Food and Agriculture Issues for Planning

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-04-22.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                         DOCUMENT RESUME

01884 -   [A1152135]

Food and Agriculture Issues for Planning. CED-77-61. April 22,
1977. 40 pp. + appendices (11 pp.).
Staff study by Henry Eschwege, Director, Community and Economic
Development Div.

Issue Area: Food (1700).
Contact: Community and Economic Development Div.
Budget Function: Agriculture (350); Income Security: Public
    Assistance and Other Income Supplements (6C4).
Organizaticon Concerned: Department of Agriculture; Department of
    Health, Education, and Welfare.
Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Agriculture; Senate
    Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Authority: Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966. Food, Drug
    and Cosmetic Act of 1938. P.L. 480.
         Food and agricultural issues facing the Congress and
the Nation are identified, and each of these issues are tied
into a series of "food system goals" which could represent a
principal element of a national food policy. Important issues
related to the goal of assuring safe, nutritious food for all
segments of the population are: evaluating the effectiveness of
Federal efforts to establish and promote nutritional standards;
evaluating the effectiveness of grain inspection and commodity
grading programs; and evaluating the effectiveness of
federally-assisted domestic feeding programs for school children
and the poor. Issues important to the goal of assuring that the
economic strength of the food system is maintained include
assessments of the effects of Government programs on the future
cost and availability cf resources to sustain high levels of
food production; and the costs and benefits of Federal and State
regulations that affect the efficiency of food marketing. The
following issues are important to the goal of fulfilling the
Nation's commitment to help meet world food demand through
humanitarian measures and commercial export: evaluation of
Federal programs designed to reduce malnutrition in developing
countries, and evaluation of the effectiveness of Federal
efforts to maintain strong agricultural export sales. Issues
related to developing and coordinating national and
international food policies are: analysis of the Federal food
policy decisionmaking structure, and evaluation of options for
implementing a system of domestic fod reserves. (RRS)


          ISUES Fif         PAN/IN8
         CED.7741            APRIL 22, 1977

      The events of the past several years have
                                                 brought to the
forefront the importance of food and agriculture
policy decisions. Sharp increases in food          issues to public
                                            prices, unprecedented
foreign demand for U.S. agricultural products,
                                                 continuing world
hunger, the food stamp debate, the safety
and the integrity ot our food inspection   of food  additives,
of the more important issues facing the   system  represent some
                                         Nation. As Congress
begins debating a new farm bill, these issues
importance. GAO, in past reports to the        take on increasing
                                          Congress, has addressed
all of these issues.

     As part of our continuing reassessment of
issues, and as an aid to the focusing of         critical national
                                           our own objectives, we
have tried to identify food and agricultural
in need of attention. This study identifies areas that are most
                                               and describes what
we believe are the critical food and agricultural
the Congress and the Nation. Each of these           issues facing
a series of "food system goals" which could   issues  are tied into
elements or a national food policy.           represent  the main
represent the perspective GAO uses to The  issues and goals
                                       organize its own activi-
ties. In its original form, this study    was prepared as an
internal guide to aid our work efforts in
                                            food and agriculture
issues and programs.

     It is hoped that others will find these issue
helpful in their own activities                    discussions
                                and that a better understanding
for the crucial issues facing food and agriculture
decision makers will result.                       policy

     This document was developed by the   Food Analysis and
Coordination Staff with the cooperation   of other offices.
Qustions regarding the content of this
to William E. Gahr, Assistant Director,   plan should be directed

                              Direc or
                              Community and Economic
                                Development Division
                        CO N T E N T S

PART I   INTRODUCTION                                       1

         Food Program Plan                                  1
         Food Issues                                        1
         Congressional Activity                             4


         Goal 1:   Assuring Safe, Nutritious Food for
                   All Segments of the Population           6

           Issue: Evaluating the Effectiveness
                    of Federal Efforts to
                    Establish and Promote
                    Nutritional Standards                   12

           Issue: Evaluating the E-fectiveness
                    of Grain Isletion and
                    Commodity Grading Programs              12

           Issue: Evaluating the Vffectiveness
                    of Federally-Assisted licm.estic
                    Feeding Programs for School
                    Children and the Poor                   13

           Issue: Evaluating the Effectiveness
                    of Federal Efforts to Improve
                    the Nutritional Awareness of
                    Consumers                               15

           Issue: Evaluating the Effectiveness
                    of Federally-Assisted
                    Domestic Programs for the
                    Aged                                    16

         Goal 2    Assuring that the Economic Strength of
                   the Food System is Maintained            17

           Issue: Evaluating the Effects of
                    Government Programs on the
                    Future Cost and Availability
                    of Resources Necessary to
                    Sustain High Levels of
                    Production                              22
   Issue:    Assessing the Costs and
               Benefits of Federal and State
               Regulations that Affect the
               Efficiency of Food Marketing           23
   Issue:    Assessing the Impact of
               Federal Farm Income Support
               Programs on Food Production            24
   Issue:    Identifying and Analyzing the
               Impact of Changes in Farm
               Ownership and Structure               24
  Issue:     Evaluating the Effectiveness
               of Government and Private
               Research Efforts to Increase
               Food Production                       25
Goal 3:     Fulfilling the Nation s Committment to
            Help Meet World Food Demand Through
            Humanitarian Measures and Commercial
            Export                                   25
  Issue:     Evaluating Federal Programs
               Designed to Reduce Malnutri-
               tion In Developing Countries          32
  Issue:     Evaluating the Effectieness
               of Federal Efforts to Maintain
               Strong Agricultural Commercial
               Export Sales                          33
  Issue:     Evaluating the Effect of U.S.
               Food Import Policies on U.S
               Food Supply Needs                     34
Goal 4:     Developing and Coordinating National
            and International Food Policies          35
  Issue:    Analysis of the Federal Food
              Policy Decisionmaking Structure        39
  Issue:    Evaluating Options for Imple-
              menting a System of Domestic
              Food Reserves                          39

           Issue:   Assessing the Adequacy of
                      Fe4eral Agricultural Data
                      Collection and Analysis
                      Programs                     40

   I       Federal Food Decisionmaking             42
  II       Food Organizations                      47
                            PART I

     To strengthen its ability to make recommendations to
Congress on Federal programs and policies, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) has prepared work plans centering on
29 different areas. As the world's population grows and
demand for food increases, government food programs and
pulicies become one of the most important of these areas.
     This document outlines the major issues and the major
goals of a national food policy in this country. In all,
a total of 16 issues are discussed.

     Although its elements are yet to be determined, it is
clear that a national food policy will be based on several
underlying goals. Food issues are related to four of these

-- assuring safe, nutritious food for all segments of the

-- assuring that the economic strength of the food system
   is maintained,
-- fulfilling the Nation's committment to help meet world
   food demand through humanitarian measures and commercial
   export, and
--   developing and coordinating national and international
     food policies
Assuring Safe, Nutritious Food for A11 Segments of the
     Assuring the safety and qual 4   af food has long been a
responsibility of the Federal gove...nent. Programs with
these responsibilities include the Department of Agricul-
ture's food inspection and grading activities; the Food and
 Drug Administration's food safety inspection and regulation;
 and nutrition education, monitoring, research and standards
 setting, conducted primarily by the USDA and the Department
 of Health, Education, and Welfare.
      The Federal government has also assumed a major role
 in providing adequate quantities of food to certain segments
 of the population. Domestic feeding programs, such as
 food stamp program and the school lunch and milk programs,
 also directly affect the ability of program beneficiaries
 to receive an adequate diet.

        In this area, important issues are aimed at:
 --   evaluating the effectiveness of Federal efforts to estab-
      lish and promote nutritional standards,
 --   evaluating the effectiveness of grain inspection and
      commodity grading programs, and
-- evaluating the effectiveness of Federally-assisted
   mestic feeding programs for school children and the do-
     Other issues include determining the effectiveness of
Federal efforts to improve the nutritional awareness of
consumers, and the effectiveness of Federally-assisted
feeding programs for the aged.

Assuring that-the Economic Strength of the Food System
Ma ntaine                                              is

     In the face of finite resources, Federal research,
development and regulatory activities should be aimed
increasing agricultural productivity, stabilizing prices,
and improving the efficiency of food production and

     Major programs directed toward these objectives include
farm price supports, agricultural research, and research
and regulations affecting food marketing and distribution.
Federal actions related to essential production inputs,
as water, land, energy and capital, also impinge on
economic stability of the food sector.              the

       Irsues judged important therefore include assessments

-- the effects of government programs on the future cost
   and availability of resources necessary to sustain high
   levels of food production, and
--     the costs and benefits of Federal and state regulations
       that affect the efficiency of food marketing

Other issues include assessments of the impact of Federal
farm income support programs in food production, identification
and analysis of the impact of changes in farm ownership and
structure, and evaluation of the effectiveness of government
and private research efforts to increase food production.

