7-2

Crop insurance liability, U.S. total, 1995-2002

Billion $


system for the production area and cropto determine how much fertilizer to ap-ply. The producer will apply the recom-mended rate of fertilizer on the insuredacreage; this portion of the field is calledthe management unit. Adjacent to themanagement unit, the crop consultantwill lay out a check strip on which theproducer will apply his/her historicalrate of nutrients. If the producer thinksthe crop production on the managementunit is low because of insufficient fertil-izer, the producer may request a crop ap-praisal. The producer must use the samefarming practices on both the checkstrip and management unit. It is as-sumed that growing conditions for themanagement unit and the check stripare the same, and that fertilization is theonly variable. The policy does not coverany causes of loss insured by a policyreinsured by FCIC, such as drought, butonly loss of yield from fertilizer recom-mendations.

OutreachRMA is continuing its outreach efforts to provide beginning, small, limited-resource,and other traditionally underservedfarmers and ranchers with program in-formation and assistance necessary tomake informed decisions regarding par-ticipating in USDA/RMA programs andactivities. RMA is partnering with land-

grant universities, Hispanic-serving insti-tutions (HSIs), and community-basedorganizations to educate and providetraining and technical assistance tofarmers and ranchers.

RMA held a national outreach confer-ence, “Survival Strategies for Small and Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers,”for service providers and stakeholders inFY 2001. The conference goal was toidentify and promote successful strate-gies small and limited-resource farmersand ranchers can use to remain eco-nomically viable in the rapidly changingagricultural environment. The strategiesidentified during the national conferenceare being shared with farmers andranchers at the regional and local levelthrough a series of workshops and con-ferences. Conferences have been held inNorth Carolina, Washington, and Geor-gia, with additional conferences in 2002scheduled for Texas and California.

Risk Management EducationCurrent farm policy increases the risk borne by producers. To help them acquire the risk management skills needed tocompete and win in the global market-place, RMA is leading a risk managementeducation initiative. This initiative lever-ages Government funds for educationwith the resources of public and private-

sector partners to find improved riskmanagement strategies, develop educa-tional curricula and materials, and trainproducers in effective use of risk man-agement tools.

Through a competitive Request for Ap-plications process, the RMA awardedfunds through cooperative agreementsand partnership agreements to State de-partments of agriculture, universities,outreach organizations, and others todeliver risk management educationalprograms for agricultural professionals,producers, and ranchers. The education-al programs cover two areas: risk man-agement education for specific com-modities and crop insurance educationfor producers in 15 underserved States.

More Growth AnticipatedWhile crop insurance can’t providefarmers a good price for their crops, cov-erage is a vital component of an overallrisk management plan. Market-drivenrisk management products combinedwith an aggressive risk management ed-ucation and outreach program will helpensure that our Nation’s producers havea reliable and effective safety net. Moreinformation on RMA and its programs isavailable at: http://www.rma.usda.gov/

CHAPTER 8

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services


Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy andPromotion (CNPP) was established in1994 to improve the nutrition and well-being of Americans. Toward this goal, theCenter focuses its efforts on two primaryobjectives—

1. Advance and promote dietary guidancefor all Americans, and2. Conduct applied research and analy-ses in nutrition and consumer economics.

CNPP’s core products to support theseobjectives are the following:

Dietary Guidelines for AmericansThe Dietary Guidelines for Americans are mandated by Congress and issued jointlyby USDA and the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services at 5-year in-tervals, based on the recommendationsof a non-Federal expert committee. TheGuidelines are the cornerstone of Federalnutrition policy and nutrition educationactivities. The Center shares leadershipin the review and revision of the Guide-lines, and conducts the consumer re-search that guides this process. CNPPleads the design and dissemination ofthe official Dietary Guidelines bulletin andalso promotes the Guidelines by develop-ing and disseminating additional con-sumer materials. CNPP chairs the Di-etary Guidance Working Group, whichreviews Federal nutrition materials forthe public to ensure that the guidance isconsistent and accurately reflects theGuidelines.

Food Guide PyramidThe Pyramid is one of the most widelyrecognized nutrition education tools inhistory. It translates nutritional recom-mendations into the kinds and amountsof food to eat each day. CNPP maintainsand updates the research base for thePyramid to reflect current dietary recom-mendations and food consumption pat-terns. CNPP also developed the FoodGuide Pyramid for Young Children to focus on young children’s food prefer-ences and nutritional requirements.

Healthy Eating IndexThe Index is a summary measure of over-all diet quality. It provides a picture ofthe type and quantity of foods peopleeat and the degree to which diets com-ply with specific recommendations inthe Dietary Guidelines and the Food GuidePyramid. CNPP developed the Index, andmaintains and updates it. CNPP also de-veloped and maintains the InteractiveHealthy Eating Index, an on-line, self-as-sessment tool that provides a quickmeasure of a person’s diet quality:http://147.208.9.133/USDA Food Plans USDA Food PlansUSDA Food PlansCNPP develops and maintains the fourofficial USDA Food Plans: the Thrifty, LowCost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal—allrepresenting a nutritious diet at differ-ent costs. The Thrifty Food Plan is thebasis for food stamp allotments. A sup-porting 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

Group6-11

SERVINGS

FruitGroup

2-4 SERVINGS

Meat, Poultry, Fish,Dry Beans, Eggs,

& Nuts Group2-3 SERVINGS

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Vegetable Group 3-5 SERVINGS

Milk, Yogurt,& CheeseGroup 2-3 SERVINGS

Food Guide PyramidA Guide to Daily Food Choices

Fat (naturally occurring and added)

Sugars(added)

These symbols show fat and added sugars in foods.

KEYFats, Oils, & SweetsUSE SPARINGLY

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services | 87

and Tips for Healthy, Thrifty Eating, in-cludes menus and recipes based on theThrifty Food Plan, along with tips forpurchasing and preparing foods.

Nutrient Content of the Food SupplyEach year, CNPP assesses the U.S. foodsupply and reports the amount of nutri-ents and Food Guide Pyramid servingsavailable for consumption on a per capi-ta per day basis. This historical data se-ries, which began in 1909, is used by pol-icymakers in assessing the capacity ofthe food supply to meet nutritionalneeds. CNPP also developed and releasedthe Interactive Food Supply, an online toolfor nutrition researchers, policymakers,and consumers: http://147.208.9.134/

Expenditures on Children by FamiliesUSDA has produced estimates of thecost of raising children from birth to age17 annually since 1960.These estimates are used in setting Statechild support guidelines and foster carepayments, thereby affecting the eco-nomic well-being of millions of childrenin the United States.: Science and ApplicationABCs of the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans: Science and ApplicationThis innovative Web-based interactivecourse is designed to provide educationfor professionals on the DietaryGuidelines. The course can be found at:http://www.dga2000training.usda.gov/

Family Economics and Nutrition ReviewThis peer-reviewed journal has been published since 1943. Scientifically based,the Journal provides a wealth of usefulinformation to professionals, policymak-ers, students, and the news media.

Nutrition InsightsCNPP issues brief research papers oncurrent food and nutrition topics. These

two-page documents are targeted to pol-icymakers, nutrition professionals, andthe news media.

For More InformationAdditional information on CNPP can befound at: http://www.usda.cnpp.gov

Food and Nutrition Service

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) isthe gateway to the Nation’s nutritionsafety net. FNS administers USDA’s do-mestic nutrition assistance programs,and for more than 30 years the agencyhas worked to accomplish a complexmission—reducing hunger and food in-security by providing children and needyfamilies better access to food, a health-ful diet, and nutrition education.

FNS works in partnership with the Statesto ensure that its programs operate ef-fectively and efficiently. This partnershipallows the States to determine most ad-ministrative details regarding partici-pant eligibility and distribution of nutri-tion benefits, and FNS provides fundingto cover some of the States’ administra-tive costs.

For fiscal year (FY) 2002, the funding forFNS and its programs was $38.2 billion.Overall, the nutrition assistance pro-grams reach one out of every six Ameri-cans and touch every community in theUnited 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


reimbursed for snacks served to childrenthrough age 18 in after school educa-tional or enrichment programs.

First authorized as part of a larger pilot project in 1968, the program was former-ly known as the Child Care Food Program.It was made a permanent program in1978, and the name was changed in 1989to reflect the addition of an adult com-ponent. CACFP is administered at theFederal level by FNS. State agencies orFNS regional offices oversee the programat the local level.

In FY 2001, CACFP provided 1.68 billionmeals to participants.

Eligibility: At child and adult day carecenters, participants from families withincomes at or below 130 percent of theFederal poverty level qualify for freemeals; those from families with incomesbetween 130 percent and 185 percent ofthe poverty level qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from familieswith incomes above 185 percent of thepoverty level pay full price.

For family day care homes, Congress in-stituted a two-tier system of reimburse-ments under the Welfare Reform Act of1996. Under this system, a higher reim-bursement rate (tier 1 reimbursement) ispaid to providers located in areas where50 percent of the children are eligible forfree and reduced-price meals or wherethe provider’s household meets estab-lished income criteria for free or re-duced-price meals. All other providersare reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 re-imbursement) unless they choose tohave their sponsoring organizationsidentify children who are income eligi-ble. Meals served to such income-eligiblechildren are reimbursed at the highertier 1 level.

After school care centers are eligible forCACFP on the basis of the income intheir area. All snacks are reimbursed atthe “free” rate of reimbursement.

Benefits: Children and adults who attendday care facilities receive nutritiousmeals and snacks. Care providers receivereimbursement 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 itsprograms can be found on the WorldWide 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 andsnacks in child care centers, family daycare homes, and adult day care facilities.By reimbursing participating day careoperators for their meal costs and pro-viding them with USDA commodity foodand nutrition information materials,CACFP helps ensure that children andadults in day care receive healthfulmeals. Family day care homes must beoverseen by sponsoring organizationsthat also receive reimbursements fromUSDA for their administrative expenses.

The program generally operates in childcare centers, outside-school-hours carecenters, family and group day carehomes, homeless shelters, and someadult day care centers. In return for Fed-eral support, care providers in CACFPmust serve meals that meet Federal nu-tritional guidelines and must offer freeor reduced-price meals to eligible peo-ple. After school care centers can also be

nutrition education activities are direct-ed at people with low incomes or school-children. They include:

■ The Child and Adult Care Food Program■ The Commodity Supplemental FoodProgram■ The Disaster Food Stamp Program ■ Eat Smart. Play Hard™ Campaign■ Team Nutrition■ The Emergency Food AssistanceProgram■ The Food Distribution Program■ The Food Distribution Program onIndian Reservations■ The Food Stamp Program■ The National School Lunch Program■ The Nutrition Assistance Programs inPuerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana ■ Nutrition Services Incentive Program■ The School Breakfast Program■ The Special Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants, and Chil-dren (WIC)■ The Special Milk Program■ The Summer Food Service Program■ The WIC Farmers’ Market NutritionProgram

Total expenditures on a child for the first 18 years of life1


snacks. Family day care sponsoring or-ganizations receive reimbursement fortheir administrative costs.

Funding: Congress appropriated $1.8 bil-lion for the CACFP in FY 2002.

The Commodity Supplemental FoodProgram The Commodity Supplemental FoodProgram (CSFP) is a program of grants to States, administered by FNS at theFederal level. CSFP provides commodityfoods to supplement the diets of low-income; pregnant, postpartum, andbreastfeeding women; their infants andchildren up to the age of 6; and persons60 years of age and older.

In 1999, CSFP operated at more than 70sites in 17 States, the District of Colum-bia, and 2 Indian Tribal Organizations(ITOs). In 2000, the program was expand-ed to include five new States. USDA do-nates commodity foods to the Stateagencies for distribution and providesfunds to State and local agencies to cov-er certain administrative costs. The pro-gram served an average of more than407,000 people each month in FY 2001,including more than 323,000 elderly peo-ple and more than 83,000 women, in-fants, and children.

Eligibility: State agencies that administerCSFP may establish a residency require-ment and/or require applicants to bedetermined to be at nutritional risk inorder to be eligible for program partici-pation. To be income eligible, women, in-fants, and children must be eligible forbenefits under existing Federal, State, orlocal food, health, or welfare programsand must not currently be receiving WICbenefits. Elderly persons must meet alow-income standard.

Benefits: There are six food packages fordifferent categories of participants. Thefood packages are not intended to pro-vide a complete and balanced diet, butrather they are supplements that aregood sources of the nutrients oftenlacking in participants’ diets.

Funding: For FY 2002, Congress appropri-ated $92,813,000 for CSFP.

Disaster Food Stamp ProgramWhen commercial channels of food sup-ply are still operable, or have been re-stored following a disaster, a State mayrequest approval from the Administratorof the Food and Nutrition Service to op-erate the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

If approval is granted, FNS may provideon-site guidance for establishing and op-erating the disaster program. FNS en-sures that funding for food stamp bene-fit issuance is available. State and localofficials are responsible for determiningthe eligibility of households to receivedisaster food stamp benefits and for is-suance.

Eat. Smart. Play Hard.™ CampaignThe national nutrition education andpromotion campaign is designed to con-vey science-based, behavior-focused, andmotivational messages about healthyeating and physical activity. The cam-paign’s primary communication vehicleis Power Panther™, a mascot who con-veys nutrition and physical activity mes-sages in a fun and non-threatening wayas a peer. The campaign focuses on fourbasic themes: the importance of break-fast, healthy snacks, physical activity,and balancing what you eat with whatyou 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 isthe diverse population of preschool andschool-aged children (ages 2-18 years)participating or eligible to participate in programs and their caregivers. Caregiversinclude parents, guardians, childcareproviders, after school providers andteachers. The campaign is designed toreach the target group where they live,work, learn, and play using multiplecommunication vehicles, approaches,and channels.

The campaign:■ Encourages families to adopt behav-iors that are consistent with the DietaryGuidelines for Americans and the FoodGuide Pyramid,■ Communicates behavioral and moti-vational nutrition education and physi-cal activity messages to children andcaregivers,■ Fosters positive behavior change topromote nutrition and health, and re-duce the risk for obesity and chronicdiseases.

Team Nutrition FNS provides nutrition education through Team Nutrition; a multifaceted nutritioneducation initiative delivered in schools,WIC, and child care sites, with ongoingexpansion to encompass all the nutri-tion assistance programs administered


by USDA. The goal of Team Nutrition isto continuously improve children’s life-long eating and physical activity habitsthrough public-private partnerships thatpromote the health and education ofchildren nationwide in accordance withthe Dietary Guidelines for Americansand the Food Guide Pyramid.

Team Nutrition engages three behavior-oriented strategies:

■ Empower school food service profes-sionals through a variety of training andtechnical assistance to serve meals thatmeet the Dietary Guidelines for Ameri-cans and that appeal to children.

■ Motivate and build skills for children to make food and physical activity choicesfor a healthy lifestyle through a compre-hensive, integrated nutrition educationprogram designed for children, parents,teachers, and school food serviceprofessionals.

■ Support from school administrators andother school and community partners isvital to the success of Team Nutrition’sgoal. Persons in these positions can ac-tively support Team Nutrition activitiesand can help create a healthy schoolenvironment.

Six communication channels are in-volved, and they offer a comprehensive network of delivering consistent nutrition

messages to children and their caretakersthat will educate them about the impor-tance of food and physical activity choic-es for a healthy lifestyle where they live,work, and play. These messages are de-livered and reinforced through a varietyof sources. They include: (1) food serviceinitiatives, (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 oreligible to participate in the USDA Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through Team Nutrition. Pro-fessional school food service staffs canalso receive training and technical sup-port. There are more than 28,000 TeamNutrition schools across the country.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriat-ed $10 million for Team Nutrition.

The Emergency Food AssistanceProgram The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides food assistance to needypeople through the distribution of USDAcommodities. Under TEFAP, commoditiesare made available to States for distribu-tion to organizations that provide themto low-income households for home con-sumption and to organizations that usethem in congregate meal service for theneedy, including the homeless. Localagencies, usually food banks, shelters,and soup kitchens, are designated by theStates to distribute the food.

TEFAP was first authorized in 1981 to distribute surplus commodities to house-holds. Its aim was to help reduce Federalfood inventories and storage costs whileassisting the needy. The Hunger Preven-tion Act of 1988 required the Secretary ofAgriculture not only to distribute surplusfoods but also to purchase additionalfoods for further distribution to needyhouseholds. Funds are also provided forState and local administrative expenses.Foods available vary, depending on mar-ket conditions.

Eligibility: Each State sets its own incomelimits for household eligibility to receivefood for home use. States can adjust the


income criteria based on the level ofneed in order to ensure that assistanceis provided only to those most in need.

No income test is applied to people whoreceive meals at soup kitchens and othercongregate feeding sites that make useof TEFAP foods.

Benefits: TEFAP has provided many billionsof pounds of food since its beginning. Morethan 1 billion pounds of food, valued at$846 million, were distributed at the pro-gram’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 mil-lion for TEFAP in FY 2002.

Food Distribution ProgramFNS can provide USDA-donated food as-sistance through State food distributionagencies. All States have stocks of USDAfood on hand for use in their commodityprograms for schools or needy people.These stocks can be released immediate-ly for use in a disaster situation.

Upon request from a State, FNS will pro-cure additional food to meet the needsof 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 ofthe foods. State agencies then distribute the food to emergency shelters and othermass feeding sites operated by disasterrelief agencies such as the American RedCross.

The State may also request that food be made available for household distribution if commercial channels of food supplyare not available because of the disaster.

The Food Distribution Program onIndian ReservationsThe Food Distribution Program on IndianReservations (FDPIR) provides monthlyfood packages to low-income familiesliving on reservations and to NativeAmerican families living near reserva-tions. Many Native Americans participate in FDPIR as an alternative to the FoodStamp Program if their tribe or tribalagency has been authorized to run the

program. An average of 129,000 peoplereceived food through FDPIR each month in 1999.

The program is administered at theFederal level by FNS in cooperation withState and tribal agencies. USDA providesfood to these agencies, which are re-sponsible for program operations suchas storage and distribution, eligibilitycertification, and nutrition education.

The food packages distributed throughFDPIR were updated in 1997 in a cooper-ative effort by USDA nutritionists, triballeaders, and health advocates. Changeshave made the food packages easier touse and they better serve the healthneeds and preferences of Native Ameri-cans. USDA also provides nutrition infor-mation in the monthly food package,along with suggestions for making themost nutritious use of the commodityfoods.

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, thehousehold must have low income withinprogram requirements, have assets with-in specified limits, and be located on ornear an Indian reservation.

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foodsto help FDPIR participants maintain abalanced diet. These commodities in-clude canned meats and fish products;vegetables, fruits, and juices; driedbeans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk,butter, and cheese; pasta, flour, or grains;adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; andvegetable oil and shortening. Frozenchicken and ground beef are increasinglyavailable as tribes are able to store andhandle these products safely, and the1997 review of food packages resulted inthe addition of noodles, spaghetti sauce,crackers, reduced-salt soups, and low-fatrefried beans.

Each participant receives a monthlypackage 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.


The Food Stamp Program The Food Stamp Program is the corner-stone of USDA’s nutrition assistance pro-grams. The program helps low-incomehouseholds increase their food purchas-ing power and their choices for a betterdiet. It is the primary source of nutritionassistance for low-income Americans.The program was initiated as a pilot pro-gram in 1961 and made permanent in1964.

The first line of defense against hungerfor millions of families, the Food StampProgram provides critical support forfamilies making the transition from wel-fare to work and the elderly and dis-abled. The program issues monthly allot-ments of coupons or electronic benefitsthrough Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)that are redeemable at authorized retailfood stores, farmers’ markets, and cer-tain other providers.

The Federal Government pays for thebenefits issued and shares with theStates the cost of administrative expens-es. An average of 18.2 million people re-ceived benefits each month in FY 1999.Participation fell steadily from a high of28.0 million in March 1994 to 17.3 mil-lion in March 2000. In March 2001, par-ticipation remained at about 17.3 millionpeople, but then increased to 19 millionby March 2002. FNS is also translatingseveral publications into 45 languages toassist non-English speakers at foodstamp offices.

To ensure that people potentially eligiblefor benefits are aware of the program,FNS is working with States on public in-formation campaigns. Publications onthe Food Stamp Program are being trans-lated in order to assist non-Englishspeakers.

Most States have converted food stampissuance to EBT systems. EBT allowsfood stamp customers, using a magneticstripe card, to buy groceries by transfer-ring funds directly from a food stampbenefit account to a retailer’s account.The Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996requires all States to convert to EBT is-suance by October 2002.

EBT is only one component of FNS’commitment to Food Stamp Programefficiency and integrity. The agencyworks closely with the States to ensurethat they issue benefits in the correctamounts and only to people who are eli-gible. EBT has enhanced FNS’ ability tocatch those who abuse the program, andpenalties have been increased for people who are caught. In addition, FNS now hasbroader authority to review the perform-ance of food retailers who participate inthe program and to quickly removethose who fail to follow program rules.

USDA also provides educational materi-als to help States integrate nutrition intothe Food Stamp Program. States may useprogram administrative funds for nutri-tion education to help food stamp recipi-ents make healthier food choices as theyuse their benefits.

Eligibility: Eligibility and allotments arebased on household size, income, assets,and other factors. In FY 2002, the aver-age household benefit is about $185.62per month; and the average per-personbenefit is about $79.68 per month.

Benefits: The level of benefits an eligible household receives is based on its house-hold income and expenses. Households with no countable net income receive themaximum monthly allotment of foodstamps. The allotment is based on thecost of the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-costmodel food plan. The Federal Govern-ment pays for the benefits issued andshares with the States the cost of admin-istrative expenses.

In FY 2001, the Food Stamp Programawarded 14 research grants to improveaccess to the program. The grants to-taled $3.68 million and were awarded tononprofit organizations partnering withState and local food stamp offices.

Funding: For FY 2002, the Food StampProgram appropriation was $23 billion.

The National School Lunch ProgramThe National School Lunch Program(NSLP) is a federally assisted meal pro-gram operating in nearly 97,000 publicand nonprofit private schools and resi-


dential child care institutions. It providesnutritionally balanced, low-cost or freelunches and after school snacks to about27 million children each school day.

NSLP is usually administered by Stateeducation agencies, which operate theprogram through agreements with localschool districts. FNS administers theprogram at the Federal level. Schooldistricts and independent schools thatchoose to take part in the lunch programreceive cash reimbursement and donat-ed commodity foods from USDA for eachmeal they serve. In return, they mustserve meals that meet Federal nutritionrequirements, and they must offer freeand reduced-price lunches to eligiblechildren.

The after school snack component ofNSLP provides reimbursement for nutri-tious snacks served to children throughage 18 in eligible after school care pro-grams. In order to qualify for these reim-bursements, the school districts mustoperate the lunch component of NSLPand must sponsor or operate an afterschool care program that provides chil-dren with regularly scheduled educa-tional or enrichment activities in anorganized, structured, and supervisedenvironment.

Sites in which more than 50 percent ofthe students qualify for free or reduced-price breakfasts or lunches are referredto as “area eligible,” and these sites serveall snacks free. Otherwise, eligibility forfree, reduced-price, and full-price snacksis based on income. To qualify for reim-bursement, the snacks must meet mealpattern requirements.

USDA’s School Meals Initiative for HealthyChildren was launched in June 1994 and is a public policy blueprint to ensure thatschool meals meet the Dietary Guide-lines for Americans requirements, thatwe motivate children to make foodchoices for a healthful diet, and that wesupport these changes through trainingand technical assistance for school foodservice professionals.

In support of this commitment forhealthier schoolchildren, Team Nutrition

evolved as the implementation tool forthis initiative. Extensive training andtechnical assistance have been providedto all school food service professionalsfor preparing meals that meet the newnutrition standards and for educatingchildren about nutrition so they havethe knowledge to choose foods that aregood for them.

The Department has placed special em-phasis on improving the quality of USDA commodity foods donated to NSLP, as wellas their consistent and timely availability.The Commodities Improvement Councilpromotes the health of schoolchildrenby improving the nutritional profile ofUSDA commodities while maintainingUSDA’s support for domestic agriculturalmarkets. Based on the council’s recom-mendations, USDA has reduced the fat,sodium, and sugar content of commodi-ties and has increased the variety of low-fat and reduced-fat products.

USDA has greatly increased the amountof fresh produce available to schools andis now offering unprecedented amountsand varieties of fresh fruits and vegeta-bles. A cooperative project with the De-partment of Defense (DOD) has allowedUSDA to increase the variety of produceavailable to schools by utilizing DOD’sbuying and distribution system. USDA isalso exploring ways to connect schoolsto small-resource farmers in their areas


to help the schools purchase fresh, localproduce directly from the producers.

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of familyincome level, can receive a meal through NSLP. Children from families with incomesat or below 130 percent of the Federalpoverty level are eligible to receive freemeals. Children from families with in-comes between 130 and 185 percent ofpoverty are eligible for reduced-pricemeals. Children from families with in-comes over 185 percent of poverty paythe full price, which is established by thelocal school food authority.

Benefits: Children receive meals free or atlow cost because of USDA support forthe school meals programs. Most of thatsupport comes in the form of cash reim-bursements to schools for meals served.USDA’s per-meal reimbursement ratesfor the contiguous United States July 1,2001, through June 30, 2002, were $ 2.09for free meals; $1.69 for reduced-pricemeals; and .20 cents for full-price meals.Reimbursement rates are higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Schools may charge no morethan 40 cents for a reduced-price meal.They set their own prices for full-pricemeals, though they must operate theirmeal services on a nonprofit basis.

After school snacks are served free to allchildren in programs that operate in areaswhere at least 50 percent of students areeligible for free or reduced-price meals.Schools are reimbursed at the free ratefor each snack served.

In addition to cash reimbursements,schools are entitled to receive commodity foods, called “entitlement” foods, at anannually adjusted per-meal rate (15.5cents per meal in School Year 2001-02)for each meal they serve. Schools can re-ceive additional commodities, known as“bonus” commodities, when these areavailable from surplus stocks purchasedby USDA under surplus removal andprice support programs. USDA commodi-ties make up approximately 17 percentof the cost of the food served by the av-erage school food authority. The rest ofthe food served is purchased locally bythe school food authority.

Funding: For FY 2002, the projected fund-ing need for the National School LunchProgram is $6.4 billion.

The Nutrition Assistance Programs inPuerto Rico, American Samoa, and theCommonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Ricowas replaced in 1982 by a block grantprogram. American Samoa and theNorthern Marianas in the Pacific alsoprovide benefits under block grants. Theprograms provide cash or food benefitsin place of food stamps or commodities.

Eligibility: The territories determine eligi-bility and allotments for their programsbased on household size, income, assets,and other factors.

Benefits: The territories provide cash andcoupons to participants rather than foodstamps or food distribution. The grantcan also be used for administrative ex-penses or in the case of Puerto Rico, forspecial projects related to food produc-tion and distribution.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $1.35 billion for Puerto Rico, $5.3 millionfor American Samoa, and funded $7.1million for the Commonwealth of North-ern Marianas Islands food program.

Nutrition Services Incentive ProgramNutrition 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 OlderAmericans Act (OAA) of 2000. The NSIP is administered by the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Service’s (DHHS)Administration on Aging, but receivescommodity foods and financial supportfrom the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

NSIP helps provide elderly persons withnutritionally sound meals throughMeals-on-Wheels programs or in seniorcitizen centers and similar settings.


Eligibility: Age is the only factor used indetermining eligibility. People age 60 orolder and their spouses, regardless ofage, are eligible for NSIP benefits. Thereis no income requirement to receivemeals under NSIP, although the programtargets lower income areas.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute asmuch as he or she wishes toward thecost of the meal, but meals are free to those who cannot make any contribution.

Under NSIP, meals served must meet aspecified percentage of the Recommend-ed Dietary Allowances (RDAs) and theDietary Guidelines for Americans in or-der to qualify for cash or commodityassistance.

Funding: Congress appropriated $150 mil-lion for NSIP in FY 2002.

The School Breakfast Program The School Breakfast Program (SBP) pro-vides cash assistance to States to oper-ate nonprofit breakfast programs inschools and residential child care insti-tutions. The program operates in morethan 72,000 schools and institutions,serving a daily average of some 7.4 mil-lion children. It is administered at theFederal level by FNS. State educationagencies administer the SBP at the Statelevel, and local school food authoritiesoperate it in schools.

Eligibility: Any child at a participatingschool may receive a meal through SBP.Children from families with incomes ator below 130 percent of the Federalpoverty level are eligible for free break-fasts. Children from families with in-comes between 130 and 185 percent ofthe poverty level are eligible for reduced-price breakfasts. Children from familieswith incomes over 185 percent of pover-ty pay the full, locally established pricefor their breakfasts.

Benefits: Students receive their meals freeor at low cost because USDA supportsthe School Breakfast Program with cashreimbursements for meals served. ForSchool Year 2001-02, schools in the con-tiguous United States received reim-bursements of $1.15 for a free meal; 85

cents for a reduced-price meal; and 21cents for a full-price meal. As with theNational School Lunch Program, reim-bursements are slightly higher in Alaskaand Hawaii. Schools may charge no morethan 30 cents for a reduced-price break-fast. Local schools set their own pricesfor full-price meals, but must operate ona nonprofit basis.

Funding: For FY 2002, Congress appropri-ated $1.49 billion for SBP. Program fund-ing for the School Breakfast Program isestimated to be $1.57 billion.

The Special Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants, andChildren (WIC) The Special Supplemental Nutrition Pro-gram for Women, Infants, and Children,commonly known as the WIC Program,is a grant program for States intended toimprove the health of pregnant, postpar-tum, and breastfeeding women, and in-fants and children up to 5 years old byproviding supplemental foods, nutritioneducation, including breastfeeding pro-motion and support, and access tohealth care. A few State agencies providefood directly to participants, but mostStates provide WIC vouchers to WIC par-ticipants that they can use at authorizedfood stores for approved foods at no costto the participant.

WIC provides each State with a grant offunds to serve its most needy eligiblepopulation. Because of documented suc-cesses of the WIC program in improving the nutritional well-being of participants,it has been expanded to serve more eligi-ble people. In FY 2001, WIC served anaverage of more than 7.3 million peopleeach month.

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an appli-cant must be a pregnant, breastfeeding,or postpartum woman, or an infant orchild under age 5, and must meet Stateresidency requirements, meet an incomestandard, and be determined by a healthprofessional to be at nutritional risk.This nutrition evaluation is done at nocost to the applicant.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participantsreceive vouchers that allow them to pur-


chase a monthly food package especiallydesigned to supplement their diets. Thefoods provided are high in protein, calci-um, iron, and vitamins A and C. WIC foodsinclude iron-fortified infant formula andinfant cereal; iron-fortified adult cereal;vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; eggs, milk, and cheese; and legumes suchas peanut butter, dried beans, or peas.Special therapeutic formulas and foodsare provided when prescribed by a physi-cian for a specified medical condition.

WIC mothers are encouraged to breast-feed their babies whenever possible.Women who breastfeed their babies re-ceive an enhanced WIC food package that includes tuna, carrots, cheese, legumes,and extra juice. Those who do notbreastfeed their babies receive infantformula for the babies and a regularfood package for themselves.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriat-ed $ 4.387 billion for the WIC Program.

