The End is Only the Beginning

This is my final post in Agricultural Policy. However, we have only reached the beginning of learning about ag policy. All citizens share a connection to the agriculture industry, either as producers, distributors, manufacturers, or consumers. To remain accurately informed about the food in our nation, we should all continue to follow agriculture news and learn about the federal, state, and local policies that impact us. 

Remember, there is so much more to agricultural policy than just "rules for farming." This blog covered a variety of current topics related to agriculture, but it only scratched the surface. Please feel free to revisit the blog as issues continue to unfold. Below is a review of each blog's main point:

Why Should You Care About Ag Policy?

• Ag policy impacts all citizens in their daily lives and plays an important role in the health, welfare, and economic stability of the United States.

Understanding Obama's FY2017 Agriculture Budget

• Each year, the President recommends federal budget allocations for agriculture-related projects.
• This year, Obama proposed increased funding for research and school meals; he also proposed controversial cuts to crop insurance subsidies.

The Role of Communication in the GMO-Labeling Debate

• Public perception plays an important role framing policy decisions.
• GMO advocates must do a better job of communicating information the public.

Labels: COOL or UnCOOL?

• After the World Trade Organization rules against the United States' country-of-origin-labeling law, policymakers decided to repeal the popular mandate.

National Ag Day and Our Founding Farmers

• In order to remind Americans of our strong agricultural heritage, National Ag Day was established to help citizens understand how their food is produced. 
• Agriculture continues to play an integral role in the development of the United States.

The Legislative Process

• Policy is created through legislation (pass/fail of bills in Congress). The legislative process has many complex steps before an idea can become policy.

Online Government Resources

• Citizens have a right to understand the actions of Congress. This blog focused on comparing the information provided by the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House Agriculture Committee on their respective websites. 
• Additional non-government sources also provide valuable insights.

The Risk of Agroterrorism

• Agroterrorism, or the intentional destruction or contamination of the food source, is a high security concern in the United States.
• Government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Human and Health Services work together to ensure the safety and quality of our food.

MyPlate Replaces Food Pyramid

• The government has sponsored many educational campaigns over the years to help Americans eat healthy. The most recent campaign is MyPlate.
• Campaign contributions and powerful industries have influenced the nutritional guidelines, leading some people to doubt their credibility.

Agricultural policy covers a diverse group of topics, as evidenced by the blogs above. In order to continue learning about the ag industry and government policy, please feel free to visit any of the websites below. Click on the logo to visit the site. 

http://www.ncfap.org/

http://www.agweb.com/news/policy-news/

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/ag-and-food-law-blog/

http://www.agri-pulse.com/

Thank you for taking the time to learn more about agricultural policy. To continue the conversation with me, please feel free to send me a message or comment on the blog. 

MyPlate Replaces Food Pyramid

One of the agricultural policies consumers are most familiar with are federal nutrition guidelines. The Unites States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) develop these guidelines to educate Americans and recommend nutritional eating habits. In 2015, the USDA and HHS released Dietary Guidelines for Americans: 2015-2020 Eighth Edition. 

These guidelines are supplemented with educational resources provided by the USDA. Since 1916, the USDA has provided food guides targeted at children. The nutrition campaign has evolved from a basic guide to the food wheel (1984) to the food pyramid (1992) to the current MyPlate campaign (2011). A complete history of this campaign is available at ChooseMyPlate. 



Some of the key aspects of the MyPlate campaign include using new shapes and colors to attract readers' attention. The use of a plate instead of the old pyramid also helps demonstrate recommended portion sizes. Since 2005, the USDA has also stopped picturing specific foods, but instead focused on the five food groups: vegetables, grains, protein, fruits, and dairy. In addition to food guidelines, the MyPlate campaign also includes (Food Nutrition Service):

• Educational resources for teachers
• Original songs, posters
• Parent resources
• Games

Food guidelines are one of the most controversial topics in ag policy history. Many organizations have accused politicians and federal agencies of creating guidelines that favor certain food industries. Some people believe policy has been guided more by economics than science and nutrition. For example, grains used to be the base of the food pyramid, but they now account for just 20 percent of MyPlate. Dr. Light, the nutrition expert who helped create the 1992 food pyramid, said her team's recommendations were similar to the recommendations of today (mostly vegetables, lean meat, and less dairy and processed foods), but department executives were lobbied to make drastic changes (Priceonomics). 

