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 asking, is the difference between these two approaches to taxing sodas?

The beverage industry vigorously campaigned against the 1-cent excise tax on sodas because it would have raised the shelf price that consumers see when they purchase soft drinks. The sales tax of six percent, by contrast, appears only on the sales receipt after beverages have been purchased.

Although the industry also opposed the sales tax, it brings the District in line with neighboring Maryland, which already taxes soft drinks at six percent. Virginia levies a much lower 2.5 percent sales tax.

D.C. council members were more comfortable with the traditional sales tax approach because it is already familiar, in contrast to the more progressive excise tax, which was aimed not only at raising money to improve food served in the District’s public schools, but also was seen as a weapon to combat obesity by making sugary sodas more expensive.

The penny-per-ounce excise tax would have only applied to sugar-sweetened beverages.  Diet drinks, calorie-free drinks, juices (with at least 70% juice), milk, coffee, and tea would have been excluded. The six percent sales tax applies also to artificially sweetened beverages, including diet and zero-calorie drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks. It will not apply to beverages containing milk, coffee, juice or tea.

The one-cent excise tax also had a cap of 30 cents per container.

The six percent sales tax is projected to raise more revenue–$7.92 million annually–than the penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages–$6.3 million. Costs associated with the “Healthy Schools” initiative are expected to run about $6.5 million per year.

But the “soda tax” may not be dead. An aide to Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), who authored the “Healthy Schools” legislation, said last night she will continue to press for the one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages sold in the city. “Because the obesity epidemic is such a enormous health crisis in the District (73% and 72% of residents in Ward 7 and 8 are overweight or obese!), Councilmember Cheh plans to continue to push for a penny-per-ounce excise tax because it is a good health policy.”

Stay tuned.

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. Unfortunately, many are woefully unaware of the intricacies of the issue, much less of the impacts it could have on those who cannot necessarily afford a new tax (as opposed to it being an albeit significant inconvenience).

Rosa Garcia, one of the lab technicians at the Bread for the City medical clinic said that the tax would, in fact, have negative impact on our clients but only because they will continue to make unhealthy choices. People like soda, it is what they like to drink, said Rosa, and it’s just like cigarettes. Just because it costs more doesn’t mean they won’t buy it. (Cheh has a similar response, emphasizing that the money from the beverage tax will help increase the health-food options for families who might otherwise choose soda.)

Rosa also pointed out that if the money does indeed improve food choice options in low-income areas and promote health initiatives in schools, Bread for the City clients would benefit greatly. “Obesity is a big problem here in this clinic, as it is in all clinics everywhere.” In terms of children, Health Affairs published a report in April, 2010 which found the tax “could benefit at-risk children, children who are already obese, come from low-income families, or are African-American, especially when soda is available at schools.” The impact, however, will come from the dedication of the tax revenues to obesity prevention initiatives, rather than a direct effect on the level of childhood obesity in D.C. schools.

So when voting time comes, consider both sides. Will the soda tax hurt or help  families? Will they continue to by expensive beverages or will they opt for healthier choices? But before you call your council-member (which indeed you should do), consider the following: Cheh says that if the beverage tax fails in the face of what has proved to be a staunch opposition, the next step will be an overall increase in the overall sales tax. It doesn’t take a lab technician to see that such a measure will, invariably, affect us all.

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 myself. Let your friends know. It should be a good program. If you can’t listen to it live, you can always stream it online after the show.

In early June we’ll be setting up tables at a few farmers’ markets around the city to collect more petition signers. As a special treat, elementary school kids from 5 classes in Capitol Hill will be showing off their recently hatched chicks and talking about what they’ve learned by hatching and raising chicks. We’re looking for more volunteers to help man the tables for two hour shifts. Let me know if you want to participate and we’ll find a time and place that works for you.

Other good news on the chicken front is that we’re meeting with the Mayor’s Office next week to talk about how to move our legislative changes forward. We’ll let you know what comes out of that meeting.

Thanks,

Caryn

Email dcfoodforall@gmail.com for more information or to get involved!

“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.

The D.C. WIC Agency scheduled a second training for farmers interested in accepting WIC and FMNP vouchers. That training is set for April 15, 1 to 3 p.m. If you want to register, please email me at kroberts@dchunger.org — I’d be happy to pass your name on to the Agency.