The Special Milk ProgramThe Special Milk Program (SMP) providesmilk to children in schools and childcare institutions who do not participatein other Federal meal service programs.The program reimburses schools for themilk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs may alsoparticipate in SMP to provide milk tochildren in half-day pre-kindergartenand kindergarten programs where chil-dren do not have access to the schoolmeal programs.

Expansion of the National School Lunchand School Breakfast Programs, whichinclude milk, and the prohibition againstusing SMP to fund extra milk for lunchand breakfast program activities, has ledto a substantial reduction in SMP sinceits peak in the late 1960’s. In 2001, over116 million half pints of milk wereserved through the SMP.

In 2001, nearly 7,000 schools and resi-dential child care institutions participat-ed, along with 1,300 summer camps andover 500 non-residential child care insti-tutions.

Eligibility: Any child at a participatingschool or kindergarten program can getmilk through SMP. Children may buymilk or receive it free, depending on theschool’s choice of program options.When local officials offer free milk un-der the program, any child from a familythat meets income guidelines for freemeals and milk is eligible.

Benefits: Participating schools and institu-tions receive reimbursement from theFederal Government for each half pint ofmilk served. They must operate theirmilk programs on a nonprofit basis andagree to use the Federal reimbursementto reduce the selling price of milk to allchildren.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriat-ed $16.9 million for SMP.

The Summer Food Service Program The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals to low-incomechildren during school vacations.

SFSP was first created as part of a largerpilot program in 1968 and became a sep-arate program in 1975. In the summer of2001, more than 2.1 million children par-ticipated at more than 31,000 summerfeeding sites.

The program is administered at theFederal level by FNS. Locally, it is operat-ed by approved sponsors who receive re-imbursement from USDA for the mealsthey serve. Sponsors provide meals at acentral site such as a school or commu-nity center. All meals are served free.

SFSP operates in low-income areaswhere half or more of the children arefrom households with incomes at or be-low 185 percent of the Federal povertyguideline. Residential children’s campsalso may get reimbursement through SFSP for meals served to income-eligiblechildren.

Eligibility: Children age 18 and under whoparticipate in a school program for thementally or physical handicapped andpeople over age 18 who are determinedby a State educational agency to be


mentally or physically handicapped mayreceive meals through SFSP.

Benefits: At most sites, participants receiveeither one or two meals a day. Residen-tial camps and sites that primarily servechildren from migrant households maybe approved to serve up to three mealsper day.

Sponsors are reimbursed for document-ed operating and administrative costs.

Funding: In FY 2002, Congress appropriat-ed $ 312 million for SFSP.

USDA Disaster AssistanceFNS is the primary agency responsiblefor providing Federal food assistance inresponse to domestic disasters such asfires, floods, storms, earthquakes andany other emergencies declared as such by the President. FNS provides assistance through the Food Distribution Programand the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program The WIC Farmers’ Market NutritionProgram (FMNP) was established in 1992.

The program has two goals: to providefresh, nutritious, unprepared food, suchas fruits and vegetables, from farmers’markets to WIC participants who are atnutritional risk; and to expand con-sumers’ awareness and use of farmers’markets. This program, operated in con-junction with the regular WIC Program,is operational in 44 State agencies, in-cluding 4 Indian Tribes, 1 Territory, andthe District of Columbia. During FY 2001,2.1 million WIC participants receivedFMNP benefits through 2,500 farmers’markets.

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 monthsold, and children who receive WIC pro-gram benefits or who are WIC-eligible,may purchase foods at farmers’ marketsthrough FMNP.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchasedwith FMNP coupons. State agencies maylimit 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 ap-propriated for FMNP.

CHAPTER 9

Food Safety


Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Office of Food Safety oversees theFood Safety and Inspection Service, theagency within USDA responsible for en-suring the safety, wholesomeness, andcorrect labeling and packaging of meat,poultry, and egg products. FSIS operatesunder the authority of the Federal MeatInspection Act, the Poultry Products In-spection Act, and the Egg Products In-spection Act. FSIS sets standards for foodsafety and inspects and regulates all rawand processed meat and poultry products,and egg products sold in interstate com-merce, including imported products. FSIShas implemented a strategy for changeto reduce the incidence of foodborne ill-ness attributable to meat, poultry, andegg products. The Office of Food Safety,headed by USDA’s Under Secretary forFood Safety, provides oversight of theagency.

In FY 2001, FSIS inspected over 8.2 billionpoultry, 140 million head of livestock,and 4.5 billion pounds of egg products.

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspection of poultry and livestock, aswell as processed products made fromthem;

■ Inspection of all liquid, frozen, anddried egg products;

■ Setting food safety standards for plantfacilities, product contents, processingprocedures, packaging and labeling, andmicrobial and chemical adulterants;

■ Analyzing products for microbial andchemical adulterants;

■ Conducting risk assessments, as wellas epidemiological and other scientificstudies, to estimate human health out-comes associated with the consumptionof meat, poultry, and egg products. Theserisk assessments and studies providescience-based information for risk man-agement and communication; and

■ Educating consumers about foodborneillness by way of publications, educa-tional campaigns, and a toll-free, nation-wide USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline(1-800-535-4555).

FSIS inspectors examine animals beforeand after slaughter, preventing diseasedanimals from entering the food supplyand examining carcasses for visible de-fects that can affect safety and quality.Inspectors also test for the presence ofharmful pathogens and drug and chemi-cal 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 differentprocessed meat and poultry productsfall under FSIS inspection. These includehams, sausages, soups, stews, pizzas,frozen dinners, and products containing2 percent or more cooked poultry or atleast 3 percent raw meat. In addition toinspecting these products during pro-cessing, FSIS evaluates and sets stan-dards for food ingredients, additives, andcompounds used to prepare and packagemeat and poultry products.

As part of the inspection process, FSIStests for the presence of pathogens andtoxins such as Salmonella, Listeria monocy-togenes, and Staphylococcal enterotoxin inready-to-eat and other processed prod-ucts. FSIS continues to have a zero toler-ance for these pathogens in ready-to-eatand 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 someraw products. In 1994, USDA declared E.coli O157:H7 an adulterant in raw groundbeef and established a monitoring pro-gram for the pathogen. As part of thePathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysisand Critical Control Point (HACCP) Sys-tems final rule, issued in July 1996, FSISfor the first time set pathogen reductionperformance standards for Salmonellathat slaughter plants and plants produc-ing raw ground products must meet. Thefinal rule also requires meat and poultryslaughter plants to conduct microbialtesting for generic E. coli to verify the ad-equacy of their process controls for theprevention of fecal contamination.

Imported meat and poultry are also sub-ject to FSIS scrutiny. The agency reviewsand monitors foreign inspection systemsto ensure that they are equivalent to theU.S. system before those countries areallowed to export. When the productsreach the United States, products arereinspected at 155 active import loca-tions 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 Analysisand Critical Control Point (HACCP)Systems—ImplementationIn 2000, FSIS completed implementation of its landmark rule, Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. The rule addresses theserious problem of foodborne illness inthe United States associated with meatand poultry products by focusing more attention on the prevention and reductionof microbial pathogens on raw productsthat can cause illness. It also clarifies therespective roles of government and in-dustry in food safety. Industry is account-able for producing safe food. Government is responsible for setting appropriate food safety standards, maintaining vigorousoversight to ensure that these standardsare met, and for operating a strong en-forcement program to, among otherthings, 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 poultryslaughter plants to conduct microbialtesting for generic E. coli to verify the ad-equacy of their process controls for theprevention of fecal contamination; (3)requires all meat and poultry plants todevelop and implement a system of pre-ventive controls, known as HACCP, to im-prove the safety of their products; and(4) sets pathogen reduction performancestandards for Salmonella that slaughterplants and plants producing raw groundproducts must meet.

The Pathogen Reduction/HACCP ruleapplies to over 6,500 federally inspectedand 2,300 State-inspected slaughter andprocessing plants in the United States.Countries that export meat and poultryproducts to the United States must alsomeet the requirements of the final rule.Egg products are not covered by the finalrule, but FSIS has developed a strategythat will include HACCP to improve thesafety of eggs and egg products.

Implementation of HACCP in all plantshas been smooth, and the new preven-tion-oriented meat and poultry inspectionsystem continues to show improvement.With only minor fluctuations, Salmonellaprevalences in all classes of products havedecreased to levels below the baseline prevalence estimates determined prior toHACCP. The decrease in the prevalenceof Salmonella in raw meat and poultryfrom 1998 to 2001 is consistent with re-ports from the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention indicating a declinein human illnesses linked to Salmonelladuring the same time period. As industryhas complied with the new pathogen re-duction and HACCP requirements, FSISis strengthening HACCP systems to moreeffectively protect consumers from un-safe meat and poultry.

For more information on HACCP andcompliance, 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.


(including turkeys)—are eligible for theproject. These animals comprise nearly90 percent of animals slaughtered in in-spected establishments. Eligible plantsmay volunteer to participate in the pilotprogram.

Under HIMP, changes are being made in the role of the slaughter inspector. Exceptfor one inspector at the end of the line,inspectors are no longer tied to onepoint on the inspection line. Instead, in-spectors are free to move around theplant and up and down the processingline to perform verification checks andobserve operations wherever necessary.Currently, approximately 24 establish-ments that slaughter young chickens,hogs, and turkeys are participating inthe pilot project.

Under the project, FSIS has establishedperformance standards for food safetyand non-food safety defects, such asbruises, (also known as “other consumer

HACCP-Based Inspection ModelsProject (HIMP)In 2002, the CDC published a report thatcredits the implementation of HACCP asa major factor in the continued declinein the incidence of foodborne illness.However, the HACCP system does notcurrently apply to all activities associat-ed with the slaughter process, so FSIShas developed and is testing new inspec-tion models that employ the scientificprinciples associated with Pathogen Re-duction/HACCP.

HIMP is a pilot program that began in1997 and is designed to test whethernew government slaughter inspectionprocedures can be employed that im-prove food safety and increase consumerprotection, and that leads to the moreefficient and effective use of inspectionresources and personnel. Only meat andpoultry plants that slaughter exclusivelyyoung, 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 EstablishmentsProduct 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 10.7Market Hogs 8.7 5,701 3.5 4,479 8.6 6,393 4.9 16,573 5.4Cows/Bulls 2.7 419 0.5 4,164 2.0 1,288 3.6 5,871 2.2Steers/Heifers 1.0 766 0.1 1,614 0.4 1,403 0.7 3,783 0.4Ground Beef 7.5 3,954 5.2 48,595 3.8 22,209 2.4 74,758 3.4Ground Chicken 44.6 408 15.9 536 16.0 53 11.3 997 15.7Ground 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 StandardsAll Years 1998–2001

Product # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass # Sets % Pass

Broilers 442 93.4 142 84.5 4 25.0 588 90.8Market Hogs 99 91.9 69 73.9 49 77.6 217 82.9Cows/Bulls 7 100.0 62 83.9 17 76.5 86 83.7Steers/Heifers 8 100.0 19 94.7 4 100.0 31 96.8Ground Beef 70 85.7 796 91.0 288 95.5 1,154 91.8Ground Chicken 6 100.0 9 100.0 1 100.0 16 100.0Ground Turkey 49 91.8 13 84.6 1 100.0 63 90.5

Food Safety | 103

protections”) that volunteer plants mustmeet. In order to meet these standards,plants are extending their HACCP systemsto address the food safety conditions, and they are developing process control plansto address other consumer practices.Plants are responsible for identifying andremoving meat and poultry carcassesthat do not meet these standards.

The accomplishments of the new system must meet or exceed the accomplish-ments of the current system in order forFSIS to consider the new system to be successful. The project is being carriedout through an open public process thatallows all interested constituents theopportunity to provide input. Data col-lected in the project to date, by both an independent contractor and FSIS’ in-plantinspectors, show improvements in bothfood safety and other consumer protec-tions. FSIS will continue to evaluate andmake improvements to HIMP. Plants thatare permitted to operate under HIMPwill be held accountable for meeting theperformance standards and all otherregulatory requirements.

Activities Related to Homeland SecurityFor nearly a century, FSIS has protected consumers by ensuring that meat, poultry,and egg products are safe, wholesome,and accurately labeled. Although we arenow facing new threats related to inten-tional contamination of the food supply,this history of dealing with food emer-gencies has allowed FSIS to develop theexpertise to protect our Nation’s supplyof meat, poultry, and egg products.

With a strong food safety infrastructurealready in place, USDA has been able tofocus on fortifying existing programsand improving lines of communicationboth internally and externally throughcooperation with industry, consumers,and other government agencies.

FSIS coordinates its efforts with severalother agencies committed to preventingbiosecurity threats. FSIS works closelywith the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, the Food and Drug Adminis-tration, and the Environmental Protection

Agency, as well as with State and localhealth agencies to share informationabout illnesses.

Emerging IssuesOver the past several years, FSIS has en-hanced the public health focus of itsfood safety program helping the agencyaddress emerging and re-emerging is-sues, such as E. coli O157:H7 and Listeriamonocytogenes.

E. coli O157:H7The CDC estimates that 73,000 cases ofinfection and 60 deaths occur in theUnited States each year as a result of E. coli O157:H7.

A risk assessment for E. coli O157:H7 inground beef was completed in Septem-ber 2001 and submitted to the NationalAcademy of Sciences for peer review.The risk assessment estimates the risksof foodborne illness from the pathogenunder current baseline manufacturingconditions and will be revised in re-sponse to comments from the peer re-view. When the review is completed, theagency will use the risk assessment todetermine whether changes in its poli-cies on E. coli O157:H7 are needed.

Listeria monocytogenesAccording to the CDC, an estimated 2,500 people in the United States becomeill from Listeria monocytogenes each year,and approximately 20 percent die as aresult of the illness.

FSIS consumer education programsspecifically target pregnant women andnewborns, older adults, and people withweakened immune systems caused bycancer treatments, AIDS, diabetes, kid-ney disease, etc., who are all at risk forbecoming seriously ill from eating foodsthat contain Listeria monocytogenes.

On January 18, 2001, FDA and FSIS re-leased a draft risk assessment of thepotential relative risk of listeriosis fromeating certain ready-to-eat foods, as wellas an action plan designed to reduce therisk of foodborne illness caused byListeria 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.


FSIS also has the following four longerterm initiatives:

■ The agency drafted a protocol to studythe post-production growth of Listeriamonocytogenes in a wide variety of ready-to-eat products. USDA’s Agricultural Re-search Service is conducting the study;

■ FSIS has developed an indepth verifi-cation protocol that can be used to de-termine the adequacy of plants’ HACCPplans for ready-to-eat products, particu-larly regarding Listeria monocytogenes;

■ A risk ranking for Listeria monocytogenes,in conjunction with the Food and DrugAdministration, focused on all foods,particularly refrigerated, ready-to-eatfoods; and

■ FSIS is developing food safety standards for ready-to-eat products that will ad-dress 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 importof live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep,goats, and most ruminant products fromthe United Kingdom and other countrieshaving BSE. Should a case of BSE ever bedetected in this country, an emergencyresponse plan has been developed to im-mediately control suspect animals andprevent them from entering the foodsupply.

In 1998, USDA asked the Harvard Centerfor Risk Analysis to evaluate the robust-ness of U.S. measures to prevent thespread of BSE or “mad cow disease” toanimals and humans if it were to arisein this country.

Results of this landmark 3-year studyshowed that the risk of BSE occurring inthe United States is extremely low. Thereport noted that early protection sys-tems put into place by the USDA and theU.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS) have been largely respon-sible for keeping BSE out of the UnitedStates and would prevent it from spread-ing if it ever did enter the country.

Even so, in November 2001, the UnderSecretary for Food Safety announced aseries of actions the USDA would take, incooperation with HHS, to strengthen itsBSE prevention programs and maintainthe Government’s vigilance against thedisease.

Food Safety | 105

■ USDA will have the risk assessmentpeer reviewed by a team of outside ex-perts to ensure its scientific integrity;

■ USDA will continue increasing itstesting for BSE, with over 12,500 cattlesamples targeted in fiscal year 2002—upfrom 5,000 during fiscal year 2001;

■ USDA will announce in the FederalRegister the availability of a policy op-tions paper that will outline additionalpossible regulatory actions to limit therisk of BSE exposure;

■ USDA will issue a proposed rule toprohibit the use of certain stunning de-vices used to immobilize cattle duringslaughter; and

■ USDA will publish an Advance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking to considerdisposal options for dead and downeranimals. Such cattle are considered animportant potential pathway for thespread of BSE in the animal chain.

A complete copy of the Harvard Reportcan be obtained from USDA’s officialWeb site at http://www.usda.gov. For moreinformation about BSE, also visithttp://www.usda.gov or http:www.hhs.gov

Food Net and PulseNetFSIS has partnered with the CDC andother State and Federal agencies to de-termine the extent of foodborne illnessin the United States and to maintain adatabase of DNA fingerprinting of food-borne bacteria.

The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveil-lance Network (FoodNet) is a part of theCDC Emerging Infections Program. FSISworked in conjunction with CDC, theFood and Drug Administration, and pub-lic health laboratories in several Statesto establish FoodNet in 1995.

FoodNet includes active surveillance for diseases caused by foodborne pathogens,case-control studies to identify risk fac-tors for acquiring foodborne illness, andsurveys to assess medical and laboratorypractices related to the diagnosis offoodborne illness. The baseline and an-nual data collected are being used to

help determine the effectiveness of thePathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysisand Critical Control Points rule and oth-er regulatory actions as well as publiceducation efforts in decreasing the num-ber of cases of major bacterial foodbornedisease in the United States each year.

In FY 2001, FSIS completed the sixth full year of an agreement with the CDC to con-duct active population-based surveillancefor foodborne diseases (Campylobacter,E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella,Vibrio,Yersinia, Crytosporidium and Cyclo-spora) in Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut,Georgia, and selected counties in Califor-nia, Maryland, New York, Colorado, andTennessee (total population: 30 million).This multi-year study is providing much-needed data regarding the burden offoodborne illness in the United States.

PulseNet is a national computer networkof public health laboratories that helpsto rapidly identify and control outbreaksof foodborne illness. The laboratoriesperform DNA fingerprinting on bacteriathat may be foodborne and the networkpermits rapid comparison of the finger-print patterns through an electronicdatabase at the CDC. PulseNet is an ear-ly warning system that links seeminglysporadic human illnesses together and,as a result, more outbreaks can be recog-nized, especially those that involve manyStates.


FoodNet and PulseNet are two examplesof Federal and State agencies workingtogether to accomplish the agency’s pub-lic health goals of protecting the publicand the meat and poultry supplythrough improving the tracking of food-borne illnesses and outbreaks.

Consumer and Food Safety EducationFor more than two decades, FSIS hasprovided consumer information and ed-ucational materials designed to fostersafe food handling through behaviorchanges in order to reduce the risk offoodborne illness. Educational materialsand campaigns are science based anddrawn from epidemiological studiesconcerning food and behaviors that con-tribute to food safety risks. Projects andactivities are also based on social mar-keting principles, research derived from educational theory, market and consumerresearch, and focus group testing. FSISprovides information and educationalmaterials designed to foster safe han-dling of meat, poultry, and egg products.

Consumer education programs focus onkey food safety messages to the generalpublic and special high-risk groups thatface increased risks from foodborne ill-ness—the very young, the elderly, preg-nant women, people who have chronicdiseases, and people with compromisedimmune systems. The agency reaches

diverse audiences through the media, in-formation multipliers such as teachers,Extension and health educators, the FSIS Web site, printed materials, videos,USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline, the in-ternationally distributed newsletter, TheFood Safety Educator, and other presenta-tions and exhibits. FSIS produces publicservice announcements, news features,and partners with other governmentagencies, industry, and consumer associ-ations on food safety projects.

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline In addition to basic food handling, stor-age and preparation questions, USDA’stoll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline ad-dresses the latest issues: outbreaks offoodborne illness; pathogens such asListeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Campy-lobacter jejuni, and E. coli O157:H7; recallsof meat and poultry products; egg safe-ty; red meat irradiation; and food safetyduring a power outage or natural disas-ter. Over 172,000 calls were taken duringFY 2000 and FY 2001 combined with over400 media or information multipliercalls addressing safe food handling prac-tices in the home. The analysis of calldata helps to identify gaps in consumerknowledge to plan future food safety ed-ucation campaigns. The Hotline’s staff iscomprised of home economists, regis-tered dietitians, food technologists, and aphysician.

In September 2001, the USDA Meat andPoultry Hotline initiated a 3-monthSpanish language outreach pilot for theLatino community to provide consumerswith bilingual service. The pilot outreachefforts were focused in Miami, FL, SanDiego, CA, and Newark, NJ.

Callers may speak with a food safetyspecialist—in English or Spanish—from10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time onweekdays year round by dialing the na-tionwide 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 recordedfood safety messages in English andSpanish may be heard 24 hours a day.The Hotline can also now be reached bye-mail at: [email protected]

Food Safety | 107

Food Thermometer EducationCampaign—Thermy™Based on USDA and other scientific re-search, FSIS launched a national con-sumer education campaign to increaseconsumer use of food thermometers at aMay 25, 2000, press conference. Inputfrom nationwide focus groups helped todevelop Thermy™, a cartoon character,and his message: “It’s Safe to Bite Whenthe Temperature is Right!” Thermy™ ed-ucational materials, developed in Englishand Spanish, were distributed nationally to schools, cooperative extension, andother educators. Thermometer compa-nies, grocery chains, and other partnersbegan using Thermy™ on product pack-aging, in-store floor displays, and con-sumer information publications. Thou-sands of information kits, magnets, andposters were distributed to food safetyeducators nationwide and a variety ofThermy™ information is available (alsoin Spanish) on the FSIS Web site:www.fsis.usda.gov/thermy. Thermy™ con-tinues to appear at public functionsacross the country.

Partnership for Food Safety Educationand Fight BAC!® CampaignThe Partnership for Food Safety Educa-tion’s Fight BAC!® campaign, which be-gan in 1997, is a far-reaching, ambitious,and consumer-friendly public educationcampaign focused on safe food handling.The Fight BAC!® campaign’s goal is to ed-ucate consumers on the four simplesteps they can take to fight foodbornebacteria and reduce their risk of food-borne 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 thecharacter BAC! (bacteria), the invisibleenemy who tries his best to spread con-tamination wherever he goes. By givingfoodborne bacteria a personality, BAC!makes the learning process more mean-ingful and memorable for consumers ofall ages.

For more information about the Partner-ship for Food Safety Education and FightBAC!®, visit http://www.fightbac.org/

Listeria monocytogenes ConsumerOutreachFocus groups have shown that con-sumers are not aware that pregnantwomen are at high risk for foodborne ill-ness and are unfamiliar with the bac-terium Listeria monocytogenes (Lm). In FY2001, FSIS developed a new brochure forpregnant women—Listeriosis and Pregnan-cy: What Is Your Risk? Safe Food Handlingfor a Healthy Pregnancy. The Listeriosis andFood Safety Tips (June 1999) brochure inEnglish and Spanish remains availablefor purchase in single or bulk copiesthrough the Government Printing Officeand through the Federal Consumer In-formation Center (FCIC) in Pueblo, CO.


The National Food Safety Information Network FSIS and other agencies of the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture participated inthe National Food Safety InformationNetwork, 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 Li-brary; National Food Safety Educators Network (EdNet); and FoodSafe, an onlinediscussion group with 2,000 subscribersfrom more than 50 countries.

National Food Safety EducationMonthSM (NFSEM) Created by the International Food SafetyCouncil, a coalition of restaurant and foodservice professionals certified in foodsafety, National Food Safety EducationMonthSM (NFSEM) is an activity withinthe National Food Safety Initiative. It isheld in September each year and its ma-jor focus is on food safety education forgovernment and consumer organiza-tions, as well as industry. The goals are:(1) to reinforce food safety educationand training among restaurant and food-service workers; and (2) to educate thepublic on how to handle and preparefood properly at home—whether cookingfrom scratch or serving take-out mealsor leftovers. The theme for the Septem-ber 2001 observance, Be Cool, Chill Out,Refrigerate Promptly, was one of the FightBAC!® messages.

FSIS Web SiteThe Web site www.fsis.usda.gov remains avaluable resource for consumers, foodsafety educators, the regulated industry,FSIS employees, government officials,and other professionals. The site containsthousands of documents concerningFSIS news, meat and poultry product re-calls, HACCP, speeches, regulations anddirectives, agency reports, food safety forconsumers, and career employment in-formation. Because documents may bedownloaded in a variety of electronicformats, the Web site serves as an inte-gral part of the agency’s publication dis-tribution process. Visitors to the site mayalso view video clips of news releasesand public service announcements andcan access numerous links to other foodsafety-related sites. Also, the Web site’selectronic mailbox address receivedthousands of questions and commentsby visitors from around the world.

Food Safety | 109

Food Service EducationIn FY 2001, FSIS participated in meetingsand conference calls with the Food Safe-ty Training and Education Alliance(FSTEA) to identify food safety activitiesand initiatives. In collaboration withFSTEA, FSIS organized and coordinatedtwo symposia–(1) A Social MarketingApproach to Educating Food ServiceWorkers and (2) Educating Food ServiceWorkers. FSIS was instrumental in devel-oping a Web site for FSTEA, www.fstea.org,at the National Agricultural Librarymanaged by the USDA/FDA FoodborneIllness Education Information Center.FSIS also led the effort to develop, de-sign, and distribute the brochure, FoodSafety: Taking Care of Business. Thisbrochure provides resources for foodsafety information and training materi-als specifically designed for retail andfood service. A decal for mirrors depict-ing the importance of hand washing inrelation to food safety, one of the fourFight BAC!® messages, was designed andproduced for distribution to restaurants and foodservice establishments. Also, FSIS currently provides liaisons to USDA’sFood and Nutrition Service (FNS), theNational Food Service Management In-stitute (NFSMI), and the National Coali-tion for Food Safe Schools (NCFSS) and astaff member serves as a consultant tothe Conference for Food Protection’sManager Training, Testing, and Certifica-tion Committee.

CHAPTER 10

Natural Resources andEnvironment


Forest Service

MissionThe Forest Service mission is “Caring forthe Land and Serving People.” The mis-sion is further expressed in the ForestService land ethic: “Promote the sustain-ability of ecosystems by ensuring theirhealth, diversity, and productivity,”which is coupled with the service ethic:“Work collaboratively and use appropri-ate scientific information in caring forthe land and serving people.”

The Forest Service, through ecosystemmanagement, applies these land and service ethics. Ecosystem management is the integration of ecological, economic,and social factors in order to maintainand enhance the quality of the environ-ment to meet current and future needs.

The four strategic goals of the ForestService 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 ResourceAgenda identifies four key areas of na-tional focus. They are: watershed healthand restoration, sustainable forest eco-system management, forest roads man-agement, and recreation enhancement.

Principal LawsThe Forest Service administers the landsand resources of the National ForestSystem (NFS) under the Organic Admin-istration Act of 1897, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

The agency also conducts research,provides assistance to State and privatelandowners, assesses the Nation’s natu-ral resources, and provides internationalassistance and scientific exchanges.These activities are carried out underthe Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974, the Re-newable Resources Extension Act of1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renew-able Resources Research Act of 1978, theCooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978, and the International ForestryCooperation Act of 1990.

Organizational StructureThe Chief, the top administrative officialof the Forest Service, reports to the Sec-retary of Agriculture through the UnderSecretary for Natural Resources and En-vironment. The Forest Service typically isviewed as consisting of three major com-ponents: (1) the National Forest System (NFS), (2) State and Private Forestry (S&PF),and (3) Research and Development (R&D).However, the agency supports manyother programs, such as InternationalPrograms and Job Corps Civilian Conser-vation Centers. The NFS is organized intoa Deputy Area within the WashingtonOffice, 9 regional offices, 155 nationalforests managed by 115 supervisors’offices, and approximately 570 rangerdistricts and 20 national grasslands.

The Forest Service manages the 192-million-acre NFS and supports multipleuse; sustained yields of renewable re-sources such as water, livestock forage,wildfire, habitat, wood, and recreation;and integration of mineral resource pro-grams and visual quality. The agency alsomitigates, when appropriate and in ascientific manner, wildfires, epidemics of disease and insects, erosion, floods, waterquality degradation, and air pollution.

The NFS provides many recreational ac-tivities for the public. In 2000, it hostedmore than 209 million recreation visits,including 60 percent of the Nation’s ski-ing 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 WildernessPreservation System, 133,000 miles oftrails; more than 250,000 heritage sites;and over 23,000 campgrounds, picnicareas, and visitor facilities.

The National Forests and Grasslandssupport economic activity contributing $38 billion in total income to the national economy. The Forest Service administersmany S&PF programs to provide techni-cal and financial conservation assistanceto State and private nonindustrial forestland. 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 organi-zations and they help to promote thebest use and conservation of America’snatural resources on private lands. Wild-land fire protection on private and publiclands, Smokey Bear, forest health protec-tion, and natural resource education areexamples of S&PF programs. S&PF is or-ganized into a Deputy Area within theWashington Office; it has an office inNewtown Square, PA, to work with Statesand landowners in the NortheasternUnited States, and has programs deliv-ered from most NFS offices.

Forest Service Research & Development (R&D) is one of the world’s leading forestry research organizations, conducting andsponsoring basic and applied scientificresearch. This research provides bothcredible and relevant knowledge aboutforests and rangelands and exciting newtechnologies that can be used to sustainthe health, productivity, and diversity ofprivate and public lands to meet theneeds of present and future generations.

Forest Service Community-BasedPartnershipsOver a century ago, public concern aboutadequate supplies of clean water con-tributed to the establishment of federally protected forest reserves. These reservesare now part of the USDA, Forest Service.In 1999, the Forest Service established an innovative approach to restoringwatersheds through partnerships—community-based, large-scale water-shed restoration projects.

Projects were competitively selected forsupplemental funding at the nationallevel because of their important locationand purpose, collaborative relationships,feasibility, and precedent-setting approachto achieve long-term improvement of watershed conditions. The national officehas invested over $70 million in theseprojects. And this was matched 2:1 bypartner organizations that have con-tributed over $150 million. Work has fo-cused on improving water quality, forestand range health, recovering threatened species; implementing the State andPrivate Forestry Action Strategy and theNorth 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, & otherFederal: 51.6 million acres Non-Federal total: 500.2 million acres State: 60.5 million acres 9.9 million private landowners: 362.8 million acresCounty and municipal: 9.2 million acres

■ There are 192.0 million acres of National Forest System land. This is 8.3 percent of the Unit-ed States’ land area, or about the size of Texas. The Forest Service manages:

National Forests: 187.6 million acresNational 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 mil-lion 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 fromFederal 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: 600,670Aquatic acres restored or enhanced for fisheries: 20,389Stream miles restored or enhanced for fisheries: 2,741 Reforestation: 268,520 acres Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal head months Grazing allotments administered: 8,783Timber 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


■ Accepting donations of land to protectarcheological, historical, or other signifi-cant sites,■ Maintaining records of national forestland areas, land transactions, land sta-tus, permitted uses, and easements,■ Securing public road and trail accessto existing National Forest System lands,■ Responding to congressional requestdrafting services for land ownership ad-justment activities.