USDA campaigns have a tremendous impact on funding, school meals, and parents' and children's perceptions of nutrition. For example, the inclusion of cereal and other processed foods at the base of the pyramid in grains rather than at the top of the pyramid in fats, oils, and sweets, taught many children-including myself-that cereal was a viable, healthy breakfast option. This understanding is in direct conflict with the recommendations of nutrition experts like Dr. Light. This is one of the reasons the new MyPlate campaign does not categorize specific foods. Think about the impact MyPlate will have on children today. 

The 1992 Food Pyramid includes cereal in the list of grains.

Despite positive changes, such as a greater emphasis on vegetables, many people still criticize Dietary Guidelines. A Time magazine article discussed the ongoing frustration of the American Cancer Society over red meat. In the latest dietary guidelines, no recommendation was given to limit red meat. Many experts saw this decision as politicians capitulating to the meat industry. Nonetheless, USDA food guidelines continue to influence American shopping and eating habits.

At a time when obesity levels are dangerously high, nutrition guidelines are increasingly important. The MyPlate campaign has been well-received for its informational and persuasive nature. Only time will tell if it will have a lasting effect on the population. However, it is important to recognize the potential for political bias. The many different levels of influence are what separate ag policy from the ag industry or ag education.  

The Risk of Agroterrorism

Risk and crisis communication play a significant role in the interaction between the agricultural industry and the government. Many government agencies are dedicated to the prevention and protection of risk to the United States food source. 

According to the National Research Council, risk communication is "an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions [who have some capacity for controlling or reducing the risk]" (1989). Crisis communication, on the other hand, is "an ongoing process that enables organizations to monitor their environments before and during crisis, to understand and respond appropriately, to construct a consistent interpretation, and to resolve the crisis and reestablish order" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). The communication field has pushed for organizations to consolidate their risk and crisis communication plans, because risk communication can prevent or diminish the threat of a crisis. The relationship between risk communication, crisis, and time is demonstrated in the flowchart below:

The agricultural industry relies on government agencies for communication related to many different risks and crises. Two of the most common areas of risk over the last 100 years have included natural disasters (e.g., drought or flood) and economic disasters (e.g., diminished trade or low commodity prices). However, one new area of risk emerged after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks--agroterrorism.

Agroterrorism is defined by Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as "the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the purpose of generating fear, causing economic losses, or undermining social stability." Since 2001, the federal government has used risk communication to minimize the threat of agroterrorism. Federal agencies have also developed crisis communication plans in the event of an agroterrorist attack. 

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security identified critical infrastructure and key resources for additional protection from terrorist threat. One of the key sectors identified was the Agriculture and Food Sector. Partnerships developed between the FBI, FDA, HHS, and USDA to increase protection of the food source. These partnerships included developing risk and crisis communication plans, conducting simulation exercises, and training employees at the federal, state, and local levels - all best practices of successful risk communication campaigns (FDA, 2007).

Despite these active prevention campaigns, a threat assessment conducted by the FBI in 2012 found changes in the international landscape elevated the risk for agroterrorism. An attack of Foot and Mouth Disease against the cattle, swine, or poultry industries presents the greatest threat to America. A successful agroterrorism attack could lead to:

• Civilian deaths
• Loss of economic output
• Diminished international trade recognition
• Public panic

The agricultural industry accounts for one-fifth of the United States' economic output, according to the FDA, but that does not even consider the devastating long-term effects of people losing confidence in the food source. Despite the actions being taken by the federal government, there are many challenges to protecting the United States from agroterrorism. The threat can never be completely mitigated, and that is why risk communication must continue to be an interactive process between the industry and government agencies, as well as with the general public. Communication scholars identify two types of risk communication:

Dialogue-Centered (Utilitarian)	Technology-Centered (Efficiency)
Democratic, with all sides having a say in the matter	Decision making relies on subject matter experts
Matters of perception addressed as needed	Perceptions dismissed in favor of a series of facts determined by subject matter experts
Assumes subjectivity but works toward objectivity through dialogue and inquiry	Assumes objectivity through science but can be influenced by subjective interests

Although government officials may be tempted to use a technology-centered approach to provide objective, factual information, they must also dialogue with the public to provide an accurate perception of the risk (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). A good risk communication plan will help the public understand the level of risk (called the hazard), as well as provide steps for self-efficacy. 