The D.C. Farmers’ Market Collaborative meets monthly at D.C. Hunger Solutions. Anyone is welcome to attend and discuss outreach/publicity about the new WIC cash value checks — and publicity for markets generally. Please contact me if you’d like to attend a meeting, and/or if you’d like to be added to our email list to keep up with farmers’ market news and opportunities to help.

Additionally, the Farmers’ Market Collaborative (in cooperation with the WIC Agency) is creating a handy, at-a-glance guide to the four federally-funded nutrition benefits that residents can use at District markets. This guide will be available for all farmers and market managers as a quick-reference to have on hand at their cash registers. (It also might prove a useful model for other states in the future — as the June 2009 CFSC report notes, only about half the states have elected to include farmers’ markets this year as vendors for the new fruit & vegetable checks included in the WIC food package.) Contact me if you would like a copy.

Thanks, and I hope to hear from many of you soon!

-Kristin Roberts, D.C. Hunger Solutions
kroberts@dchunger.org; 202.986.2200 x3041

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Councilmember Barry:

My name is Carl Rollins and I am here on behalf of Common Good City Farm. When I was riding my bike here this morning I stopped by the farm. This time of year it doesn’t look like much, but I saw the future. Through the fence, I could see cherry blossoms on a tree we planted a year ago. Garlic scapes were shooting up towards the sky.

This abandoned school baseball field could be the first of many. We could have one school farm like this in each ward.

On my tour I also passed the school where I will soon help plant a garden as part of a program planned by a church foundation.

School garden programs cannot be viewed apart from the issues of community food security and access to healthy, affordable food. We know what the problem is; it’s an emergency.

This is about nutrition, it’s about health, it’s about the environment, and combating climate change.

I also passed new buildings being built. But will any of this be for the homeless men I saw who camp out on 14th street? Couldn’t some of these potentially work on and receive the bounty from the potential gardens in DC? However, in order to grow gardens we need to grow gardeners first. The garden program is vital to changing the worldviews of our young and building community.

Focusing on test scores misses the point. Standards-based lessons taught in gardens will create adults with changed behaviors and reduced carbon footprints. People who will seek green jobs and maybe become urban farmers like me.

Environmental literacy is an ethic, an ideal. In order to change the world we need to teach our young character. Teaching nutrition and healthy lifestyles through gardens is one way to teach self-discipline.

Without self-discipline how can students study or ever hope to hold down a steady job? Half the men in DC will have contact with the criminal justice system. Without a foundation of self-discipline how can we hope to teach anything? This can’t be tested.

Moreover, without a streamlined mechanism for making land available for garden programs and urban farms the future of healthier schools and our planet is jeopardized. Without laws and urban planning that prioritize sustainable development our shared vision won’t happen. Barriers must be removed.

I foresee school farms, farmers markets and CSA’s–scaled-up urban agriculture. This bill mentions DC Code 48-402—it should “implement” this law. The farm to school provisions should provide a preference for DC-grown produce.

I know that you are concerned about funding. With these two provisions, the gardening community won’t need funding we can get our own grants and even commercial loans to sustain the good work the local community has begun.

They are also two of the most pressing public health issues with serious long term health consequences.  In fact, in Washington, DC the rate of obesity is 22.3 percent, while nearly 27 percent of the nation’s adults are obese. These rates spike up even more dramatically in African Americans and Latinos.[2]  Some of the health consequences of obesity are coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, various cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, liver and gall bladder disease, sleep apnea and respiratory problems.[3]

DC Voices for MEAL Choices (DVMC), an advocacy group of the Metropolitan Washington Public Health Association, is working to get the DC Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act passed in the district by educating policymakers, the media and the public about the positive effect of including nutrition information on menus and menu boards in restaurants.

In March 2007, D.C. City Council members Phil Mendelson and Marion Barry introduced the DC MEAL Act to address the significantly high number of obesity related chronic diseases in the nation’s capital.  The council members developed the bill to help residents and visitors of D.C. make healthier food choices when eating outside of their homes.

The MEAL Act would require fast food and other chain restaurants in the District of Columbia to provide detailed nutrition information directly on the menu.  The bill would mandate establishments with 10 or more locations nationwide to list the calorie content and specific amounts of saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium in standard menu items. Although Councilman Mendelson introduced the DC MEAL Act almost three years ago, the Council has not passed the law requiring DC chain restaurants to provide nutrition information to their customers.