Key Facts About Wildlife, Fish,and Rare PlantsThe National Forest System includes 2.3 millionacres of fishable lakes, ponds, and reservoirsand more than 197,000 miles of perennialstreams.

National forests and grasslands support habitatsfor more than 3,000 species of birds, mammals,reptiles, amphibians, and fish, as well as some10,000 plant species.

In 2000, over 76,000 people engaged in Eyes onWildlife and Migratory Bird Day events on nation-al 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, threat-

ened, or endangered plants, fish, or wildlife.

PartnershipsIn 2001, $17.6 million in Federal fundswas matched by partners’ $26.9 million,for a total of $44.5 million to accomplish partnership projects for wildlife, fish, andthreatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the national forests and grass-lands. For example, employees of theAlabama Power Company and theBankhead Ranger District utilizedbundles of donated Christmas trees toconstruct sunken fish habitat structures.

Water, Soil, and AirAbout 14 percent of the surface watersupply in the United States flows from National Forest System (NFS) watersheds.The goals of the Forest Service’s water-shed, soil, and air management programs

Plan; and providing jobs for local com-munities. These funds and their use arethe critical link to local governmentsand allow private landowners to becomemajor partners in watershed restorationefforts.

National Forest System—Conservationand Multiple Use

Lands and Realty ManagementLands and Realty Management activitiesinclude:■ Purchasing land to protect criticalresources areas and provide increasedpublic recreation opportunities,■ Authorizing powerlines to provideelectricity to communities,■ Ensuring that hydro-electric projectsprotect riparian areas on the nationalforest,■ Exchanging lands with private partiesto achieve a desired national forestlandownership pattern that supportsforest land and resource goals andobjectives,■ Surveying national forest boundariesto identify and protect private andpublic lands,■ Determining the fair market value oflands purchased or exchanged, so thattransaction is fair to the public and thelandowner involved,■ Authorizing right-of-ways for roads toprivate 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

PacificCoastal

Blue Mountain

UpperPit

RiverUpperSevier

South Platte

Conasauga

New York City

Chattooga

CheasapeakeBay

WhiteRiver

Rio Penasco

LowerMississippi

Big Lost River

Upper KootenaiSt. Joe Watershed


are to (1) manage watersheds to maintain or improve watershed conditions to sus-tain forest land and rangeland health formultiple uses; (2) sustain soil productivi-ty, (3) protect 88 Class I wilderness areasfrom air pollution, and (4) evaluate For-est Service activities and their effect ofair quality, watershed and soil condition.

The task of mapping all soils within NFS,with the cooperation of USDA’s NaturalResources Conservation Service, is con-tinuing and is over 50 percent complete.Annually, the Forest Service completesapproximately 30,000 acres to improve water and soil resources. Other significant ongoing activities include watershed in-ventory and analyses to better understandthe capability of watersheds to sustainforest land and rangeland health; partic-ipating in water rights adjudications; restoring desired watershed conditions onabandoned mines and hazardous mate-rials sites located on national forests;monitoring to determine air pollutionimpacts on visibility, water, and soilchemistry in wilderness areas; and lead-ing collaboration on large-scale water-shed restoration efforts.

Key Facts About Water, Soil,and Air:■ There are approximately 6,000 watersheds

on National Forest System lands that producean average 190 million acre-feet of waterannually.

■ There are 3,336 municipalities, serving 60million people, which get their tap water fromNFS lands.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water are supplied byNational Forest System municipal watershedsannually.

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designatedClass I for air quality protection totaling 15million acres. As of FY 2001, all of these areasare monitored for regional haze and part of anationwide multi-agency network.

■ There are 5 regional planning organizationsassessing strategies for improving visibility inclass/acreages. The Forest Service participatesin all of these. Strategies developed will im-prove air quality for all people.

■ About 600 remote weather data collectionplatforms are used in agricultural, fire,weather, and stream flow forecasting.

RangelandNFS rangeland is managed to conservethe land and its vegetation while provid-ing food for both livestock and wildlife.Under multiple-use concepts, grazingareas also serve as watersheds, wildlifehabitat, and recreation sites. Grazingprivileges are granted on national forestsand grasslands through paid permits;permittees cooperate with the ForestService in range improvement projects.

(National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) process decisions were made onallotments across the country in adher-ence to the Rescissions Act of 1995 (Pub-lic Law 104-19). The first 6 years of the15-year Rescissions Act schedule, 1996through 2001, ended with approximatelyone-third of all the livestock grazing al-lotments that needed environmental analyses being analyzed. Implementationof improved management was undertak-en on these allotments. Monitoring bothimplementation and effectiveness of themanagement actions has been under-taken and will continue into the future.

The noxious weed management programwas a success in FY 2000 with 143,938acres treated. The Forest Service in coop-eration with the States, counties, andcities worked together to prevent thespread of noxious weeds, treating exist-ing infestations, and educating citizensabout noxious weed problems.

Key Facts About Rangeland:■ In FY 2001, the Forest Service administered

8,783 grazing allotments.■ Permitted livestock grazing totaled approxi-

mately 9.4 million animal head months. (Ahead month is 1 month’s occupancy by anadult animal.)

■ By the end of 2001, 2,107 allotments under-went environmental analyses under the 1995Rescissions Act. Management decisions weremade on those that resulted in improvedrangeland vegetation.

■ In FY 2001, 143,938 acres of rangelands weretreated to control noxious weeds infestations.

■ Forage improvement took place on 33,667acres of rangelands in FY 2001.

■ In FY 2001, 1,357 structural improvementswere constructed on NFS rangelands to imple-ment management changes prescribed inrecent decisions.


Energy, Minerals, and GeologyExploration, development, and production of energy and minerals from NationalForest System lands contribute to eco-nomic growth, provide employment inrural communities, and raise revenuesthat are shared with the States. The en-ergy and minerals component of theprogram is directed at obtaining thesebenefits while ensuring operations areconducted in an environmentally soundmanner. In terms of the magnitude ofthe energy and minerals program, thereare approximately 5.3 million acresleased for oil and gas, over 150,000 min-ing claims, about 9,000 mineral materialsales contracts and permits, over 2,000new operations proposed each year, andmore than 15,000 operations to monitorand inspect. The largest coal mine in theUnited States is on NFS lands, and muchof the Nation’s phosphate and lead pro-duction comes from NFS lands. The val-ue of all energy and mineral productionexceeds $2.1 billion per year. Annual rev-enues are about $170 million, 25-50 per-cent of which is returned to the Stateswhere production occurs.

Key Facts About Forest ServiceEnergy, Minerals, and GeologyProgram■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands

provide more than $3.3 billion in private sectorrevenue.

■ 7 million acres where there is a possibility forcoal leasing (50 billion tons)

■ 45 million acres where there is a possibility foroil and gas leasing; 5.3 million acres leased

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits andquarries

■ Approximately 2,000 new operations requiringreview each year

■ Over 95 percent of domestic platinum/palladium comes from the Custer and GallatinNational Forests

■ Over 20,000 existing operations requiringmonitoring

■ 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, andgeologic organizations use the national forestsfor education and recreational purposes.

■ Recreational panning for gold is an activity thatis rapidly increasing.

■ The Forest Service manages fossil andgeologic sites of interest as resources forpresent and future generations, scientific,education, interpretive, recreational, andaesthetic values.

■ The most complete Champsosaurus skeletonin the world (55 million years old) came offLittle Missouri National Grasslands and is ondisplay at FS headquarters.

■ FS has partnerships with communities,States, and universities on managing thepaleontological resource.

Following are examples of energy andmineral 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 WildernessResourcesAmerica’s national forests and grasslands are the “gold crown” of outdoor settingswhere American and international visi-tors alike enjoy a wide variety of premierrecreation activities. From the TongassNational Forest in Alaska, where glaciersand coniferous forests abound, through the wild and scenic rivers of Idaho, to theheritage sites of the Jemez Mountains inNew Mexico and the tropical forest ofthe Caribbean National Forest in PuertoRico, recreation is outdoor fun on ournational forests and grasslands.

In partnership with six other Federalagencies, the Forest Service unveiled anInternet program that makes it possiblefor anyone with access to a computer tolearn about outdoor recreation opportu-nities on all Federal public lands. Visitwww.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 driv-ing for pleasure


■ 50 percent of habitat for salmon andtrout (lower 48 States)■ 80 percent of habitat for elk, bighornsheep, and mountain goat (lower 48States)■ 50 percent of public lands trail milesin the country

Key Recreation Facts:■ Wilderness areas 399 (34.7 million acres)■ 63 percent of National Wilderness Preservation

System managed by Forest Service in lower48 States

■ 34 percent of National Wilderness PreservationSystem managed by Forest Service in totalUnited States

■ 20 national recreation areas (NRA) (includesland between the lakes NRA)

■ 9 national scenic areas (NSA)■ 4 national monuments and volcanic monu-

ments (NM)■ 6.7 million acres of NRA, NSA, and NM (in-

cludes land between the lakes NRA)

Recreation Roads, Trails, and Rivers■ 136 (9,126 miles) national forest scenic by-

ways■ 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 PlanningSustainable and effective managementof National Forest System lands is de-pendent upon scientifically credibleinformation and collaborative planning.Sustainable management includes the continued existence and use of resourcesto meet human physical, economic, andsocial needs; the desire to preserve thehealth of ecosystems in perpetuity; andthe ethical choice of preserving optionsfor future generations while meeting theneeds of the present.

National Forest System planning con-sists of four basic activities that consti-tute a continuous planning framework:Inventory, Assessment, Land Manage-ment Planning, and Monitoring.

Key Facts about Inventory,Assessment, and Planning:■ Inventories of National Forest System re-

sources are currently being conducted at arefreshment rate of 15–18 years and total10,432,000 acres/year.

■ A total of 130 watersheds and 18 broad-scaleassessments were completed.

■ Land and Resource Management Plans havebeen prepared for 126 administrative units andinclude all national forests and grasslands.Revisions were initiated or completed on 11 units.

■ Annual reports of monitoring results wereprepared for 126 administrative units.

■ Each year the Forest Service produces:10,000 decision memorandums5,000 environmental assessments250 environmental impact statements

■ Over 1,200 projects, plans, and permit deci-sions were administratively appealed.

■ On average, the Forest Service had over 200lawsuits pending at any given time challengingresource management decisions.


Forest Vegetation ManagementApproximately 73 percent of the 192million acres of national forests is con-sidered forested. Of the forested land, 29percent is available for regularly sched-uled timber harvest and less than 1 per-cent is subject to some form of timberharvest treatment in any given year. Theremaining 71 percent of the forestedland is protected as wilderness, used forrecreation, or cannot be harvested dueto environmental or economic condi-tions such as steep slopes, fragile soils,and lack of feasible access.

Stewardship Demonstration ProjectsExperience has shown that the agency’s traditional tools for managing vegetation,i.e., the standard timber sale and servicecontracts, are oftentimes not well suited to addressing many of today’s most press-ing vegetative management needs, or toimplementing truly integrated resourcemanagement projects. The standard tim-ber sale contract was designed to dispose of commercially valuable timber, but many of today’s most important treat-ment needs—e.g., reducing excessive fuel loadings—often involve managing woodof little or no commercial value. The standard service contract can be a flexibleand powerful tool, but funding frequent-ly limits the amount of work that can beaccomplished in this manner.

Recognizing the problems associatedwith its traditional vegetative manage-ment tools, Congress gave the Forest Ser-vice the authority to test an array of newprocesses and procedures through a se-ries of 28 stewardship contracting end-results demonstration projects. The proj-ects that are undertaken are to addressone or more of the following resourcemanagement objectives: road and trailmaintenance or obliteration to restore ormaintain water quality; soil productivity,habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or otherresource values; setting of prescribedfires to improve the composition, struc-ture, condition, and health of stands orimprove wildlife habitat; noncommercialcutting or removing of trees or other ac-tivities to promote healthy forest stands,reduce fire hazards, or achieve othernoncommercial objectives; watershedrestoration and maintenance; restora-tion and maintenance of wildlife andfish habitat; and control of noxiousweeds and reestablishing native plantspecies. The new processes and proce-dures the agency may test include thefollowing: award of contracts on the ba-sis of best value, service contracts of upto 10 years’ duration, exchange of goodsfor services, retention of receipts, offer ofsales valued at over $10,000 without ad-vertisement, designation of timber to becut by description, and use of Stateforesters as Federal agents in helping toprepare and administer national foresttimber sales.

Passport in TimeThrough the Passport in Time program,the Forest Service offers unique, nontra-ditional recreation opportunities such asarchaeological excavation, historic struc-ture restoration, and wilderness surveys.These experiences foster environmentalstewardship while providing the publicwith unusual, educational experiences.

Passport in Time has over 13,000 volun-teers contributing over $5.2 millionworth of time and effort to preserve ourNation’s history by restoring historicstructures, stabilizing National Registereligible sites, evaluating sites for inclu-sion in the National Register of HistoricPlaces, working on projects in wilder-ness, and developing heritage interpre-


tive sites. Every activity is aimed at mak-ing our Nation’s unique history accessi-ble to the public and preserving it for fu-ture generations.

State and Private Forestry—ProvidingAssistance to Nonindustrial PrivateLandownersThe State and Private Forestry programsrepresent important tools for the moni-toring, management, protection, andbetter use of America’s forests, withemphasis on non-Federal forest landstewardship. These programs connectforestry to all land managers—whethersmall, urban woodlot owners, tribalforesters, State agencies, or Federal—inefficient, nonregulatory ways. Through acoordinated effort in management, pro-tection, and better use, the programs ofState and Private Forestry help facilitatesound forestry across ownerships on alandscape scale.

About 70 percent of America’s forestsare in State and private ownership, and80 percent of the wood fiber potentialcomes from these lands. These lands arealso critical to watershed conditions, fishand wildlife habitat, and the aestheticquality of the Nation’s landscape; andthey represent one of the best sources ofcarbon sequestration. Since these non-Federal forests represent most of theforests in our country, keeping theselands healthy, productive, and sustain-able in the rural and urban areas on acumulative basis is especially importantto the Nation. With increasing fragmen-tation and development pressure, theunique Federal role in maintaining thevalue and functions of these landsacross ownership divisions has neverbeen greater or more important.

Forest Health ProtectionThe Forest Service provides technicaland financial assistance to Federal agen-cies, tribal governments, States, and(through State foresters) privatelandowners. The Forest Service and Stateforesters participate in a forest health-monitoring program. With USDA’s Ani-mal and Plant Health Inspection Service,the Forest Service works to protect theNation’s forests from exotic insects, dis-eases, and plants. The Forest Service pro-

vides technical assistance in the safeand effective use of pesticides, sharesthe cost of insect and disease preventionand suppression projects with States,and funds prevention and suppressionprojects on Federal lands. The agencyalso evaluates and applies new, efficientand environmentally sensitive technolo-gies for forest health protection.


The Forest Legacy Program is designed to ef-fectively protect and conserve environ-mentally important forest areas that arethreatened by conversion to non-forestuses. These lands can be protectedthrough conservation easements andother mechanisms. This program isbased on the concept of “willing sellerand willing buyer” and is completelynonregulatory in its approach. No emi-nent domain authority or adverse con-demnation is authorized.

Economic Action ProgramsEconomic Action Programs (EAP)stimulate and assist natural resource-dependent rural communities and natural resource-based businesses to pursue self-sufficiency and sustainability. Special focus includes helping build rural busi-ness infrastructures to utilize and marketproducts from ecosystem managementoperations.

Key Facts about CooperativeForestry Programs:The Economic Action Programs as a whole and the funds from the National Fire Plan desig-nated for rural communities used over 1,700activities to build local capacity to address theirneeds and create opportunities. More than 650projects included funded activities aimed atmaintaining local community businesses. About25 projects in FY 2001 specifically included ac-tivities associated with natural resource-based business startups. Communities and organizationsused nearly 30 activities in FY 2001 associatedwith biomass or energy.

During FY 2001 the Rural Community Assis-tance Program provided technical or financialassistance to nearly 800 rural communities andorganizations. This total includes 81 tribes/tribalorganizations, 99 minority communities/organi-zations, and 133 underserved communities.Wildfire protection, prevention, and hazardousfuels management were incorporated into 180rural community strategic action plans.

In FY 2001 the Forest Products and Conser-vation Recycling Program provided technicaland financial assistance to1,456 individual busi-nesses that employed 10 or less people, 967businesses that employed 11 to 99 people, 193individual businesses that employed 100 or morepeople, and 596 assists were made to communi-ties and nonprofit organizations.

Cooperative Forestry—ProvidingAssistance to Nonindustrial PrivateLandowners (NIPF) and CommunityAreasCooperative Forestry supports the ForestService mission in two important ways.First, it helps meet the needs of presentand future generations by “connectingpeople to resources and ideas” and byassisting them to “sustain their commu-nities.” Second, it helps to sustain thehealth, diversity, and productivity of theNation’s forests and grasslands by help-ing people care for the land and its re-sources.

The Forest Stewardship Program promotessustainable management of America’snon-Federal forests by enabling 9.9million NIPF landowners—who own 48percent of the Nation’s forests—to bettermanage, protect, and use their naturalresources. In cooperation with Stateresource management agencies, theprogram assists forest landowners with planning and implementation of riparian restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement,forest stand improvement, and other as-pects of sustainable forest management.The program also assists NIPF landown-ers, on a voluntary, nonregulatory basisby providing technical and financial as-sistance, in cooperation with States, todevelop long-term forest stewardshipplans for the management of theirforests and related sources.


The Wood in Transportation Program in FY2001 funded six projects which were completedand closed. Those projects were six designedand constructed timber bridges. These projectsnot only resulted in a wooden timber bridge butalso assisted in providing technical assistance toengineers, highway officials, and others.

The Forest Stewardship Program was respon-sible for facilitating the development of morethan 50,000 forest management plans coveringjust over 4 million nonindustrial private forestland acres in FY 2000 and FY 2001.

Forest Legacy Program since 1992 has assist-ed in the protection of over 209,000 acres fromdevelopment. These lands have a value of rough-ly $124 million. Thirty-one States are participat-ing in the program.

Conservation Education“Through education, we connect peoplewith the land so they take informedactions to sustain natural and culturalresources.” This is the mission of ForestService 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 place-based learning about natural resourceson more than 192 million acres of forestsand grasslands within the National For-est System. It also provides an extensivedelivery network for CE through morethan 700 offices and 30,000 employees,as well as with partners such as Stateforesters. 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 ofthose in face-to-face educational experi-ences. Nearly 1 1⁄2 million people partici-pating in Forest Service’s CE programsand activities were students, and anoth-er 90,000 were teachers. Over 1⁄2 millionForest visitors participated in these pro-grams along with nearly 1 1⁄2 millionmembers of the general public.


The National Symbols Program: The NationalSymbols Program, a part of the Conser-vation Education Staff, provides leader-ship for the Smokey Bear, Woodsy Owl,and Junior Forest Ranger programs.

Each of these programs is designed to in-crease awareness and educate the gen-eral public about natural resource con-servation and fire prevention.

Smokey Bear: The Smokey Bear fire pre-vention campaign has been managed inpartnership with the Advertising Counciland the National Association of StateForesters for over 50 years. The SmokeyBear program is the cornerstone of theForest Service’s fire prevention program.Annual campaigns have contributed toSmokey’s popularity both nationally andinternationally, and several other coun-tries have adopted Smokey as their sym-bol for fire prevention.

In addition to speaking to elementary-school-age children, Smokey’s messageand image are also used to generateawareness among adults about the realcause of fire: forest fires caused by thepeople who would least expect to be the

cause of a fire, people like you. In 2001,Smokey’s message was changed to “Onlyyou can prevent wildfires!” The changehelps to include non-forested areas suchas grasslands, prairies, and rangelands inSmokey’s fire prevention campaign.

Junior Forest Ranger: In 1952, a SmokeyBear stuffed toy sold in stores includedan application to become a Junior ForestRanger. The response was overwhelming.More than 1⁄2 million children enrolled inthe program within the first 3 years. As aresult, the Junior Forest Ranger programwas established to augment and comple-ment a fire prevention classroom pro-gram that included hands-on activitiesled by teachers. Response to the programwas so enthusiastic that by 1960 Smokeywas given his own zip code to help thepostal service sort the mail generated bySmokey Bear and the Junior ForestRanger programs.

Youth who participate in the Junior ForestRanger program receive a packet includ-ing a plastic badge, wallet card, letter, andcertificate. Junior Forest Ranger is still apopular program, and over the next fewyears, the program will be refocused tosupport education about fire ecology aswell as fire prevention.

Woodsy Owl: Woodsy Owl is America’ssymbol for environmental quality, estab-lished by an Act of Congress in June 1974,to promote wise use of the environmentand programs that foster maintenanceand improvement of environmentalquality. Woodsy’s goals and objectivesand his look have been updated to re-flect today’s needs. Woodsy’s primaryaudience is children from pre-kinder-garten to third grade with special em-phasis on outreach to nontraditionalgroups, such as: Hispanics, Native Amer-icans, and inner-city children. An inno-vative program called Junior SnowRanger has been developed as part ofthe Woodsy Program to promote conser-vation ethics and an understanding ofwinter ecology. Junior Snow Ranger waspiloted at the 2002 Winter OlympicGames.


New Century of ServiceThe Forest Service will celebrate 100years of service to the American publicin 2005. Through New Century of Ser-vice, the Forest Service is commemorat-ing the many contributions that peopleof the Forest Service have made to theUnited States over the past 100 years,taking the lessons the agency haslearned and applying them to continueto provide world-class public service forthe next 100 years. New Century of Ser-vice is about the people of the agency,celebrating service, excellence, relation-ships and innovation. Activities takingplace nationally, regionally, and locallyinclude participation in the SmithsonianInstitution’s Folklife Festival in 2005;teaching natural resource conservationthrough visual and performing arts; nur-turing our commitment to communitiesthrough a forest fire lookout project andother activities.

Research and DevelopmentForestry research in the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture goes back a long way. In1876, Congress appropriated $2,000 tothe Department of Agriculture to gatherforestry information, and thus the Feder-al forestry research program was born.In 1908, Gifford Pinchot established thefirst research station within the newlyformed Forest Service in Fort Valley, AZ.The Forest Products Laboratory, whichwas established in Madison, WI, in 1910,distinguished itself in meeting the Na-tion’s demands during two World Warsand the housing needs of the boomingeconomy after that time period.

Currently, Forest Service Research andDevelopment has 132 laboratories in 70locations across the country. They areorganized within 6 research stations, thenational Forest Products Laboratory, andthe International Institute of TropicalForestry in Puerto Rico. Of the 192 mil-lion acres of forest and rangeland man-aged by the Forest Service, 408,600 acresare officially designated as ExperimentalForests.

Key Facts About Research and Development:■ Research and Development develops and

maintains key databases for enhancing foresthealth, productivity, and conservation, in-cluding an extensive portfolio of long-termresearch databases with many more than 60 years old.

■ About 525 permanent full-time scientists areworking on the productivity, health, and diver-sity of the temperate, boreal, and tropicalforests.

■ Research and Development scientists are heldto high standards of scientific ethics and manyare recognized worldwide for the quality oftheir work. All four of the U.S. scientists whoreceived the prestigious Marcus WallenbergAward (the forestry equivalent of the Nobel prize) are research and development scientists.

■ Research and Development manages 73experimental forests and ranges and 452 re-search natural areas devoted to long-termresearch.

■ Research and Development works with theNational Forest System and university partnerson a network of 62 long-term soil productivitysites across the United States and Canada withthe goal of monitoring management effects onsustainability and productivity.

■ The Forest Service provides leadership in trop-ical forestry through collaborative researchprograms at the International Institute of Tropi-cal Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute ofPacific Islands Forestry in Hawaii.

■ Scientific products in 2001 included more than5,678 publications, including patents, comput-er models, videos and books, that address thequestions and needs of natural resourcemanagers, other scientists, and the public.

■ Collaboration with research partners through794 domestic grants, agreements, and con-tracts total about $52 million of extramuralfunding.

■ In 2001, the Forest Inventory and Analysisprogram, including forest health detectionmonitoring conducted inventory on 75 percentof the Nation’s forest land across all owner-ships in 35 States and reported status andtrends in 115 inventory and monitoringreports.


Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programsprovide job opportunities, training, andeducation for the unemployed, under-employed, elderly, young, and otherswith special needs, while benefitinghigh-priority conservation work. In FY2001, these programs included morethan 108,700 participants and accom-plished over $115 million in conservationwork on Forest Service lands.

Through an agreement with the U.S.Department of Labor, the Forest Serviceoperates 18 co-educational Job CorpsCivilian Conservation Centers on ForestService lands. The Forest Service hasbeen operating Job Corps Centers since1965. The Job Corps program is the onlyFederal residential education/trainingprogram for the Nation’s disadvantagedyouth.

The Volunteers in the National Forestsprogram allows organizations and indi-viduals to donate their talents and serv-ices to help manage the Nation’s naturalresources.

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 conservationtraining and work opportunities on na-tional forests or in conjunction with Fed-eral programs. Programs are adminis-tered through agreements with Stateand county agencies, colleges, universi-ties, Indian tribes, and private and non-profit organizations.

Key Facts About HostedPrograms: ■ 8,333 participants ■ $16.3 million work accomplishment ■ 23 percent females ■ 29 percent minorities

Civil RightsThe Forest Service encourages a varietyof recruitment and community capacity-building efforts aimed at recruiting forpermanent professional positions andconducting program public outreach/technical assistance to underservedcommunities through Forest Serviceprograms, academic institutions, andpartners.

Office of International ProgramsThe Forest Service promotes technicalcooperation and develops support forsustainable forest management prac-tices worldwide. In addition, many indi-vidual research relationships exist be-tween Forest Service researchers andmanagers and their counterparts aroundthe world.

Key Facts About Job CorpsCivilian 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 partici-

pants enrolled)■ $8.42 average starting hourly wage■ 48 percent minorities

The Senior Community Service Employ-ment Program (SCSEP) is designed toprovide useful part-time employment,work experience, training, and transitionto public and private unsubsidized em-ployment for persons age 55 and over. A30th anniversary celebration is beingplanned for PAY 2001.

Key Facts About the SeniorCommunity Service EmploymentProgram: ■ 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, personsaged 15-18 accomplish projects that fur-ther the development and conservationof the United States’ natural resources.The agency was directed to use not lessthan $2 million of agency appropriations for high-priority projects to be carried outby the Youth Conservation Corps program.

Key Facts About the YouthConservation 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


Key Facts About the Impact of International Programs: ■ Through involvement with industry, State

foresters, and major nongovernmental organi-zations, 12 countries forged a consensus on aset of criteria and indicators for assessingprogress towards sustainable forestmanagement.

■ International collaboration on research andmonitoring help to reduce the impact of inva-sive pests such as the Asian gypsy moth andhemlock woolly adelgid, which have severeimpacts on timber resources.

■ Partnerships with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited to restore waterfowl habitatwill increase the populations of waterfowl thatmigrate to the Western and SouthwesternUnited States from Mexico and further south.

■ A program with the Federal Forest Service ofRussia, the State of Alaska, and U.S. compa-nies and nongovernmental organizations willhelp to ensure that Russians have access tothe best environmental technology as petrole-um resources on Sakhalin Island are devel-oped. This will promote increased employmentin Alaska and preserve salmon fisheriesaround Sakhalin Island and Alaska.

Law Enforcement and InvestigationsThe Forest Service Law Enforcement andInvestigations (LEI) program is charged with providing a safe environment for the public and our employees on NationalForest System (NFS) lands and protectingnatural resources and other propertyunder the agency’s jurisdiction. Law En-forcement and Investigations cooperates with Federal, State and local law enforce-ment agencies and other Forest Serviceprograms to achieve these goals. The LEIstaff provide high-visibility uniformedpatrol presence and prompt response topublic and employee safety incidentsand violations of law and regulation.They conduct criminal investigationsand maintain strong relationships withcooperating law enforcement agencies.While the FS does not have immigrationauthority, our drug enforcement authori-ties and other responsibilities on thehundreds of miles of contiguous NFSlands along both the Southwest andNorthern Border require FS and LEI per-sonnel to maintain a steadfast vigilanceand presence in these areas.

In addition, they reduce the production of domestic cannabis and other controlled substances and smuggling of illegaldrugs through NFS lands. The NationalForest System Drug Control Act of 1986,amended in 1988, placed primary re-sponsibility on the Forest Service forFederal drug enforcement on NFS lands.Three primary drug enforcement issuesaffect NFS lands: (1) marijuana cultiva-tion, (2) methamphetamine production,and (3) smuggling across the U.S./Mexicoand U.S./Canada borders.

Key Facts About LawEnforcement andInvestigations—Calendar Year 2001■ LEI has approximately 490 uniformed officers

patrolling NFS lands nationwide and 120criminal investigators.

■ LEI made more than a million public contactsfor a variety of reasons, such as providinggeneral information, obtaining information oncriminal matters, and assisting with visitors’problems.

■ LEI personnel responded to 215,593 incidentsof violation including on- and off-road vehicles,wilderness, fire and forest products, damageto government property and natural resources,as well as emergency responses such assearch and rescue.

■ LEI conducted 1,908 serious misdemeanorand felony investigations for timber and otherforest product theft, archeological violations,wild land fire, controlled substances, employeethreats, assaults, and other resource andproperty-related crimes.

■ LEI had oversight of 172 internal and hotlinecomplaints against agency employees andprograms.

■ LEI entered into 527 cooperative agreementswith State and local law enforcement agenciesto provide reimbursement for enforcement ofState and local laws on NFS lands in regularpatrol functions, and 61 cooperative agree-ments for drug enforcement activities.

■ LEI eradicated 719,985 marijuana plants fromNFS lands.

■ LEI seized nearly 90,000 pounds of processedmarijuana being smuggled into the UnitedStates across the southwest border.

■ LEI located 102 methamphetamine labs and242 chemical dumpsites on NFS lands andseized 153.5 pounds of methamphetamine.

■ Through a partnership with the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy, LEI received$500,000 for the National Marijuana PublicLands Initiative.


Natural Resources Conservation Service

IntroductionAs the Nation’s lead Federal agency ad-dressing private lands conservation, theNatural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) provides technical assistance andadministers a wide range of programs to help solve this country’s natural resource problems.

