Talk:Farmers' Market Nutrition Program / Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program

Soc280AA Wiki Review 1

This article is very informative, and overall maintains a neutral tone. Following are some suggestions based on the Wiki checklist provided in class:

In the opening paragraph a wiki link could be made to Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP).

I suggest changing some of the headings -- the section on "impacts" is actually more just a section on "participation," while the impacts are really discussed more deeply in the "academic research" section. Just to keep track, it would be helpful to write out the full names of the programs in their subheaders (FMNP and SFMNP).

The page is about the FMNP but then there is equal description of the SFMNP - should SFMNP be a separate page? Or perhaps the headers/title of this article could capture both?

In the FMNP section, you identify the first representative as democrat but don't similarly identify the other representatives.

A bit more could be added about any debate/pros/cons that exist about these programs, such as: any critique of the programs? any controversy in getting these things passed? any question of their validity? Will they be continued?

Right now the page appears to be an "orphan". Some pages that could link to it include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_market

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_nutrition_programs

Ahb492 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

• Use the same format for all numbers (don’t sat “$5,000,000 in one place and “5 million dollars” in another).

• Similarly, use percent symbols vs. the world “percent” consistently. Usually the standard is to write out numbers one through ten, use the symbols for 11 and higher, and use the word “percent” after the number. If at the beginning of a sentence, always spell out the word.

• “State” does not need to be capitalized in most cases.

• Under “Barriers to Participation” in the last sentence change “was” to “were” and a comma after “markets” in that sentence.

• The phrase “closing of an option” in the Tennessee subsection of the Controversy section is vague. Perhaps elimination would be a better word?

• I agree with the first reviewer that writing out "Farmers' Market Nutrition Program" the first time in each subsection would aid the reader's comprehension.

Organization

• The focus of the “academic research” section seems to be on the findings of each individual report instead of on presenting a coherent summary of what has been learned from academic studies about FMNP and SFMNP. Think of the overall points you are trying to make (drawn from your overall comprehension of the current research), then use the research to back up those points, instead of presenting a list of studies and summarized conclusions.

• The media coverage section feels out of place. You do not seem to provide a summary statement of how media coverage has influenced FMNP, which I think would be the logical purpose of such a section. If you want to just present the information covered by media reports, integrate it into other sections of the article, appropriately cited. If it is particularly important that the information came from the popular press rather than an academic study, include in the text “as reported in the New York Times,” etc.

• Although not necessary, it would aid the article visually to include some images of the types of markets that serve FMNP beneficiaries.

Content

• Can you get data on what the actual amounts available in states are? A maximum federal amount of $30 per year seems so small as to be potentially insignificant. There would be a big difference in the program if a state did or did not supplement this amount. The prospect that the dollar amount of the program is so small as to be negligible is made here (in the summary of the section on FMNP on page 306):

Mary Fox, William Hamilton, and Biing-Hwan Lin. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health. United States Department of Agriculture Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program. October 2004. Available http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr19-3/fanrr19-3.pdf.

• Is there reasoning for the particular exclusions in what is eligible?

• What percentage of total WIC recipients are using this program (in addition to the number)?

• Under “Barriers to Participation,” you state that the programs “have been shown to improve health outcomes.” However, the studies you mention discuss reported increase in vegetable intake. Since it’s a logical connection, you could say that the studies suggest or imply that health would increase, but not that they have proven it. If there are studies that rely on health data, cite them. The USDA report I mentioned above says that no study has been able to conclusively connect FMNP with health outcomes. Along these lines, you might want to briefly differentiate between purchase and consumption. Increased purchase can be interpreted to signal increased consumption, which can be interpreted to suggest improved health, but these three are not the same.

Current sources

• The assertion that “Controversy surrounding the FMNP and SFMNP has been primarily related to problems with uneven state implementations of the program as states maintain significant leeway in how they administer the program” should be cited.

• Some of the potential problems with the current literature are discussed here. You could highlight some of the problems, or just mention the critique:

L.A. McCormack, M. Laska, N. Larson, and M. Story. Review of the Nutritional Implications of Farmers’ Markets and Community Gardens: A Call for Evaluation and Research Efforts. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2010; 110(3):396-408.

Similar complaints are found in the USDA report I mentioned above.

Potential additions

• You don’t provide much of an explanation as to why these programs are desirable or socially relevant. Perhaps include a section discussing this. The following article talks about the role of economic inequality and food accessibility in the stratification of health. It specifically addresses that policies need to make healthy choices both affordable and desirable:

Adam Drewnowski & Nicole Darmon. Food Choices and Diet Costs: an Economic Analysis. J. Nutr. 2005; 135: 900–904.

Another relevant discussion of interventions is provided in this article:

Elizabeth Frazao & Jane Allshouse. Strategies for Intervention: Commentary and Debate. J. Nutr. 2003; 133: 844S–847S.

It discusses reducing fat content of foods, providing nutrition education, and changing food prices as policy aims. The conclusion is that a comprehensive approach is needed. You might want to discuss how FMNP/SFMNP fit into such an approach and what their unique contributions are.

This article discusses the general inaccessibility of healthy food choices for low-income communities:

Karen M. Jetter & Diana L. Cassady. The Availability and Cost of Healthier Food Alternatives. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006; 30(1):38–44.

• Related to the above point, there is a study by the CDC of how many Americans overall eat vegetables regularly. It is quoted here:

Kim Severson. Sep. 24, 2010. Told to Eat Its Vegetables, America Orders Fries. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/health/policy/25vegetables.html?pagewanted=all.

• Look into the work of Simone French at the University of Minnesota. She works in public health and looks at the effectiveness of health interventions and social, economic, and environmental influences on food choices. Although I’m not aware of work she has done specifically on FMNP/SFMNP, the concepts and ideas she deals with are highly relevant.

• Overall, the discussion of the farmer’s end of FMNP is brief. It is less obviously related to the issues of our class, so that makes sense. Although, could you provide information on any effect the program has impacting farmers’ poverty rates? An investigative piece you could use is:

Arthur Allen. Oct. 3, 2011. U.S. touts fruit and vegetables while subsidizing animals that become meat. Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-touts-fruit-and- vegetables-while-subsidizing-animals-that-become- meat/2011/08/22/gIQATFG5IL_story.html.

It looks at how government subsidies usually only benefit major animal-related crops, instead of produce-producing farmers, such as those who would presumably benefit from FMNP.

• You could discuss further the potential reasons for nonparticipation, and how this relates to future programming. Some possible considerations are discussed here:

Karen Glanz & Amy L. Yaroch. Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing, and environmental change. Preventive Medicine. 2004; 39: S75–S80.

Some of the problems with perception and the culture of farmer’s markets are discussed here:

Christine Grace, Thomas Grace, Nancy Becker, and Judy Lyden. Barriers to Using Urban Farmers’ Market: An Investigation of Food Stamp Clients’ Perception. Oregon Food Bank and the Kaiser Foundation. October 2005. Available http://oregonfarmersmarkets.org/EBT/docs/BarrierstoUsingFarmersMarkets102206.pdf.