Fulfilling the Nation's Committnment to Help Meet World Food
Demand Through Humanitarian Measures and Commercial Export
     As the world's leading food producer and exporter, the
U.S. has a vital part in meeting international food  needs.
The Nation's humanitarian values  have also led to a strong
concern for feeding the growing  numbers of the world's
hungry and poor.
     At the same time, the U.S. economy has come to depend
on a large food export market, with agricultural trade
accounting for positive balance of payments in four out of
the last five years.
         Issues of importance include:
 -- evaluation of Federal programs designed to reduce mal-
    nutrition in developing countries, and

 -- evaluation of the effectiveness of Federal efforts to
    maintain strong agricultural commercial export sales

      Other issues include an evaluation of the effect
 of U.S. food import policies on U.S. food supply needs.
     Develo ing and Coordinating National and International
     Food Polic.es

          In the absence of food policies which enunciate specific
     objectives and actions for achieving those objectives, U.S.
     food programs may be costly, ineffective, and sometimes

     In part, this policy void can be attributed to the
structure of decisionmaking responsibility within the Federal
government. With over 26 agencies and 30 Congressional
committees sharing some responsibility for setting food
policy, overlaps and gaps may be a serious impediment.

     Because the responsiveness of the Federal government
to meeting food program goals rests on its structural ability
to set those goals, we have assigned priority to an analysis
of the Federal food policy decisionmaking structure.

     Other topics include evaluation of options for
implementing a system of domestic food reserves, and an
assessment of the adequacy of Federal agricultural data
collection and analysis programs.


     Farm legislation in the 1960's was designed to inhibit
surplus production and provide price support for specific
commodities. In the 1970's, agricultural policy turned to
expansion of both domestic and foreign markets, and to de-
creasing government intervention while protecting farm

     Current government food policy is at a crossroads.
The general farm legislation in effect during the recent
period of expanded exports and spiraling food prices is due
to expire in 1977. Congress has already begun consideration
on the 1977 Farm Act.

     Attention to this year's Congressional deliberations
may also be greater than ever, as new and diverse interest
groups are added to traditional agricultural interests.
The Consumer Federation of America, for example, views the
Farm Act debate as one of the most important Congressional
activities in 1977.

    Farm bill issues are likely to include:

    -- Target prices:  Should price supports be raised to
       cover production costs? Should they be extended to
       commocities other than wheat, feed grains and cotton?
    -- Food reserves: Should the United States have a food
       reserve?   f
                  fso, how large should it be? Should it

      be controlled and maintained by the government or
      farmers? How would reserves be released into the
    -- S ecial commodit    rograms: Should they be revised?
          so,should they conform to provisions of other
       commodity programs?
    -- Disaster insurance for farmers: Should there be crop
        iinsurance, emergency loans, or direct payments for
       low yields?
     Food Stamp program reform narrowly escaped enactment
in 1976 and will again be the subject of legislation in 1977.
Reforms will likely center on reducing program costs and more
careful targeting of program funds to the needy.
     Grain inspection reform emerged from the 94th Congress
late this year. Continued attention will be placed
on the development of an improved inspection program during
     Food aid will be a major issue, with concerns centered
on levels of funding, and humanitarian versus political
criteria for assistance. International development assis-
tance programs for fiscal years 1978-79 must be authorized
by Congress in early 1977. The Food for Peace program,
P.L. 480, expires in 1977.
     In short, the new farm bill could include a variety of
measures, broader in purview than previous legislation which
narrowly focused on farm interests. At the very least,
debate will serve to point out the growing trend to view
food policy as encompassing considerations of the entire
food system-- from agricultural production inputs through
consumer needs.

                             PART II
     The growing complexity of food marketing and food
composition, and an increasing body of knowledge about food
safety, have paved the way for government involvement in
quality assurance since the late 1880's.  Consumers now rely
on the Federal government to enforce quality control regula-
tions that include:
     o safety
     o food grading

     o nutritional content (information for some products)

     o labeling

     o advertising
     Nutrition clearly affects the individual's ability to
realize full capacity. Loss of this capacity also affects
society through loss of productivity and, in some cases,
through costs of maintaining an individual's welfare.
According to a 1972 estimate, nutrition-related diseases
cost the United States over $30 billion. As an issue
clearly affecting the public interest, the government
attempts to provide adequate nutrition through a variety of
health and education programs and feeding programs for
targeted groups.

     Federal programs for assuring an adequate and high-
quality food supply are largely centered in two agencies:
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). USDA is
primarily responsible for feeding programs, meat and poultry

inspection, and commodity grading, while HEW oversees non-
meat inspection, nutrition research and development, food
labeling, safety regulations, health delivery systems, and
nutrition surveillance.

Food Safety
     Assuring food' safety is the responsibility of both the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of HEW and USDA.
FDA activities include:
     o Food sanitation control

     o Assuring the safety of ingredients added to food

     o Enforcing regulations that prohibit chemical contami-
       nants from entering the food supply
     o Enforcing regulations to control the spread of com-
       municable diseases through interstate transportation
     o Identification and control of mycrotoxins and other
       aatural poisons in foods
     o Promoting consumer education through product labeling
       of nutrient composition and biological availability of
       nutrients in food

     o Assuring the safety and quality of shellfish
     o Assuring fair packaging and labeling and preventing
       adulterated and misbranded foods from reaching the
     UDSA food safety activities are in part conducted by the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS is
responsible for:

     o Inspection of animals and poultry (optional for poul-
       try) before and during slaughter

     o Inspection of meat and poultry processing to ensure
       that the products are wholesome, produced under sani-
       tary conditions, and are not adulterated or mislabeled
     o Inspection of meat and poultry for harmful pesticides
       and other chemical and biological residues

     o On-site reviews of foreign inspection systems and
       plants exporting meat and poultry products to the U.S.
     o Certification of U.S. meat and poultry poducts for
     o Supervision of the destruction for food purposes of
       condemned meat and poultry products
     o Regulation of related industries, including animal
       food manufacturers, brokers, shippers and wholesalers
       to prevent uninspected or adulterated meat or poultry
       products from entering human food channels
     o Providing support services in the fields of chemistry,
       microbiology, pathology, parasitology, toxicology, and
     o Approval of plant and animal facilities and equipment
     APHIS is also responsible for controlling and eradicating
plant disease and pests.
Commodity Grading

     USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is respon-
sible for quality grading of numerous products including
cotton, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, grains, and
meat and poultry products. Originally established to provide
wholesalers with an indication of size or quality of farm
products, quality grading has also become a consumer tool
although the various types and reasons for marketing may in
fact confuse the consumer.
Nutrition Surveillance
     Except for some work conducted in a few states, partially
sponsored by the Center for Disease Control, little has been
done to implement a nutritional surveillance system. Nutri-
tional status was reported through the Ten State Nutrition
Survey (TSNS) completed in 1970. The National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES I) will issue a final re-
port late this year; HANES II is just now getting underway.
     The TSNS, however, has been criticized as unrepre-
sentative of the population.  Furthermore, the extensive
amount of time involved in the data collection and preparation

of HANES I and II may result in an inaccurate picture of the
current nutritional status of the population. HANES I has
also been criticized for not adequately pinpointing health
problems of particular ethnic and socio-economic groups.

     USDA periodically conducts a Nationwide Food Consump-
tion Survey (NFCS) to determine the kind, amount, and money
value of food used by households and individuals.   These
surveys can be used to provide useful indications of  nutrient
levels of consumers and to evaluate food assistance  programs.
However, the current survey has been critized because of
poor low-income coverage and validation weaknesses.

Nutrition R&D

     About $70 million is currently spent each year on nutri-
tion R&D, most of it through the National Institutes of
Health.  The FDA, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Department of Defense also have small R&D programs.  It is
not entirely certain however that research is being directed
at the most important nutritional problems or that sufficient
attention is given to coordination of individual programs.

Establishment of DietaLy_Standards

     The American diet is essentially influenced by two sets
of standards:

     -- the required daily allowance (RDA), established by the
        National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council

     -- various safety standards imposed by the Animal and
        Plant Health Inspection Service

      The RDA's are currently the best estimates of nutrients
needed by the human body to survive and flourish.   Virtually
every  dietary plan is based to some extent on RDA's.  Unfor-
tunately, these estimates are not perfect and do not include
many nutrients, particularly trace minerals, that are known
to be needed by man.   Further, little is known about the ef-
fects of either marginal underuse or large overuse of most

Dissemination of Nutrition Information

     A high standard of living allows most Americans to pur-
chase varied and ample quantities of food and so receive suf-
ficient nutrients. But while few suffer from serious vitamin

and protein shortages, obesity and heaLt disease and other
diet-related disorders are prevalent.

     In part, this can be attributed to a lack of training
and emphasis on preventive health care. Although nutrition
research has uncovered new information about the relationship
of nutrition to health, little of this is transmitted to
consumers. Physicians themselves receive little nutrition
education: some medical schools do not even offer nutrition
courses, and most do not require them as a prerequisite for

      Instead, nutrition education for most Americans is based
upon family meal patterns, limited school courses, food
labeling and food advertising. With the possible exception of
food labeling (which provides information rather than educa-
tion), there are no formal Federal programs that promote
nutrition education to any great extent. While many of the
nutrition programs have some dissemination functions, these
are typically quite limited.

Target Feeding Programs
     There are many Federal programs that directly feed certain
target groups or assist in enabling others to do so.

     -- The Food Stamp program assists needy families, serving
        over 18 million persons at any one time. Program costs
        were $5.6 billion in FY 1976.

     --The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, In-
       fants, and Children, assists qualified mothers and
       children to obtain specific nutritious foods. FY
       1976 program costs were an estimated $198 million.
    -- The National School Lunch Program provides free and
       reduced priced lunches to over 10 million children in
       FY 1976 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.
    -- The School Breakfast Program serves almost 200 million
       free and reduced price breakfasts, at a cost of about
       $96 million.