Our well-being depends on healthy,productive natural resources and theirsustainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the programs that address these resources are interrelated,and programs that help one resource al-so benefit others. Protecting the soil fromerosion, for example, also enhances soilproductivity and protects water and airquality. Improving the environment en-hances the economic future of commu-nities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide na-tional leadership, in a partnership effort,to help people conserve, improve, andsustain the Nation’s natural resourcesand environment. NRCS’ authorizinglegislation directs the agency to assistresource owners, operators, and man-agers in conserving soil, water, and relat-ed resources. Conservation of naturalresources is necessary to ensure that theNation’s people enjoy the benefits of:■ A productive resource base supportinga strong agricultural sector■ A high-quality natural environment■ Watersheds and water supplies thatare protected against risks imposed byweather and climate■ A healthy economy and high qualityof life in rural communities

A Partnership Approach to Resource ConservationFor nearly seven decades, NRCS em-ployees have worked side by side withlandowners, conservation districts, re-source conservation and developmentcouncils, tribes, State and local govern-ments, and urban and rural partners torestore and enhance the American land-scape. The agency helps landowners and

communities take a comprehensive ap-proach in conservation planning, work-ing 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 solvethe natural resource challenges on theNation’s private lands—reducing soilerosion, improving soil and rangelandhealth, protecting water quality and sup-ply, conserving wetlands, and providingfish and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’snetwork of local, county-based offices,including those in Puerto Rico and thePacific Basin. The rest are at State, re-gional, and national offices, providingtechnology, policy, and administrativesupport. They serve all people who liveand work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of the agency’s technical assis-tance goes to helping farmers andranchers develop conservation systemsuniquely suited to their land and theirways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban com-munities curb erosion, conserve andprotect water, and solve other resourceproblems. American Indian tribes, AlaskaNatives, Pacific Islanders, and other na-tive groups work with NRCS on a varietyof initiatives that include resource in-ventories and the adaptation of conser-vation programs to fit the special needsof their people and their land. Also,countries around the globe seek NRCS’advice on building their own conserva-tion delivery systems and in coping withsevere natural resource problems.

NRCS provides locally based conserva-tion assistance in cooperation with con-servation districts through a nationwidenetwork of local field offices. Locallybased NRCS technical staff work directlywith individual farmers, ranchers, localand State officials and employees, andcommunity groups, providing them tech-nical, financial, and information assis-tance. In fiscal year 2001, NRCS providedassistance to 2.4 million farmers, ranch-ers, 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.


Erosion and Sediment ControlWhile NRCS has cut erosion on croplandby 38 percent between 1982 and 1997,soil erosion continues to threaten agri-cultural productivity on about one-thirdof our Nation’s cropland. During fiscalyear 2001, NRCS helped landowners plan and apply resource management systems on 9.5 million acres of cropland. Theagency protected 3.5 million acres ofcropland from excessive wind and watererosion and applied erosion controlmeasures on 9.3 million acres of land,resulting in reducing soil loss by 257million tons.

Important FarmlandsFarmland, one of America’s greatesttreasures, continues to be converted tononagricultural uses. Between 1982 and1997, every State lost some high-qualityfarmland to urban development. Accord-ing to the National Resources Inventory,on average, 666,000 acres of prime farm-land are converted each year to non-agricultural uses. This amounts to morethan 70 acres per hour each day.

NRCS, working through State, tribal, orlocal government partnerships, has beenable to protect important farmland in-cluding prime, unique, statewide or lo-cally important soils. Since 1996, NRCShas entered into agreements in 29 Statesto leverage funds to protect more than100,000 acres of agricultural lands frombeing converted to non-agricultural uses.

Wetlands, Fish and WildlifeWetlands provide vital wildlife habitatand help trap nutrients and sedimentbefore they enter our streams. Loss of wetlands is still a concern; however,landowners have begun to restore,protect, and enhance this resource in aserious way. Since 1992, the net loss ofwetland acreage on agricultural land hasdecreased dramatically. Continuing thereduction in net loss trend, in fiscal year2001, wetlands were created, restored, orenhanced on 362,000 acres with NRCStechnical and financial assistance.

NRCS Technical AssistanceNRCS provides Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) to improve and conserve natural resources. This assistance is basedon voluntary local landowner cooperation.CTA is the foundation upon which NRCSdelivers its services, through local con-servation districts, to private landowners,communities, and others who care fornatural resources. CTA is the intellectualcapital of the agency; experts in soils and other physical and biological sciences,with knowledge of local conditions, workwith private landowners in the steward-ship of our natural resources.

CTA provides the infrastructure throughwhich the agency is able to respond to amultitude of needs, from natural disas-ter recovery to complex site-specificnatural resource problems. CTA is themeans by which this Nation is able tovoluntarily bring about land stewardshipthat improves our soil, water, wildlife,and air resources while providing forsustainable agricultural production. Theinvestments in CTA return to the Ameri-can public significant benefits, rangingfrom an improved environment andquality of life to a safe and abundantfood supply.


NRCS provided assistance to 2.4 millionfarmers, ranchers, and other customers.The agency earned an American Customer Satisfaction Index rating of 81 from asample of landowners who received con-servation technical assistance (CTA). Theaverage score for all government agen-cies in the survey was 71. Customersgave NRCS an extremely high rating of90 on trust, which is measured bywhether the customer will (1) become anadvocate for CTA and (2) request servic-es or information from the agency in thefuture.

Wetlands Reserve ProgramThe Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) isa voluntary program to restore wetlands.Participating landowners can establishconservation easements of either per-manent or 30-year duration or can enterinto restoration cost-share agreementswhere no easement is involved. In ex-change for establishing a permanenteasement, the landowner receives pay-ment up to the agricultural value of theland and 100 percent of the restorationcosts for restoring the wetland. The 30-year easement payment is 75 percent ofwhat would be provided for a permanenteasement on the same site and 75 per-cent of the restoration cost. The restora-tion cost-share agreements are for aminimum 10-year duration and providefor 75 percent of the cost of restoring theinvolved wetlands. At the end of fiscalyear 2001, 1,074,245 acres were enrolledin WRP.

Environmental Quality Incentives ProgramThe Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP) works primarily withlocally identified significant natural re-source concerns, such as soil erosion,water quality and quantity, wildlife habi-tat, wetlands, and forest and grazinglands. Activities must be carried outaccording to a conservation plan. The program offers financial, educational, andtechnical help to install or implementstructural, vegetative, and managementpractices called for in 1- to 10-year con-tracts. Cost sharing may pay up to 75percent of the costs of certain conserva-tion practices. Nationally, at least 60percent of the funding for this programis targeted to livestock-related naturalresource concerns and the remainder toother significant conservation priorities.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program(WHIP) provides financial incentives todevelop habitat for fish and wildlife onprivate lands. Participants agree to im-plement a wildlife habitat developmentplan and USDA agrees to provide cost-share assistance for the initial imple-mentation of wildlife habitat development practices. USDA and program participants enter into 5- to 10-year cost-share agree-ments. Since WHIP began in 1998, nearly11,000 participants have enrolled morethan 1.6 million acres into the program.In fiscal year 2001, NRCS utilized $12.5million to enroll nearly 2,300 agreementson nearly 212,000 acres.

Conservation Security Program The Conservation Security Program (CSP)is a voluntary program that provides fi-nancial and technical assistance for theconservation, protection, and improve-ment of soil, water, air, energy, plant andanimal life, and other conservation pur-poses on tribal and private workinglands. The program provides paymentsfor producers who practice good stew-ardship on their agricultural lands andincentives for those who want to domore. CSP assistance is authorized in the2002 Farm Bill and the program will beavailable in fiscal year 2003.

Eligible producers who own or controlagricultural land may participate by sub-mitting a conservation security plan andentering into an agreement with USDA.Participants must maintain or establishconservation treatment to specific levelsof natural resource conservation protec-tion on their land in exchange for an an-nual payment. Under certain conditions,participants would be eligible for renew-al of the agreement in subsequent years.NRCS, or any other USDA-approvedsource, will provide technical assistanceto the participant on the required con-servation measures. Innovation and theuse of new technologies are encouraged.Conservation achieved through the CSPwill help ensure the sustainability offarms and ranches and improve the con-dition of natural resources on our Nation’sworking lands.

Farmland Protection ProgramThe Farmland Protection Program (FPP) is a voluntary program that helps farmersand ranchers keep their land in agricul-ture. The program provides matching funds to State, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizationswith existing farmland protection pro-grams to purchase conservation ease-ments or other interests in land. NRCSmanages the program. In fiscal year2001, NRCS entered into 57 cooperativeagreements with State and local govern-ments and non-governmental organiza-tions to protect an estimated 34,900acres of farmland from conversion tononagricultural uses through the pro-gram. Through 2001, more than 108,000acres have been protected in 28 States.

Soil SurveysThe National Cooperative Soil Survey in-formation constitutes one of the largestand most valuable natural resourcedatabases in the world. NRCS conductssoil surveys cooperatively with otherFederal agencies, land-grant universities,State agencies, and local units of govern-ment. Soil surveys provide the publicwith local information on the uses andcapabilities of their soil resource. Soilsurveys are based on scientific analysisand classification of the soils and areused to determine land capabilities andconservation treatment needs. The pub-


lished soil survey for a county or desig-nated area includes maps and interpre-tations with explanatory informationthat is the foundation of resource policy,planning, and decisionmaking for Feder-al, State, county, and local communityprograms. In fiscal year 2001, NRCSmapped or updated 24.4 million acres ofsoils and provided 139 soil surveys indigital format. Soil survey mapping has been completed on more than 96 percentof the Nation’s private land, 78 percent of American Indian lands, and 82 percentof public lands. In addition, more than 1,270 soil surveys have been digitized andmade available for resource assessments.

Snow Survey and Water SupplyForecastsNRCS field staff collect snow informa-tion through a network of 660 SnowTelemetry (SNOTEL) sites and 1,100manual snow courses to provide 13Western States with water supply fore-casts. The data are collected, assembled,and analyzed to make water supply fore-casts, which provide estimates of avail-able seasonal yield, spring runoff, andsummer stream flow. In fiscal year 2001,9,000 water supply forecasts for Federal,State, and local water resource planningpurposes were issued to 69,000 waterusers and managers. Snowmelt providesapproximately 80 percent of the streamflow in the West. Snow data and watersupply forecasts are used by individuals,organizations, and State and Federalagencies to make decisions relating toagricultural production, fish and wildlifemanagement, recreation, power genera-tion, water quality management, andemergency flood and snow safety man-agement. Current and historical data,water supply forecasts, and drought riskassessments are available at:http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov

Plant Materials CentersNRCS employees at 26 Plant MaterialsCenters assemble, test, and encourageincreased plant propagation and useful-ness of plant species for biomass pro-duction, carbon sequestration, erosionreduction, wetland restoration, waterquality improvement, streambank andriparian area protection, coastal dunestabilization, and to meet other specialconservation treatment needs. The workis carried out cooperatively with Stateand Federal agencies, universities, com-mercial businesses, and seed and nurs-ery associations. After species are proveneffective for conservation purposes, theyare released to the private sector forcommercial production. NRCS has re-leased nearly 540 varieties of conserva-tion plants to commercial producers.Nearly 250 improved varieties are now incommercial production and used in con-servation programs. In fiscal year 2001,NRCS released 24 new conservationplants for commercial or private use andevaluated 424 plant material studies.The agency also provided data to 1.2 mil-lion customers through the PLANTSdatabase Web site. NRCS plant informa-tion is available on the Web at:http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov

Small Watershed ProgramThe Small Watershed Program worksthrough local government sponsors andhelps participants solve natural resourceproblems of a specific watershed. Projectpurposes include watershed protection,flood prevention, erosion and sedimentcontrol, water supply, water quality, fishand wildlife habitat enhancement, wet-lands creation and restoration, and pub-lic recreation in watersheds of 250,000acres or less. Both technical and finan-cial assistance are available. In fiscalyear 2001, communities realized a totalof $1.62 billion worth of benefits fromsmall watershed projects.

Emergency Watershed ProtectionThe Emergency Watershed Protection(EWP) Program is designed to reducethreats to life and property in the wakeof natural disasters. It provides technicaland cost-sharing assistance. Assistanceincludes establishing vegetative cover;installing streambank protection de-vices; removing debris and sediment;and stabilizing levees, channels, and gul-lies. In subsequent storms, EWP projectsprotect homes, businesses, highways,and public facilities from further dam-age. Floodplain easements under EWPmay be purchased to help prevent futurelosses due to natural disasters. In fiscalyear 2001, nearly 2 million persons bene-fited from EWP efforts.

Watershed OperationsThe Flood Control Act of 1944 authorizedNRCS to administer watershed works of improvement. Flood prevention operationsinclude planning and installing improve-ments and land treatment measures forflood prevention; for the conservation,development, utilization, and disposal ofwater; and for the reduction of sedimen-tation and erosion damages. This alsomay include the development of recre-ational 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 impactedby flooding, and work plans were com-pleted on 24 million acres. These plansprovide project implementation guid-ance to local sponsors.


Watershed Surveys and PlanningNRCS cooperates with other Federal,State, and local agencies in conductingriver basin surveys and investigations,flood hazard analysis, and flood plainmanagement assistance to aid in the de-velopment of coordinated water resource programs, including the development ofguiding principles and procedures. Coop-erative river basin studies are made up ofagricultural, rural, and upstream waterand land resources to identify resourceproblems and determine corrective ac-tions needed. These surveys address avariety of natural resource concerns,including water quality improvement;opportunities for water conservation;wetland and water storage capacity;agricultural drought problems; ruraldevelopment; municipal and industrialwater needs; upstream flood damages;and water needs for fish, wildlife, andforest-based industries. Flood plain man-agement assistance includes the identifi-cation of flood hazards and the locationand use of wetlands. NRCS representsUSDA on river basin regional entitiesand river basin interagency committeesfor coordination among Federal Depart-ments and States. In fiscal year 2001, thetotal financial obligation to support lo-cally led watershed group actions wasapproximately $112 million.

Resource Conservation andDevelopment ProgramThe Resource Conservation and Develop-ment (RC&D) Program provides a frame-work for local people to join together toimprove their community’s economy, en-vironment, and living standards. RC&Dareas are locally organized, sponsored,and directed. USDA provides technical andfinancial assistance and helps sponsors secure funding and services from Federal,State, and local sources. The major em-phasis is environmental conservation and rural development. To date, 368 areas across the Nation (plus the Caribbeanand Pacific Basin) have been designatedby the Secretary of Agriculture as RC&Dareas. They serve more than 85 percentof U.S. counties and more than 77 per-cent of the U.S. population.

Each year, these locally organized anddirected areas create thousands of newjobs, protect thousands of miles of waterbodies, conserve hundreds of thousandsof acres of land, and improve the qualityof life in hundreds of communities.RC&D areas are run by a council ofvolunteers who serve without pay. Morethan 20,000 volunteers are serving onand with RC&D councils. In fiscal year2001, RC&Ds completed more than 3,000projects. These resulted in 500 business-es created and 1,800 businesses expand-ed; 7,500 jobs created; and 5,000 miles ofstreams and 880,000 acres of wildlifehabitat improved. More than 283,000people learned new job skills and nearly780,000 economically and socially disad-vantaged people were served.

National Resources InventoryNRCS conducts an inventory on the con-dition and trends of natural resources onnon-Federal land. From 1982 to 1997, theinventory was conducted every 5 years.Starting in 2000, NRCS began collectingdata each year. The National ResourcesInventory (NRI) contains the most com-prehensive and statistically reliable dataof its kind in the world. It measurestrends in soil erosion by water and wind;wetland losses; prime farmland acreage;irrigation; and habitat and conservationtreatment at national, regional, State,and sub-State levels.

Conservation of Private Grazing LandProgramThe Conservation of Private GrazingLand Program (CPGL) is a voluntary pro-gram that provides technical assistancefrom NRCS to owners and managers of private grazing land. Private grazing land,the largest agricultural land use, consti-tutes nearly half of the non-Federal landof the United States. This vast area con-tributes significantly to the quantity andquality of water available for use andsupports some of the most extensivewildlife habitats in the Nation. NRCSprovides technical assistance to ownersand managers of private grazing land forthe long-term productivity and ecologi-cal health of grazing land. In fiscal year2001, through CPGL, NRCS helped land-owners apply resource management sys-tems on 11.3 million acres of grazingland and prescribed grazing on 18.6million acres.

National Conservation Buffer InitiativeIn April 1997, USDA launched a newpublic-private partnership called the Na-tional Conservation Buffer Initiative tohelp landowners install 2 million milesof conservation buffers by the year 2002.Agricultural producers and otherlandowners who install buffers can im-prove soil, air, and water quality; en-hance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversi-ty; and create scenic landscapes.

Conservation buffers are areas or stripsof land maintained in permanent vege-tation and designed to intercept pollu-tants. Buffers can be installed alongstreams or in uplands—within cropfields, at the edge of crop fields, or out-side the margins of a field.


The National Conservation Buffer Initia-tive is a multi-year effort led by NRCSin cooperation with other USDA agencies,State conservation agencies, conservation districts, agribusinesses, and agriculturaland environmental organizations.

To date, about 1.3 million miles of buffers,or nearly 65 percent of the national goal,have been established under the Conser-vation Reserve Program, EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program, WetlandsReserve Program, and other USDAprograms.

International ProgramsNRCS helps improve the managementand conservation of natural resourcesglobally. Participation in collaborativeefforts with other countries results inbenefits to the United States and in ac-complishment of the NRCS mission.During fiscal year 2001, NRCS specialistscompleted 188 assignments to nearly 40countries. The objectives of the assign-ments were to provide short- and long-term technical assistance and leadershipfor the development of natural resourceconservation programs and projects andexchange conservation technology withcountries that face soil and water con-servation issues similar to those in thiscountry.

NRCS provided opportunities for approx-imately 250 foreign nationals from morethan 35 countries to gain a better under-standing of natural resource conservationactivities by observing and discussing con-servation programs in the United States.

Agricultural Air QualityThe Task Force on Agricultural AirQuality makes recommendations to theSecretary of Agriculture with regard tothe scientific basis for agriculture’s im-pact on air quality. The task force ischarged with strengthening and coordi-nating USDA air quality research effortsto determine the extent to which agri-cultural activities contribute to air pollu-tion and to identify cost-effective waysin which the agricultural industry canimprove air quality.

To date, the task force has submitted tothe Secretary of Agriculture recommen-dations and priorities for research em-phasizing the need for credible scienceon which to base regulation and subse-quent conservation practices for mitiga-tion of emissions. The top three prioritiesrecommended are related to NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards for PM10,PM2.5 and ozone, and animal waste odor.

Backyard Conservation CampaignIn 1998, NRCS developed a nationalBackyard Conservation Campaign to tellnon-farm audiences about the good con-servation work being done by America’sfarmers and ranchers. The campaignfeatures 10 common conservation prac-tices, such as composting, mulching, treeplanting, nutrient management, and wa-ter conservation, and shows how minia-ture versions can work in just about anybackyard—whether measured in acres,feet, or flower pots.

Farmers and ranchers already havemade progress in natural resource con-servation by protecting and restoringwetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat,and reducing soil erosion. There arenearly 2 billion acres of land in the Unit-ed States. Most of that land, 1.4 billionacres, is managed by farmers and ranch-ers. However, more than 92 million acresare privately developed, and much ofthis land is tended by homeowners.These homeowners can join the conser-vation tradition right in their own back-yards to curb water pollution and im-prove wildlife habitat. For moreinformation on this campaign or agencyprograms, visit the NRCS Web site athttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov

CHAPTER 11

Research, Education, andEconomics


Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS)is the principal in-house scientific re-search agency of the USDA. The agencyis committed to providing access to agri-cultural information and developing newknowlege and technology needed to solvetechnical agricultural problems. Researchis done to ensure an abundance of high-quality, safe food and other agricuturalproducts to meet the nutritional needsof the American consumer, to sustain aviable economy, and to maintain a quali-ty environment and natural resourcebase. Research is conducted at the ARSheadquarters in Beltsville, MD, as well asthroughout over 100 national laborato-ries in the United States.

ARS research has contributed to improved crop yields and more environmentallysensitive farming techniques. In addition to enhancing productivity, today’s agricul-tural research is as much about humanhealth as it is about crop production.

For example, a powerful but expensiveanticancer drug could become moreplentiful, thanks to a new process devel-oped by ARS scientists. The processmakes the drug—called taxol—from lab-oratory-cultured cells of its increasinglyrare natural source, the yew tree. Thenew process is 100 times more produc-tive than the original process for deriv-ing taxol, which was patented by USDAin 1991. Taxol is a potent chemotherapydrug for breast, ovarian, lung, and othercancers. Under the original process, ittook about 6,700 pounds of bark fromrare yew trees to make a pound of taxol.

ARS research is also as much about de-velopment of new products and new cropvarieties. One environmentally friendlyproduct now on the market grew out ofARS research showing that adding alumto poultry litter helps reduce runoff ofnutrients from the litter into groundwa-ter and surface waterways. The alum re-duces phosphorus runoff by 70 percent,reduces the litter’s ammonia vapors—

ARS Research: Selected HighlightsARS scientists in Peoria, IL, and in New Orleans and Philadelphia have found a way to extract ahealth-enhancing oil from a waste byproductof the corn processing industry. The scientificteam started with corn fiber, a low-valuebyproduct of corn milling that’s now sold as alow-cost ingredient in cattle rations. From thatcorn fiber, they’ve extracted an oil that, in testswith hamsters, lowered total serum choles-terol levels and LDL cholesterol, the type thatclogs arteries. They’ve also extracted a secondproduct from corn fiber, a white gum thatcould be used in a variety of products—infood as an emulsifier, as a soluble dietary fiberor thickener, or as industrial adhesives andwater-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 stud-ies, eating plenty of foods with these beneficial substances, called antioxidants, raised the power of human blood to defuse harmful inter-nal substances called oxidants by up to 25 per-cent. 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 Arboretumhas yielded two new elm trees resistant to the Dutch elm disease that has ravaged theAmerican elm population since the 1940s,wiping out an estimated 77 million elms. Thetwo new resistant elms from ARS are calledValley Forge and New Harmony. Also, ARSresearchers recently unveiled two new mapletrees for American streets and yards: RedRocket, a fiery-red maple cultivar with pestresistance and the ability to grow where tem-peratures dip to –40 degrees, and New World,which also has pest and cold resistance and isan excellent shade tree, as well as an idealchoice for city landscaping.

ARS research on natural resources uncovereda reason to celebrate: American farmers have crossed an auspicious environmental boundary and begun reducing the level of atmosphericcarbon dioxide rather than adding to it. CO2 isone of the greenhouse gases thought to causeglobal warming. The ARS study showed that

U.S. farmers have shifted from being net pro-ducers of carbon dioxide to net accumulatorsof carbon, in the form of valuable soil organicmatter. The changeover was due largely tofarmers’ increasing abandonment of a cher-ished symbol of past American agriculture, themoldboard plow used to break up the prairies.Instead, many farmers now leave crop residueon or near the soil surface, where the residuereadily decays to organic matter.

For decades, USDA has battled scrapie, a fatalbrain disease of sheep and goats. Now, thefirst preclinical, noninvasive test for scrapieshould be available in a few years as a resultof ARS research. Reliable diagnosis of scrapie is the first step to eradicating the disease, which would greatly improve U.S. sheep and goat ex-port opportunities. ARS scientists discoveredthat the nictitating membrane, or third eyelid,in sheep collects proteins known as prions.Abnormal prions are the infectious agentsbelieved to cause scrapie. The researchersdeveloped a new laboratory-built molecule,called a monoclonal antibody, that detects thepresence of the abnormal prions. The test willeventually allow veterinarians to detectscrapie before animals show clinical signs.

Research, Education, and Economics | 135

which can physically damage the chick-ens and cause respiratory problems forpoultryhouse workers—and reducesheavy metal runoff such as copper, zinc,and iron by up to 50 percent. The ARS-patented technology is now used bypoultry growers across the United Statesand in Canada.

On the crops side, a new potato variety known as AWN86514-2 is highly resistantto attack by late blight, the disease thatcaused the Irish potato famine of the1840s. Late blight is caused by a fungus,Phytophthora infestans. New, more aggres-sive strains of the fungus that are fungi-cide-resistant have appeared in recentyears, so breeders have been scramblingto find potatoes with natural resistance.The new potato held up well in testswhen attacked by the newest and mostvirulent strains of the fungus. That’sgood news for consumers, because theaverage American eats about 143 poundsof potatoes a year, making potatoes theNation’s favorite vegetable. ARS releasedthe new potato in collaboration withagricultural experiment stations inOregon, Idaho, and Washington.

ARS research provides solutions to a wide range of problems related to agriculture—problems that require the long-termcommitment of resources or that areunlikely to have solutions with a quickcommercial payoff that would tempt pri-vate industry to do the research. These problems range from fighting the ongoingbattle to protect crops and livestock fromcostly pests and diseases, to improvingthe quality and safety of agricultural commodities and products for humans, tomaking the best use of natural resources.All the while, the research results musthelp ensure profitability for producersand processors while keeping downcosts for consumers.

For more information about ARS, see itshome 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 LibraryThe National Agricultural Library (NAL) was established as part of the Department of Agriculture in 1862 under legislationsigned by President Abraham Lincoln.Part of the Agricultural Research Service(ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, NAL is the largest agricultural li-brary in the world, with a collection ofover 3.3 million items.

It is the mission of the National Agri-cultural Library to serve as the chiefagricultural information resource of theUnited States, ensuring and enhancingaccess to agricultural information for abetter quality of life.

The library serves national and inter-national customers, including researchers,farmers, educators, policymakers, agricul-tural producers, and the general public.A key NAL goal is to become a “librarywithout walls,” a library whose collectionand services are available electronicallythroughout the world. By adapting elec-tronic information technology to itsneeds, the library is well on its way tomeeting this goal with worldwide acces-sibility over the Internet.

Over 48 miles of bookshelves hold the NALcollection. Materials in the collection in-clude the latest electronic resources aswell as books, journals, reports, photo-graphs, films, videotapes, maps, artwork,and historic materials dating to the 16thcentury. Tens of thousands of new itemsare added each year. The collection is in-ternational in scope and includes itemsin nearly 75 foreign languages.

The library is located in Beltsville, MD,on the grounds of the ARS Beltsville Agri-cultural Research Center. In addition tobeing the agricultural library for theNation, NAL is also the departmentallibrary for USDA, serving thousands ofUSDA employees around the globe. NALis a key resource in USDA’s scientific andresearch activities. About 170 peoplework at NAL, including librarians, com-puter specialists, information specialists,administrators, and clerical personnel.Volunteers ranging from college stu-dents to retired persons work on variousprograms at NAL too. The library has an


services on topics such as alternativefarming systems, animal welfare, foodand nutrition, technology transfer, ruraldevelopment, and water quality.

For walk-in visitors, the library is openfrom 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern time,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays. Many of NAL’s services areavailable anytime through the NALhomepage.

NAL can be contacted at:The National Agricultural LibraryAgricultural Research Service, USDA10301 Baltimore AvenueBeltsville, MD 20705-2351(301) 504-5755E-mail: [email protected]

active visiting scholar program as well,which allows professors, scientists, andlibrarians from universities worldwide tointern at NAL on projects of mutual in-terest.

AGRICOLA (AGRICultural OnLine Access)is NAL’s bibliographic database providingaccess to the NAL collection. AGRICOLAcontains nearly 3.5 million citations toagricultural literature and is available onthe Internet through the NAL home pageat http://www.nal.usda.gov. NAL providesreference and document delivery servic-es in all aspects of agriculture. It also in-cludes specialized information centersthat provide customized information

NAL Selected Highlights:

■ Electronic Delivery of DocumentsExpands and Preservation PlansDeveloped

Working toward its goal of becoming a“library without walls,” NAL encouragesits patrons to send requests and receivematerials electronically. Requests submit-ted electronically to NAL account forabout 80 percent of all document deliveryrequests received. NAL has also signifi-cantly increased its electronic delivery ofmaterials to patrons. This number is near-ly 40 percent. NAL has take the lead indeveloping plans to preserve USDA elec-tronic publications. Preservation andlong-term access of these publicationsare an important issue due to theephemeral nature of electronic formats.

■ Dietary Supplement DatabaseEstablished

In its continuous effort to keep abreast ofkey issues affecting U.S. food and nutri-tion, NAL, working with the National Insti-tutes of Health, has launched an Internetsite on dietary supplements. The user-friendly database helps researchers andconsumers find current information onthe growing number of supplementsavailable. For more information about thedatabase, visit the Web site at: http://ods.od.nih.gov/databases/ibids.html


Cooperative State Research, Education,and Extension Service

The Cooperative State Research, Educa-tion, and Extension Service (CSREES)sees agriculture as a knowledge-based,global enterprise sustained by the inno-vation of scientists and educators. Itsmission is to advance knowledge foragriculture, the environment, humanhealth and well-being, and communities.

CSREES works with land-grant univer-sities, historically Black colleges and uni-versities (HBCUs), Hispanic and NativeAmerican institutions, as well as univer-sities and other public and private or-ganizations to advance research, exten-sion, and higher education in the foodand agricultural sciences and in relatedenvironmental and human sciences. Itsprograms increase and provide access toscientific knowledge, strengthen the ca-pabilities of State universities, expandaccessibility and use of improved com-munication and network systems, andpromote informed decisionmaking.

CSREES links the research and education resources and activities of USDA, improv-ing customer service and responsiveness to emerging issues and national priorities.CSREES programs focus on improvingeconomic, environmental, and socialconditions in the United States and glob-ally. These conditions include improved agricultural productivity and development of new products; safer food; cleaner water and air; enhanced stewardship and man-agement of natural resources; healthierand more responsible individuals, fami-lies, and communities; and a stable, se-cure, diverse, and affordable food supply.

The CSREES domestic and internationalresearch, education, and extension net-works are strengthened with partner-ships that maximize resources and pro-gram impact. CSREES partners include:

■ More than 130 colleges of agriculture,including land-grant institutions in eachState and Territory;

■ 59 agricultural experiment stationswith more than 9,500 scientists conduct-ing research;■ 57 cooperative extension services withmore than 9,683 local extension agenteducators working in 3,150 counties;■ 63 schools of forestry;■ 17 1890 historically Black land-grantinstitutions and Tuskegee University; ■ 27 colleges of veterinary medicine; ■ 42 schools and colleges of family andconsumer sciences;■ 31 1994 Native American land-grantinstitutions; ■ 175 Hispanic-serving institutions■ Federal and State governments■ Nonprofit organizations■ Private sector

CSREES research, education, and exten-sion leadership is provided through pro-grams in:

■ Communications ■ Competitive Programs■ Economic and Community Systems■ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition■ Information Systems and TechnologyManagement■ Natural Resources and Environment■ Office of Extramural Programs■ Plant and Animal Systems■ Science and Education ResourceDevelopment

CSREES programs include:

■ Model education programs in sustain-able agriculture, water quality, food safe-ty, risk management, children and fami-lies, health, environmental stewardship,and community economic development.

■ Higher education programs to developthe scientific and professional expertiseneeded to advance the food, agricultural,and natural resource systems and main-tain excellence in college and universityteaching programs.

■ Cooperative partnerships involving:—over 9,600 scientists engaged in re-

search at 59 State agricultural experi-ment stations, 17 1890 historicallyBlack land-grant colleges and universi-ties, and Tuskegee University

—over 9,680 local extension agentsworking in 3,150 counties

—over 700,000 volunteers working in theMaster Extension Volunteer pro-grams…at a dollar value (computed at$16.52 per hour) of $1.9 billion

—3 million trained volunteers workingwith national outreach education pro-grams

—6.8 million youth involved in 4-H pro-grams that increase self-esteem andenhance problem-solving skills in apositive, support environment.

■ The National Research Initiative tosupport research in the biological, physi-cal, and social sciences to solve key agri-cultural and environmental problems

■ A Small Business Innovation Researchprogram to support high-quality re-search proposals containing advancedconcepts related to important scientificproblems and opportunities in agricul-ture that could lead to significant publicbenefit if the research is successful

■ Immediate electronic access to vitalinformation on safety and disaster re-covery during time-critical disasters,such as hurricanes, wildfires, floods, andterrorism.


