You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Child Labor in West African Cocoa Production: Issues and U.S. Policy
This report outlines how and where cocoa is produced, discusses the use of abusive child labor in the industry, efforts by Congress to counter abusive child labor — including the Harkin-Engel Protocol, and initiatives by affected governments and international organizations to address the problem. This report also provides possible policy options that might undertaken to stop the use of child labor in cocoa production. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9107/
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding
Federally supported child nutrition programs and related activities — including school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) — reach over 37 million children and almost 2 million lower-income pregnant/postpartum women. In FY2004, anticipated spending on these programs is $16.6 billion, and the FY2004 appropriations law (P.L. 108-199) supports this spending level (although with new appropriations of a lesser amount, some $16 billion). The Administration’s FY2005 revised budget request envisions spending a total of $17.15 billion, supported by new appropriations of $16.47 billion. The House FY2005 appropriations bill (H.R. 4766) would support spending of $16.97 billion with new appropriations of $16.29 billion. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8527/
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding
About a dozen federally supported child nutrition programs and related activities – including school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) – reach over 37 million children and almost 2 million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women. Total FY2002 spending on these efforts was $15.1 billion. FY2003 spending is projected at an estimated $15.9 billion under the Agriculture Department appropriations portion (Division A) of the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7; H.Rept. 108-10; enacted February 20,2003). And the Administration anticipates spending $16.3 billion under its FY2004 budget. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3845/
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding
About a dozen federally supported child nutrition programs and related activities – including school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) – reach over 37 million children and almost 2 million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women. Total FY2002 spending on these efforts was $15.1 billion. FY2003 spending is projected at an estimated $15.9 billion under the Agriculture Department appropriations portion (Division A) of the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7; H.Rept. 108-10; enacted February 20,2003). And the Administration anticipates spending $16.3 billion under its FY2004 budget. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3847/
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding
About a dozen federally supported child nutrition programs and related activities – including school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) – reach over 37 million children and almost 2 million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women. Total FY2002 spending on these efforts was $15.1 billion. FY2003 spending is projected at an estimated $15.9 billion under the Agriculture Department appropriations portion (Division A) of the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7; H.Rept. 108-10; enacted February 20,2003). And the Administration anticipates spending $16.3 billion under its FY2004 budget. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3846/
Child Nutrition Issues in the 105th Congress
This report covers proposed and enacted legislative initiatives to change child nutrition programs (including the WIC program) during 1997 and 1998. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs533/
Chronology and Brief Description of Federal Food Assistance Legislation, 1935-1983
Since 1935 when Congress first approved the donation of agricultural surplus commodities to low-income populations and school lunch programs, some 57 laws have been passed creating and revising Federal food assistance programs. This report is a chronology of these laws. It briefly describes the major provisions which have led to the network of Federal food assistance programs we know today-- the food stamp program, school lunch and breakfast programs, summer food and child care food programs, special and commodity supplemental food programs for women, infants and children (WICa nd CSFP), elderly nutrition programs, and commodity donation programs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8866/
Comparing Quota Buyout Payments for Peanuts and Tobacco
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a generally consistent comparison of the benefits provided to peanut quota holders and producers and proposed benefits concerning tobacco. It is not the intention of this analysis to attempt to determine the appropriate size of these buyout payments. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9079/
A Concise History of the Food Stamp Program
The Food Stamp Program has undergone a number of major changes since its modern version was established in 1961. It is now one of the largest "welfare" programs and provides an income supplement to the food-purchasing power of more than 18 million persons each month, at a cost of nearly $7 billion annually. This report traces the history of the program from 1961 through 1979, with an emphasis on how program rules, philosophy, participation, and costs have changed over the years. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8143/
A Concise History of the Food Stamp Program
The Food Stamp Program has undergone a number of major changes since its modern version was established in 1961. It is now one of the largest "welfare" programs and provides an income supplement to the food-purchasing power of more than 18 million persons each month, at a cost of nearly $7 billion annually. This report traces the history of the program from 1961 through 1979, with an emphasis on how program rules, philosophy, participation, and costs have changed over the years. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8857/
Consumers and Food Price Inflation
This report is divided into five sections that cover the following: major economic concepts underlying consumer food behavior; descriptions how U.S. food price inflation rates have evolved since 1915, when federal price data collection for inflation-measuring purposes began; information on recent history and projections for U.S. food expenditure shares relative to total household budget; an examination of retail food price inflation; and a discussion on the impact that rapid food price inflation can have on government food programs and the more vulnerable consumer groups. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc227643/
Consumers and Food Price Inflation
This report is divided into five sections that cover the following: major economic concepts underlying consumer food behavior; descriptions how U.S. food price inflation rates have evolved since 1915, when federal price data collection for inflation-measuring purposes began; information on recent history and projections for U.S. food expenditure shares relative to total household budget; an examination of retail food price inflation; and a discussion on the impact that rapid food price inflation can have on government food programs and the more vulnerable consumer groups. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc97973/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
This report briefly discusses the USDA's FY2006 appropriation, which postpones rules requiring many retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, and peanuts until September 30, 2008. The report also discusses related legislation. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29507/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