-- The Special Milk Program provides free milk to eligible
   children in participating schools, child care centers,
   and summer camps. An estimated $129 million was spent
   in FY 1976.

-- The Food Donation/Commodity Distribution programs
   provides food to schools under the National School
   Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act.

-- The Summer Feeding Program provides meals or snacks to
   eligible, participating children during the summer
   months. Program costs nearly reached $100 million in
   FY 1976.

-- The Child Care Food Programs provide free meals and
   snacks to eligible children in participating institu-
   tions. These programs also cost close to $100 mil-
   lion in FY 1976.

-- Nonfood support, such as kitchen equipment for schools
   participating in the School Lunch Program, cost about
   $47 million.
-- Nonfood assistance for the elderly feeding programs
   cost about S11 million.

-- Nutrition programs for the elderly provide low-cost
   nutritious meals to those over 60 who cannot afford
   to eat adequately, lack meal prepartion skills, have
   limited mobility, or are lonely.

-- Headstart is designed to give disadvantaged children
   an opportunity to develop skills before entering
   school. The program also provides meals to partici-
   pating children.

Community Service Administration:
-- Community food and nutrition programs are designed
   to make Federal, state and local feeding and nutri-
   tion programs more accessible to the needy. These
   programs were estimated to cost $26.2 million in FY

Issue:   Evaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Efforts
         to Establish and Promote Nutritional Standards
     The establishment of nutritional standards must be pre-
ceded by at least two sets of activities. Research and devel-
opment is first necessary to determine the nutrient require-
ments of the human body and the nutritional contribution of
various foods in meeting these needs. Present nutrient stan-
dards are based on rudimentary information and work is con-
tinuing to refine them.

     A second need, but one which has received less attention,
is for nutrition surveillance. Surveillance is important
because it allows us a measure or baseline to determine die-
tary deficiencies and can provide basic information for
determining food assistance program effectiveness.

     Past GAO Reviews
     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Survey of Federal Nutrition Policy and Programs

     Review of Priorities and Coordination of Human Nutrition
     Research by Federal Agencies
Issue:   Evaluating the Effectiveness of Grain
         Inspection and Commodity Grading Programs
     Grain inspection is the subject of much public controversy.
Considerable resources will be devoted to a currently planned
review on grain inspection at interior locations, a review
which stems directly from the new grain inspection aw.

     Changing consumer needs dictate that we use a grading
scheme that will provide information that both marketers and
consumers can use in making rational purchasing decisions.
Quality standards must meet current demands for information
on nutritional value, product stability, convenience, and
safety that go beyond the traditional standards based on
appearance, texture, uniformity, and marbeling.

     The standards used must ultimately reflect perceptible
differences between grades, and the terms used should imply
a consistent standard of excellence across product lines.
This current lack of standardization and consistency between
grade terms for products makes the current USDA grading sys-
tem incomprehensible in its contradictions.
     Past GAO Reviews

     Assessment of the National Grain Inspection System
     Supplemental Information on Assessment of the National
     Grain Inspection System (CED-76-132)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Survey of USDA's Inspection and Grading of Export
Issue:   Evaluating the Effectiveness of FedeL,,lly-
         Assisted Domestic Feeding Programs for School
         Children and the Poor

     A number of Federal programs provide benefits to target
groups in the form of cash payments, which have a food com-
ponent "built" into the determination of benefits.  However,
many observers feel that problems arise from the way these
programs are structured and benefits derived.

     -- With programs assembled in a piecemeal fashion, some
        potential target groups could be missed while others
        could receive overlapping benefits. Thus some recip-
        ients can receive food far in excess of their daily

     --Similarly, the large number of programs may hamper the
       efficiency of delivery. To address this problem, the
       Administration recently attempted to integrate child
       feeding programs into a system of block grants to the
       states. Congressional sponsorship was difficult to
       obtain, however, and the measure soon died.
     -- Program benefits, especially for the Food Stamp pro-
        gram, are regularly criticized for being overly
        generous. In turn, critics are accused of trying to
        place overly restrictive limits on the program which
        would reduce their effectiveness as feeding programs.

-- The makeup of program beneficiaries is also regularly
   challenged, again primarily in the Food Stamp program.
   Some have questioned whether the programs are too
   broad in coverage, allowing inclusion of middle-income
   persons who were not intended to be covered by the
-- Charges of excessive fraud, program abuse, and sloppy
   management are often leveled :. th'e Food Stamp
--The most important question, and on.'     pLisingly not
  asked very often, is whether programs are really
  meeting their objectives. Is the nutritional status
  of recipient groups improving? Unfortunately there is
  a decided lack of information to prov 4 de a measure
  of program effectiveness.
Past GAO Reviews
Observations on Evaluation of the Special Supplemental
Food Program Food and Nutrition Servi. e (RED-75-310,
Appraisal of the Special Summer Food Service Program for
Children (RED-75-336, 2/14/75)

Observations on the Food Stamp Program (RED-75-342,
GAO Food Stamp Seminar:   A Transcript of the Proceedings
(OSP-76-12, 1/28/76)
Indentification of Food Stamp Issues (OSP-76-10, 1/28/76)
Processing Applications for Food Stamps:   How Long Does
It Take? (RED-76-74, 2/27/76)
Student Participation in the Food Stamp Program at Six
Selected Universities (RFT)-76-105, 2/29/76)
Reasons for Differences in Five Aspects of the Food
Stamp, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, and
Supplemental Income Security Programs (MWD-76-131,5/11/76)
Operation of the Emergency Food and Medical Services
Program (HRD-76-112, 9/1/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Review of UtSDA Commodity Delivery Service to School
     Lunch Program
     Review of the Recovery of the Food Stamp Program Over
     Review of Controls Over Food Stamp Vendor Receipts and
     Survey of the Relationship of the Food Stamp Program to
     Other Federal Programs Providing Food Assistance
     Review of the Effectiveness of the Food Stamp Work
     Registration Requirement
     Survey of the Allegations Regarding Food Stamp Program
     Mismanagement in Louisiana

     Synthesis of Evaluation of School Feeding and Child
     Nutrition Programs
     Review of the Food Stamp and Commodity Distribution
     Programs in Puerto Rico
     Review of the Summer Food Service for Children
     Review of Delays in Issuence of Food Stamp Purchase
     Cards in Chicago, ILL.
     Review of Nutritional Aspects of the School Lunch
     Program in New York City
Issue:   Evaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Efforts to
         Improve the Nutritional Awareness o Consumers

     The government engages in a variety of efforts to im-
prove nutritional awareness amoung food consumers.

     Under the authority of the Fair Packaging and Labeling
Act of 1966 and the misbranding provisions of the Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the FDA started a program in 1973
to require detailed nutritional information on the labels of
certain foods making nutritional claims. The program is
voluntary for most other foods.

     In January 1975, GAO issued Food Labeling: Goals, Short-
comings and Proposed Changes (MWD-75-19).   The report recom-
mended needed improvements in ingredient disclosure and nutri-
tional labeling, quality grading and related areas. GAO
concluded that poor food choices among Americans can be attri-
buted in part to a lack of nutritional. information on food
     The Federal Trade Commission has now taken this one step
further and argues that food advertising as a whole has tended
to blunt public awareness of the health significance of food
choices and to encourage patterns of consumption which are
contributing to a de-line in the nutritional status of major
segments of the population.
     In rulemakinq procedures begun in November 1974, and
still in the active hearings phase, FTC has concluded that
food advertising is unfair under the FTC Act if it fails to
disclose nutrition information relating to the advertised
food. The FTC noted that failure to do so makes it difficult
for a consumer to reach basic determinations concerning food
purchase decisions, tends to inhibit appreciation of the
importance of nutrition, and is financially and physically
harmful to the consumer.
     Past GAO Reviews
     Food Labeling: Gaols, Shortcomings, and Proposed Changes
     (MWD-75-19, 1/29/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Review of Availability and Dissemination of Information
     on Nutrition

Issue:   Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Federally Assisted
         Domestic Feeding Programs For The Aged

     The aged have special dietary problems which cannot
always be met by simply providing food. Many are physically
unable to prepare meals. The Meals on Wheels program
administered by HEW, which allows the eligible elderly
to receive prepared meals in a congregate setting, shares
many of the problems of other domes c feeding programs.

     Past Reviews

      .rvey of the Title VII Nutrition Program for the
      ,derly in St. Louis, Missouri (HRD-76-754, 9/14/76)

      3 oinq Reviews

     Survey of the Title VII Nutrition Program for the


     Maintaining the economic vitality of food producers,
processors, and marketers is recognized as crucial in pro-
viding consumers a continuous stream of safe, high-quality
and relatively low-priced food products. Government pro-
grams and policies which disrupt any of these food system
"li ':s" threaten the proper functioning of the system and
its ability to respond to the needs and desires of the con-
suming public. For example, farm policies can discourage
production or innovation by not providing sufficient in-
centives to produce. Conflicting and overlapping Federal
and state rules and regulations can impede productivity gains
and increase costs of food marketing, or threaten the future
supply of basic resources such as land, water for irrigation,
energy, fertilizer and capital and credit.


     The food system is an intricately woven pattern of many
sectors of the economy, encompassing far more than farming.
It includes (1) the so-called "input" industries which pro-
vide energy, machinery, chem'cals, etc., (2) the farm sector
itself, that is, the producers of crops, livestock, and dairy
products;l/ (3) the food processing sector, which includes
slaughter-houses and meat packers, grain mills, dairies,
canners and packagers and prepared food manufacturers; (4)
warehousing, transportation and distribution; (5) retail
food stores and restaurants; and finally (6) the individual

l/One could also include the fishing industry here although
  it is not commonly referred to as such.