Virginia Tech scientists have demon-strated in the laboratory that cotton gin waste is a suitable source for fuel ethanol.Successful development could convertexisting gin waste, which typically getsplowed back into the soil, into 680,000gallons of ethanol each year. This could create 100 new jobs in southeast Virginia.Large-scale testing is under way.

Roadmaps to Better Crops and AnimalsArizona researchers are halfway there to mapping the 50,000 genes in corn,America’s most important crop. They aresharing information with public andprivate researchers to develop improvedtraits in corn and genetically similarcrops like wheat, barley, rice, and oats.

Arkansas researchers have engineeredplants to produce two human proteinsthat may be involved in the regulation ofcancer metastasis. Large-scale, low-costproduction of these two cancer-relatedproteins in plants may facilitate theirpractical use in early cancer diagnosis ortreatment. Farmers may become phar-maceutical producers.

Texas A&M researchers have cloned abull calf from cells frozen for 15 years.The resulting calf is believed to be thefirst animal specifically cloned for dis-ease resistance. The cells used to clonethe calf are from a bull that was natural-ly resistant to brucellosis, tuberculosis,and salmonellosis–infectious diseasesthat can be transmitted among cattle tohumans. Breeding resistence into cattlecould reduce pathogens in meat andmilk. Ranchers who cannot afford tovaccinate or test their herds for these diseases would benefit from this research.

Looking Out for the Small FarmThe CSREES Small Farm Program worksin partnership with a network of Statesmall farm specialists in the land-grantuniversity system to improve the eco-nomic viability of small farm and ranchoperators nationwide. The CSREES SmallFarm Digest newsletter targets farmers,ranchers, and small farm specialists atlocal, State, and Federal levels with in-formation about direct marketing tech-niques for farm-raised goods and othertimely topics.

CSREES Highlights

New Uses for Agricultural MaterialsUSDA and land-grant university scien-tists are finding new uses for agriculturalmaterials of all kinds. Years of researchand development are now paying off andscientists have successfully developedbioplastics from corn, potato, wheat, andrice starch. The problem with mostpetroleum-based plastics, such as poly-styrene, is that they don’t degrade andare filling up landfill space. But starch-based plastic polymers are environmen-tally preferable because they are biodegradable.


The CSREES’ Sustainable Agriculture Re-search and Education (SARE) Programadvances farming and ranching systemsthat are profitable and environmentallysound for families and communities.SARE’s national outreach arm, the Sus-tainable Agriculture Network (SAN),combines SARE-funded research resultswith other information to produce prac-tical publications on a variety of topics,including marketing.

Protecting Water QualityAs a result of a widely publicized UtahExtension program, residential waterusers are measuring sprinkler pressure,coverage, and water saturation per hourto reduce their water consumption inone of the fastest growing States. Utah isthe second driest U.S. State and if popu-lation growth and current water con-sumption continue at their present rate,Salt Lake City could “run dry” by 2020.An added benefit of the Utah Extensionprogram is that residents using it aresaving 25 percent on water bills and re-ducing water consumption by 50 percent.

The Fond du Lac Tribal and CommunityCollege in Wisconsin is playing a key rolein the St. Louis River Watch Program,which protects the watershed and im-proves water quality. Since 1997, thecollege has supported water sampling in the river, using students in 21 areaschools, teacher training, and data col-lection. An annual conference to measureresults and encourage stewardship is heldby the college. The St. Louis River con-tributes significant amounts of water,nutrients, and pollutants to Lake Superi-or. The river and lake are important tothe region’s water supply and recreation.

Healthier Lives Through Research and EducationLand-grant universities are consideringcultural differences as they address nu-tritional needs of different populationsas different cultures obtain nutrients indifferent ways. Caucasians use milk for aprotein source. Hispanics get more calci-um from cheese and beans, while Asians use seaweed and soy. California Extension specialists conduct the Expanded Foodand Nutrition Education Program(EFNEP) for low-income Vietnamese fam-

ilies in five counties. A California Exten-sion program, “Cooking for BetterHealth,” helps low-income Hispanic fam-ilies improve dietary practices. Programgraduates ate fewer fried foods, dranklower fat milk, and bought lower fatfoods. Colorado Extension educatorsconduct a bilingual program called “LaCocina Saludable” (The Healthy Kitchen)to provide Hispanic grandmothers withnutritional information. Seventy-eightpercent surveyed made positive nutri-tional changes as a result of the pro-gram. Connecticut EFNEP reached 10,000low-income Latino children and theircaretakers with a bilingual nutrition ed-ucation program emphasizing the im-portance of eating fresh produce. Salud!,a nutrition marketing campaign, fea-tures Latino celebrities who “toast” goodhealth by promoting fresh fruits andvegetables. This program reached morethan 50,000 children at a cost of only$1.60 per child in 2000.

Pest ManagementResearchers in Delaware found thatsprays containing viruses control gypsymoths. Producers using this pest controltechnique have cut insecticide sprayingfrom 67,000 acres to almost zero, at asavings of $2 million.

Local Problem SolvingNevada land-grant specialists, in a col-laboration of public and private organi-zations, including Nevada and California firefighters, are teaching homeownershow to live more safely in a high wild-fire-hazard environment. Extension spe-cialists have developed 72 wildfire-rating

maps on various vegetation types cover-ing 3,200 square miles for use by devel-opers and firefighters. These includerecommendations for managing vegeta-tion and creating a buffer zone betweenhouses and dry grass.

Purdue students are mentoring kids wholive in public housing by helping themwith homework and basic life skills. Col-lege students gain life experience whilehelping children improve their grades.Georgia 4-H community service clubmembers are helping kids to read. Partic-ipants are spending more time reading,and their teachers are seeing improvedliteracy skills.

Managing Agricultural WasteA cooperative multi-State effort to pro-tect the Chesapeake Bay led Marylandresearchers to promote the use of ripari-an buffers–areas of trees, shrubs, andvegetation adjacent to bodies of watersthat capture pollutants before theyreach the bay. An educational video hasincreased riparian awareness through-out the Chesapeake Bay area and wasdistributed in all 50 States and severalforeign countries, including Germanyand Albania. This effort addresses theproblem of non-point-source pollutionfrom urban and rural sources as the pri-mary cause of water quality problems inthe United States. Many States are nowcombining urban and agricultural effortsto protect water supplies.

For More InformationMore information on CSREES can befound at: http://www.reeusda.gov/


Economic Research Service

Are you a congressional staffer who wantsto know how U.S. agriculture would beaffected if China joined the World TradeOrganization (WTO)? Are you a reporterseeking insights on future patterns of adoption of genetically engineered crops? Are you an industry analyst who hasheard the meatpacking industry hasfewer and fewer firms and wonders whythis increasing concentration occurredand what it means? Are you looking for farm income and farm program paymentinformation to use in designing a newsafety net program for small or limited-resource farmers? Are you a nutritioneducator who wonders what Americanseat and why they make the food choicesthey do?

If so, you are in luck. These are just a fewof the many timely issues addressed bythe Economic Research Service (ERS)—USDA’s premier source of social scienceinformation and research. ERS conductssocial science research for a purpose. Thatpurpose is to build the knowledge basefor informed and effective decisionmak-ing on economic issues related to agri-culture, food, natural resources, andrural economies.

ERS publications are easy to find. They areposted in their entirety, and summarizedfor easy access to the main ideas, on theERS Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov

Copies are also available from the USDA Order Desk (1-800-999-6779 or703-605-6220). For assistance in locatingspecific publications, periodicals, or dataproducts, please call the ERS Informa-tion Center at (202) 694-5050 or [email protected].

Finding the FactsCommodity Markets. What’s up and what’sdown in the crop and livestock markets?The ERS commodity situation and out-look series includes monthly and quar-terly reports containing current andprospective information on commoditysupply, demand, and price conditions.Annual situation and outlook yearbooksthat include historical data series onacreage, yield, supply, domestic use, for-eign trade, and price, as well as topicalarticles pertinent to understanding theU.S. and global markets, are also avail-able. From the ERS Web site, you will findlinks to situation and outlook reports forcotton and wool, feed, fruit and treenuts; livestock, dairy and poultry; aqua-culture; oil crops, rice, sugar and sweet-eners; tobacco, vegetable and specialtycrops, and wheat. Commodity briefingrooms can also be found on the ERS Website. These sites provide one-stop-shop-ping entrees into commodity data fromall USDA agencies.

Agricultural Trade. Are prospects bright ordim for U.S. agricultural trade? To findout, visit the ERS Web site where you willfind the Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade,which offers the latest value and volumeof U.S. farm exports by commodity andregion, and also the agricultural tradebalance, import commodities, and ex-port outlook. Or take a look at the TradeBriefing Room, which will hook you direct-ly into the Foreign Agricultural Trade of theUnited States—a trade database that youcan search according to the commodity,country or region, and time period thatinterests you.

Farm Income and Finance. Are farmers doingbetter or worse economically than in thepast? How many farmers make a living“just farming” these days? What percent-age of farm income comes from govern-ment payments? You can find the an-swer to these questions in the ERS


periodical Agricultural Income and Finance.Issued 3 times a year, this report pro-vides historical estimates and forecastsof farm sector financial information thatwill allow you to gauge the financialwell-being of the Nation’s farmers andranchers. It includes farm sector re-ceipts, expenses, debt, assets, and costsof producing crops and livestock. Or visitthe Farm Sector Performance Briefing Room,where you will find links to the latestfarm income forecasts, other farm finan-cial data, and related research reports.

Food Consumption and Prices. How much oftheir personal income do Americansspend on food these days? (Answer: 10percent) How much of their food expen-ditures are on “food away from home”?(Answer: 47 percent) For direct access todata on retail food prices, food expendi-tures, and food costs, and access to nu-merous publications on America’s eatinghabits, visit the Food Markets Briefing Roomon the ERS Web site.

Resource Trends and Indicators. How muchcropland is being lost to urban uses? Theanswer—it turns out that acres in crop-land have remained quite stable overtime, varying from 440 to 460 millionacres since 1945—can be found in theERS Land Use and Value Briefing Room. Arefarmers using more or fewer chemicalstoday than in the past? For the answer tothis and many other questions abouthow natural resources (land and water)and commercial inputs (energy, nutri-ents, pesticides, and machinery) are usedin the agricultural sector, see the Agricul-tural Resources and Environmental Indicatorsreport, which is posted on ERS’ Web site.

Rural Economic Indicators. Which rural coun-ties are experiencing population growth?What is the median household incomein your county? What proportion of yourState’s rural jobs are in farm and farm-related industries? Does commercialbank restructuring impair local ruraleconomic growth? The Rural DevelopmentBriefing Room provides a rich source ofinformation about rural population dy-namics, employment change, jobs by in-dustry, and credit and finance. You canalso learn about Federal funds going to

rural America simply by going to the ERSWeb site.

Staying on Top of Special TopicsAt ERS you can get more than just theeconomic facts. ERS’ unique contribu-tion in USDA is to bring the perspectiveof economic analysis to many critical is-sues facing farmers, agribusinesses, con-sumers, and policymakers. For example,ERS can tell you the economic benefitsto society and the costs to the food in-dustry of implementing food safetyprotections. Or ERS can tell you whichsectors of the economy have gained themost economically, and by how much,from implementation of the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement. Manyspecial topics are highlighted on the ERSWeb Site Briefing Rooms. Among the top-ics covered are:

New Farm Bill Legislation. Find out what theFarm Security and Rural Investment Actof 2002 will mean for farmers, ranchers,the food industry, and consumers inAmerica. Learn about new provisionsconcerning commodity programs, ruraldevelopment, nutrition, farm credit, andconservation.

Domestic Conservation and Environmental Poli-cies. Find out what policy instrumentsare available to encourage farmers toadopt conservation and environmentalpractices, and how effective they havebeen.


reflect operators’ expectations fromfarming, position in the life cycle, anddependence on agriculture. The groupsdiffer in their contribution to agricultureproduction, degree of specialization, ex-tent of participation in commodity andconservation programs, and dependenceon farm income. These (and other) dif-ferences are discussed in this report.

Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology,ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin No.762, March 2001. Agricultural biotechnol-ogy has been advancing very rapidly, andwhile it presents many promises, it alsoposes many questions. Many dimensionsto agricultural biotechnology need to beconsidered to adequately inform publicpolicy. Policy analysis is made more diffi-cult by the fact that agricultural biotech-nology encompasses many policy issues addressed in very different ways. We have identified several key areas—agriculturalresearch policy, industry structure, pro-duction and marketing, consumer issuesand future world demand—where agri-cultural biotechnology is dramaticallyaffecting the public policy agenda. Thisreport focuses on the economic aspectsof these issues and addresses some cur-rent and timely issues as well as longerterm issues.

Household Food Security in the United States,2000, ERS, Food and Nutrition ResearchReport No. 21, March 2002. This report,based on data from the September 2000food security survey, provides the mostrecent statistics on the food security ofU.S. households, as well as on how muchthey spent on food and the extent towhich food-insecure households partici-pated in Federal and community foodassistance programs. Between 1998 and2000, food insecurity fell by 11 percentand hunger by 16 percent. The declineswere widespread, affecting most regionsand types of households. For the yearending September 2000, nearly 90 per-cent of American households were foodsecure for the entire year. The rest werefood insecure at least some time duringthe year, meaning they did not alwayshave access to enough food for active,healthy lives for all household members.

Food Safety. Learn that foodborne illnessesfrom a few selected pathogens cost soci-ety at least $6.9 billion annually in med-ical costs and lost productivity. Find outwhat your government is doing to im-prove the safety of the Nation’s foodsupply, and what you as a consumer cando to keep your family’s food safe.

Food Security and Hunger. Find out that al-though most households (nearly 90percent) in the United States are foodsecure, during 2000 some 11 million U.S.households (10.3 percent of total) werefood insecure—that is, they did not al-ways have access to enough food tomeet basic needs.

World Trade Organization. Find discussions of the three pillars of agricultural tradenegotiations: export subsidies, domesticsupport, and tariffs as well as othertrade negotiation issues. The Web sitealso contains an analysis of China’s po-tential membership in the WTO; for ex-ample, did you predict that the largestincreases in China’s agricultural importsafter full accession are likely to be forcorn ($587 million), wheat ($543 million),and cotton ($359 million)?

Research Reports: IndepthUnderstanding of Complex Issues ERS underpins its contributions to un-derstanding the topics of the day withpeer-reviewed social science research.The results of many research projectsare published as ERS research reports aswell as in professional journals. All ERSreports are available in PDF format on the ERS Web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov.The following is a selection of indepthresearch reports published in 2001:

Changing Structure of Global Food Consump-tion and Trade, ERS, WRS No. 01-1, May2001. Higher income, urbanization, other demographic shifts, improved transporta-tion, and consumer perceptions regarding quality and safety are changing globalfood consumption patterns. Shifts infood consumption have led to increasedtrade and changes in the composition ofworld agricultural trade. Given differentdiets, food expenditure and food budgetresponses to income and price changesvary between developing and developedcountries. In developing countries, high-er income results in increased demandfor meat products, often leading to in-creased import of livestock feed. Diet di-versification and increasing demand forbetter quality and labor-saving products have increased imports of high-value and processed food products in developed countries. Consumer groups in developedcountries have also brought attention toorganic production of food and the topicof animal welfare. One way in which thepublic and private sectors have respond-ed to consumer demand for these quali-ty attributes has been by developing andimplementing mandatory and voluntaryquality control, management, and assur-ance schemes.

Structural and Financial Characteristics ofU.S. Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report , ERS,Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 768,May 2001. Family farms vary widely insize and other characteristics, rangingfrom very small retirement and residen-tial farms to establishments with salesin the millions of dollars. The farmtypology developed by ERS categorizesfarms into groups based on the primaryoccupation of the operator and salesclass of the farm. The typology groups


How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Tax-es Affect Farmers?, ERS, Agriculture Infor-mation Bulletin No. 751-02, March 2002.Concern among policymakers that theFederal estate tax might force the liqui-dation of some family farms has resultedin the enactment of a variety of specialprovisions over the years. Providing reliefto farmers and other small businessowners was the primary impetus for the1997 changes to Federal estate and gifttax policies and a major objective of the2001 law that will phase out and eventu-ally repeal the Federal estate tax. Whileonly about 4 percent of all farm estatesowe Federal estate taxes, a much largerpercentage of farm estates must file anestate tax return, make use of specialfarm provisions, alter their businesspractices, or engage in costly estateplanning to reduce the impact of theestate tax on their farm business. Thus,the phaseout and repeal of the Federalestate tax will affect a much broadergroup of farmers than just those whoowe tax.

What Does ERS Look Like?Located in Washington, D.C., ERS has ap-proximately 500 employees. The agency’swork is structured among three programdivisions: Food and Rural Economics,Market and Trade Economics, and Re-source 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 Ser-vice (NASS), “The Fact Finders for U.S.Agriculture,” is USDA’s official source ofcomprehensive agricultural statistics.The only way to “tell the story” of thephenomenal success of American agri-culture is by having data available thatmeasure productivity.

The NASS mission is to provide timely,accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture. These statistics are notonly important to tell the success story of American agriculture, but they are vital to support the efficient handling andmarketing of commodities in today’sglobal market. This mission, whichserves both producers and consumers byallowing for informed decisions, is ac-complished through the collection anddissemination of official USDA statisticsthrough weekly, monthly, quarterly, andannual surveys and the 5-year census ofagriculture.

Agricultural statistics have been vital toproviding for stable markets and servingpublic interests since 1791, when GeorgeWashington personally conducted the Nation’s first agricultural survey and com-piled the results. Seventy-two years later,in 1863, the newly established USDA,named the “People’s Department” by itsfounder, Abraham Lincoln, issued thefirst USDA crop report.

Why Are Ag Statistics Important?Besides helping producers get a fairmarket price for the goods produced ontheir farms and ranches, agriculture sta-tistics help Americans plan for a futuresustained by a safe and secure food sup-ply. The data allow a growing multitudeof people from various sectors of theagricultural industry to make decisionsaffecting agriculture that are based onfact, not opinion. NASS has successfullymet many challenges over the last 138years to provide data to meet the chang-ing demands of data users. These dataare geared toward producers to helpthem plan planting, feeding, breeding,and marketing programs. Other majoruses of these statistical data include thefollowing:

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.


Other estimates are based on surveys ofgrain elevators, hatcheries, and otheragribusinesses, and on administrativedata such as slaughter records. Theirvoluntary cooperation is absolutely vitalto a workable and meaningful statisticalprogram. The success of this cooperativerelationship can be attributed to produc-ers’ recognition of the importance of thesurvey results and to the confidentialtreatment NASS accords all reported in-formation. Other estimates are based onsurveys of grain elevators, hatcheries,and other agribusinesses, and on admin-istrative data such as slaughter records.In addition, NASS relies on actual fieldcounts and measurements for some cropforecasts.

Data collected from these varied sourcesare summarized by the NASS State Sta-tistical Offices and then sent to theAgency’s Agricultural Statistics Board inWashington, DC, whose members deter-mine and issue State and national offi-cial statistics. Reports are released to thepublic according to a published calendar.

A Model of Federal–State CooperationThe NASS network of 45 State StatisticalOffices, serving all 50 States, and thePuerto Rico Field Office operate throughcooperative agreements with State de-partments of agriculture or universities.This enables NASS to be responsive to“grassroots” data needs, while eliminat-ing duplication of effort and ensuringstatistical products are consistent withnational-level standards.

■ Producers and buyers rely on timely,accurate data to conduct business on aneven playing field, within a market placewhere price is determined by real factsrather than speculation and rumors.

■ Farm organizations and governmentuse these sound statistics to resolve en-vironmental issues, rather than basingdecisions on worst-case scenarios.

■ Exporters of American farm productsrely on accurate supply information.

■ Producers use the data to determineemerging markets for new and existingcommodities or to decide when tochange their enterprises.

■ Transportation and storage companiesrely on the statistics to efficiently moveagricultural products to market.

■ Suppliers use the data to allocate thenecessary inputs farmers need to growtheir crops or raise livestock.

■ Local and Federal government policy-makers rely on accurate data to addressnatural disasters, crop insurance, anddepressed farm prices.

■ Other USDA agencies use the statisti-cal data to accomplish important pro-grams for the Department, whether it becarrying out agricultural policy concern-ing farm program legislation, commodityprograms, agricultural research, or ruraldevelopment.

Statistics Based Primarily on Producer ReportsMost estimates are based on informa-tion gathered from producers surveyedthrough personal and telephone inter-views or through mailed questionnaires.


What Data Are Available?Current Ag SurveysAn abundance of current and historicalagricultural information, covering 120crops and 45 livestock items across the50 States, is available from NASS’ 400national reports and 9,000 State reportson topics including: ■ Crop acreage, yield, production, andgrain stocks;■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry produc-tion and prospects;■ Chemical use in agriculture, includingpost-harvest applications on selectedcrops;■ 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 commodi-ties including hop stocks, mink, cherries,cranberries, lentils, and peppermint oilare also available. Enhanced statisticsfor the nursery, equine, and aquacultureindustries have been enthusiastically re-ceived by data users.

2002 Census of Agriculture

You Make it Known—Agriculture Counts!Thanks to America’s farmers and rancherswho supply the answers needed to produce areliable, accurate, and timely picture of ourNation’s agriculture.

The above slogan carries an importantmessage to over 2 million farms andranches across America, as the NationalAgricultural Statistics Service began theenormous task for the Department ofAgriculture of the mailout of the censusof agriculture questionnaires in Decem-ber 2002. Farmers and ranchers, the cor-nerstone of the Nation’s food and fibersystem, are the only ones who can pro-vide the information needed to compilethe 5-year complete accounting of Amer-ican agricultural production demograph-ics, structure, economics, and othercharacteristics.

Response to the 2002 Census of Agricul-ture 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 individualproducer information is safeguarded andstrictly confidential. High-quality censusdata depend on a complete responsefrom everyone receiving a form.

Results from the 2002 Census of Agricul-ture will be released on the NASS Website (www.usda.gov/nass/) in early February2004. The census of agriculture is the on-ly source for uniform, comprehensiveagricultural data for every county in theNation.

What Will the Picture Reveal for 2002?The 2002 Census of Agriculture will giveus a complete statistical picture ofAmerica’s diverse farming and ranchingindustry, and it will help providenew information to analyze trends.

The Census of Agriculture results pro-vide data on the number of farms, landin farms, land use and ownership, opera-tor characteristics, crops, machinery andequipment, livestock, fertilizer, poultry,chemicals, market value of products, ir-rigated land, production expenditures,type of organization, farm programs, andcorporate structure. Data are also pub-lished for Puerto Rico, Guam, the VirginIslands, the Northern Mariana Islands,and the American Samoa.

Where Can You Find Current Surveyand Census of Agriculture Data?NASS reports are released at scheduledtimes on the Internet, in print, and onCD-ROM. All census and survey reportsare accessible free of charge from theNASS Web site at www.usda.gov/nass/. Youcan also find census of agriculture datathrough local NASS State Statistical Of-fices, depository libraries, universities,and other State government offices. Forquestions, contact the Agricultural Sta-tistics Hotline at 800-727-9540.

CHAPTER 12

Marketing and Regulatory Programs


Agricultural Marketing Service

When you visit the grocery store, youknow you’ll find an abundance and vari-ety of top-quality produce, meats, anddairy products. If you’re like most peo-ple, you probably don’t give a secondthought to the marketing system thatbrings that food from the farm to yourtable. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketingsystem makes it possible to pick andchoose from a variety of products, avail-able all year around, tailored to meet thedemands of today’s lifestyles. Millions ofpeople—from grower to retailer—makethis marketing system work. Buyers,traders, scientists, factory workers,transportation experts, wholesalers, dis-tributors, retailers, advertising firms—inaddition to the Nation’s farmers—allhelp create a marketing system that isunsurpassed by any in the world. AndUSDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. market-ing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading,Quality Standards, and CertificationWherever or whenever you shop, youexpect good, uniform quality and rea-sonable prices for the food you purchase.AMS quality grade standards, grading,certification, auditing, inspection, andlaboratory analysis are voluntary toolsthat industry can use to help promoteand communicate quality and whole-someness to consumers. Industry paysfor these services and since they are vol-untary, their widespread use by industryindicates they are valuable tools in help-ing market their products.

In the grocery store, USDA quality grademarks are usually seen on beef, lamb,veal, chicken, turkey, butter, and eggs.For many other products, such as freshand processed fruits and vegetables, thegrade mark isn’t always visible on the re-tail product. For these commodities, thegrading service is used by wholesalers,and the final retail packaging may notinclude the grade mark. However, qualitygrades are widely used—even if they arenot prominently displayed—as a “lan-guage” among traders.

Grading is based on standards, and stan-dards are based on measurable attrib-utes that describe the value and utilityof the product. Beef quality standards,for instance, are based on attributessuch as marbling (the amount of fat in-terspersed with lean meat), color, firm-ness, texture, and age of the animal, foreach grade. In turn, these factors are agood indication of tenderness, juiciness,and flavor of the meat—all characteris-tics important to consumers. Prime,Choice, and Select are all grades familiarto consumers of beef.

Standards for each product describe theentire range of quality for a product, andthe number of grades varies by com-modity. There are eight grades for beef,and three each for chickens, eggs, andturkeys. On the other hand, there are 45grades for cotton, 32 grade standardsand specifications for dairy products,and more than 312 fruit, vegetable, andspecialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS pro-gram has six user-funded laboratoriesperforming numerous microbiological,chemical, and physical analyses on a host of food and fiber commodities, includingprocessed dairy products, meat, poultry,egg products, and fruits and vegetables.This testing supports AMS purchases forthe National School Lunch Program andother domestic feeding programs, troopration specifications for the Departmentof Defense, export of U.S. food to foreigncountries, laboratory quality control andassurance programs, and testing for afla-toxin in peanut products.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA)services that include Hazard AnalysisCritical Control Point (HACCP) and Inter-national Organization for Standardization(ISO)-based programs. These programsensure and document that companies’operations are in compliance with provi-sions of contracts and/or their own stan-dards and procedures. QA services arevoluntary, hourly-fee-based, and value-added. HACCP concepts and procedureshave been recommended by the Nation-al Academy of Sciences for applicationin 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 forsome processes.

One such service AMS has developed isthe Process Verification Program, whichprovides livestock and meat producers,along with other businesses in the agri-cultural industry, an opportunity to as-sure customers of their ability to provideconsistent quality products by havingtheir written manufacturing processesconfirmed through independent, third-party audits. AMS Process Verified sup-pliers are able to have marketing claims,such as breed, feeding practices, or otherraising claims verified by the USDA andmarketed as “USDA Process Verified.”

AMS’ Dairy Programs conducts compre-hensive evaluations of dairy and relatedproducts, manufacturing plant facilities,and equipment to assure their eligibilityto receive grading service and displaythe grade shield on products. Associatedwith this service is a sanitary designevaluation service for processing equip-ment. Under this service, processors canhave the sanitary aspects of the designand the cleanability of a machine orprocess evaluated prior to installation intheir facility. A similar service is also of-fered by AMS for the meat and poultryindustry.

Spreading the NewsFarmers, shippers, wholesalers, and re-tailers across the country rely on AMSMarket News for up-to-the-minute infor-mation on commodity prices and ship-ments. Market News helps industrymake the daily critical decisions aboutwhere and when to sell, and what priceto expect. Because this information ismade so widely available, farmers andthose who market agricultural productsare better able to compete, ensuring con-sumers a stable and reasonably pricedfood supply.

In 2001, AMS launched the LivestockMandatory Price Reporting (LMPR) pro-gram as required by the LivestockMandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.As a leading example of electronic gov-ernment in USDA, the LMPR program re-quires packers to electronically submitpurchase and sale information to AMS.

The resulting data, reported by AMS,supplies the agricultural industry withmultiple daily and weekly reports cover-ing new transaction data for slaughtercattle, swine, lamb, beef and lamb meat.

Overall, AMS Market News reportersgenerate approximately 700 reports eachday, collected from more than 100 U.S.locations. Reports cover local, regional,national, and international markets fordairy, livestock, meat, poultry, eggs,grain, fruit, vegetables, tobacco, cotton,and specialty products. Weekly, biweekly,monthly, and annual reports track the


Buying Food: Helping Farmers,School Children, and Needy PersonsAMS serves both farmers and those inneed of nutrition assistance through itscommodity procurement programs. Bypurchasing wholesome, high-qualityfood products that are in abundance,AMS helps provide stable markets forproducers. The Nation’s food assistanceprograms benefit from these purchases,because these foods go to low-incomeindividuals who might otherwise be un-able to afford them.

Some of the programs and groups thattypically receive USDA-purchased foodinclude: children in the National SchoolLunch, Summer Camp, and SchoolBreakfast Programs; Native Americansparticipating in the Food DistributionProgram on Indian Reservations; olderAmericans through the Nutrition Pro-gram for the Elderly; and low-incomeand homeless persons through the Com-modity Supplemental Food Program andthe Emergency Food Assistance Program.In addition, USDA helps provide disasterrelief by making emergency purchases ofcommodities for distribution to disastervictims.

Pesticides: Information and RecordsThe U.S. food supply is one of the safestin the world, but the public is still con-cerned about the effects of agriculturalpesticides on human health and envi-ronmental quality. The Pesticide DataProgram (PDP), which is administered byAMS, provides statistically reliable infor-mation on chemical residues found onagricultural commodities such as freshand processed fruits and vegetables,grain, and milk. PDP is a Federal-Statepartnership where 10 participatingStates using uniform procedures collectand test these commodities. The infor-mation gained helps form the basis forconducting realistic dietary risk assess-ments and evaluating pesticide toler-ances as required by the Food QualityProtection Act of 1996. The Environmen-tal Protection Agency uses PDP data toaddress 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 issuesspecial reports on such commodities asolive oil, pecans, peanuts, and honey.


Helping Farmers Promote TheirProducts“The Touch…the Feel of Cotton…theFabric of Our Lives,” “Beef…It’s What’sfor Dinner,” “Got Milk?, “If It Ain’t Eggs,It Ain’t Breakfast.” If you’ve watched tele-vision or read magazines lately, you’veprobably heard or read these slogansand others for a host of agriculturalcommodities. All of these promotionalcampaigns are part of the Research andPromotion Programs that AMS oversees.

Federal research and promotion pro-grams, authorized by Federal legislation,are designed to strengthen the industry’sposition in the marketplace and tomaintain and expand domestic and for-eign markets. The programs are all fullyfunded by industry assessments. Boardmembers are nominated by industry andappointed officially by the Secretary ofAgriculture. AMS oversees the activitiesof the boards or councils and approvesbudgets, in order to assure compliancewith the legislation.

Currently, there are research and promo-tion programs for beef, lamb, pork, cotton,fluid milk, dairy products, eggs, honey,mushrooms, potatoes, soybeans, water-melons, popcorn, peanuts, and cultivat-ed blueberries.

But, while advertising is one part ofthese programs, product research anddevelopment is also a major focus.Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-fatdairy products are just two examples of how these programs have benefitedconsumers and expanded markets forproducers.