Menu labeling should be part of the solution for decreasing the prevalence of overweight and obesity within the District of Columbia.  Not only have other jurisdictions passed and implemented menu labeling legislation, but the National Health Reform bills also include menu labeling language.

Though the specifics vary slightly (passage of a national bill would require restaurants with 20 or more locations to post calories in relation to daily recommended intake), Congress has clearly recognized the importance of this issue.  Please visit www.dcvoicesformealchoices.org for additional information on the campaign, or email Aileen Orlino, or Kaitlin Sheedy to become involved in campaign efforts!

We wrote letters to the City Council to express our support of this bill, a few of which you can read below. We will be submitting these letters of support to the DC City Council and will read a few of them during the public testimony period at the upcoming hearing on March 26.

WIC Sign at Ward 8 Farmers Market

In a previous post, we explored  a new Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program that helps low-income mothers buy more fresh produce at farmers markets. The new coupons are known as WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Value Vouchers, or FVC. This second post in the series looks at benefits of a similar nutrition assistance program already in place–the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)–and yet more stumbling blocks in implementation of such programs.

First, the good news.

According to a report by the Community Food Security Coalition based on USDA numbers, 2.3 million WIC participants received farmers market benefits in 2008, spending about $20 million. During that year, 16,016 farmers and 3,367 farmers markets were authorized to accept FMNP coupons. The USDA awarded grants to each state, amounting to $301,302 for D.C. in 2009, while Maryland received $341,338 (Virginia received $291,212 in 2008, but declined to participate last year).

Also according to the report, evaluation of the program in Washington state showed that WIC recipients who used vouchers  increased their knowledge and consumption of fruits and vegetables, and planned to keep coming to farmers markets in the future. Several D.C.-area markets–including the Crossroads market in Takoma Park and three of the markets run by FRESHFARM Markets–established very popular grant-funded “double dollar” programs, which matched the value of vouchers, increasing shoppers’ buying power and farmers’ income.

This works out for everyone–at least until bureaucracy or lack of participation get in the way.

Liz Falk, the former manager of WIC and food stamp programs for FRESHFARM Markets, says she saw very little in the way of advertising for the WIC FMNP. D.C.’s WIC administrators and the Department of Health could not — or would not — devote much funding to develop and distribute marketing materials, and different agencies were reluctant even to add each others’ information to existing materials. The situation will likely hold true for the FVC program.

More worrisome still: Falk says that “red tape is covering so much of what’s possible with these programs.”

The program’s certification process itself is problematic. As our first post mentioned, D.C. offers just one training for farmers who want to participate in the WIC FMNP, Senior FMNP, and FVC programs. (It’s set for this Wednesday, March 10 in Greenbelt, MD, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.)

By contrast Maryland offers multiple trainings on 13 different dates in Greenbelt, Annapolis, Hagerstown, Baltimore, and Denton. Each lasts an hour–from 10 to 11 a.m. or 1 to 2 p.m.

This is not to say that Maryland gets it all right: it has separate trainings for the FMNP and FVC programs, and each is administered by a different department – FMNP by the Department of Agriculture; FVC by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

All of this is enough to make a farmer’s head spin, and tempt her to drop participating all together.

“[Farmers] want to come, they want to sell produce, and they want to make a living,” says Falk. “Willingness to participate in a WIC program is primarily determined by perceived man-hours needed on the bureaucratic back-end to get enrolled and stay enrolled,” wrote Dan White, DC Food For All contributor, on our listserv recently. Raise the hurdles too high, and farmers will decide the program isn’t worth the earnings.

Crossroads Farmers Market staff have also seen a problem with reimbursement. This market, located just outside the District line in Takoma Park, MD, sees the majority of its customers come in with some form of nutrition assistance. In the three years that Crossroads has been in existence and accepting programs like the WIC FMNP, staff have heard numerous complaints from farmers who say that the reimbursement procedure is complex and the timeline is short. Unlike cash or bank checks, the WIC checks have expiration dates. Once the farmers and customers do successfully exchange a payment, the sellers often have to wait weeks or months to see it turn into cash. Similar problems loom for the new FVC program.

As the last post mentioned, DC Food for All members are asking whether this system can be improved. To learn more and become part of the conversation, join the D.C. Food for All discussion group.