This report briefly discusses the USDA's FY2006 appropriation, which postpones rules requiring many retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, and peanuts until September 30, 2008. The report also discusses related legislation. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29506/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) as modified by the FY2004 USDA appropriation (P.L. 108-199) mandates retail country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, and peanuts starting September 30, 2006, and for seafood starting September 30, 2004. Some in Congress still strongly support mandatory COOL, especially after discoveries since 2003 of “mad cow” disease in four Canadian-born cattle. Others counter that COOL is a marketing, not an animal or human health, concern and should be voluntary. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10089/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10018/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
H.R. 2744, USDA’s FY2006 appropriation, again postpones rules requiring many retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, and peanuts — until September 30, 2008. Mandatory COOL for seafood was finalized on September 30, 2004. Some in Congress still strongly support mandatory COOL, and say they voted against final passage of H.R. 2744 because of the delay. Others counter that COOL should be voluntary. Several pending bills would alter the program including H.R. 2068, H.R. 2744, S. 135, S. 1300, S. 1331, and S. 1333. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8534/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) as modified by the FY2004 USDA appropriation (P.L. 108-199) requires country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, and peanuts starting September 30, 2006, and for seafood starting September 30, 2004. The House Agriculture Committee approved on July 21, 2004, a bill (H.R. 4576) to make COOL voluntary. Some lawmakers still support a mandatory program, especially after recent discoveries of “mad cow” disease in a Canadian and a U.S. cow (the latter from Canada). Others counter that COOL is a marketing, not an animal or human health, issue and should be voluntary. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5903/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2850/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2849/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4680/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4677/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4678/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Meats, produce, and several other raw agricultural products generally have been exempt. The omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-171) signed on May 13, 2002, contains a requirement that many retailers provide, starting on September 30, 2004, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood, and peanuts. The program is voluntary until then. USDA on October 8, 2002, issued guidelines for the voluntary labeling program. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4679/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
The 2002 farm bill required retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, peanuts, and seafood by September 30, 2004. Congress twice postponed implementation for all bu seafood; COOL now must be implemented by September 30, 2008. This report describes the current status of the COOL issue, as well as the ongoing discussion of additional COOL requirements for other foods and food ingredients as part of the proposed Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act overhaul. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc26117/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
The 2002 farm bill required retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce, red meats, peanuts, and seafood by September 30, 2004. Congress twice postponed implementation for all but seafood; country-of-origin labeling (COOL) now must be implemented by September 30, 2008. Some lawmakers have proposed new COOL requirements for other foods and food ingredients, as part of a proposed overhaul of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc26116/
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods: Current Law and Proposed Changes
Federal law requires most imports, including many food items, to bear labels informing the “ultimate purchaser” of their country of origin. Various bills have been introduced to impose expanded country-of-origin labeling requirements on meats and on several other agricultural products. Such proposals have attracted attention for a number of reasons. One is that they are viewed (by some advocates) as a way to help U.S. producers dealing with low farm prices. Also, some perceive that food products from certain countries might pose greater risks than those from the United States. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1722/
The Delaney Clause: The Dilemma of Regulating Health Risk for Pesticide Residues
Under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for establishing tolerances for pesticide residues in or on foods and feeds. Tolerances are legal limits to the amount of pesticide residues that can be found on a raw agricultural commodity at the farm gate or in a processed food. The FFDCA has two sections, 408 and 409, which set up different and inconsistent criteria for setting tolerances for pesticide residues in foods. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs27/
The Delaney Dilemma: Regulating Pesticide Residues in Foods -- Seminar Proceedings, March 16, 1993
A provision in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Delaney Clause, appears to lower risks in the setting of tolerances for pesticide residues. It prohibits any substance from being added to processed foods if it induces cancer in man or animals. In reality, the provision created a dilemma because the zero-risk statute makes it difficult to regulate pesticides. Because of the prescription of Delaney, tolerances (legal limits) are established differently for carcinogens and non-carcinogens and in raw and processed foods. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs60/
Department of Defense Food Procurement: Background and Status
Military food items, also known as subsistence items, are generally procured under the auspices of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD) which provides worldwide logistics support for the U.S. military services. Under DLA, the Defense Supply Center (DCSP) is the inventory control point for food, clothing, textiles, medicines, medical equipment, general and industrial supplies and services for the military, their eligible dependents, and other non-DOD customers worldwide. This report will describe the origin, authority, and policy in military food procurement. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10644/
Department of Defense Food Procurement: Background and Status
In an effort to reduce costs, adopt commercial practices, and gain technological advantages, the DOD Food Policy Council directed the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) to establish a common food management system. Under DLA, DSCP is the inventory control point for food, clothing, textiles, medicines, medical equipment, general and industrial supplies and services for the military, their eligible dependents, and other non-DOD customers worldwide; under DSCP, the Subsistence Directorate serves as the operational manager for all food operations. This report will describe the origin, authority, policy, and military food acquisition process. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6786/
Department of Defense Food Procurement: Background and Status
