All posts in Government Issues category.
[Cross posted from Defeat Poverty DC.]
What does access to healthy foods have to do with defeating poverty?
Not only does the presence of affordable fresh food in a community have the potential to improve residents’ nutrition and overall health, but attracting full-service grocery stores also can boost the local economy – grocery retail creates jobs, generates [...]
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs has proposed new regulations for food (and other) vending in the District. In these regulations, DCRA has created new mechanisms for enabling sales of healthy food, including at farmers’ markets. D.C. Hunger Solutions commends the agency on its efforts and suggest several improvements to the proposed regulations – with the goal of improving access to fresh and healthy foods for all District residents. [A PDF of the letter is here.]
July 23, 2010
Helder Gil, Legislative Affairs Specialist
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Re: Proposed Regulations to Amend Chapter 5 of Title 24 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (Vendors)
D.C. Hunger Solutions appreciates this opportunity to submit comments regarding the proposed regulations to amend the vending regulations set forth in Chapter 5 of Title 24 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. See D.C. Register Vol. 57, No. 26 (June 25, 2010). D.C. Hunger Solutions seeks to create a hunger-free community and thereby improve the nutrition, health, economic security, and well-being of low-income District residents.
We support the proposed vending regulations’ creation of a Class C Vending Business License for public markets, which exempts farmers’ markets (and similar markets) from many of the myriad regulations that govern design, placement, and other aspects of traditional of vending trucks, carts, and stands. And we concur with the comments submitted by the D.C. Farmers’ Market Collaborative.
D.C. Hunger Solutions is pleased that the District recognizes the importance of access for all residents to healthy food.
To ensure the success of the healthy food vending, it is essential to create a set of clear, easy-to-follow guidelines for potential vendors and public market managers who seek to sell fresh produce and other nutritious foods. The District also must identify sites that can support the successful sale of produce, in particular, for communities that lack access to sufficient nutritious food and in many cases, are suffering from high rates of obesity.
We look forward to working with DCRA and other agencies (e.g., the Department of Health and the Department of Transportation) to help make healthy vending a success, particularly in areas underserved by fresh produce.
Posted in Government Issues
There has been a lot of buzz and excitement about the new leadership and direction of the DCPS food services. The conversation continued yesterday at a DCPS Community Forum, where about 60 parents, teachers, food service professionals, and community organizations gathered to ask questions of DCPS Food Services Director Jeff Mills, Chief Operations Officer Tony Tata, and Director of Health & Wellness Diana Bruce.
As an active DCPS parent, and a program director at the Capital Area Food Bank, I recognized almost every face in the room – fellow parent activist Constance Newman; garden educator Kacie Warner; and anti-hunger advocate Kristin Roberts; just to name a few. Each of those wonderful stakeholders could be so much more than just a face in the crowd. We could be valuable assets to the DCPS school meal system, and advocates in support of the changes you plan to make.
Since coming in to town a few months ago, the DCPS food services team has undertaken incredible efforts to transform D.C. school meals. This has been a challenge, given that D.C. school meals have a rocky history plagued by contract mismanagement, financial accountability issues, food safety concerns, and inconsistent leadership. Jeff Mills and his team have inherited a 60,000 meal-a-day beast of a system, and have been quick to make big promises about how they’re going to turn it around on a dime. To their credit, they’ve made huge expansions to breakfast in the classroom, piloting supper programs at after-school programs, taking on two new vendors as pilot projects, and hiring new staff. And there are big promises of things to come, such as a garden-kitchen educational program, special celebratory events, a totally new menu based on unprocessed, fresh foods, 20% local produce, and compliance with IOM standards… the list goes on.
But who’s calling the shots? What is the end goal? Where are we headed?
All the people in that room last night are on the same side as Jeff and his team. We want the great things for our kids and our community that they rattled off – more fresh, unprocessed foods, more local produce, better access to school meals. But we understand that it won’t be easy to get those foods on D.C. cafeteria trays, and then get kids eat them. You’ll need the community to be your allies in this. But a few things need to change.