Fortunately, there has never been a successful attack of agroterrorism on American soil. The Department of Homeland Security continues to take this threat seriously and to develop risk and crisis communication plans to ensure the safety of America's citizens and its food source. For more information about the threat of agroterrorism in the United States, you can read the most recent report from the Government Accountability Office: http://gao.gov/assets/250/245539.pdf 

Online Government Resources

Evaluating the Agriculture Committee Websites

There are many online resources available for people who want to stay updated on agricultural policy. Two of the best sources for policy news are the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry. These two websites are updated and edited daily. They contain information on agricultural legislation, agricultural policy news, committee hearings and actions, committee members, and more. These websites publish and archive all of the official government policy documents and press releases.

In the three tables below, both websites were evaluated for three primary criteria: content, design, and interaction. Each criteria was further divided into five subcategories. The websites were evaluated on the following scale:

VERY POOR - POOR - MODERATE - GOOD - VERY GOOD - EXCELLENT

Evaluations were determined based on criteria descriptions and best practices provided by Agriculture Communication in Action: A Hands-On Approach (Telg & Irani, 2012) and The Non-Designer's Design Book (Williams, 2014), as well as website assessment tools published by the University of Washington. The results are summarized below:

Content
	House Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.house.gov	Senate Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.senate.gov
Accuracy	EXCELLENT	EXCELLENT
Authority	EXCELLENT	EXCELLENT
Objectivity	GOOD	VERY GOOD
Currency	EXCELLENT	EXCELLENT
Coverage	EXCELLENT	VERY GOOD

Design
	House Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.house.gov	Senate Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.senate.gov
Home Page	EXCELLENT	VERY GOOD
Readability	VERY GOOD	VERY GOOD
Visual Appeal	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT
Graphics, photos, videos	GOOD	VERY GOOD
Consistency	EXCELLENT	VERY GOOD

Interaction
	House Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.house.gov	Senate Agriculture Committee www.agriculture.senate.gov
Accessibility	EXCELLENT	EXCELLENT
Navigation	EXCELLENT	EXCELLENT
Links	GOOD	VERY GOOD
Activity	MODERATE	MODERATE
Contact	GOOD	GOOD

Based on the results summarized in these three tables, both websites satisfy all 15 subcategories of the three primary criteria. This makes the House Agriculture Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee excellent sources for agricultural policy information. Let's look at each of the three primary criteria results in more detail.

Content

Content refers to the text and information supplied by the website. This criterion was evaluated based on the accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage of the information. As government-sponsored sites (.gov), these websites had excellent accuracy and authority. They also had excellent currency because they are updated multiple times throughout the day. One area of improvement in this area could be for the House Agriculture Committee to dedicate equal space and resources to both the majority and minority party members. The Senate Agriculture Committee website does this, which increases the level of objectivity.

Design

Overall, both websites had strong design features. The colors, graphics, alignments, and fonts were easy to read and contributed to the overall purpose of the website. However, older adults may experience some difficulty reading the text on the House Agriculture Committee website, because it uses a red font over a white background. This may not provide enough contrast for older adults and people with vision impairments. The Senate Agriculture Committee website utilizes a green, gray, black, and white color scheme. This provides good contrast and reinforces the ideas of agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. However, the use of large photographs on each subpage forces users to scroll down to find information. This may stop some users from exploring all of the text content.

Interaction

Interaction was the weakest criteria for both websites. Interaction refers to how well the website meets the users' needs. Both websites are easy to find using a search engine, and both content multiple navigation tools to move to different subpages within the website. Both websites also provide clear contact information (the House provides email communication, while the Senate does not). Both websites also link to internal and external content. When clicked on, links to webpages, videos, and subpages load quickly. Live feeds of committee hearings load quickly with a clear picture, sufficient volume, and few pauses for buffering. Unfortunately, neither website promotes much user interaction. The website activity is limited to multimedia and search technologies. Websites can increase their user activity by including surveys, comment sections, or audio selections. 

Other Online Resources

Overall, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committee websites provide satisfactory content, design, and interactive features to be used as online resources. In addition to these websites, here are four more reliable web resources that cover agricultural policy:

• United States Department of Agriculture (www.usda.gov)
• AgWeek News (www.agweek.com)
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (www.oecd.org)
• National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (www.ncfap.org)