Military food items, also known as subsistence items, are generally procured under the auspices of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD) which provides worldwide logistics support for the U.S. military services. Under DLA, the Defense Supply Center (DCSP) is the inventory control point for food, clothing, textiles, medicines, medical equipment, general and industrial supplies and services for the military, their eligible dependents, and other non-DOD customers worldwide. This report will describe the origin, authority, and policy in military food procurement. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40266/
Dietary Supplements: International Standards and Trade Agreements
The dietary supplement industry has long been concerned about international activities that could have a potential impact on supplement trade. As originally proposed, FDA reform legislation contained provisions on mutual agreements and global harmonization that would have applied to most products under FDA jurisdiction. However, Congress explicitly exempted supplements from the final provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-115), which means that these products are not part of on-going trade discussions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9110/
Domestic Food Assistance: The Farm Bill and Other Legislation in the 110th Congress
This report covers issues and legislative changes addressed in the farm bill, legislative changes included in the FY2008 Agriculture appropriations measure (included in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act; P.L. 110-161), and proposed legislation that involves programs and activities that are normally not part of the farm bill (e.g., child nutrition program proposals). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94089/
Effects of Radiation from Fukushima Dai-ichi on the U.S. Marine Environment
The massive Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, caused extensive damage in northeastern Japan, including damage to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power installation, which resulted in the release of radiation. Concerns have arisen about the potential effects of this released radiation on the U.S. marine environment and resources. This report discusses these concerns. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc87177/
Ethiopian Food Situation: International Response
The United States has donated the largest share of the world-wide relief effort. Members of Congress nave passed legislation, the African Famine Relief and Recovery Act of 1985 (2.L. 99-8), authorizing emergency relief assistance to Ethiopia and other famine-stricken countries. Some observers favor trying to remove restrictions that prohibit long-term agricultural development assistance and other forms of economic aid to Ethiopia, but many continue to believe that aid to this Marxist-oriented nation should be limited to humanitarian relief. The Ethiopian food situation will probably remain a central issue among U.S. lawmakers and relief officials during the 99th Congress. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9060/
Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program
The 110th Congress in June 2008 passed a new omnibus farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Provisions in this new law now spell out more explicitly how the Secretary is to use the annual Section 32 appropriation. Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (P.L. 74-320 as amended; 7 U.S.C. 612c) authorizes a permanent appropriation equal to 30% of annual U.S. customs receipts. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc87328/
Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program
This report describes provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) related to Section 32 appropriations and how non-transferred money (funding not put toward child nutrition programs) may be spent. It includes an overfiew of how Section 32 funds have generally been used and the implications of the new restrictions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc96784/
Farm Commodity Programs: Honey
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8892/
The FDA 2009 Budget Request
The Administration's FY2009 budget request of $2.4 billion for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would provide a 5.7% increase ($130 million) over FY2008. User fees would make up about 26% of the total amount requested and would account for 61% of the proposed increase. Budget documents indicate that the additional funding would provide for expanded activities to ensure the safety of foods and drugs, as well as to accelerate the availability of new medical products. About half of the requested increase would be used for cost-of-living pay increases, as opposed to new program activities. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10745/
Federal Farm Promotion ("Check-off") Programs
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 affirmed the constitutionality of the so-called beef check-off program, one of the 18 generic promotion programs for agricultural products that are now active nationally. Supporters view check-offs as economically beneficial self-help activities that need minimal government involvement or taxpayer funding. Producers, handlers, and/or importers are required to pay an assessment, usually deducted from revenue at time of sale - thus the name check-off. However, some farmers contend they are being "taxed" for advertising and related activities they would not underwrite voluntarily. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the beef check-off is considered significant for the future of the other programs, although the Court left open the possibility of additional challenges. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc26082/
Federal Food Assistance: Hurricane Katrina
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7612/
Federal Food Assistance in Disasters: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8906/
The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer
This report discusses concerns about food safety, the resources required to ensure food safety, and whether federal food safety laws themselves, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc276872/
The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer
The combined efforts of the food industry and the regulatory agencies often are credited with making the U.S. food supply among the safest in the world. Nonetheless, many food-related health issues persist. At issue is whether the current U.S. regulatory system has the resources and structural organization to protect consumers from these dangers. Also at issue is whether the federal food safety laws themselves, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31457/
The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer
Report concerning food safety, the resources required to ensure food safety, and whether federal food safety laws themselves, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc228151/
The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer
The combined efforts of the food industry and the regulatory agencies often are credited with making the U.S. food supply among the safest in the world. Nonetheless, many food-related health issues persist. At issue is whether the current U.S. regulatory system has the resources and structural organization to protect consumers from these dangers. Also at issue is whether the federal food safety laws themselves, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29748/
Federal Regulatory Structure for Egg Safety: Fact Sheet
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs894/
Food Additive Regulations: A Chronology
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs203/
Food and Agriculture: Prospective Issues in the 105th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs448/