First, you must engage us. We need a formal system for providing input and giving feedback. It is not enough for you to stand in front of us and tell us what’s happening. We need to have a formal “Advisory Committee” comprised of a wide swath of community members and national experts to be a part of the planning and execution of the new DCPS school meal operation. We need this NOW, as plans for the future are being shaped and defined, not after they have already been developed.
Second, slow down. Nobody is expecting a barrage of reforms that will solve every aspect of the DCPS school meals all at once. The issues plaguing the DCPS school food system run deep, and have been decades in the making (as you probably know better than we do). We would rather see a few simple, measurable goals achieved than dozens of efforts pulled together quickly.
Third, show us a strategic plan. This city has seen too many well-intentioned but piecemeal efforts to improve the health and well-being of our youth. We need to be thinking not months, but years into the future at what DCPS food services will look like. Tony Tata himself said that DCPS has no idea what this operation will look like after this year, and that’s unacceptable. Other large, urban school districts have overcome the same issues we are facing and are serving the types of meals we strive to serve. Let us learn from their successes and failures, and develop a strategic plan to get where we all want to go, with attention to the unique strengths and weaknesses we have here in the nation’s capital.
Fourth, be transparent. Keep us in the loop with your plans, the criteria you use to evaluate foods, how you spend our taxpayer dollars, where your food is coming from and what’s down the pipeline. It’s not enough for you to give us vague responses to our questions from time to time – stay ahead of the curve and provide us with concrete information.
You can have our 100% support in these efforts if you engage us, and make calculated, strategic change towards our common goals, and are transparent with the community you’re serving. And believe me, it is going to take our support and buy-in on a much deeper level to realize the ambitious goals that we all have for D.C. school food. We owe it to the thousands of children who depend on these meals each day to work together on this while we have the chance. Let’s get it right.
By Ed Bruske
Contributing Editor
The D.C. Council yesterday agreed to fully fund the recently approved “Healthy Schools” initiative, but not with the “soda tax” proposed by Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3). Rather, the city will begin imposing a more traditional sales tax of six percent on all soft drinks sold in the District.
What, you might be [...]
There’s been lots of talk here regarding the FY 2011 budget is the proposed D.C. Beverage Tax, a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary-drinks and sodas in District grocery stores. Opponents have gained momentum and as Councilwoman Mary Cheh and her colleagues reconsider their options, I think it is important to look at the potential impacts this tax (and it’s alternatives) could have on Bread for the City clients and other vulnerable families in Washington, D.C.
The 1-cent-per-ounce tax was first proposed by the federal government last year– like the D.C. tax, the legislation would increase the cost of a 12-pack of soda by $1.44 and a 2-liter bottle by $0.68. Since then, 30 states have put a small sugary beverage tax into place, although only 2 (Arkansas and West Virginia) have taxes specifically on sodas. D.C. would be the third local government to impose such a tax on the voting public and despite reassurances from the Council, opposition has loomed large.
Mary Cheh, the councilwoman who first proposed the bill as part of her Healthy Schools Act of 2010, says the tax would generate between $6 million and $9 million, money earmarked for improved physical education programs, school nutrition and building grocery stores and farmers markets in the poorest Wards of the District (5, 6, 7, and 8).
The American Beverage Association (ABA), however, says this is not the way to raise money. “We understand that governments are facing tough budget challenges,” Susan K. Neely, president and CEO of the ABA, said, “but singling out one item for taxation completely misses the mark in having an effect on the national challenge of obesity.” And even the council members admit that the tax would have little if any impact on obesity itself. (In fact, studies show a tax would have to be as high as 18% to make any significant dent in obesity in the District). Additionally, opponents argue, the tax would negatively impact low-income families, who now, more than ever, cannot afford to pay more for their groceries.
And here, we get to the heart of the matter. As an employee of a local grocery store and an intern with Bread for the City, a local non-profit that provides food, medical, legal and social service to low-income D.C. residents, I have found this is an issue to be tackled head on, with facts in hand and an open mind.