     Farming is one of our Nation's biggest industries,
employing about 4.5 million workers--the combined employment
in the transportation, steel, and automobile industries.
Other indicators of the size and importance of U.S. agri-
culture include

     -- gross farm sales, which total about $100 billion, or
        about 7 percent of the GNP
     -- consumer expenditures for food, which total about $170
        billion--about 17 percent of disposable personal

     -- the value of agricultural exports, which exceeds $20
        billion and comprises about 20 percent of total U.S.
Production Concerns

     Throughout the history of this country, government pro-
grams have been an important factor in the success of the
agricultural industry. In the 19th century, the government
provided the farmer with subsidized access to markets through
land grants to railroad builders. The land grant college sys-
tem, created in 1862, was to encourage research in farming
methods. The National Reclamation Act of 1902 subsidized
the irrigation of semi-arid land in the West, and the Federal
Farm Loan Act of 1916 allowed farmers to obtain capital at
lower interest rates than those prevailing in the open

     Most recently, government policy has been to compensate
farmers for any income losses resulting from national over-
production. A system of price supports is presently pro-
vided in the 1973 Farm Bill, due to expire this year.

     The coming farm bill debate, will therefore include
discussion of the level of income support necessary and the
form it should take. More specifically, the following is-
sues are likely to emerge:

    -- the appropriate level of government price supports
       for individual commodities,
    -- whether government or private grain reserves should
       be required,

    -- whether the government's programs to assist farmers
       in the event of natural disasters should be changed,

    -- whether the food foreign assistance program should be
       extended beyond 1977 and, if so, in what form,

    -- changes to be made to the Food Stamp program.
     With many conflicting objectives facing the 95th Congress
as they debate the farm bill, it is clear that no food policy
can meet all objectives equally. Some of the more apparent
conflicts occur between farmers, who want high price supports
to bolster farm income and consumers, who argue for lower
supports to keep down retail prices. Farmers are also asking
for high grain prices, while livestock producers want low
grain prices. The goals and objectives of farmers, pro-
cessors, marketers, consumers and taxpayers must all be
considered and weighed when evaluating farm policy options.

Production Resources and Inputs
     Also of concern is the future cost and availability
of basic resources used for producing food: land, water,
energy, labor, fertilizer and capital. The ready availa-
bility of these inputs at low cost has accounted for the
high yields characteristic of U.S. agriculture.
      Policies affecting each of these resources are often
determined separately, without consideration of the food
production requirements. Decisions affecting fossil fuel
inputs are now especially critical because of finite supply,
rapidly expanding cost and competition among non-farm users.
Since increased food output will largely come from increased
yields rather than from the cultivation of more land, the
 limited supply of chemical fertilizer and water also poses
serious problems, with higher costs leading to diminishing
returns and a potential leveling-off of output.
     In 1975 there were approximately 2.8 million farms--
a one-third decrease from 1960. This trend to fewer farms
is expected to continue, and by 1980 the number may reach
1.9 million and 1.1 million by the year 2000. Future farms
are expected to become larger and require fewer workers as
machinery and capital are substituted for labor.  The average
farm in 1970 was 2.6 times larger than in 1920. Since 1950
the average farm size has increased about 80 percent. This
reflects a general trend of farmers enlarging their opera-
tions and small marginal farms being absorbed.

      With growth in farm size, there has been concern that
 corporate farms are replacing family farms and are
 to dominate U.S. agriculture. Some believe that corporations
 reduce competition in agricultural markets, are less
 with conservation practices, and show a lack of interest
 rural community affairs. Several states, including        in
 North Dakota, and Minnesota, have passed laws limiting
 growth of corporate farms.                              the

       For the new farmer, entry has become very difficult.
 cause of general inflation and surging land prices,          Be-
 of capital needed to start a new farm is very high.  the amount
 the capital required for an average farm was about    In 1940
 in 1960 it was $42,000.                             $6,000;
                           By 1969 this amount had doubled to
 about $85,000. A 1973 USDA study shows capital needs
                                                       for a
 technically optimum one-person farm to range from $158,000
 for a Louisiana soybean farm to $610,000 for an Indiana
 farm.                                                    corn

     Farmers rely more than ever on
tilizer, equipment, and animal feed, other suppliers for fer-
                                      and have found the cost
of farming growing steadily with inflation in these
sectors. The growing cost of producing has substantially
increased the farmers' breakeven point and the risks
ated with price fluctuations in farm products.        associ-

     In addition to the impact of the rising cost
and other production inputs, farmers are faced withof capital
creasing land and water availability. Advancing urbanization
has moved 31 states, as of 1975, to pass laws aimed
serving agricultural land. Water supply problems     at pre-
dicted for irrigation projects in western Nebraska are pre-
                                                    and the
Texas high plains.

Food Marketing

      In recent years, expert observers of food industry
practice have concluded that many government  marketing regu-
lations are outmoded and overlapping, with rules set
processing and shipping methods were considerably
Rules established to protect consumers have not been
quately integrated into the production and distribution
tem, and therefore do not adequately provide protection sys-
higher costs or preserve flexible marketing opticns.     from

     After three years of study, the National
Productivity found that at least 2,000 Federal Commission on
plus similar state and local regulations, apply regulations,
                                                 to food. It

concluded that high priority should be given to reviewing
these regulations to simplify and consolidate their content
and administration.

     While government food programs are instituted to pro-
tect the public interest, they entail costs that must ulti-
mately be borne either directly by the taxpayer, or by the
consumer in the form of higher food prices, or by the pro-
ducer through reduced income.

     For example, Federal programs affect the costs of food
processing by requiring:
    o    installation of equipment to reduce pollution in food
         manufacturing plants
     o   modification or replacement of equipment to reduce
         noise levels in the workplace

     o   conduct of tests to determine plant noise levels

     o   testing and recordkeeping to assure food safety

     o   minimum wage and overtime requirements

     o   payroll taxes for Social Security and unemployment

     o   import quotas on food and new food items

     Because the costs can often be high, especially for
smaller companies, Federal regulations require careful
scrutiny to eliminate any unjustified costs. Examples
often cited include:

     o   OSHA requirements to reduce noise levels in the work-
         place, will cost the food industry $590 million to
         achieve a 90 decibel level, and $2.6 billion to
         achieve an 85 decibel level. Is the impact of an
         additional 5 decibel reduction on worker health sub-
         stantial enough to require almost four-fold additional
     o   USDA requirements that all labels on food products
         containing meat or poultry receive prior approval en-
         tails numerous filings with their accompanying ex-
         pense, kbile FDA relies on voluntary compliance with

         spot checks. Is the USDA procedure necessary?    Is
         the FDA procedure effective?
     o   Some OSHA requirements designed to protect workers
         conflict with USDA or FDA requirements designed to
         assure food safety. Resolution of these conflicts
         incur delays and additional costs.
     It is also important to look at the effect of Federal
regulations on overall industry structure. Smaller firms
lack the output to reduce the unit cost-of compliance and the
access to capital necessary for equipment modification. In
the long run, Federal programs may therefore contribute to
concentration as smaller firms withdraw from the market.
Issue:   Evaluating The Effects Of Government Programs
         On The F ure Cost And Availability of
         Resourct   'ecessary To Sustain High Levels Of
         Food Prod ton
     Underlying this line of effort is a single critical
question: Will our farmers have enough resources, such as
land, capital and credit, water for irrigation, fertilizer
and energy, to sustain the high levels of output needed to
maintain farmer income and meet growing domestic and foreign
food drmand? Federal ad state programs and policies that
affect both the supply and cost of these resources are
crucial to the farmer. The availability of water, energy
and land are of particular importance because of their com-
peting non-farm user demands.

     Past GAO Reviews
     U.S. Fishing Industry Can Be Strengthened by Developing
     Underutilized Fish Resources (GGD-75-68, 5/30/75)

     The Fertilizer Situation-Past, Present, and Future
     (RED-76-14. 9/5/75)
     Action is Needed Now to Protect our Fishery Resources
     (GGD-76-34, 2/18/76)
    Opportunities for More Effective Use of Animal Manure
    (RED-76-101, 6/14/75)

     Better Federal Coordination Needed to Promote More
     Efficient Farm Irrigation (RED-76-116, 6/22/76)
     The U.S. Fishing Industry--Present Condition and Future
     of Marine Fisheries (CED-76-130, 12/23/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Review of Efforts to Curb Soil Erosion and Protect
     Productivity of U.S. Agricultural Lands
     Survey of Federal Efforts to Promote Better Use of
     Existing Water Supplies by Improving Conveyance Systems
     Efficiencies, (Federal Water Resources Project)

     Development of Issue Papers for Use in Senate Committee
     Oversight of USDA Land and Water Conservation Program

Issue:   Assessing The Costs And Benefits Of Federal
         And State Requlations That Affect The
         Efficiency Of Food Marketing
     Untangling the many overlapping and often conflicting
Federal and state rules, regulations, policies and programs
that affect the processing, marketing, and distribution of
food products may well result in improved government effi-
ciency and the reduction of consumer retail costs.
     Past GAO Reviews

     Administration of Marketing Orders for Fresh Fruits and
     Vegetables (Restricted)(RED-B-177170, 12/11/74)

     Marketing Order Program--An Assessment of its Effects on
     Selected Commodities (ID-76-26, 4/23/76)
     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Survey of Waste in the Food System

     Review of Restrictive Practices Which Impede the
     Marketing of Meat

     Study of Food Prices--Past and Present

Issue.   Assessinq the Impact to Federal Farm Income Support
         Programs on Food Production
      Key issues include analyses of various options
for supporting farm prices. For example, should target
prices be extended to other commodities? Should they
be set to cover production plus a reasonable' profit?
Are there other schemes that ought to be considered? These
and other issues will be debated at length early next
year when Congress initiates work on drafting a new farm

     Past GAO Reviews
     Alleviating Agricultural Produceres' Corp Losses:   What
     Should the Federal Role Be? (RED-76-91, 5/4/76)
     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Survey of Agricultural Commodity Programs
Issue:   Identifying and Analyzing the Impact of Changes in
         Farm Ownership and Structure
     Significant trends are occuring in the pa terns of farm
ownership which bear on the future of food production levels,
competition, rural development and resource conservation.