Marketing Orders: Solving Producers’Marketing ProblemsMarketing agreements and orders helpdairy, fruit, and vegetable producerscome together to work at solving mar-keting problems they cannot solve indi-vidually. Marketing orders are flexibletools that can be tailored to the needs oflocal market conditions for producingand selling. But, they are also legal in-struments that have the force of law,with USDA ensuring an appropriate bal-ance between the interests of producerslooking for a fair price and consumers

who expect an adequate, quality supplyat a reasonable price.

Federal milk marketing orders, for exam-ple, establish minimum prices that milkhandlers or dealers must pay to produc-ers for milk, depending on how that milkis used—whether fluid milk, ice cream,cheese, or other storable product. Feder-al milk orders help build more stablemarketing conditions by operating at thefirst level of trade, where milk leaves thefarm and enters the marketing system.They are flexible in order to cope withmarket changes. They assure that con-sumers will have a steady supply offresh milk at all times.

Marketing agreements and orders alsohelp provide stable markets for fruit,vegetable, and specialty crops like nutsand raisins, to the benefit of producersand consumers. They help farmers pro-duce for a market, rather than having to market whatever happens to be produced.A marketing order may help an industrysmooth the flow of crops moving to mar-ket, to alleviate seasonal shortages andgluts. In addition, marketing orders helpmaintain the quality of produce beingmarketed; standardize packages or con-tainers; and authorize advertising, re-search, and market development. Eachprogram is tailored to the individual in-dustry’s marketing needs.

Ensuring Fair Trade in the MarketAMS also administers several programsthat ensure fair trade practices amongbuyers and sellers of agriculturalproducts.

The Perishable Agricultural CommoditiesAct (PACA) program promotes fair trad-ing in the fresh and frozen fruit and veg-etable industry. Through PACA, buyersand sellers are required to live up to theterms of their contracts, and proceduresare available for resolving disputes out-side the civil court system.

Fruit and vegetable buyers and sellersneed this assurance because of the high-ly perishable nature of their products.Trading in produce is considerably dif-ferent than trading for a car, a computer,or even grain. When a vegetable grower

doesn’t get paid, the product usuallycan’t be reclaimed before it spoils—orbefore it has already been consumed.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protectseveryone who buys seed by prohibitingfalse labeling and advertising of seed ininterstate commerce. The FSA also com-plements State seed laws by prohibitingthe shipment of seed containing exces-sive noxious weed seeds. Labels for agri-cultural seed must state such informa-tion as the kinds and percentage of seedin the container, percentages of foreignmatter and weed seeds, germination per-centage and the date tested, and thename and address of the shipper. USDAalso tests seed for seedsmen and seedbuyers on a fee-for-service basis to de-termine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act providesintellectual property rights protection tobreeders of plants that reproduce bothsexually, that is, through seeds, andthrough tubers. Developers of new plantvarieties can apply for certificates of pro-tection. This protection enables thebreeder to market the variety exclusivelyfor 20 years and, in so doing, creates anincentive for investment in the develop-ment of new plant varieties. Since 1970,AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office hasissued more than 5,000 certificates ofprotection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allowsfarmers to file complaints with USDA if aprocessor refuses to deal with them be-cause they are members of a producers’bargaining or marketing association. TheAct makes it unlawful for handlers tocoerce, intimidate, or discriminateagainst producers because they belongto such groups. USDA helps to institutecourt proceedings when farmers’ rightsare found to be so violated.

The Shell Egg Surveillance Program pro-tects consumers and producers from those who would pack eggs for consumers with more low-quality shell eggs, suchas dirty, cracked, and leaking eggs, thanpermitted by U.S. Consumer Grade Bstandards. Producers that would do so,intentionally or otherwise, are able togain a financial advantage over other


jects include research on innovativemarketing techniques, taking those re-search findings into the marketplace to“test market” the results, and developingState expertise in providing service tomarketers of agricultural products. In FY2001, the FSMIP funded 34 projects in 25States for nearly $1.35 million.

Efficient Transportation for AgricultureAn efficient transportation system allowsconsumers access to a wide variety ofagricultural products and commoditiesproduced beyond their own localities.

AMS, through its Transportation andMarketing Programs, conducts researchand issues periodic reports on the logis-tical requirements and constraints in-volved in transporting and distributingU.S. agricultural products to destinationmarkets by railroads, trucks, inlandbarges, and ocean vessels, and monitorsthe adequacy of existing infrastructureto support efficient commerce. The re-search reports provided by AMS trans-portation and marketing specialists aredesigned to help agricultural growers,processors, shippers, and exporters re-spond more effectively to emergingchanges in both the domestic and inter-national marketplace and are specifical-ly targeted to help the smaller grower,processor, shipper, or exporter who maylack easy access to relevant market dataand research. AMS also provides fundingto academic institutions and nonprofitorganizations for the purpose of investi-gating alternative marketing channelsfor agricultural items produced by limit-ed-resource farmers and processors.

Produce Locally, Think GloballyAgricultural product markets are in-creasingly international in scope, andAMS is a strong partner in enhancing thecompetitiveness of American agricul-ture. AMS’ roles include quality gradingand certification for export marketings,reporting international market news,and participation in trade-oriented inter-national forums that develop interna-tional agricultural product standards.

Grading involves determining whether aproduct meets a set of quality standards.Certification ensures that contract speci-

producers who do not. When mixed inwith high-quality eggs, these low-qualityeggs can be sold at a higher price, in-stead of being diverted for production ofliquid and frozen egg products. Also con-sumers suffer by receiving lower qualityeggs at high-quality prices.

Organic CertificationAMS is responsible for implementingand overseeing the organic certification program. The final rule containing na-tional standards for production, handling,and labeling of organic agricultural prod-ucts was published in December 2000.

The final rule went into effect October2002. Consumers can now be assuredthat all organic food sold in the UnitedStates meets the same high standardsand the new labels will help them toknow the organic content of the foodthey buy.

Consumers should also look for theUSDA Organic Seal, which may appearon all food, processed or raw, that is atleast 95 percent organic.

Direct Marketing and MarketDevelopmentAMS continually seeks ways to helpfarmers and marketers improve the U.S.food marketing system. For example,AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Improve-ment Program (FSMIP) provides match-ing funds on a competitive basis to StateDepartments of Agriculture or otherState agencies to conduct studies or de-velop innovative approaches to the mar-keting of agricultural products. The aimof the program is to improve the market-ing system or identify new market op-portunities for producers, ultimatelybenefitting consumers through lowerfood costs and more food choices. Pro-


fications have been met—in other words,that the buyer receives the product inthe condition and quantity described bythe terms of the contract. AMS commod-ity graders frequently support otherUSDA agencies involved in export assis-tance, including the Farm Service Agencyand the Foreign Agricultural Service.

U.S. companies often request certificationservices when exporting to a countrythat has specific import requirements.Certification services provided by AMShelp avoid rejection of shipments or de-lay in delivery once the product reachesits foreign destination. Delays lead toproduct deterioration, shipper losses,and, ultimately, affect the image of U.S.quality. AMS’ Quality Systems Verifica-tion Program, a user-funded service forthe meat industry, provides independent,third-party verification of a supplier’sdocumented quality management sys-tem. The program was developed to pro-mote world-class quality and to improvethe international competitiveness of U.S.livestock and meat. AMS also certifiesthat all dairy products exported to theEuropean Union (EU) meet the require-ments of a trade agreement between theUnited States and the EU.

AMS provides laboratory testing forexporters of U.S. food commodities on afee basis in keeping with sanitary andphytosanitary requirements of foreigncountries. To date, this service has beenrequested by exporters of products des-tined for Japan, South Korea, and otherPacific Rim countries, South Africa, Euro-pean Union member countries, andcountries of the former Soviet Union.AMS also provides a seed testing serviceused by U.S. seed exporters. Seed analy-sis certificates containing test resultshave been issued for seed exported tomore than 50 countries.

For selected fruits, vegetables, nuts (in-cluding peanuts), and specialty crops,the grading of imports is mandatory. Forthe most part, however, firms importingagricultural products into the UnitedStates use grading services voluntarily.AMS graders are also often asked todemonstrate commodity quality toforeign firms and governments.

In addition to export grading and certifi-cation services, AMS Market News officesprovide information on sales and pricesof both imports and exports. Today, U.S.market participants can receive marketinformation on livestock and meat fromVenezuela, 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 Ar-gentina, Bulgaria, France, Canada, Chile,

Columbia, the Caribbean Basin, Ger-many, Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, TheNetherlands, Poland, South Africa, andSpain; dairy products from Eastern andWestern Europe and Oceania; and a hostof products from Ukraine, Kazakhstan,and Russia.

For More Information

Additional information is available athttp://www.ams.usda.gov


Animal and Plant Health InspectionService: Protecting Agricultural Healthand Productivity

Why are the farmers and ranchers of theUnited States able to produce so muchfood for the tables of America’s con-sumers?

Of course, there’s no simple answer. Butone key to this plentiful supply of foodcan be summed up in a single phrase:“Healthy crops and livestock.”

And this is no accident. America’s agri-cultural health is a result of a team ef-fort—good husbandry by farmers andranchers plus an organized effort to ex-clude foreign pests and diseases andcontrol and eradicate those agriculturalthreats that make their way past ourdefenses.

If agriculture is the foundation of manu-facture and commerce, there is perhapsno greater mission than making surethat foundation remains healthy andstrong. With the advent of free trade ini-tiatives, a global network of countrieshas agreed that valid agricultural healthconcerns—not politics nor economics—are the only acceptable basis for traderestrictions. In this environment, ourcountry’s agricultural health infrastruc-ture will be our farmers’ greatest ally inseeking new export markets.

Safeguarding U.S. AgricultureAgriculture, America’s biggest industry and its largest employer, is under constant threat of attack by invasive species. Inva-sive species are countless and often mi-croscopic, and they gain access to ourcountry in surprising ways. Their poten-tial allies are every traveler entering theUnited States and every American busi-ness importing agricultural productsfrom other countries.

Invasive species are nonindigenousorganisms that cause, or are likely tocause, harm to the economy, the envi-ronment, plant and animal health, orpublic health if introduced into thecountry. Organisms considered to be in-vasive species can include terrestrial oraquatic plants, animals, and disease

agents. The estimated economic harm tothe United States from these biologicalinvaders runs in the tens of billions ofdollars and may exceed $120 billionannually.

Problems associated with invasivespecies are national in scope and are be-coming more and more widespread. Forinstance, conservation experts estimatethat an average of 3 million acres of landthroughout the United States are lost toinvasive plants each year.

While the United States faces an ever-increasing challenge in managing inva-sive species that are currently thrivingacross our Nation, preventing the intro-duction of new invasive species also hasbecome more challenging in today’sglobal environment. Worldwide opportu-nities for international commerce andtravel have reached unprecedented lev-els. Unfortunately, this global activityhas increased greatly the number ofpathways for the movement and intro-duction of foreign, invasive agriculturalpests and diseases.

The Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS) historically has workedhard to safeguard American agriculturalresources and prevent damage to ournatural ecosystems from the introduc-tion and establishment of those invasivespecies that threaten the health and vi-tality of domestic plants and animals.

Over the last several years, APHIS has re-fined and modernized its agriculturalsafeguarding system, especially at U.S.border crossings and other internationalports of entry. This system is a combina-tion of regulatory, inspection, and anti-smuggling programs designed to keepplant and animal products that couldcarry pests or diseases out of the UnitedStates. Since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain in 2001,APHIS has hired additional inspectionpersonnel at major U.S. ports of entryand ensured heightened vigilanceagainst this disease and other seriouspest 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.


APHIS has also further intensifiedagency biosecurity efforts as a result ofthe events of September 11, 2001. In combination with earlier efforts to bolster the Nation’s defenses against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), APHIS, now morethan ever, is confident in its ability to de-tect and respond to the accidental or in-tentional introduction of animal or plantpest and diseases. Below is a summaryof the numerous short- and long-termmeasures APHIS has taken to strengthenits infrastructure and safeguarding programs.

■ By the close of fiscal year (FY) 2003,APHIS intends to have increased its safe-guarding personnel to approximately3,870, a 50-percent increase over FY 2000hiring levels.

■ Starting in FY 2001, APHIS hired 18 ad-ditional veterinarians to its comprehen-sive agricultural quarantine inspectionprogram to strengthen the United States’agriculture infrastructure.

■ The early detection of smuggled agri-cultural products that may contain for-eign pests or diseases is also extremelyimportant. In order to ensure this detec-tion takes place and pathways are im-mediately shutdown, APHIS created theSmuggling Interdiction and Trade Com-pliance unit. APHIS employs 92 Smug-gling Interdiction and Trade Complianceofficers and supervisors.This unit con-ducts approximately 20 blitzes, or inten-sified inspections, at U.S. ports of entryeach year.

■ To formalize a method for activatingprivate veterinarians across the countryto assist with a foreign animal diseaseoutbreak, APHIS has created a NationalAnimal Health Reserve Corps. This or-ganization is currently made up of morethan 275 private veterinarians fromaround the United States who would be-come temporary Federal employees toassist APHIS veterinarians in field andlaboratory operations during a foreignanimal disease situation.

■ In late September 2001, APHIS provided nearly $2 million to 32 States to bolsteremergency animal disease prevention,

preparedness, response, and recoverysystems. Funding provided will be usedfor training, purchasing equipment, andconducting exercises to simulate animalhealth emergencies.

Two key pieces of legislation recentlypassed into law have also augmentedAPHIS’ authority—and ability—to safe-guard U.S. agriculture. The Plant Protec-tion Act of 2000 and the Animal HealthProtection Act of 2002 provide greaterprotection for our Nation’s agriculturalcommodities.

The Plant Protection Act gives APHIS new tools for enforcing the plant quarantinelaws by establishing more effective de-terrents against smuggling. Agency offi-cials can now assess larger fines, securesubpoenas, and prosecute serious of-fenders in Federal Court. In addition, anamendment to the Plant Protection Actunder the 2002 Farm Bill provides for afelony provision, which increases crimi-nal penalties from misdemeanors tofelonies if an individual knowingly im-ports, enters, exports, or moves for distri-bution or sale in violation of the Act.

Congress passed the Animal HealthProtection Act as part of the 2002 FarmBill. The Act consolidates more than 20animal quarantine and related laws. Inaddition, it increases APHIS’ authority todeter people from deliberately bringinginto the United States prohibited ani-mals, animal products, and even animaldisease agents. The maximum fines fordeliberate violations of APHIS’ importregulations have increased from $1,000per violation to $50,000 per violation for individuals and up to $500,000 forcompanies.

In addition to its safeguarding mission,APHIS also helps facilitate trade by en-suring that both U.S. agricultural prod-ucts exported throughout the world andforeign agricultural imports are free ofplant and animal pests and diseases. Infiscal year 2000, APHIS helped to resolve67 foreign trade disputes that centeredaround plant and animal health issues.These efforts, in turn, permitted trade tooccur worth over $2.5 billion to U.S.farmers and producers.

The Components of APHIS’Safeguarding System

Agricultural Quarantine InspectionMany passengers entering the UnitedStates do not realize that one piece offruit packed in a suitcase has the poten-tial to cause millions of dollars in dam-age to U.S. agriculture. Forbidden fruitsand vegetables can carry a whole rangeof invasive plant diseases and pests.Oranges, for example, can introducediseases like citrus canker or pests likethe Mediterranean fruit fly.

Similarly, sausages and other meat prod-ucts from many countries can containanimal disease organisms that can livefor many months and even survive pro-cessing. Meat scraps from abroad couldend up in garbage that is fed to swine. Ifthe meat came from animals infectedwith a disease, such as African swinefever or hog cholera, it could easily bepassed to domestic swine, and a seriousepidemic could result. An outbreak ofAfrican swine fever in U.S. hogs woulddrive up the price of pork to consumers,cost hundreds of millions of dollars toeradicate, and close many U.S. exportmarkets.

APHIS safeguards U.S. borders againstthe entry of foreign agricultural pestsand diseases. At 187 U.S. ports of entry,about 3,300 Plant Protection and Quar-antine (PPQ) employees inspect interna-tional conveyances and the baggage ofpassengers for plant and animal prod-ucts that could harbor pests or diseaseorganisms. At some of these internation-al ports, detector dogs in APHIS’ BeagleBrigade help find prohibited agriculturalmaterials. PPQ officers also inspect shipand air cargoes, rail and truck freight,and package mail from foreign coun-tries. At animal import centers, APHISveterinarians check animals in quaran-tine to make sure they are not infectedwith any foreign pests or diseases beforebeing allowed into the country.


APHIS’ pest exclusion efforts, interna-tional pest information systems, pestpermits, and detection and response ef-forts. After concluding its review, thegroup made approximately 300 recom-mendations that the group believes willassist APHIS in adapting its safeguardingefforts to better manage drastic increas-es in trade and international travel.

Animal Health Safeguarding ReviewThe National Association of State Depart-ments of Agriculture concluded a reviewof APHIS’ animal health safeguardingprograms and published a report of thereview’s findings in October 2001. The re-view confirms that the United States hasbeen successful in preventing, detecting,and eradicating animal diseases, and itoutlines steps that APHIS can take tofurther strengthen domestic safeguard-ing systems.

The safeguarding review’s recommenda-tions focus on, among other things,APHIS’ domestic and international dis-ease monitoring programs; the criticalnature of cooperative emergency re-sponse planning; and improvements tothe agency’s information collection anddissemination strategies.

Import–Export RegulationsAPHIS is responsible for enforcing regu-lations governing the import and exportof animals and plants and certain agri-cultural products.

Importation requirements depend onboth the product and the region of ori-gin. Certain restrictions, ranging fromtesting or processing to total import pro-hibition, are placed on both animals andanimal products if they originate incountries that have a different diseasestatus from the United States. Livestockand poultry must be accompanied by ahealth certificate issued by an official ofthe exporting country.

Imports of livestock and poultry frommost countries must enter the UnitedStates through APHIS-approved quaran-tine facilities. Animals from Mexico and Canada may cross at land ports along theborders as long as they have met certainspecified requirements and are accom-

In fiscal year 2001, APHIS officials in-spected about 52,000 maritime vessels,540,000 aircraft, 85,000,000 airplane andcruise ship passengers, 2,200,000 cargoshipments, and 454,000 rail cars for pro-hibited or infested agricultural productsthat could threaten the health of U.S.agriculture. APHIS officials interceptedand impounded prohibited materialsover 1.7 million times while carrying outinspection duties. APHIS also issued ap-proximately 16,000 civil penalties to in-ternational travelers in baggage areas atU.S. airports for failing to declare prohib-ited agricultural products from abroad.In confiscating these prohibited prod-ucts, APHIS detected an estimated71,000 pests that could have seriouslydamaged America’s agricultural andnatural resources, if left unchecked.

International ProgramsThrough direct overseas contacts, Inter-national Services (IS) employees gatherand exchange information on plant andanimal health; work to strengthen na-tional, regional, and international agri-cultural health organizations; and coop-erate in international programs againstcertain pests and diseases that directlythreaten American agriculture. Two ofthe latter are the MOSCAMED program—which combats Medfly infestations inMexico and Guatemala—and a programto eradicate screwworms, a parasitic in-sect of warm-blooded animals.

Screwworms were eradicated from theUnited States through the use of the sterile insect technique. With this method,millions of screwworm flies are reared incaptivity, sterilized, and then releasedover infested areas to mate with nativefertile flies. Eggs produced through suchmatings do not hatch, and the insect lit-erally breeds itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. live-stock, starting in 1972, eradication ef-forts were moved southward from theU.S.-Mexican border, with the eventualgoal of establishing a barrier of sterileflies across the Isthmus of Panama.

Coping With InvasionsIf, despite our best efforts, foreign pestsor diseases do manage to slip past ourdefenses, APHIS establishes appropriatequarantine and eradication programs.Current examples include: 1) citruscanker eradication in Florida; 2) plumpox eradication in Pennsylvania, and 3)Asian longhorned beetle eradication inmetropolitan Chicago and New York City.

Early detection of exotic animal diseasesby alert livestock producers and practic-ing veterinarians who contact speciallytrained State and Federal veterinariansis the key to the quick detection andelimination of a foreign animal diseaseof concern. More than 300 such trainedveterinarians are located throughout theUnited States to investigate suspectedforeign diseases. Within 24 hours of diag-nosis, one of two specially trained taskforces in VS can be mobilized at the siteof an outbreak to implement the meas-ures necessary to eradicate the disease.

Currently, APHIS officials are activelyworking to prevent the entry of bovinespongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—sometimes referred to as “mad cow dis-ease.” BSE has never been diagnosed inthe United States. Since 1989, APHIS hasrestricted the importation of live rumi-nants and ruminant products—including animal feed made with ruminant pro-tein—from Great Britain and other coun-tries where BSE is known to exist. In1997, APHIS extended these restrictionsto include all of the countries of Europe.As of December 2000, APHIS prohibitedall imports of rendered animal proteinproducts, regardless of species, from Eu-rope. In addition, APHIS has conducted aBSE surveillance program since 1989.Specialists have examined brain speci-mens from more than 21,000 cattle andhave found no evidence of BSE.

Plant Health Safeguarding ReviewIn an effort to evaluate and ultimatelyimprove pest exclusion efforts, APHIScontracted with the National Plant Boardseveral years ago to conduct a thoroughreview of all components of the agency’ssafeguarding system. The review group,which was comprised of State, industry,and university representatives, reviewed


panied by the appropriate paperwork.Personally owned pet birds of foreign ori-gin can enter through one of four USDA-operated bird quarantine facilities: NewYork, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; andHidalgo, TX.

Imported plants must be accompaniedby a phytosanitary certificate issued by an official of the exporting country. APHIS maintains 16 plant inspection stations, thelargest of which is in Miami, FL, for com-mercial importation of plant materials.Smaller stations are at Orlando, FL; SanJuan, PR; John F. Kennedy InternationalAirport, Jamaica, NY; Linden, NJ; Hous-ton, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville),TX; Nogales, AZ; San Diego, Los Angeles,and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Hon-olulu, HI; Beltsville, MD (used strictly forimportations of plants for research pur-poses); and New Orleans, LA.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHISofficials certify the health of both plantsand animals that are shipped to foreigncountries. APHIS PPQ provides assurancethat U.S. plants and plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirementsof foreign countries.

It is in the area of foreign animal healthrequirements that APHIS is of greatest help to the U.S. livestock industry. Throughdirect negotiations with foreign govern-ments, APHIS has established approxi-mately 450 livestock, semen, embryo,and poultry health agreements withmore than 100 countries in the world.These negotiations are a continuousprocess wherever APHIS finds opportuni-ties to open new markets and to reduceunnecessary impediments or changingdisease conditions require adjustments.

Domestic Plant Health ProgramsIn most cases, plant pest problems arehandled by individual farmers, ranchers,and other property owners and theirState or local governments. However,when an insect, weed, or disease poses aparticularly serious threat to a majorcrop, the Nation’s forests, or other plantresources, APHIS may join in the controlwork.

“Deliver Us From Weevil”—Boll WeevilEradication One major domestic program PPQ is co-ordinating is the effort to eradicate bollweevils from the United States. The bollweevil entered this country from Mexicoin the late 1890s and soon became a ma-jor pest of cotton. Boll weevil is estimat-ed to cost U.S. farmers $300 million incontrol costs and yield losses.

The current boll weevil eradication effortjudiciously applies pesticides based onthe number of adult weevils trappedaround cotton fields. The traps contain apheromone and a small amount of in-secticide that kills all captured weevils.In eradication program areas, traps areplaced at a rate of one trap per 1 to 3acres and are checked weekly. Pesticideis applied only to fields that reach a pre-determined number of trapped weevils.This selective use of pesticides results infields requiring minimal pesticide appli-cations—sometimes none—during thegrowing season. After several seasons,the weevils are eradicated within thedefined program area, eliminating anyfurther need to spray for this pest.

The National Boll Weevil EradicationProgram is one-third complete with totaleradication projected by the end of 2005or beginning of 2006. Approximately 5.9million acres of cotton spread over nineStates are now weevil-free. These Statesinclude Virginia, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,Kansas, Arizona, and California. Eradica-tion efforts are underway on 9.7 millionadditional acres, which include nearlyall other areas of the country affected bythe boll weevil.

Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB)Since 1996, infestations of the ALB, adestructive pest of hardwood in China,have been detected in and around NewYork City, and near Chicago, IL. APHISbegan an ALB eradication program inconjunction with State and local officialsin both areas in FY 1997. Since then, ag-gressive efforts to detect and eradicatethis pest have drastically reduced ALBpopulations and helped protect forest re-sources across the United States.

The programwide implementation of theinsecticide imidacloprid in Chicago andNew York has increased confidence thatALB can be eradicated through an ag-gressive combination of chemical treat-ment, survey, quarantine, and tree re-moval. Imidacloprid is a systemicinsecticide approved for the eradicationof ALB and is found in many commonlawn and garden pesticides and dog andcat flea control products. Each nonin-fested tree to be treated is inoculated viasmall capsules containing imidaclopridthat is absorbed naturally through thetree’s vascular system. The process takesapproximately 4 hours per tree and canremain effective up to 1 year. Over70,000 trees in New York City and 55,000trees on Long Island were treated withimidacloprid in the spring of 2002.

Citrus CankerCitrus canker is a devastating bacterialdisease that greatly reduces productionin citrus trees by causing fruit andleaves to drop prematurely. It was firstdetected in residential trees in Florida’sDade County in 1995; since then, it hasbeen detected in commercial and resi-dential trees in five other counties: Man-atee, Collier, Broward, Hendry, and Hills-borough. APHIS has worked with Floridaofficials to conduct a citrus canker eradi-cation program since 1996. This programconsists of a statewide survey of residen-tial properties and commercial citrusgroves, regulatory action, removal of in-fected and exposed trees within 1,900feet of an infection site, where legally al-lowable, a commercial compliance pro-gram, statewide eradication activities,and an intensive inspection-based barri-er program.

Since the citrus canker eradication pro-gram’s inception, APHIS and the State ofFlorida have spent approximately $300million combating the disease. This fig-ure excludes compensation funds pro-vided to commercial citrus growers.


Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests and DiseasesIn order to combat invasive plant pestsand animal diseases, it is important toknow their number and where they arelocated. To monitor plant pests, APHISPPQ works with the States in a projectcalled the Cooperative Agricultural PestSurvey. Survey data on invasive species such as weeds, insects, and plant diseasesand pests are entered into a nationwidedatabase, the National Agricultural PestInformation System (NAPIS).

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrievethe latest data on pests. NAPIS data canassist pest forecasting, early pest warn-ing, quicker and more precise delimitingefforts, and better planning for plantpest eradication or control efforts.

Regulating Biotechnology in AgricultureScientists use agricultural biotechnologywith a variety of laboratory techniques,such as genetic engineering, to improveplants, animals, and micro-organisms.Recent discoveries have led to virus-re-sistant crops such as cucumbers, toma-toes, and potatoes; to better vaccinesand diagnostic kits used for diseases ofhorses, chickens, and swine; and even tonew and improved varieties of commer-cial flowers.

Since 1987, APHIS’ role in agriculturalbiotechnology has been to manage andoversee regulations to ensure the safeand rapid development of the productsof biotechnology. Under APHIS’ effectiveregulations and practical guidelines, ap-plicants can safely field test—outside ofthe physical containment of the labora-tory—genetically engineered organisms.

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowl-edge notification for the importation,interstate movement, or field testing ofgenetically engineered plants, micro-organisms, and invertebrates that aredeveloped from components of plantpathogenic material.

Since 1987, APHIS has issued more than8,700 release permits and notificationsat more than 30,000 sites in the UnitedStates. The biotechnology regulationsalso provide for an exemption process

Domestic Animal Health ProgramsProtecting the health of the Nation’slivestock and poultry industries is theresponsibility of APHIS’ Veterinary Ser-vices (VS).

VS veterinary medical officers and ani-mal health technicians work with theirState counterparts and with livestockproducers to carry out cooperative pro-grams to control and eradicate certainanimal diseases. The decision to begin anationwide campaign against a domesticanimal disease is based on a number offactors, the most important of which is:“Are producers and the livestock indus-try a leading force in the campaign?”To date, 13 serious livestock and poultrydiseases 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 plague1934 Glanders1942 Dourine1943 Texas cattle fever1959 Vesicular exanthema1959 & 1966 Screwworms (Southeast &

Southwest)1971 Venezuelan equine encephalitis1973 Sheep scabies1974 Exotic Newcastle disease1978 Hog cholera1985 Highly pathogenic avian influenza

Current VS disease eradication programsinclude cooperative State-Federal effortsdirected at cattle and swine brucellosis,bovine tuberculosis, and pseudorabies inswine.

Disease control and eradication measuresinclude quarantines to stop the move-ment of possibly infected or exposed an-imals, testing and examination to detectinfection, destruction of infected (some-times exposed) animals to prevent furtherdisease spread, treatment to eliminateparasites, vaccination in some cases, andcleaning and disinfection of contaminat-ed premises.

APHIS animal health programs are car-ried out by a field force of about 250 vet-erinarians and 360 inspectors workingout of area offices. Laboratory supportfor 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 di-agnostic sciences and an integral part ofAPHIS’ animal health programs.

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913,APHIS enforces regulations to assure that animal vaccines and other veterinary bi-ologics are safe, pure, potent, and effec-tive. Veterinary biologics are productsdesigned to diagnose, prevent, or treatanimal diseases. They are used to pro-tect or diagnose disease in a variety ofdomestic animals, including farm ani-mals, household pets, poultry, fish, andfur bearers.

APHIS also regulates the licensing andproduction of genetically engineeredvaccines and other veterinary biologics.These products range from diagnostickits for feline leukemia virus to geneti-cally engineered vaccines to preventpseudorabies, a serious disease affectingswine. Since the first vaccine was li-censed in 1979, a total of 79 geneticallyengineered biologics have been licensed;all but 20 are still being produced.


once it has been established that a ge-netically engineered product does notpresent a plant pest risk. Under thisprocess, applicants can petition APHISfor a determination of nonregulated sta-tus for specific genetically engineeredproducts. Over the past 10 years, 53 newengineered plant lines in 15 crops havebeen proven safe and no longer need tobe regulated by APHIS. One was the firstgenetically engineered sugar beet, whichis herbicide tolerant.

Managing Wildlife DamageThe mission of APHIS’ Wildlife Services(WS) program is to provide Federal lead-ership in managing problems caused bywildlife. Wildlife is a significant publicresource that is greatly valued by theAmerican public. But by its very nature,wildlife also can damage agriculturaland industrial resources, pose risks tohuman health and safety, and affectother natural resources. WS helps solveproblems that occur when human activi-ty and wildlife are in conflict with oneanother. In doing so, WS attempts todevelop and use wildlife managementstrategies that are biologically, environ-mentally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmen-tally sound wildlife damage manage-ment is rising dramatically. There areseveral reasons for this. Increased subur-ban development is intruding upon tra-ditional wildlife habitats. Population ex-plosions among some adaptable wildlifespecies—such as coyotes, deer, andgeese—pose increasing risks to humanactivities. At the same time, advances inscience and technology are providing al-ternative methods for solving wildlifeproblems.