Hi Backyard Hen Supporters,
I wanted to let you know that the Kojo Namdi Show (WAMU 88.5) will be focusing on the growing Backyard Hen movement around the country tomorrow (Thursday) from 12:00 to 1:00. They will be interviewing Pat Foreman, the author of City Chicks, as well as an urban farmer from Brooklyn and [...]
D.C. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), who has vowed to pay for her “Healthy Schools” legislation one way or another, has asked colleagues to approve a tax on soda sales in the District of Columbia as a means of raising the estimated $6.5 million annual cost of the omnibus bill aimed at improving school nutrition and combating the city’s high childhood obesity rate.
In her letter to other members of the Council, Cheh does not specify a tax rate for sodas, but quotes the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control as saying that a tax of 1 cent per ounce on soft drinks–or approximately 10 percent–would be the “single most effective measure to reverse the obesity epidemic.”
Cheh notes that since the repeal of a city tax on snack foods in 2001, there is no tax in the District on sodas except those purchased from vending machines. Meanwhile, Maryland levies a 6 percent sales tax on soda, while Virginia charges 1.5 percent. plus a state excise tax. Revenue from Cheh’s proposed soda tax would be directed into a special “Healthy Schools” fund, to be used only for purposes outlined in the bill.
In addition to providing additional funds for school breakfasts and lunches, the “Healthy Schools” bill would also help fund the purchase of local produce for school meals and establish grants for school gardens. While the legislation has won widespread support on the Council and among healthy food advocates, it has been dogged by questions of how Cheh would finance the plan when the city is in financial pain.
Special soda taxes have been proposed in other cities–notably New York–as a means of attacking the obesity problem. But this is the first time the issue has been raised seriously here. The “Healthy Schools” legislation, which sailed through committee and an initial Council vote recently, is scheduled to come up for a second and final vote on May 5.
An aide to Cheh last night said Cheh proposes to attach the soda tax to the city’s proposed general budget legislation, scheduled for a vote May 25, and expects that it will spark a fierce reaction from the food and beverage industries.
The proposed soda tax could also ingnite protests from the city’s black and low-income residents. Cheh says in her letter that such a tax most likely will fall heaviest on the District’s poor, who are also at greatest risk for being overweight or obese. “This means that children in the District who are at the greatest risk for childhood obesity are the most likely to decrease their consumption of sugary beverages as a result of a soda tax.”
Today, the Washington Informer reports on the expansion of food stamps in the District, as celebrated at Bread for the City last week in a press conference with Councilmembers Michael Brown (I-At Large) and Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3).
The actual implementation of the Food Stamp Expansion Act (introduced by Brown and unanimously approved by the Council) was way delayed, but finally an additional 4,800 DC residents are eligible for food assistance. It’s good news at a time when the low-income residents of DC need more of it.
But can we just take a step back to last week, when the Washington Post covered this story? (I know it’s lame to blog about something that’s like a whole week old; yet it was a busy week around here, and there’s something about the Post’s article that really sticks in the craw.) Check out how WaPo’s Tim Craig caps off his article with an out-of-nowhere conclusion:
“Still, for some residents both inside and outside the city, the fact that city officials are bragging about increasing the District’s food stamps rolls is sure to generate debate, and reinforce conservatives’ criticisms of the District government’s priorities.”
Okay — hold on. Is that a fact that Craig is reporting? Is such a debate actually happening somewhere? Would any District resident really think it’s a bad idea for our city government to claim federal funding (free money!) that will both alleviate miserable hunger and stimulate $1.73 of local economic activity for every $1 of food stamps? Or was this paragraph written because the practice of journalism demands that the ‘other side’ get its say, regardless of reason, morals, or even presence?
We are not journalists, so maybe we just don’t understand. But we do think that Craig could have put this precious column space to better use by, say, reporting on the fact that Councilmember Mary Cheh has another food stamp expansion bill in the works, one which will bring relief to 4,000 more District residents (working families, homeless people, and self-employed individuals) and is already unanimously-supported by Council. That sounds like news to us.