     Past GAO Reviews

     Some Problems Impeding Economic Improvement of Small-Farm
     Operations: What The Department of Agriculture Could Do
     (RED-76-2, 8/15/76)
    Appraisal Procedures and Solutions to Problems Involving
    the 160-acre Limitation Provision of Reclamation Law
    (CED-76-119, 6/3/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Survey of Trends in the Farm Structure

Issue:    Evaluating Effectiveness of Government and Private
          Research Efforts to IncreaseFo    Prouction

     The spectacular yields of major crops in recent years
are evidence of the effect agricultural research has had on
food production.
        Past GAO Reviews

        Agricultural Research -- Its Organization and Management
        (RED-76-92, 4/8/76)
        Ongoing GAO Reviews
        Review of the Effectiveness of the Management of Research
        by the Agricultural Research Service, Department of


     With agricultural abundance and a humanitarian outlook,
the United States is looked upon to play a major role in mar-
shalling efforts to combat world hunger. Few nations in the
world can grow enough food to meet their needs. Although
many can purchase enough imported food to fulfill their
demand, others, representing about 10 percent of the world's
population, cannot afford sufficient imports and are in a
chronic net food deficit position. As a consequence, much
of the world has come to rely increasingly on the U.S. for
expanded food aid and related development assistance and
commercial exports.

     U.S. agricultural exports have emerged as a major force
in the domestic and international marketplace. Food exports
have increased threefold since the early 1970's and now pro-
vide the farmer with 25 percent of his income and account for
recent balance of trade surpluses. Abroad, the United States
has emerged as the dominant world food trader.

      Coinciding with this recent surge in food exports has
 been a 53 percent increase in food prices since 1971, and
 several dramatic market intervention actions by the Federal
 government, including imposition of export controls and
 negotiation of international commodity agreements. These
 actions have significantly influenced domestic supply and
 prices and our foreign economic objectives.

     With the recent drawdown of food surpluses, the spector
of potential massive weather-induced cror shortfalls, and
continuing world dependency on the United States for food,
government decisions on when, where, and how much food to ex-
port have become major U.S. policy considerations. Several
critical questions emerge.

     -- Does the United States have an export policy that
        adequately protects the interests of the U.S. pro-
        ducer and consumer while satisfying international
        market demand and foreign policy objectives?
     -- Is the current policy sufficiently flexible to
        operate under both food surplus and shortage
     -- Are recently negotiated bilateral commodity
        agreements equitable and economically justified?
     -- What promise do the current round of multilateral
        trade negotiations and other international forums
        hold for strengthening future U.S. export markets?


     During the 1960's U.S. agricultural surpluses presented
government officials with a disFosal problem. Farm land was
diverted from production, and the government was accumulating
large mounts of surplus grain as part of its farm income
maintenance programs. While much of the world was hungry
and in a food deficit position, U.S. exports were not
significantly within economic reach and food exports were

     The government accelerated its Food for Peace program
(authorized by P.L. 480) during this period primarily as a
tool for disposing of surplus grain and for developing
needed export markets. Food exports during the 1960's

ranged between $4.8 billion and $6.8 billion annually with
P.L. 480 shipments accounting for 17 percent to 27 percent
of the total.
     Beginning in the early 1970's the world marketplace
underwent dramatic change, with the United States emerging
as the major beneficiary of a new economic order.
     -- Two successive dollar devaluations in 1971 and
        1973, a Japanese yen appreciation, other currency
        realignments and international moves to float ex-
        change rates all increased demand for U.S. exports
        by making them more competitive in wor'd markets.
     -- Global weather reverses in 1972-73, causing the
        first decline in world food output in decades, sent
        demand for U.S. food soaring.

     -- Centrally planned economies, principally the USSR,
        entered the free world marketplace following e-
        cisions to upgrade their diets (creati:g need for
        feedgrains) and to supplement low outputs. These
        countries now account for 25 percent of the pur-
        chases on the world wheat and feed grain market.

     -- The development of a market for basic U.S. grains

     As a result of these conditions, U.S. food exports
quickly surged from $7.7 billion in 1971 to $18 billion in
1974 and to $22 billion in 1975, a 300 percent increase in
just four years. One out of three harvested acres are for
export markets and about half of all wheat and soybean
production is now sold abroad.
     Despite the well-publicized Russian grain urchases,
Asia is the United States' largest customer ($7.3 billion
in fiscal year 1976), followed by Western Europe ($7.0
billion), Latin America and Russia ($2.0 billion each).
About 40 percent of U.S. grain exports go to developed
countries, 30 percent to less developed countries, and 30
percent to centrally planned economies.
     Imports of food have also increased and now stand at
nearly $12 billion (1976), giving a total agriculture trade
surplus of about $12 billion in FY 76.
     Aside from boosting farmer income, other significant
benefits have accrued from the large export market:
     -- $22 billion in food exports resulted in another
        $22 billion of economic stimulation through sup-
        porting services (farm inputs, transportation,
        etc.).  About 70 percent of this additional econ-
        omic activity is in nonfarm industries and trans-
        lates into 650,000 additional nonfarm jobs created.
     --Agricultural trade is the only reason U.S. balance
       of payments has been positive four out of the last
       five years.
     The United States now accounts for nearly 50 percent
of all food in international trade and is one of only five
major countries having a net export food balance. Clearly,
the United States is the dominant power in the world food
market and is now highly dependent upon a continued level
of high export activity to support domestic prosperity in
both farm and nonfarm sectors.

World Hunger
     Hunger persists as a major world problem. Experts
generally agree that about 400 to 500 million persons are
malnourished. Either underfed or missing critical nutrients
from their cereal-dominated diet, they are also likely to
suffer from other diet-related health problems. They are
often young, poor, and live in environments unable to pro-
duce or purchase sufficient food to feed the surrounding
populace. Their numbers are growing faster than their well-
fed counterparts in the developed world. At best, their
future is discussed with cautious optimism; at worst, harsh
weather could lead to massive famine.

     A world hunger problem has existed for many years.
Widespread public concern about the uncertainty of future
world food supplies did not occur until a few years ago,
however, when the important basic foods suddenly became

     In 1972 and 1973, world food output failed to grow for
the first time in decades. World food reserves were de-
pleted, food aid levels were halved, and the less developed
countries, faced with a three-fold increase in imported
grain prices, saw their purchasing power fall dramatically.

     The world's hungry people are concentrated in about
90 less developed countries. Virtually all of these
countries produce less than what they need. Even with food

purchases from abroad, they consume an average of only 95
percent of their food energy needs; several are closer to
90 percent. Their situation is worsening as evidenced by
the following conditions:

    o Their population is growing 2.5 percent yearly,
      which is faster than the 2 percent increase in food
      production. Population growth alone accounts for
      70 percent of their additional food demand each

     o Their current annual food deficit is 15-18 million
       metric tons (MMT) and will reach at least 85 MMT by
       1985 if present trends continue. Their gross food
       deficit increased from 12 MMT in 1951 to 46 MMT in
       1974. In terms of cost, this represents a 7-fold
       increase in deficit.

     The major cause of world hunger is maldistribution of
food. Developed countries represent 30 percent of the pop-
ulation, yet consume over half of all food produced. On a
global basis, enough food is produced to meet 104 percent of
human food energy needs. But because of ecological, tech-
nological, economic and social factors, less developed
countries consume only 95 percent of their requirements,
while developed countries consume 123 percent of their needs.
Farm sectors in less developed countries are not advanced,
yields are very low, and distribution and storage systems
are inadequate. Government policies to keep domestic food
prices low to consumers discourage farmers from producing
more. Population increases negate virtually any increase
in food output.
     The average person in a hungry nation consumes 300
pounds of grain annually, almost all of it directly. The
average American consumes an equivalent of 1850 pounds of
grain yearly -- 200 pounds directly (mostly bread and cereal)
with the remainder fed to livestock. Countries with cen-
trally planned economies, in an attempt to upgrade their
diet, are intensifying their livestock grain feeding efforts.
Russia and the U.S. now feed over 100 million metric tons
of grain each to livestock annually, compared to just
30 MMT totally for all less developed countries. These
trends create greater competition for grains --   the staple
diet for less developed countries.