More than half of U.S. farmers experi-ence economic loss from damage causedby wildlife. WS plays a leadership role incooperative efforts with the States andagriculture producers across the countryto protect farm crops, livestock, aquacul-ture, and forest resources from damagecaused by wildlife. Annual wildlifedepredation losses to selected agricul-tural commodities in the United Stateshave been documented by USDA’s Na-tional Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS). The losses for 2001 include esti-mated losses of more than $178 millionto livestock and poultry resources; over$146 million in losses for producers ofvegetables, fruits and nuts; and morethan $14 million in losses for producersof farm-raised catfish and trout. Wildlifedamage to U.S. agriculture as a whole isestimated at approximately $944 millioneach year.

WS deals with a wide variety of wildlifeproblems, ranging from reducing thethreat of wildlife-borne diseases to man-aging hazards caused by wildlife at air-ports, to protecting endangered speciesfrom predation by other wildlife. Hereare a few examples of WS recent effortsto manage the damage caused bywildlife in the United States:

■ West Nile virus (WNV) is a diseasethat has enormous potential to impactpublic health, livestock, and wildlife. In2001, West Nile virus was detected in 27States and the District of Columbia. Thisrepresents a significant geographic ex-pansion of the disease from when it wasfirst discovered in New York. Birds serveas a natural host for the virus, which istransmitted to people and animalsthrough mosquito bites. WS has playedan integral part in detecting the spreadof WNV through the collection of bloodsamples from wild birds.

■ Wildlife collisions with aircraft costthe civil aviation industry in the UnitedStates more than $300 million annuallyand pose a serious safety hazard to flightcrews and passengers. WS is recognizedinternationally for its scientific expertisein reducing wildlife hazards at airportsand military bases across the UnitedStates. Nearly 6,000 wildlife collisionswith civil aircraft were reported in 2000.Currently, WS works at more than 350airports around the country to provideinformation and equipment to airportmanagers to reduce the presence ofwildlife, especially birds, around run-ways and airport operations areas. WSalso provides hands-on assistance to trap and remove wildlife that are a threatto air safety. At airports and military air-fields where WS operational projects

were conducted, the presence of wildlifewas reduced by up to 95 percent.

■ Beavers are one of the most destruc-tive wildlife species, causing millions ofdollars in damage to roads, bridges, dikesand dams, sewer and water treatmentfacilities, and landscape plants. In Mis-sissippi and North Carolina, the problemis so severe that WS conducts Statewidebeaver damage management programsthat receive major funding from Stateagencies. In North Carolina alone, thebeaver population is estimated at500,000. WS also conducts large-scalebeaver damage management programsin more than a dozen additional States,and responds to individual requests forassistance on a case-by-case basis.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Cen-ter (NWRC), the world’s only research fa-cility devoted entirely to the develop-ment of methods for managing wildlifedamage, accounts for about one-fourthof WS’ budget. In existence since the1940s, NWRC has an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that isuniquely suited to provide scientific in-formation and solutions to wildlifedamage problems.

Humane Care of AnimalsAPHIS administers two laws that seek toensure the humane handling of animals:the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and theHorse Protection Act (HPA).

For more than a quarter century, USDAhas enforced the AWA and its standardsand regulations to prevent trafficking inlost and stolen pets and protect coveredanimals from inhumane treatment andneglect. The AWA prohibits staged dog-fights, bear and raccoon baiting, andsimilar animal fighting ventures. It alsorequires that minimum standards ofcare and treatment be provided for mostwarmblooded animals bred for commer-cial sale, used in research, transportedcommercially, or exhibited to the public.This includes animals exhibited in zoos,circuses, and marine mammal facilities,as well as pets transported on commer-cial airlines.


Individuals who operate regulated busi-nesses must be licensed or registeredwith USDA and provide their animalswith adequate care and treatment in theareas of housing, handling, sanitation,nutrition, water, veterinary care, andprotection from extremes of weatherand temperature. They must also keepaccurate acquisition and dispositionrecords and a description of every ani-mal that comes into their possession.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS conductsprelicensing inspections of licensees. Be-fore issuing a license, applicants must bein compliance with all standards andregulations under the AWA. APHIS alsoconducts randomly scheduled unan-nounced inspections to ensure that allregulated facilities continue to complywith the Act.

In FY 2000, APHIS pursued numerouscases against individuals who were notin compliance with the AWA. The tablesabove provide data on APHIS’ inspectionand enforcement efforts for FY 1998–00.

Grain Inspection, Packers andStockyards Administration

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stock-yards Administration (GIPSA) facilitatesthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat,cereals, oilseeds, and related agriculturalproducts and promotes fair and compet-itive trading practices for the overallbenefit of consumers and Americanagriculture.

Federal Grain Inspection ProgramThrough its Federal Grain InspectionService, GIPSA facilitates the marketingof grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and relat-ed commodities. This program servesAmerican agriculture by providing de-scriptions (grades) and testing method-ologies for measuring the quality andquantity of grain, rice, edible beans, andrelated commodities.

GIPSA also provides a wide range of in-spection and weighing services, on a feebasis, through the official grain inspec-tion and weighing system, a unique part-nership of Federal, State, and privateagencies. In fiscal year 2001, the officialsystem performed over 2 million inspec-tions on 235 million metric tons of grain.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Stan-dards Act, and those provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA)that relate to inspection of rice, pulses,lentils, and processed grain products, theFederal Grain Inspection Service:

■ Establishes official U.S. grading stan-dards and testing procedures for eightgrains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum,triticale, wheat, and mixed grain), fouroilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, andsunflower seed), rice, lentils, dry peas,and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture andcustomers of U.S. grain around the worldwith a national inspection and weighingsystem that applies the official gradingand testing standards and procedures ina uniform, accurate, and impartialmanner.

Compliance Inspections, FY 1998–2000

Total facilities Total complianceFY (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 1998–2000Revocations, suspensions, and

FY Fines Imposed disqualifications

1998 $378,900 341999 $585,162 162000 $343,301 23

USDA also enforces the HPA, which pro-hibits horses subjected to a processcalled soring from participating in exhi-bitions, sales, shows, or auctions. In ad-dition, the act prohibits drivers fromhauling sored horses across State linesto compete in shows. The law was firstpassed in 1970 and amended in 1976.

AquacultureAPHIS provides services to the aquacul-ture industry in a number of areas.Aquaculture is the fastest growing seg-ment of U.S. agriculture, surpassing invalue most domestic fruit, vegetable,and nut crops.

Current APHIS services include licensingof fish vaccines and other biologics un-der the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act; manag-ing bird and mammal depredation tocommercial fish stocks; and providinghealth certification services for exports.We are currently working to expand ouraquatic animal health activities and un-derlying authority to support industryefforts to increase exports of aquacul-tural products around the world and forcoordinating interstate regulation.

For More InformationAdditional information about the agencyis available through the World WideWeb: http://www.aphis.usda.gov


■ Inspects and weighs exported grainand oilseeds. Domestic and importedgrain and oilseed shipments, and cropswith standards under the AMA, are in-spected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices toprevent the deceptive use of the gradingstandards and official inspection andweighing results, and the degradation ofgrain quality through the introduction offoreign material, dockage, or other non-grain material to grain.

GIPSA also is developing standard testingprocedures to identify grain quality traitsdesired by world markets and to bettermeasure end-use functionality. By serv-ing as an impartial third party, and byensuring that the Official U.S. Standardsfor Grain are applied and that weightsare recorded fairly and accurately, GIPSAand the official grain inspection andweighing system advance the orderlyand efficient marketing and effectivedistribution of U.S. grain and other as-signed commodities from the Nation’sfarms to destinations around the world.

Packers and Stockyards ProgramsGIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Pro-grams administers the Packers andStockyards Act of 1921 (P&S Act), a fairtrade practice and payment protectionlaw that promotes fair and competitivemarketing environments for the live-stock, meat, and poultry industries.

Payment ProtectionThe P&S Act requires prompt paymentfor livestock and poultry purchased byfirms and individuals subject to the Act.Purchase of livestock and poultry in cashsales must be paid before the close ofthe next business day. Poultry obtainedunder a poultry growing arrangementmust 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 tosecure livestock purchases. As of May 21,2002, bonds totaling $572 million were inplace to cover livestock purchases. In ad-dition, sellers of livestock at auction arefurther protected by requirements thatthe markets have and maintain a custo-

dial (trust) account for consignor’s pro-ceeds. The custodial audit program hasbeen very successful in protecting fundsdue livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust ActivitiesIf a meat packer fails to pay for livestockin a cash sale, or a live poultry dealer fails to pay for live poultry from a poultrygrowing arrangement, then receivables,inventories, and proceeds held by thepacker or poultry dealer become trustassets. These assets are held by the meat packer or live poultry dealer for the bene-fit of all unpaid cash sellers and/or poul-try growers. Cash sellers of livestock andpoultry growers receive priority paymentin bankruptcy or in claims against trustassets in the event of business failure.

CompetitionGIPSA works to eliminate unfair, unjust-ly discriminatory, or deceptive practices,and anti-competitive activities in themeat and poultry industries. Practicessuch as apportioning of territories, pricemanipulation, and arrangements not tocompete are potential violations of theP&S Act. GIPSA deploys rapid responseteams to immediately investigate anypractice that could constitute unfair, un-justly discriminatory or deceptive prac-tice under the P&S Act.

Scales and Weighing ActivitiesGIPSA is concerned with two differentelements that affect the integrity ofweights: (1) the accuracy of scales usedfor weighing livestock, meat, and poultry,and (2) the proper and honest operationof scales to assure that the weight onwhich a transaction is based is accurate.The major emphasis is on detecting im-proper and fraudulent use of scales. Aninvestigative program uses several dif-ferent procedures to determine whetherweighing activity is proper and honest.Agency investigators routinely visit live-stock auction markets, buying stations,and packing plants for the purpose ofcheckweighing livestock, carcasses, andlive poultry, and examining weightrecords and equipment.

Trade PracticesFraudulent trade practices, such as pricemanipulation, weight manipulation oflivestock or carcasses, manipulation of carcass grades, misrepresentation of live-stock as to origin and health, and otherunfair and deceptive practices continueto be concerns in the livestock, meat,and poultry industries. GIPSA investi-gates these practices when complaintsare received, or when such practices areuncovered during other investigations.GIPSA carries out enforcement of thetrade practice provisions of the P&S Actrelating to live poultry dealers. Its inves-tigative program examines the records of poultry integrators to determine theexistence of any unfair, unjustly discrim-inatory, or deceptive practices in its deal-ings with poultry growers and sellers.Complaints alleging unfair terminationof growing contracts are investigated ona priority basis.

Analysis of Structural ChangeGIPSA examines structural changes inthe livestock, meatpacking, and poultryindustries, and analyzes the competitiveimplications of these structural changes.The analyses assist in enforcing the P&SAct and in addressing public policy is-sues relating to the livestock and meatindustries.

Clear TitleThe Clear Title provisions of the FoodSecurity Act of 1985 permit States to es-tablish central filing systems to informparties about liens on farm products.The purpose of this program is to removean obstruction to interstate commercein farm products. GIPSA certifies that aState’s central filing system complieswith the Act.

Violation HotlineGIPSA has instituted a hotline for report-ing potential violations and abuses inthe grain, livestock, meat, and poultryindustries. GIPSA’s toll-free telephonenumber is 1-800-998-3447.

HomepageFor further details about GIPSA, visit thehomepage at http://www.usda.gov/gipsa.

Index | 163

AABCs of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

Science and Application, 87Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance, 82Adult care

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89African American Employee Advisory Council, 49African swine fever, 155After-school care centers

food assistance programs, 88–89AGRICOLA bibliographic database, 136Agricultural Air Quality, Task Force on, 131Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 151Agricultural Income and Finance, 141Agricultural Innovation Center Program, 59Agricultural Labor Affairs, 53Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 160Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, 60Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 150Dairy Programs, 149direct marketing and market development, 152fair trade practices, 151–152food testing, 148grading, quality standards, and certification,

148–149Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting program,

149Market News, 149–150marketing orders, 151National Organic Program, 9pesticide information and records, 150Process Verification Program, 149Quality Systems Verification Program, 153Research and Promotion Programs, 151slogans, 151Transportation and Marketing Programs, 152Web site, 153

AGRICultural Online Access, 136Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program, 3,

155–156Agricultural Research Service

biogas production, 10contributions, 134–135Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service, 137–139description, 134foot-and-mouth disease detection, 3Listeria monocytogenes study, 104National Agricultural Library, 135–136selected highlights, 134Web site, 135

Agricultural Resource Management Surveyfarm typology group differences, 29–30

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,68

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,49–50

Air quality, 114–115, 131Aircraft

wildlife collisions with, 159Alabama

boll weevil eradication, 157fish habitat structures made from donated

Christmas trees, 114Alaska Natives. See American Indian and Alaska

Native ProgramsALB. See Asian longhorned beetleAmerican Indian/Alaska Native Employee Advisory

Council, 49, 52American Indian and Alaska Native Programs, 52.

See also Native AmericansAmerican Samoa

nutrition assistance program, 94AMLAP II and III. See Apple Market Loss Assistance

Program II and IIIAMS. See Agricultural Marketing ServiceAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service

agricultural quarantine inspection, 155–156animal diseases eradicated from the United States,

158animal health safeguarding review, 156–157biotechnology regulation, 158–159Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 158domestic animal health programs, 158domestic plant health programs, 157foot-and-mouth disease, 154–155foreign trade and, 155forest health protection, 119genetically engineered vaccines and veterinary

biologics, 158humane care of animals, 159–160import-export regulations, 156–157international programs, 156international trade agreements, 75invasive species, 154–155mission, 154plant health safeguarding review, 156Web site, 160wildlife management, 159

Animal fighting ventures, 159Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, 155Animal Welfare Act, 159–160Antioxidants, 134APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection

ServiceAppalachia

poverty in, 38Apple Market Loss Assistance Program II and III, 71Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas pro-

gram, 60Aquaculture, 160Arizona

boll weevil eradication, 157crop gene mapping, 138

Arkansasplant sources for chemotherapy, 138

ARMS. See Agricultural Resource ManagementSurvey

Asian American and Pacific Islander Employee Advisory Council, 49

Asian longhorned beetle, 156, 157Australia

U.S. table grapes, 76Automated data processing services, 55AWA. See Animal Welfare ActAway-from-home eating

fat density of foods, 18milk consumption and, 16percent of total food energy consumption, 14percentage of food dollars used for, 20prices of food, 21

BBackyard Conservation Campaign, 131Bankhead Ranger District, 114BARC. See Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural

Research CenterBe Cool, Chill Out, Refrigerate Promptly, 108Beagle Brigade, 155Beaver damage management programs, 159Beef. See also Cattle; Livestock

grading and quality standards, 148mandatory price reporting program, 149

B&I loans. See Business and industry loansBiobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination

Council, 11Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, 11Bioenergy Program, 11Biofuels, 9–10Biogas, 10Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, 11Bioplastics, 138Biorefinery Grants Program, 11Biosecurity. See Homeland securityBiotechnology

description, 8economic issues, 142regulation of, 158–159

Block grants, 94Boll weevil eradication, 157“Bonus” commodities, 94Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 4, 104–105, 156Bovine tuberculosis, 158BRAVO. See Bringing Rural America Venture

Opportunities ProgramBringing Rural America Venture Opportunities

Program, 50, 52Broccoli, 18Brucellosis, 158BSE. See Bovine spongiform encephalopathyBuffalo

Livestock Compensation Program, 71Bureau of the Census

Federal funding distribution, 42Bush, George

164 | Agriculture Fact Book | Index

national energy policy, 9Business and industry loans, 58–59Butter. See also Fats and oils

grading, 148surplus, 69

CCACFP. See Child and Adult Care Food ProgramCalifornia

boll weevil eradication, 157Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program,

139Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 62population-based surveillance for foodborne dis-

eases, 105California State University-Fresno, 65Caloric sweeteners

consumption profile, 20Camps

nutrition assistance programs, 96–97, 150Campylobacter, 105

hotline information, 106Canada

animal imports, 156–157leading market for exports, 74, 75

Cankdeska Cikana Community College, 65Canned vegetables, 18Canola

genetically engineered, 8Carbon dioxide reduction, 134Career Intern Program, 49Caribbean National Forest, 116Carrots, 18Cattle. See also Beef; Bovine spongiform en-

cephalopathy; Livestockbrucellosis, 158cloning for disease resistance, 138Federal inspection, 100, 102feed assistance, 71low labor requirements for, 31mandatory price reporting program, 149specialization of farms in, 31

CBO. See Congressional Budget OfficeCCC. See Commodity Credit CorporationCDC. See Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCensus of Agriculture

point farms and, 27response to, 145trend analysis, 145

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 108Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 86–87Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

biosecurity issues, 3, 103database of DNA fingerprinting of foodborne

bacteria, 105Emerging Infections Program, 105

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network(FoodNet), 105

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project, 102–103Salmonella prevalence decrease, 4, 101

CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act

Certification services, 148, 152–153CFSAN. See Center for Food Safety and Applied

NutritionChanging Structure of Global Food Consumption and

Trade, 142Cheese

consumption profile, 16–17surplus, 69

Chemotherapyplant extracts, 134, 138

Chesapeake Bayriparian buffers, 139

Chicago Board of Trade futures prices, 82Chickens. See PoultryChief Economist, Office of, 52Chief Financial Officer, Office of the, 55Chief Information Officer, Office of the, 54–55Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89Child Care Food Program. See Child and Adult Care

Food ProgramChildren

estimates of the cost of raising, 87fire prevention campaigns, 122food guide pyramid for, 86nutrition assistance programs, 77, 88–90, 92–94,

95–97obesity in, 14

Chiletrade agreement with, 75

ChinaWTO accession commitments, 75

Cities. See Metropolitan areasCitrus canker eradication, 156, 157Civil rights

Forest Service issues, 124Civil Rights, Office of, 47–49Civil rights impact analyses, 48Civil Rights Mission Statement, 47Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act, 161Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 55Cloning of cattle for disease resistance, 138CNPP. See Center for Nutrition Policy and PromotionCoal mines, 116Cochran Fellowship Program, 81CODEX Alimentarius Commission, 75College and University Partnership Project, 65Colorado

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71extension nutrition program for Hispanics, 139population-based surveillance for foodborne

diseases, 105Commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78

Commodities Improvement Council, 93Commodity Credit Corporation, 9, 68–71, 76–80Commodity purchase programs, 69–70Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 89, 150Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 94Community Development, Office of, 64–65Community Development Financial Institution Part-

nership, 62Community Facilities Program, 61, 62Complaint resolution, 48Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-

sation, and Liability Act, 50Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the, 62Conferences

“Survival Strategies for Small and Limited-Re-source Farmers and Ranchers,” 83

Congressional Budget Officeconservation spending estimates, 5

Connecticutbilingual nutrition education program, 139population-based surveillance for foodborne dis-

eases, 105Conservation

Emergency Conservation Program, 70Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

provisions, 5–7Farm Service Agency programs, 73

Conservation Education, 121–122Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program, 130Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 6, 73Conservation Reserve Program, 5–6, 27, 73Conservation Security Program, 5, 7, 128Conservation Technical Assistance, 127–128Consolidated Federal Funds Reports, 42Consumer Safety Officers, 4Cooking oils. See Fats and oilsCooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 158Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 112Cooperative services, 60, 63Cooperative State Research, Education, and Exten-

sion Serviceagricultural waste management, 139description, 137local problem solving, 139new uses for agricultural materials, 138pest management, 139programs, 137roadmaps to better crops and animals, 138Small Farm Program, 138–139water quality protection, 139Web site, 139

Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority, 58Cooperator Program. See Foreign Market Develop-

ment Cooperator ProgramCorn

bioplastics from, 138consumption profile, 19

Index | 165

crop insurance, 81–82gene mapping, 138genetically engineered, 8oil from waste byproduct, 134

Corn ethanol, 10Corn sweeteners

consumption profile, 20Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office of Risk Assessment

and, 53Costa Rica

rice import permits, 75Cotton

boll weevil eradication, 157crop insurance, 81–82exports, 74genetically engineered, 8grading, 148wrinkle-resistant, 151

CPGL. See Conservation of Private Grazing LandProgram

CR. See Office of Civil RightsCR Training Plan, 48CREP. See Conservation Reserve Enhancement Pro-

gramCRIAs. See Civil rights impact analysesCrop insurance, 81–83Crop Revenue Coverage, 82Crops. See also specific commodities

gene mapping, 138genetically engineered, 8Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 70“nonrecourse” loans and, 69technical assistance for specialty crops, 79virus-resistant, 158

Crownpoint Institute of Technology, 65CRP. See Conservation Reserve ProgramCrytosporidium

population-based surveillance for, 105CSFP. See Commodity Supplemental Food ProgramCSREES. See Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension ServiceCTA. See Conservation Technical AssistanceCucumbers

virus-resistant, 158Cybersecurity, 54–55Cyclospora

population-based surveillance for, 105

DDA. See Departmental AdministrationDairy Export Incentive Program, 78Dairy Options Pilot Program, 82Dairy Price Support Program, 69Dairy products. See also Cheese; Milk

Agricultural Marketing Service Dairy Programs,149

consumption profile, 14exports, 78, 153

grading, 148imports, 153insurance program, 82low-fat, 151marketing orders, 151

Dealing with Workplace Conflict and Concerns: AGuide for Employees, 48

Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 55Debt management program, 55DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive ProgramDelaware

gypsy moth control program, 139Departmental Administration, 47–52Detector dogs, 155Developing countries. See also International issues

exports to, 78–79food assistance programs, 77–78technical assistance to, 80

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 86, 90, 93Direct Business and Industry Loans, 58–59Direct loans, 58–59, 72Direct marketing and market development, 152Disaster assistance, 70–71, 80, 89, 91, 97, 129, 137,

150Disaster Food Stamp Program, 89, 97Discrimination, 49Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and

Grants, 63District Veterinary Medical Specialists, 4Diversification of farms, 30–32Diversity training, 48DOD. See U.S. Department of DefenseDoha Development Agenda, 75Doing Business with USDA, 49DOPP. See Dairy Options Pilot ProgramDrug enforcement issues, 125Dry milk

surplus, 69Dutch elm disease, 134

EE. coli O157:H7

FSIS monitoring program for, 101hotline information, 106population-based surveillance for, 105

EAPs. See Economic Action ProgramsEat. Smart. Play Hard.™ Campaign, 89Eating out. See Away-from-home eatingEBT. See Electronic Benefit TransferEconomic Action Programs, 120Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, 142Economic Research Service

agricultural trade, 140commodity markets, 140farm typology, 29–30food calorie losses, 14food consumption and prices, 141food safety, 142

food security and hunger, 142issues addressed by, 140organizational structure, 143per capita food and nutrient supplies estimates, 15program function categories, 43publications, 140research reports, 142–143resource trends and indicators, 141rural economic indicators, 141special topics, 141–142Web site, 140, 142World Trade Organization issues, 142

EdNet, 108EEP. See Export Enhancement ProgramEFNP. See Expanded Food and Nutrition Education

ProgramEgg Products Inspection Act, 100Eggs

consumption profile, 14Federal inspection, 100–101grading, 148, 151–152

Elderly personsForest Service programs, 124housing loans and grants, 61nutrition assistance programs, 92, 94–95, 150

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 92Elm trees resistant to disease, 134Emergency Conservation Program, 70Emergency Food Assistance Program, 150Emergency Watershed Protection, 129Emerging Markets Program, 79Employment

nonmetropolitan unemployment rate, 39Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Pro-

gram, 64–65Energy, Minerals, and Geology Program, 116Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development

Programdescription, 11

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update, 10Energy issues

biofuels, 9–10renewable energy and bioproducts, 9

Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of, 10, 53“Entitlement” foods, 94Environmental cleanup, 50Environmental Protection Agency

biosecurity threats, 103pesticide registration, 150

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 6, 73,128

EPA. See Environmental Protection AgencyEQIP. See Environmental Quality Incentives ProgramEqual employment opportunity

complaints, 48employee training, 48

ERS. See Economic Research ServiceEstate taxes, 143


Ethanolenergy efficiency of, 10

Ethics, Office of, 52EU. See European UnionEuropean Union

dairy product exports, 153exports to, 74grain import restrictions, 75

EWP. See Emergency Watershed ProtectionExecutive Order 13175, 52Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program,

139Export Enhancement Program, 78Exports. See also Imports; International issues

barriers to export of specialty crops, 79bonus programs, 78–79commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78to emerging markets, 78export credit guarantees, 77–78export value in fiscal year 2002, 74food testing services, 148grading and certification for, 152–153inspection and weighing of grains and oilseeds,

161laboratory testing, 153as percentage of total farm sales, 75samples program, 79U.S. farm income generated by, 68

Extension service, 137–139EZ/EC Program. See Empowerment Zones/Enterprise

Communities Program

FFacility Guarantee Program, 78Faculty Exchange Program, 81Fair trade practices, 151–152, 161Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 87Farm Bill. See Farm Security and Rural Investment

Act of 2002Farm Labor Housing, 62Farm Loan Program, 71–72Farm Sector Performance Briefing Room, 141Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

conservation provisions, 5–7energy provisions, 11Farm Service Agency provisions, 68nutrition assistance programs, 77

Farm Service Agencyadministration responsibilities, 7assistance programs, 71–72Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71commodity purchase programs, 69–70conservation programs, 73disaster assistance, 70Emergency Conservation Program, 70emergency declarations, 71emergency loans, 70–71

Farm Bill and, 68farm loans, 71–72Livestock Compensation Program, 71marketing assistance loan programs, 68–69mission, 68purpose, 68Web site, 73

Farm typology, 29–30, 142Farm workers

housing for, 62Farmers Home Administration, 68Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97Farming-occupation farms

typology for, 29Farmland Protection Program, 7, 128Farms. See also specific types of farms

acreage versus level of sales, 24–26carbon dioxide reduction, 134change by sales class, 1982-1997, 26–27decline in number of, 24diversity among, 27–29estate taxes and, 143government program participation, 32–34household income, 34, 140–141information sources, 35point farms, 27policy implications, 34–35rural areas and, 38share of farms, assets, and production, 30specialization and diversification, 30–32Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S.

Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report, 142typology for, 29–30, 142

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural ServiceFast food. See Away-from-home eatingFats and oils

consumption profile, 14, 17–18FCIC. See Federal Consumer Information CenterFDA. See Food and Drug AdministrationFDPIR. See Food Distribution Program on Indian

ReservationsFederal Consumer Information Center

Listeria monocytogenes brochure, 107Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 68Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 62Federal Financing Bank

Rural Development loans, 10Federal funding. See Government fundingFederal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161Federal Home Loan Bank System, 62Federal Meat Inspection Act, 100Federal Register Uniform Procedures for the Acquisi-

tion and Transfer of Excess Personal Property, 49Federal Seed Act, 151Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, 152Feline leukemia virus, 158Fertilizers

insurance for losses, 82–83FFB. See Federal Financing BankFFE. See McGovern-Dole International Food for

Education and Child Nutrition ProgramFFP. See food For Progress ProgramFGP. See Facility Guarantee ProgramFight BAC!® Campaign, 107, 108, 109Fire-hazard education program, 139Fire prevention, 122Fish and shellfish. See also Aquaculture; Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Programconsumption profile, 15fish habitat structures made from donated Christ-

mas trees, 114national forest habitats, 114wildlife depredation losses, 159

Flavored teasconsumption profile, 16

Flood Control Act of 1944, 129Flood prevention, 129Florida

boll weevil eradication, 157citrus canker eradication program, 157

Flour. See GrainsFMD. See Foot-and-mouth diseaseFMNP. See WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition ProgramFNS. See Food and Nutrition ServiceFond du Lac Tribal and Community College

St. Louis River Watch Program, 139Food and Drug Administration

biosecurity threats, 103Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 108Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network

(FoodNet), 105Foodborne Illness Education Information Center,

108Listeria monocytogenes risk ranking, 104

Food and Nutrition Service“bonus” commodities, 94Child and Adult Care Food Program, 88–89Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 89description, 88Disaster Food Stamp Program, 89, 97Eat. Smart. Play Hard.™ Campaign, 89The Emergency Food Assistance Program, 90–91“entitlement” foods, 94fiscal year 2002 funding, 88Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,

91, 97Food Stamp Program, 92National School Lunch Program, 69, 92–94Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands, 94

Nutrition Services Incentive Program, 94–95partnership with States, 88School Breakfast Program, 95School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 93Special Milk Program, 96

Index | 167

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants, and Children, 95–96

Summer Food Service Program, 96–97Team Nutrition, 89–90, 93Web site, 88WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97

Food assistance programs, 76–77, 88–90, 92–94,95–97, 150

Food consumption profile. See also specific com-moditiescaloric sweeteners, 10calories consumed per day, 14cheese, 16–17cost of marketing farm foods, 21factors responsible the consumption pattern

changes, 14–15fats and oils, 17–18food expenditures and prices, 20–21, 141fruits, 18grains, 19labor cost, 21meats, 15–16milk, 16overweight and obesity, 14vegetables, 18

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,91, 97, 150

Food expenditures, 20–21, 141Food for Progress Program, 70, 76–77Food Guide Pyramid, 19, 86, 90Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, 86Food Marketing Institute

“Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Supermar-ket,” 14

Food Plans, 86–87Food prices, 20–21Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, 150Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities, 100bovine spongiform encephalopathy prevention, 4,

104–105consumer education programs, 105E. coli O157:H7, 101, 103emerging issues, 103–105Food Thermometer Education Campaign-

Thermy™, 107Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network,

105–106FoodNet, 105–106foreign meat inspection, 4HACCP Systems, 101–103homeland security issues, 3–4, 103international trade agreements and, 75Listeria monocytogenes, 103–104National Food Safety Education MonthSM, 108National Food Safety Information Network, 108new inspection positions, 4Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!R Campaign, 107, 108, 109

PulseNet, 105–106responsibilities, 100Salmonella prevalence decrease, 4, 100USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108Web site, 101, 107, 108

Food security, 142Food Security Act, 161Food Stamp Program, 92Food supply, security of, 79–80Food testing services, 148Food Thermometer Education Campaign-Thermy™,

107Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network,

105–106Foodborne Illness Education Information Center, 108FoodNet, 105–106FoodSafe online discussion group, 108Foot-and-mouth disease, 2, 3, 154–155Foreign Agricultural Service

agricultural exports, 74–75budget, 74commercial export credit guarantee programs,

77–78export bonus programs, 78food assistance programs, 76–77food security, 79–80foreign food assistance programs, 69–70international cooperation, 79international organization liaison, 80international trade agreements, 75–76market development programs, 78–79mission, 74overseas representation, 74scientific collaboration, 80technical assistance, 80training, 80–81Web site, 74

Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States data-base, 140

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program,78–79

Foreign service officers, 49Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan-

ning Act of 1974, 112Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Re-

search Act of 1978, 112Forest Legacy Program, 120, 121Forest Products and Conservation Recycling Pro-

gram, 120Forest Products Laboratory, 123Forest Service

civil rights issues, 124community-based partnerships, 113–114ecosystem management, 112hosted programs, 124Interagency Hydropower Committee, 9key facts, 113Law Enforcement and Investigations program, 125mission, 112

National Forest System, 112–119Natural Resource Agenda, 112Office of International Programs, 124–125organizational structure, 112–113principal laws, 112renewable energy research, 9Research & Development, 113, 123–125Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 124service ethic, 112State and Private Forestry, 112–113, 119–123strategic goals, 112Volunteers in the National Forests program, 124Youth Conservation Corps, 124

Forest Stewardship Program, 120, 121Forest vegetation management, 118Fort Peck Community College, 65FPP. See Farmland Protection ProgramFree Trade Area of the Americas, 75Fresh produce. See Fruits; VegetablesFruit drinks and ades

consumption profile, 16Fruits

Apple Market Loss Assistance Program II and III,71

citrus canker, 156, 157consumption profile, 14, 18crop insurance, 81–82exports of, 79fair trade practices, 151farmer’s markets and, 97Food Stamp Program and, 93grading, 148imports, 153invasive diseases, 155marketing orders, 151pesticide program, 150plum pox eradication, 156wildlife depredation losses, 159

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal Seed ActFSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection ServiceFSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Improvement

ProgramFTAA. See Free Trade Area of the AmericasFuel cell technology, 11Fugitive apprehension, 54

GGay and Lesbian Employee Advisory Council, 49Genetic engineering

crops, 8vaccines and veterinary biologics, 158

George Washington Carver Center, 50Georgia

4-H community service club reading program, 139boll weevil eradication, 157population-based surveillance for foodborne dis-

eases, 105GFE. See Global Food for Education Initiative


GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stock-yards Administration

Global Change Program Office, 53Global Food for Education Initiative, 77Global Food for Education program, 69Goats

Livestock Compensation Program, 71production and marketing of, 60scrapie in, 134

Government funding. See also specific programsfarms, 32–34program function categories, 43rural areas, 42–43

“Government Gateway to Food Safety Information,”108

Government Paperwork Elimination Act, 55Government Printing Office

Listeria monocytogenes brochure, 107Grading standards and services, 148–149, 152–153,

160Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Adminis-

trationanalysis of structural change, 161anti-competitive activities, 161Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act, 161Federal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161fraudulent trade practices, 161Packers and Stockyards Programs, 161payment protection, 161scales and weighing activities, 161violation hotline, 161Web site, 161

Grain Standards Act, 160Grains

consumption profile, 14, 19EU grain import restrictions, 75exports, 74, 161Federal Grain Inspection Program, 160–161grading, 160pesticide program, 150U.S. standards for, 161

Grants. See specific grant programsGrapes

export of, 76Grassland Reserve Program, 5, 7Grasslands. See National Forest SystemGrazing land conservation, 130Grazing privileges, 115GRIP. See Group Risk Income ProtectionGroup Risk Income Protection, 82Group Risk Plan, 82GRP. See Group Risk PlanGSM-102 program, 77GSM-103 program, 77Guatemala

Medfly infestations, 156Gypsy moth control program, 139

HHACCP. See Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Point SystemsHACCP-Based Inspection Models Project, 102–103Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

bovine spongiform encephalopathy study, 104–105Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point operating

plan, 4, 101, 148Hazardous Materials Management Group, 50Hazardous Materials Management Program, 50Healthy Eating Index, 86Hearing impaired persons

food safety hotline information, 106Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research

Centerbiogas research, 10

Heritage College, 65HHS. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-

vicesHIMP. See HACCP-Based Inspection Models ProjectHispanic Advisory Council, 49Hispanic population

extension nutrition programs for, 139in rural areas, 39

Hispanic-serving institutions, 83, 137Historically Black colleges and universities, 137HMMG. See Hazardous Materials Management

GroupHMMP. See Hazardous Materials Management Pro-

gramHogs. See also Swine

African swine fever, 155Federal inspection, 102

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants,61, 62

Homeland securitybiosecurity system, 2–3, 103Federal and State coordination, 3key biosecurity enhancements, 3objectives, 2plant and animal pest and disease outbreaks, 3,

103ports of entry product and cargo inspections, 3threats to food supplies, 2

Homeless personsfood assistance programs, 88–89

Horse Protection Act, 159–160Hotlines

Meat and Poultry, 4, 100, 106, 108violations and abuses in the grain, livestock, meat

and poultry industries, 161Household Food Security in the United States, 142Housing

farm workers, 62loan programs, 60–62“sweat equity,” 61

Housing Preservation Grants, 61How to Start a Cooperative, 60

How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Taxes AffectFarmers?, 143

HPA. See Horse Protection ActHSIs. See Hispanic-serving institutionsHunger Prevention Act of 1988, 90Hurricane recovery efforts, 80Hydrogen and fuel cell technology applications, 11Hydropower Task Force, 9

IIllegal drug smuggling operations, 125Illinois

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programagreement, 73

ImidaclopridAsian longhorned beetle eradication, 157

ImmigrantsAgricultural Labor Affairs and, 53to rural areas, 38Imports. See also Exports; International issuesanimals, 155–156grading of, 153livestock and poultry, 156–157meat and poultry, 101plants, 157total for 2002, 75

Income Protection Insurance, 82Indonesia

food labeling training, 81Infant formulas, 96Information Resources Management projects, 55Information technology

Alaska Native small IT businesses, 52cybersecurity, 54–55

Input industriesbiotechnology and, 8

Inspector General, Office of, 54Inspector General Act of 1978, 54Intellectual property rights

biotechnology and, 8plant breeders, 151

Interactive Food Supply, 87Interactive Healthy Eating Index, 86Interagency Hydropower Committee, 9Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of, 55Intermediary Relending Program Loans, 59International Food Safety Council, 108International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990, 112International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 123International issues. See also Developing countries;

Exports; Importsfood safety, 4, 103, 104–105Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States

database, 140foreign trade disputes, 155global food consumption patterns report, 142grading and certification for exports, 152–153

Index | 169

Natural Resources Conservation Service programs,131

plant and animal pests and diseases, 155riparian buffer effort, 139trade agreements, 75–76

International Organization for Standardization-basedprograms, 148

International organization liaison, 80International Programs, Office of, 124–125International Services, 156International trade agreements, 75–76Internet. See also Web sites

ABCs of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Sci-ence and Application, 87

AGRICultural Online Access, 136FoodSafe online discussion group, 108Interactive Food Supply, 87Interactive Healthy Eating Index, 86

Invasive species, 154–155Inventory, Assessment, Land Management Planning,

and Monitoring, 117Iowa

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programagreement, 73

Iowa State University and USDA CooperativeAgreement, 10

IT. See Information technology

JJapan

exports to, 74, 75Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, 124Junior Forest Ranger program, 122Junior Snow Ranger program, 122

KKansas

boll weevil eradication, 157Kansas City Commodity Office, 69

KentuckyConservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73

L“La Cucina Saludable,” 139Labeling

organic food, 9, 152Labor. See also Employment

cattle and, 31food marketing costs and, 21

Lambgrading, 148mandatory price reporting program, 149

Land-grant universities, 83, 137–139Land Use and Value Briefing Room, 141Large family farms

commodity programs and, 35government program participation, 33growth in number of, 34household income, 34

increase in number of, 26production, 30specialization and, 31, 32typology for, 29

Law Enforcement and Investigations program, 125Lead production, 116LEI program. See Law Enforcement and Investiga-

tions programLimited-resource farms

specialization and, 31typology for, 29

Listeria monocytogenesFSIS testing for, 100hotline information, 106population-based surveillance for, 105pregnant women outreach program, 107risk assessment for, 103–104

Listeriosis and Food Safety Tips, 107Listeriosis and Pregnancy: What Is Your Risk? Safe

Food Handling for a Healthy Pregnancy, 107Livestock. See also specific types of livestock

bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 4Federal inspection, 100foot-and-mouth disease, 2, 3grazing privileges on national forests and grass-

lands, 115imports, 156–157loans for purchase of, 58methane biogas, 10payment protection, 161Process Verification Program, 149wildlife depredation losses, 159

Livestock Compensation Program, 71Livestock Gross Margin Insurance, 82Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999,

149Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting program, 149Livestock Risk Protection, 82Loan programs. See also specific loans and pro-

gramsbusiness and industry loans, 58–59emergency loans, 70–71housing, 60–62loan deficiencies payments, 68“nonrecourse” loans, 69renewable energy systems and energy efficiency

improvements, 11Rural Development funds, 10Rural Utilities Service, 9, 59, 63

Long-Term Improvement Plan, 47Low-income persons. See also Poverty

commodity procurement programs for, 150housing loans and grants, 60–62nutrition assistance programs, 89, 90–92, 94–96,

97LTIP. See Long-Term Improvement Plan

M“Mad cow disease,” 4, 104–105, 156MAP. See Market Access ProgramMarket Access Program, 78Market News, 149–150Marketing. See also Agricultural Marketing Service

cost of marketing farm foods, 21loan programs, 68–69market development programs, 78–79

Marketing orders, 151Maryland

Chesapeake Bay riparian buffers, 139population-based surveillance for foodborne dis-

eases, 105McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and

Child Nutrition Program, 77Meals-on-Wheels programs, 94Meat packers, 161Meats. See also Beef; Fish and shellfish; Poultry

consumption profile, 14, 15–16foreign disease organisms, 155foreign meat inspection, 4grading, 148Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108pathogen reduction, 101–106

Medfly infestations, 156Mentoring programs

for Alaska Native small IT businesses, 52persons with disabilities, 49

Methane biogas, 10Metropolitan areas

asset base, 41migration from, 38unemployment rate, 40

Mexicoanimal imports, 156–157exports to, 74, 75food labeling training, 81Medfly infestations, 156

Migrant workershousing for, 62

Milk. See also Dairy products; Dry milkconsumption profile, 16marketing orders, 151pesticide program, 150Special Milk Program, 96

Minerals, 116Minnesota

population-based surveillance for foodborne diseases, 105

Minorities. See also specific minoritiesextension nutrition programs for, 139loans and loan guarantees to, 72percent of USDA workforce, 48

Mississippibeaver damage management programs, 159


Mississippi Deltapoverty in, 38

Mortgages. See Loan programs; Rural Housing Service; specific loan and grant programs

MOSCAMED program, 156MPCI. See Multiple-Peril Crop InsuranceMultiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 82Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 112Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 61, 62

NNAFTA. See North American Free Trade AgreementNAL. See National Agricultural LibraryNAP. See Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance

ProgramNAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest Information

SystemNASS. See National Agricultural Statistics ServiceNational Academy of Sciences, 103, 148–149National Agricultural Library

AGRICOLA bibliographic database, 136goals, 135highlights, 136hours of operation, 136mission, 135visiting scholar program, 136Web site, 136

National Agricultural Pest Information System, 158National Agricultural Statistics Service, 82

current surveys, 145description, 143farm typology group differences, 29–30importance of agricultural statistics, 143mission, 143producer reports as source for statistics, 144Web site, 145wildlife depredation losses, 159

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 131National Animal Health Reserve Corps, 155National Association of State Departments of Agricul-

ture, 156National Boll Weevil Eradication Program, 157National Center for Health Statistics

percent of adults who are overweight or obese, 14National Centers of Excellence, 65National Commission on Small Farms, 26National Conservation Buffer Initiative, 130–131National Cooperative Soil Surveys, 128–129National Energy Technology Laboratory, 10National Environmental Policy Act, 115National Finance Center, 55National Food Safety Education MonthSM, 108National Food Safety Educators Network, 108National Food Safety Information Network, 108National Forest Management Act of 1976, 112National Forest System. See also Forest Service

Energy, Minerals, and Geology Program, 116inventory, assessment, and planning, 117

lands and realty management activities, 114noxious weed management program, 115partnerships, 114Passport in Time program, 118–119rangeland, 115recreation, heritage, and wilderness resources,

116–117stewardship demonstration projects, 118vegetation management, 118watershed, soil, and air management programs,

114–115wildlife, fish, and sensitive species, 114

National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986,125

National Forests and Grasslands, 112National Information Technology Center, 55National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin, 53National Organic Program, 9National Plant Board, 156National Register of Historic Places, 118National Research Initiative, 137National Resources Inventory, 130National School Lunch Program, 69, 92–94, 96, 148,

150National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 60National Symbols Program, 122National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 158National Wilderness Preservation System, 112National Wildlife Research Center, 159Native American land-grant institutions, 137Native Americans. See also American Indian and

Alaska Native Programshousing loans and grants, 62nutrition assistance programs, 89, 91, 150tribal utilities, 63

“Natural foods”organic foods and, 9

Natural Resource Agenda, 112Natural Resources Conservation Service

administration responsibilities, 7Conservation Technical Assistance, 127–128erosion and sediment control, 127Farm Service Agency and, 73field offices, 126important farmland protection, 127international programs, 131mission, 126partnerships, 126–127programs, 128–131soil mapping, 115Web site, 131

NCE. See National Centers of ExcellenceNebraska

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71Neighborhood Reinvestment, 62NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act

Nevadafire-hazard education program, 139

New Century of Service, 123New York

population-based surveillance for foodborne dis-eases, 105

NFC. See National Finance CenterNFS. See National Forest SystemNFSEM. See National Food Safety Education MonthSM

1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, 19

NIPF landowners. See Nonindustrial private landowners

Nonfamily farmsproduction, 30typology for, 29

Nonindustrial private landowners, 120Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 70Nonmetropolitan areas. See also Metropolitan areas;

Rural areasemployment rate, 39–40Federal funding for development, 42–43population growth, 38unemployment rate, 40

“Nonrecourse” loans, 69North American Free Trade Agreement, 75, 141North American Waterfowl Management Plan,

113–114North Carolina

beaver damage management programs, 159boll weevil eradication, 157

North DakotaConservation Reserve Enhancement Program

agreement, 73Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 94Noxious weed management program, 115NRI. See National Resources InventoryNSIP. See Nutrition Services Incentive ProgramNSLP. See National School Lunch ProgramNutrient Management/Best Management Practice

Insurance Program, 82–83Nutrition. See also Food and Nutrition Service

extension programs for minorities, 139McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

and Child Nutrition Program, 77research 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, 150Nuts

consumption profile, 14crop insurance, 81–82imports, 153markets for, 151wildlife depredation losses, 159

NVSL. See National Veterinary Services LaboratoriesNWRC. See National Wildlife Research Center

Index | 171

OObesity, 14OCE. See Office of the Chief EconomistOCFO. See Office of the Chief Financial OfficerOCIO. See Office of the Chief Information OfficerOEPNU. See Office of Energy Policy and New UsesOffice of Bio-Power, 10Office of Civil Rights, 47–49

Mission Statement, 47Office of Community Development, 64–65Office of Congressional Relations, 55Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 10, 53Office of Ethics, 52Office of Human Resources Management, 49Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 55Office of International Programs, 124–125Office of Operations, 50Office of Outreach, 52Office of Procurement and Property Management, 49Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis,

53Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 50, 52Office of the Chief Economist, 52Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 55Office of the Chief Information Officer, 54–55Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 62Office of the Inspector General, 54Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 75Office of Thrift Supervision, 62Official U.S. Standards for Grain, 161OHRM. See Office of Human Resources

ManagementOIA. See Office of Intergovernmental AffairsOIG. See Office of the Inspector GeneralOilseeds. See also Seeds

inspection and weighing of, 161Older Americans Act of 2000, 94OO. See Office of OperationsOOA. See Older Americans Act of 2000Operation Talon, 54Operations, Office of, 50OPPM. See Office of Procurement and Property

ManagementOregon


Organic Administration Act of 1897, 112Organic farming

certification program, 152description, 8“natural foods” and, 9organic food definition, 9organic food standards and labels, 9

Organic Seal, 9, 152OSDBU. See Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business UtilizationOutlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, 140

Outreach, Office of, 52Outreach programs

housing loans, 62Listeria monocytogenes and pregnant women, 107risk management, 83Spanish language food safety information, 106

PPACA. See Perishable Agricultural Commodities ActPackers and Stockyards Programs, 161Paperwork Reduction Act, 55Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!R Campaign, 107, 108, 109Partnerships

college and universities, 65conservation buffers, 130–131Forest Service community-based partnerships,

113–114housing programs, 62States and the Food and Nutrition Service, 88wildlife, fish, and sensitive species on the national

forests and grasslands, 114Passport in Time program, 118–119Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point Systems, 4, 101, 148PDP. See Pesticide Data ProgramPeanuts

imports, 153Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 151Personal property

excess, 49Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, 92Persons with disabilities

housing loans, 61nutrition assistance programs, 96–97in the USDA workforce, 48–49

Pesticide Data Program, 150Pets

humane care, 159–160Phosphate production, 116Pigs. See Hogs; SwinePinchot, Gifford, 123Plant Materials Centers, 129Plant Protection Act of 2000, 155Plant Protection and Quarantine, 155Plant Variety Protection Act, 151Plant Variety Protection Office, 151Plants. See also specific types of plants

domestic plant health programs, 157imports, 157rare plants, 114

Plum pox eradication, 156Point farms, 27Popcorn, 19Potatoes

bioplastics from, 138consumption patterns, 18

disease-resistant, 135virus-resistant, 158

Poultryadding alum to poultry litter, 134–135consumer substitution of poultry for red meats, 15consumption profile, 15Federal inspection, 100, 102grading, 148imports, 156–157Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108pathogen reduction, 101–106payment protection, 161wildlife depredation losses, 159

Poultry Products Inspection Act, 100Poverty. See also Low-income persons

decline in rates of, 41rural areas, 38

Power Panther™, 89Price reporting program, 149Private voluntary organizations, 76–77Process Verification Program, 149Produce. See Fruits; VegetablesPseudorabies, 158Public Law 480, Title II/III Programs, 70, 76–77Puerto Rico

nutrition assistance program, 94PulseNet, 105–106Purchase Card Management System, 49Purdue University

mentoring program, 139PVOs. See Private voluntary organizations

QQA. See Quality assurance servicesQSP. See Quality Samples ProgramQuality assurance services, 148–149Quality Samples Program, 79Quality Systems Verification Program, 153Quarantines, 155–156, 157, 158

RRaisins

markets for, 151Rangeland programs, 115Rapid pathogen identification devices, 3Rare plants, 114RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperative ServiceRCAP. See Rural Community Advancement ProgramRC&D. See Resource Conservation and Development

ProgramRCRA. See Resource, Conservation and Recovery

ActREAP Zones. See Rural Economic Area Partnership

ZonesRecipes and Tips for Healthy, Thrifty Eating, 86–87Recreation

Forest Service options, 116–117, 118–119Remote Sensing Coordination Committee, 53


Renewable energy, 9, 11Renewable Energy Development Loan and Grant

Programdescription, 11

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, 112Rental assistance, 61Rental housing

loans for, 61Rescissions Act of 1995, 115Research. See specific agenciesResearch and Promotion Programs, 151Residential/lifestyle farms

government program participation, 34specialization and, 31typology for, 29

Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, 50Resource Conservation and Development Program,

7, 130Retirement farms

government program participation, 34specialization and, 31typology for, 29

Revenue Assurance, 82Revenue Insurance policies, 82RHLP. See Rural Home Loan PartnershipRHS. See Rural Housing ServiceRice

bioplastics from, 138import permits, 75

Rio Grande Valleypoverty in, 38

Riparian buffers, 139Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office

of, 53Risk Management Agency

anticipated growth, 83crop insurance, 81–83insurance plans, 82–83mission, 81outreach, 83risk management education, 83Web site, 82

RMA. See Risk Management AgencyRoper Roberts surveys

food consumption patterns, 17RTB. See Rural Telephone BankRural Alliance, 62Rural areas. See also Metropolitan areas; Nonmetro-

politan areasasset diversity, 41diversity of economies, 38farming and, 38Federal funding for development, 42–43Hispanic population, 39Nation’s economic prosperity and, 39–41population growth, 38–39regional trends, 38–39

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 58–60

Rural Business Enterprise Grants, 59Rural Business Opportunity Grants, 59Rural Community Advancement Program, 65Rural Community Assistance Program, 120Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 59Rural Cooperatives, 60Rural Development

Briefing Room, 141goals and mission, 58loans to help support rural energy and business

efforts, 10Office of Community Development, 64–65Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 58–60Rural Housing Service, 60–62Rural Utilities Service, 63

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 65Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants, 59Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees, 63Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 63Rural Home Loan Partnership, 62Rural Housing Service, 60–62Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 62Rural Rental Housing loans, 61Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan

Guarantees, 63Rural Telephone Bank, 63Rural Utilities Service

deregulation effects on rural communities, 10loans, 59loans to rural electric cooperatives for developing

electric power using renewable feedstocks, 9programs, 63

RUS. See Rural Utilities Service

SSACED. See Secretary’s Advisory Committee for

Employees with DisabilitiesSalad oils. See Fats and oilsSalmonella

FSIS testing for, 100hotline information, 106population-based surveillance for, 105prevalence of, 4, 101, 102

Salud! nutrition program, 139SAN. See Sustainable Agriculture NetworkSan Diego State University, 65Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, 75SARE Program. See Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education ProgramSBP. See School Breakfast ProgramScales and weighing activities, 161SCGP. See Supplier Credit Guarantee ProgramSchool Breakfast Program, 95, 96, 150School Lunch Program, 92–94, 96, 148, 150School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 93Scientific collaboration, 80SCMI. See Service Center Modernization InitiativeScrapie, 134

Screwworm eradication program, 156SCSEP. See Senior Community Service Employment

ProgramSecretary of Agriculture

Advisory Committee for Employees with Disabilities, 49

Diversity Advisory Council, 49Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary

of Energy regarding hydrogen and fuel cell technology applications, 11

Secretary of EnergyMemorandum of Understanding with the Secretary

of Agriculture regarding hydrogen and fuel celltechnology applications, 11

Secretary’s Advisory Committee for Employees withDisabilities, 49

Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council, 49Section 416(b) program, 77Seeds. See also Oilseeds

State seed laws, 151testing service for exporters, 153

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 124Senior Community Service Employment Program,

124Sensitive species, 114Service Center Modernization Initiative, 55Sexual harassment training, 48SFSP. See Summer Food Service ProgramSheep

Livestock Compensation Program, 71production and marketing of, 60scrapie in, 134

Shell Egg Surveillance Program, 151–152Shell eggs

grading, 151–152Shigella

population-based surveillance for, 105Shortening. See Fats and oilsSingle Family Housing loans, 60–61, 62Slaughter plants

pathogen reduction performance standards, 101Small and Disadvantaged Business Procurement

Preference Programs, 50Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office

of, 50, 52Small Business Act of 1958, 50Small Business Innovation Research program, 137Small family farms

assets, 30commodity programs and, 35government program participation, 33household income, 34nonfarm economy and, 35outreach conference, 83specialization and, 31, 32typology for, 29

Small Farm Digest, 138Small Farm Program, 138–139Small Watershed Program, 129

Index | 173

Smokey Bear fire prevention campaign, 122SMP. See Special Milk ProgramSmuggling

agricultural products, 155illegal drugs, 125

Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance unit,155

Snack foodsafter-school care center programs, 88, 93, 94consumption profile, 16fat content, 17

SNOTEL, 129Snow surveys, 129Snow Telemetry, 129Soft drinks

consumption profile, 16sugar content, 20

Soil management program, 114–115Soil surveys, 128–129Somerset Community College, 65Soup kitchens, 91South Agriculture Building renovation, 50South Carolina

boll weevil eradication, 157South Dakota

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71South Korea

exports to, 75Soybeans

exports, 74genetically engineered, 8

Special Milk Program, 96Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children, 95–96Specialization of farms, 30–32St. Louis River Watch Program, 139Staphylococcal enterotoxin

FSIS testing for, 100State and Private Forestry Action Strategy, 113State and Private Forestry programs

Conservation Education, 121–122Cooperative Forestry, 120description, 112–113Economic Action Programs, 120forest health protection, 119Forest Legacy Program, 120, 121Forest Stewardship Program, 120New Century of Service, 123

States. See also specific statesConservation Reserve Enhancement Program

cooperation, 6, 73Cooperative State Research, Education, and Exten-

sion Service, 137–139emergency animal disease prevention, prepared-

ness, response, and recovery systems, 155Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program,

152Food and Nutrition Service partnership with, 88

grants and cooperative agreements for homelandsecurity, 3

National Association of State Departments of Agri-culture, 156

statistical offices, 144Stewardship programs, 118, 120Stockyards, 161Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S.

Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report, 142Sucrose

consumption profile, 20Sugar

consumption profile, 14, 20Summer Camp program, 96–97, 150Summer Food Service Program, 96–97Supplemental food programs. See Food and Nutri-

tion ServiceSupplier Credit Guarantee Program, 77–78Surveys

farm typology group differences, 29–30food consumption patterns, 171996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by

Individuals, 19“Survival Strategies for Small and Limited-Resource

Farmers and Ranchers,” 83Sustainable Agriculture Network, 139Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Program, 139Sustainable Development, 53Swine. See also Hogs

African swine fever, 155brucellosis, 158Federal inspection, 100mandatory price reporting program, 149pseudorabies, 158

TTable spreads. See Fats and oilsTASC. See Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops

programTask Force on Agricultural Air Quality, 131Tax issues

estate taxes, 143Tax Treatment for Cooperatives, 60Taxol, 134Team Nutrition, 89–90, 93Teas. See Flavored teasTechnical Assistance for Specialty Crops program, 79Technical assistance projects, 80TEFAP. See The Emergency Food Assistance

ProgramTelecommunications Services and Operations, 55Telemedicine. See Distance Learning and Telemedi-

cine Loans and GrantsTelephone Bank, Rural, 63Telephone numbers. See HotlinesTemporary Agricultural Worker Program, 53Tennessee


Texas A&Mcloning of cattle for disease resistance, 138

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, 90–91Thermy™, 107Thrift Savings Plan, 55Thrift Supervision, Office of, 62Thrifty Food Plan, 86–87Timber harvests, 118Tomatoes

virus-resistant, 158Tongass National Forest, 116Trade agreements, 75–76Trade Briefing Room, 140Training

EEO training for employees, 48foreign agriculturists, 80–81

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 152“Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket,”

14Tribal Liaison, 52Turkeys. See PoultryTuskegee University, 137Typology for farms, 29–30, 142

UUnited Nations

technical assistance funding, 80University of Texas-Pan American, 65Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, 75U.S. Action Plan on Food Security, 79–80U.S. Agency for International Development

food assistance programs, 70technical assistance funding, 80

U.S. Customs Servicebiosecurity issues, 3product and cargo inspections, 3

U.S. Department of AgricultureDepartmental Administration, 47–52Foodborne Illness Education Information Center,

108infrastructure strengthening, 2, 54national energy policy implementation efforts,

9–10number of employees, by State, Territory, or

Country, 51Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum of Under-

standing with the Secretary of Energy, 11Web site, 10workplace profile by race and gender group, 2001,

48U.S. Department of Defense

produce buying and distribution system, 93troop ration specifications, 148

U.S. Department of Energycooperative project with USDA to produce

bioenergy, 10National Energy Technology Laboratory, 10Office of Bio-Power, 10


Secretary of Energy Memorandum of Understand-ing with the Secretary of Agriculture, 11

U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesbovine spongiform encephalopathy protection, 104Nutrition Services Incentive Program, 94–95

U.S. Department of Homeland Securityport inspection responsibilities, 3

U.S. Department of LaborJob Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest

Service land, 124U.S. Grain Standards Act, 160U.S. Office of Personnel Management

coordination with Office of Human Resources Management, 49

U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the, 75USAID. See U.S. Agency for International

DevelopmentUSDA Civil Rights Policy Statement, 47USDA Graduate School

mentoring program, 49USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 4, 100, 106, 108USDA Organic Seal, 9, 152USTR. See Office of the U.S. Trade RepresentativeUtah

water quality protection, 139Utilities service, 9, 59, 63

VValue-Added Agricultural Product Market Develop-

ment Grants, 59Veal

grading, 148Vegetables. See also specific vegetables

consumption profile, 14, 18crop insurance, 81–82exports, 79fair trade practices, 151farmer’s markets and, 97Food Stamp Program and, 93grading, 148imports, 153invasive diseases, 155marketing orders, 151pesticide program, 150wildlife depredation losses, 159

Veneman, Ann M.Secretary’s Diversity Advisory Council charter, 49

Venezuelaimport licensing, 75

Very large family farmscommodity programs and, 35government program participation, 33household income, 34production, 30specialization and, 32typology, 29

Veterinarians. See also Veterinary ServiceNational Animal Health Reserve Corps, 155

Veterinary Service, 158Veterinary services

District Veterinary Medical Specialists, 4Vibrio

population-based surveillance for, 105Virginia

boll weevil eradication, 157Virginia Tech, 138Virus-Serum Toxin Act of 1913, 158, 160Volunteers

Forest Service programs, 124Volunteers in the National Forests program, 124VS. See Veterinary Service

WWater and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants, 63Water quality protection, 139Water supply forecasts, 129Watershed programs, 114–115, 129–130, 139Weather forecasting, 52, 115Web sites. See also Internet

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 53Agricultural Marketing Service, 153Agricultural Research Service, 135American Indian/Alaska Native Programs, 52Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 160biotechnology, 8bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 105Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 87Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 6Cooperative State Research, Education, and Exten-

sion Service, 139crop insurance information, 82Departmental Administration, 47, 49Economic Research Service, 43, 140, 142Farm Bill, 7Farm Service Agency, 7, 73Food and Nutrition Service, 88Food Safety and Inspection Service, 101, 107, 108food safety issues, 4Foreign Agricultural Service, 74Global Change Program Office, 53Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration, 161homeland security, 4National Agricultural Library, 136National Agricultural Statistics Service, 145National Food Safety Information Network, 108National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

53National Organic Program, 9Natural Resources Conservation Service, 7, 131Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 53Office of Ethics, 52Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 50Office of the Chief Economist, 52outdoor recreation opportunities, 116

Plant Materials Centers, 129Risk Management Agency, 82Sustainable Development, 53USDA, 10USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 106water supply forecasts, 129Wetlands Reserve Program, 6Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 7World Agricultural Outlook Board, 53

Weed management program, 115Weed seeds, 151Welfare Reform Act of 1996, 88West Nile virus, 159Wetlands Reserve Program, 6, 27, 128Wheat

bioplastics from, 138crop insurance, 81–82exports, 74

WHIP. See Wildlife Habitat Incentives ProgramWIC. See Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and ChildrenWIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 97Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 112Wildfire-rating maps, 139Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 6–7, 128Wildlife Services program, 159WNV. See West Nile virusWomen

Listeria monocytogenes and pregnant women outreach program, 107

loans and loan guarantees to, 72nutrition assistance programs, 77, 95–96, 97percent of USDA workforce, 48

Women Employees Advisory Council, 49Wood in Transportation Program, 121Woodsy Owl, 122Workplace diversity, 48World Agricultural Outlook Board, 52–53World Bank

technical assistance funding, 80World Food Summit, 1996, 80World Meteorological Organization

Commission for Agricultural Meteorology, 53World Trade Organization, 75–76, 142World Wide Web. See Web sitesWRP. See Wetlands Reserve ProgramWS. See Wildlife Services programWTO. See World Trade OrganizationWyoming

Cattle Feed Assistance Program, 71

YYCC. See Youth Conservation CorpsYersinia

population-based surveillance for, 105Yew trees, 134Youth Conservation Corps, 124

Date post:	08-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungcong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times