     Despite this gloomy picture, many experts believe that
malnutrition can be diminished over the next several decades
for the following reasons:
     o Food production growth rates in less developed
       countries can double (to 3-4 percent yearly) since
       yield improvement opportunities are good and agri-
       cultural development policies could be altered to
       spurt innovation and internal production.
     o Developed country exports can also increase with
       continued technological advances.
     o International efforts in food aid, development
       assistance, food research and technology transfer
       are all important measures that can be accelerated.
     o An international food reserve can help combat a poor
       crop year. This has been a frequently discussed but
       yet to be implemented policy tool.
U.S. Action

     Achieving these reversals is of paramount importance to
the underdeveloped world, and to several U.S. policy efforts,
including the Food for Peace program, other development assis-
tance programs and supply management decisions affecting food

     Several major pieces of legislation are up for Congres-
sional consideration in 1977 that would affect the U.S. role
in fighting hunger abroad:

     o P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) expires in 977. Outlays
       for this program have averaged about $1 billion
       annually for the last several years, but because of
       higher grain prices, actual volume of food shipped
       declined from 9.8 MMT in 1972 to 3.2 MMT in 1974.
       (Lower grain prices brought shipment volume back up
       to 6 MMT in 1975 and 1976).
     o U.S. basic international development assistance
       programs for FY 1978 and FY 1979 must be authorized
       in 1977.  Funds committed for food production and
       nutrition totaled over $500 million in 1976. The
       U.S. has also committed $200 million to the Inter-
       national Fund for Agricultural Development, which
       was created at the 1974 World Food Conference.
     Government trade agreements and export controls also
have dramatic repercussions on the domestic economy.

Several recent actions have, in fact, raised serious
questions about whether domestic interests are adequately
    -- The government has intervened in the market to halt
       exports on three separate occasions since 1973:
       Once to impose controls on soybeans and related
       products (1973), once to impose an embargo on Soviet
       grain sales (1974). *and again to hold up renegotiated
       existing SovieL grain sales (1975).   Such actions
       were sudden, in response to many pressures, and
       irritated farmer and consumer groups alike.

    -- The government entered into a long-term grain
       agreement with Russia, requested voluntary export
       restraints with Poland and informally committed
       itself to a supply agreement with Japan.
    -- America's use of "food power" in obtaining general
       trade concessions in the current round of multi-
       lateral trade negotiations is often debated in
       government trade policy circles. Similar talk of
       using food as a political tool surrounds the debate
       on P.L. 480 issues.

     In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee
on June 24, 1976, GAO stated that "Current export policies--
which are part of a broader agricultural supply management
system--are less than complete, lack cohesion and fail to
provide the flexibility necessary to meet both domestic and
international objectives and changing food supply and demand
conditions . . . . Who should get what, when and why are
the critical questions such an (agricultural policy) frame-
work should address."
     The current multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) and
negotiations taking place in other forums, such as the
United Nations Council on Trade and Development, therefore
need to be carefully watched to make sure that both domestic
and international interests are maintained.

     Nearly two-thirds of U.S. exports are subject to
foreign market restrictions greater than the U.S. imposes
on imports ;45 percent of U.S. imports are duty free). The
U.S. wants these barriers removed so that principles of
comparative advantage and market prices can operate.
Reaching agreement with the European Common Market (EEC)
poses a particular problem, however, because of their

restrictive agriculture policies toward the United States
and their sizable market potential. Other developed
countries are also sensitive about their agricultural
policies and are quick to protect their domestic interests
against the United    tes and other food exporters.
Issue:    valuating Federal Programs Designed To Reduce
         Malnutrition In Developing Nations
     The effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat hunger are
crucial to the less developed countries.

     Major issues include:

     o impact of food aid on recipient nations' self-help
       development (A recent GAO report (Disincentives to
       Agricultural Production in Developing Countries
       ID-76-2) discussed the disadvantages of providing
       cheap food to poor countries.)
    o impact of higher levels of food aid on domestic
    o the appropriate mix of humanitarian versus political
      aid to food recipients

    o the amount of development assistance aid
    o effectiveness of U.S. efforts in international
      organizations designed to help less developed
      countries improve their food situation
    Past Reviews
    Overseas Food Donation Program--Its Constraints and
    Problems (ID-75-16, 1/30/75)
    Problems in Managing U.S. Food to Chad (ID-75-67, 6/5/75)
    Disincentives to Agricultural Production in Developing
    Countries (ID-76-2, 11/26/75)
    U.S. Assistance to Pakistan Should be Reassessed
    (ID-76-36, 2/6/76)

    Examination of Funds Appropriated for Economic and Food
    Aid to Indochina (ID-76-54, 4/16/76)
    Use of Private Shippers to Transport Commodities for the
    United Nations World ood Program -- to Representative
    Clarence D. Long (ID-76-40, 2/4/76)
    Impact of U.S. Development and Food Aid in Selected
    Developing Countries (ID-76-53, 4/22/76)
    Providing Economic Incentives to Farmers Increases Fcod
    Production in Developing Countries (ID-76-34, 5/13/76)

    U.S. Participation in International Food Organizations:
    Problems and Issues (ID-76-66, 8/6/76)
    Hungry Nations Need to Reduce Losses From Spillage,
    Spoilage, and Storage (ID-76-65, 9/1/76)
    Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Constraints to Increasing Use of Fertilizer on Food
     Crops in the Developing Countries

     Purpose and Effectiveness of U.S. economic and Food Aid
     Programs to Egypt

     Observations on Management of Disaster Relief Effort to

     Research Programs for Increasing Food Production in
     Developing Countries

     Review of the Objectives, Policies and Accomplishments
     of PL 480, Title I, Concessional Sales Program

Issue:   Evaluatin the Effectiveness Of Federal Efforts
         to Maintain Stronggrctural Commercial
         Export Sales

Major issues include:

     o the impact of alternative export policy options on
       consumer, producer, and foreign buyer interests:
       Does the government have a policy mechanism that will
       protect these interests under conditions of both tight
       food supplies and surplus?
     o the impact of long-term commodity supply agreements
       on domestic interests during a food shortage:   Are
       the agreements flexible? Do they adversely affect
       other foreign buyers for whom no such "assured"
       supply agreement exists? Are they compatible with
       foreign relations objectives? Pre there specific
       criteria for entering into these agreements or are
       they "crisis-oriented"?

     o Are U.S. export promotion activities adequate in
       view of the Nation's dependence upon foreign sales?

     o How should agricultural commodities be negotiated
       in the multilateral trade negotiations?  Are policy
       proposals being advanced consistent with U.S. export
       policy behavior?  Is the United States adequately
       exploring other international negotiation forums to
       gain free trade?

     o What is the impact of the Commodity Credit Corporation's
       credit policies on export sales?

     Past GAO Reviews

     The Government's Role in East-West Trade -- Problems and
     Issues (ID-76-13A, 2/4/76)

     Agriculture's Implementation of GAO's Recommendations
     and Related Matters (ID-76-39, 3/3/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews

     Agency Compliance with Recommendations in Commodity
     Shortage Report

     Review of U.S. Trade Policies Toward Developing Countries

     Executive Branch Management of Russian Grain Sales, Agri-
     cultural Export Reporting, and Related Export Policy

Issue:   Evaluating the Effect of U.S. Food Impo_
                                                Policies on
         U.S. Food SuE2   Need

      In general, the U.S. follows a "free trade" policy and
places few restrictions on imported food products. Only
sugar, dairy products and meat products have significant
import restrictions.   These restrictions are intended to

protect domestic health and economic interests. Recently,
meat import quotas were imposed for the first time since
the Meat Import Act was enacted in 1962, due to the de-
pressed market conditions.
     Past GAO Reviews

     Review of U.S. Import Restrictions-Need to Define
     National Sugar Goals (ID-75-80, 10/10/75)

     U.S. Import Restrictions: Alternatives to Present Dairy
     Programs (ID-76-44, 12/8/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews
     Meat Import Relief Options can be Expanded Under the
     Trade Act of 1974

     The United States is just completing its fourth
consecutive year of relatively tight food supplies, compared
with the pre-1972 period of agricultural surpluses. The
past four years have also seen an increase in consumer
concerns about food prices, food availability and nutrition.
     In effect, the change from surplus food to uncertain
food supplies has placed national focus on food policy
instead of agricultural policy. This shift in emphasis is
still ongoing and is recognized by the Congress and the
Administration in new references to food and agriculture.
However, the mix of Federal programs and operating policies
still are products of the age of food surplus. The age of
agricultural policy is behind us but the bureaucratic
machinery has yet to be designed, and implemented to allow
the United States to exercise a national food policy.

Federal Food Decision-Making

     The call for a national food policy often is accom-
panied by concern over existing food policy making structure.
Federal food policy is made by no less than 26 agencies and
departments with countless suborganizations, committees,
and commissions.

     Most food programs are concentrated in a few departments,
with seven congressional committees responsible for major
food policy matters. Several of these agencies, such as the
Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board,
the Domestic Council and the Council of International
Economic Policy, make decisions and recommendations on
issues other than food.
     While the newly-formed Agricultural Policy Committee was
set up to coordinate all aspects of Federal food policy,
both domestic and international, it is still too early to
assess its effectiveness. The recent resignation of
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who chaired the
Committee, further clouds its potential future impact.

     Overlap in Congressional committee jurisdiction is
more pronounced. The Senate and House Agriculture Com-
mittees have general responsibility for most food
legislation. However, many major food programs and policies
are also within the jurisdiction of several other committees.
For example, the Senate Foreign Relations and House Interna-
tional Relations Committees deal with food aid questions,
while the Labor and Public Welfare Committees have juris-
diction over domestic feeding and food safety questions.
In some cases, committees have routinely relinquished their
responsibilities to the Agriculture Committees; in other
cases they have not.

     This problem is revealed further by looking at the
origins of food and related bills. A recent OTA report
revealed that the Agriculture Committees received 35 to 40
percent of all food-related bills and resolutions introduced
in the 93rd and 94th Congress. The remaining measures were
referred to about 15 other separate committees in each
     This overlapping of Federal policy making is of concern
to some members of Congress, who have attempted to place
this issue on the agenda. Upcoming farm bill hearings may
focus debate on duplication of effort and the responsiveness
of the policy-making structure to rapidly changing condi-


     Prior to 1972, agricultural policies were largely
devoted to farm surplus problems. Crop acreage set aside

programs were in force and the Food for Peace program
along with the school lunch and commodity distribution
programs were started for surplus disposal.   Food prices
were consistently low, and the advances in  crop yield
improvements made by technology suggested  continuing  over-
capacity on the farm.

     This situation abruptly changed in 1973, with an
unprecedented demand for United States food.   Old agri-
culture policies were clearly inadequate in  the face of
tight supplies, and more importantly, the uncertainty  of
the future.

      With the passage of the 1973 Farm Act, farmers were
urged to produce as much as possible with assurances of
minimal government interference.    Despite these assurances,
the government has dramatically entered the market on
several occasions with food embargoes, informal trade re-
straints, delays in export negotiations, and grain agreements.
      These actions were sudden, unexpected, unplanned, and
were examples of a government acting without the benefit
of sound, flexible policy.   Attempts to deal with severe
price instability and commodity scarcity do not reflect an
ordered progression of policy measures but rather have been
ad hoc, isolated decisions which caused difficulties
The  control on soybean exports  to Japan,  which  resulted  in
a Japanese-financed Brazilian challenge    to U.S.  world  soy-
bean dominance, serves as an example.

     A number of serious problems now raise questions re-
garding the responsiveness of U.S. policy mechanisms:

     -- depletion of world grain reserves which provide a
        critical safeguard against famine and price in-

     -- erratic   import demand   from developing countries

     -- vacillation on     taking the lead    to eliminate hunger
        in the world

      -- sharp production cost    increases

      -- uncertain price and future availability of critical
         farm inputs, especially energy and fertilizer

      -- unabated retail    price increases despite declines    in
         farm Prices

     -- inadequate U.S. and international information systems
Needed Policy Direction

     A sound policy framework must be based upon a series
of goals that the policy attempts to satisfy. When a crisis
occurs, or when conditions change rational shifts in priori-
ties can then be guided by this framework.  Present policies
have no such framework, nor do they originate from an inte-
grated set of goals.

     The following represent major objectives which require
policy guidance:

    -- Food safety: assuring that government surveillance,
       testing, and inspection of food is sufficient
    -- Food quality:  assuring product integrity through
       grading and inspection

    -- Food production: setting flexible supply management
       guidelines that can operate under both shortage and
       surplus conditions with reasonable stability
    -- Farm income and prices: providing safeguards for
       farm income levels alonq with production incentives.
    -- Natural risks:  providing farmers protection against
       economic and natural risks which threaten survival
    -- Reserves: handling reserves that   uild up during
       times of surplus.

    -- Commodity programs (sugar, dairy, peanuts): protect-
       ing producers of commodities which are in chronic
    -- Research:  setting appropriate food and nutrition
       research priorities
    -- Nutrition: Coordinating research and education
       efforts more closely with food policy.

    -- Domestic feeding: Reevaluating the objectives of
       these programs on a continuing basis.
    -- Export market development:  assuring adequate foreign
       markets for U.S. farm overcapacity

     -- Trade agreements: Relating these supply assurances
        to U.S. goals for high levels of production and strong
        export markets.

     -- Protecting family farms: maintaining a family farm
        system through a series of measures including
        cooperatives management, tax policy, credit, and
        market entry.

     -- Decisionmaking structure:       coordinating agency

Issue:     Analysis of the Federal Food Policy
           Decisionmaking Structure

     The large number of executive agencies and congressional
committees that make or influence food policies suggests
opportunities for critically analyzing jurisdictional over-
lap. Such an effort could serve as a first or complementary
step toward developing a national and international food
policy that can respond to the interests of consumers,
producers, foreign customers and can operate under varying
economic conditions.
     Past GAO Reviews

     Information on United States Ocean Interests together
     with Positions and Results of the Law of the Sea
     Conference at Caracas (ID-75-46, 3/16/75)
     The Need for a National Ocean Program and Plan
     (OGC-75-97, 10/10/75)

     Grain Marketing System in Argentina, Australia, Canada,
     and the European Community; Soybean Marketing System in
     Brazil (ID-76-61, 5/28/76)

     Ongoing GAO Reviews

         Survey of Food System Models

Issue:      Evaluating Options for Implementing a System of
            Domestic Food Reserves

     The establishment of a domestic grain reserve has been
subject of considerable debate and is frequently viewed

as being a key component of a national food policy. The
relative merits of a reserve was the subject of a recent
GAO report (Grain Reserves: A Potential U.S. Policy Tool,
OSP-76-16) and will likely be debated at length in the
upcoming Farm Act hearings.

     Past Reviews
     Grain Reserves: A Potential U.S. Food Policy Tool
     (OSP-76-16, 3/26/76)

     Ongoing Reviews

Issue:   Assessing the Adequacy of Federal Agricultural Data
         Collection and Analysis rograms

     Complete agricultural data and analysis is crucial to
effective policy planning and implementation. To be useful,
data collected, analyzed and disseminated by agencies must
be comprehensive, accurate, reliable and timely. The large
semi-secret Russian grain purchases of 1972 dramatically
pointed out the weaknesses in U.S. agricultural data
processing systems. The coincidental failures to assess
adequately the extent and timeliness of information on
world food output exacerbated this weakness.

      Since that time, Congress has expressed a continuing
concern over the adequacy of executive agency data collection
and analysis systems, especially within the USDA, on which
policy makers and planners must rely for necessary informa-

     The problems of inadequate data are now being corrected,
and a recent OTA report outlines several options for improve-
ment. GAO has also pointed out information gaps, particularly
with respect to the Russian grain sales and a subsequent
US - USSR agreement to obtain more reliable Soviet production
purchase intention information.

Past GAO Reviews

What the Department of Agriculture Has Done and Needs
To Do To Improve Agricultural Commodity Forecasting and
Reports (RED-76-6, 8/17/75)

Ongoing GAO Reviews
Executive Branch Management of Russian Grain Sales,
Agricultural Export Reporting and Related Export Policy

      APPENDIX I                                                           APPENDIX I

                              Federal Food Decision Making
                      Congressional Committees with Food Jurisdiction

                 Senate                                            House

  Agriculture                Foreign                Agriculture              Education
     and                    Relations                                          and
   Forestry                                                                    Labor

     Labor                   Select
      and                  Committee                           International
    Public                on Nutrition                           Relations
   Welfare                & Human Needs

     The present committee structure of Congress includes several committees
which have both direct and indirect jurisdiction over policies affecting the
food industry. The organization chart above indicates the positions of these
committees within the structure of Congress having primary food jurisdiction.
The table of functions below shows the major areas of the-food industry
covered by the various committees.

              Congressional Committees With Primary Food Jurisdiction
             Senate                                               House
Agriculture and Forestry                        Agriculture
. Agriculture - all aspects                     .   Agriculture - all aspects
· Research and Development, Credit,             . Research and Development, Credit,
  Rural Development, Electrification              Rural Development, Electrification
· Nutrition, Food Assistance                    . Nutrition, Food Assistance
· Production; Marketing; Price                    Production; Marketing Price
  Supports                                        Supports
· Insurance, Soil Conservation                  . Insurance, Soil Conservation
· Foreign Agriculture Development               . Foreign Agriculture Development
Foreign Relations                               Education and Labor
· Foreign Agriculture Trade and                 .   Farm Labor
  Development                                   .   Food Safety, Nutrition
· Treaties and Commodity Agreements             .   Feeding Programs
   ood for Peace
  F·                                            .   Worker Safety

     APPENDIX I                                                  APPENDIX I

Labor and Public Welfare                   International Relations

·   Food Safety - General                  . Food Aid
·   School Lunch Program                   . Foreign Trade Development and
·   Farm Labor                               Assistance
·   Worker Safety                          . Treaties and Commodity Agreements

Select Committee on Nutrition
and Human Needs
, Nutrition in General
. Advisory Capacity

     Legislation affecting food alsi comes within the jurisdiction of
several other Congressional committees, including the following:

       Congressional Committees With Secondary Involvement in Food Issues

            Senate                                       House

Appropriations                             Appropriations
. Appropriation Matters                    . Appropriation Matters

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs        Banking, Currency, and Housing
  Agricultural Commodity Prices,           . Farm Credit, Insurance
  Agricultural Import Prices               . Commodity Credit Corporation
                                           · Export Controls, International
Budget                                       Agreements
. Budgetary Impact Matters
                                           Interior and Insular Affairs
Commerce                                   . Land Use, Planning Water
· Interest Through FTC Involvement           Resources, Irrigation
  in Food Labeling, Industry               . Reclamation
  Marketing Practices
. Weather Service                          Interstate and Foreign Commerce
                                           . Food Labeling, Packaging
Finance                                    . Food Regulation
. Reciprocal Trade Agreements              . Weather
. Customs, Tariffs, and Quotas             . Interstate and Foreign
. Agricultural Tax Matters such              Transportation Matters
  as Tax Relief, Tax Shelters
Interior and Insular Affairs               . Unfair Trade Practices
. Irrigation and Reclamation               . Family Farm Act
  Policies and Programs
. Water Supply                             Merchant Marine and Fisheries
. Environmental Policy                     . Commercial Fishing, Fishing      ones
· Resource Development Policy              . Fisherie Treaties, Compacts

Judiciary                                  Post Office and Civil Service
· Unfair Trade Practices                   . Agricultural Census, Statistics
· Agricultural Marketing Exemption           in General-
  for Cooperatives

APPENDIX I                                                 APPENDIX I

Poet Office and Civil Service             Public Works
 Agrcultural Census, Statistical          . Water Pollution Related to
 Collection in General                      Agriculture
                                          . Water Resources in General
Public Works                              . Rural Transportation
· Rural Development
· Pollution Control Related to            Ways and Means
  Agricultural Restrictions               . Tax Matters such as Estate TaX
· Road Construction in Rural Areas          Relief, Tariff easures, Food
                                          · Budjet Impact
                                          · Trade Matters

APPENDIX I                                                       APPENDIX I

                     Principal Federal Agencies,
                Commissions, Offices, and Departments
                         With Major Food Interests

Commodity Futures Trading                  Treasury Department
Commission                                 .    ajor ndirect nfluence
   Regulates Commodity Futures         ,       General Economic Policy
                                           Environ'ental Protection
Department of Agrizulture                  Agency
     gricuture, Most Aspects,                  Major Indirect Influence
    23 Separate Agencies                   .   Water Pollution Control
Department of Commerce                     Farm Credit Administration
· Weather                                     Capital Credit
· Fishery
                                           Federal Maritime Commission
Department of Health,                         Indirect Influence
Education and Welfare             .           Food Eport Transport via
· Food afety                                  Seaways
·   Nutrition Research
                                           Federal Reserve
Department of Interior                        Major Indirect Influence
· Land Management                          . General Economic Policy -
· Water Management                            nanks located in strong
· Fisheries                                   agricultural areas.
Department of Labor                        Federal Trade Commission
·   Worker Safety             ,                Enforcement of Unfair Trade
·   Rural and Migrant Workers                  Practices in Food Industry
                                        ·      T.ade Rules Affecting Food
Department of State                            Lbeeling and Advertising
· Food for Peace Coordination
•Foreign Trade Agricultural             Int: national Trade Commission
   Policy               'ntmport/Export                  Policy
· Foreign Agricultural Attaches            Enforcement
Department of Transportation               Interstate Commerce Commission
· Major Indirect Influence                 . Minor Indircet Influence
· Highway and Rail Regulations             . Carrier Regulations
   Affecting Agricultural Supply
   Transport                               Agricultural Policy Committee
                                           .Overall   fod policy,
                                              chaired by USDA, partici-
                                              pants from several agencies.

APPENDIX I                                                 APPENDIX I

                        Other Federal Activities
                        and Public Organizations
                          Having Food Interests
  Central Intelligence Agency            Library of Congress
      Indirect Influence                 .    ndirect Influence
  ·   Analysis of World                  .   Conducts Studies for
      Agricultural Situation                 Congress
 Council of Economic Advisors           National Science Foundation
 ·  Indirect Influcence                 . Research into Food Pro-
 .  Economic Analysis, Advicc              duction, Weather
    on General Economic Policy
                                        Office of Management and
 Council on International
 Economic Policy                             General Economic Policy
 ·  Indirect Influence                   .   Budget Control
 . General International
    Economic Policy                     Office of Technology
 Department of Army                     . Indirect Influence
    Indirect Influe:lce                 . Conducts Studies for
 . Water Resource Programs                 Congress
 ·   inor Food R&D
 · Major Food Purchaser                 Organization for Economic
                                        Cooperation and Development
 Domestic Council                          Worldwide Economic Growth
 .  Indirect Influence                     and Trade Policy Promotion
 . General Economic Policy,
    Long-Range Planning                 United Nations (Food and
                                        Agriculture Organization
 Export-Import Bank of U.S.             World Food Council
 .  Financing of Trade Between             Data Collection and
    U.S. and Foreign Countries             Analysis
                                            orldwide Food Policy
 Federal Energy Administration             Promotion
    Major Indirect Influence
 * Allocation and Policies
    Regarding Energy Supplies

 General Accounting Office
    Indirect Influence
 · Audits Agricultural
 · Advises Congress on Policies
    and Programs

APPENDIX II                                     APPENDIX II

                     FOOD ORGANIZATIONS

International Organizations
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

U.N. agencies
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  United Nations Development Program.
  UN/FAO World Food Program.
  Protein Advisory Group.
  World Food Council.
Other U.N. agencies
  General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.
World Bank group
  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  International Development Association.
  International Finance Corporation.

Independent commodity councils
  International Coffee Organization.
  International Olive Oil Council.
  International Sugar Council.
  International Wheat Council.
  International Cocoa Organization.

Regional and subregional banks
  Inter-American Development Bank.
  African Development Bank.
  Asian Development Bank.

Automomous commodity study groups
  International Cotton Advisory Committee.
  International Wool Study Group.
  International Rubber Study Group.

  International Fund for Agricultural Development.
  Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
  Consultative Group on Food Production and Investment.
  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Science.
  International Seed Testing Association.
  Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa.
  Afro-American Rural Reconstruction Council.

  APPENDIX II                                     APPENDIX II

  International Tea Committee.
  North-East Atlantic Fisherie- Commission.
  Arab Center for the Study o Arid Zones and Dry Lands.
  Cocoa Producers' Alliance.
  Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.
  European Economic Community.
  European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.
  Inter-American Committee for Crop Protection.
  Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
  International Commission for Agricultural and Food
  International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
  International Commission for the Northeastern Atlantic
  International Commission for the Southeast Atlantic
  International North Pacific Fisheries Commission.
  International Regional Organization against Plant and
    Animal Diseases.
Consumer Groups
  Consumer Federation of America
  Consumer Education Council on World Trade
General Policy and Research
  Agribusiness Accountability Project
  Center for Science in the Public Interest
  Commission on Critical Choices*
  Community Nutrition Institute
  Food Research and Action Center, Inc.*
  Interreligious Task Force on U.S. Food Policy
  National Council on Hunger and Malnutrition
  National Rural Center
  Rural America

  Children's Foundation
  Farm Foundation*
  Field Foundation*
  Ford Foundation*
  Heritage Foundation
  Rockefeller Brothers' Fund, Inc.*
  Rockefeller Foundation*
Professional Organizations
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  American Fisheries Society

 APPENDIX II                                         APPENDIX II

 National Planning Association

General Public Policy
  American Enterprise Institute
  Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
  Brookings Institution
  Institute for Policy Studies

Research Grous
  Agricultural Research Institute
  Council for Agricultural Science and Technology*

Trade Associations
  American Farm Bureau Federation
  American Institute of Food Distribution
  American National Cattlemen's Association*
  Farmers Union
  Great Plains Wheat, Inc.
  Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.
  National Association of Food Chains
  National Canners Association
  National Council of Agricultural Employers
  National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
  The National Grange
  National Live Stock and Neat Board*
  National Livestock Feeders Association*
  United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
International Research Groups
  Agricultural Cooperative Development International
  International Food Policy Research Institute
  Overseas Development Council
  World Watch Institute

Miscellaneous Agricultural Pu'lithinI. Organizations
  Farm Reports, Inc.
  Farm Business, Inc.

*indicates organization is based outside of the metropolitan
 Washington, D.C., area

Sources of Information -- Periodicals, Journals, etc.
  National Journal Reports
  Congressional Quarterly Weekly
  The Congressional Monitor
  Editorial Research Reports

APPENDIX II                                      APPENDIX II

Nation's Business
Business Week
American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Economic Bulletin for Asia and the Far East
Challenge, Journal of Economic Affairs
Land Economics
Oriental Economist
Applied Economics
Money Manager
American Journal on Agricultural Economics
Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics
News from the National Research Council
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Scientific American
American Scientist
Food Chemical News
Farm Chemicals and Croplife
Agricultural Science Review
The Kiplinger Agricultural Letter
The Washington Agricultural Record
Farm Journal
Farm Quarterly
Successful Farmer

Foreign Agriculture
China Report
China News Analysis
Atlantic Community Quarterly
Journal of Developing Areas

Population Bulletin

American Opinion
American Federationist
Foreign Policy
Foreign Affairs
World Politics

 APPENDIX II                                      APPENDIX II

 U.S. News & World Report

 Congressional Record
 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Monthly Review
 WHO Chronicle

 International Social Science Journal
 International Perspective

 Food Drug Cosmetic Law Journal
 Food Technology
 Food Engineering

 The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
 Journal of the American Dietetic Association
 CNI News Weekly
 American Journal of Public Health
 Journal of the American Medical Association
 Nutrition News
 Milling and Baking News

Daily Newspapers--
  Journal of Commerce
  Wall Street Journal
  New York Times
  Washington Post
  Des Moines Register