government cheese

government cheese

The Socioeconomic Impact of Government Cheese Distribution Programs

1. Introduction to Government Cheese Programs

An analysis of the impact of government cheese programs is developed focusing on the nature, composition, and distribution of benefits and costs. Characterizations of the representative recipients, the market changes, and the net benefits from receiving cheese are also developed. The results are not necessarily applicable to all recipients; they depend on the market constraints each recipient faces. Instead, what is characterized is the typical situation, allowing for recipients who cannot directly or indirectly use the cheese to have the incentive to sell what they receive, even though their relative number is not large. The analysis should apply, with some modification, to many government programs that distribute in-kind payments. Its lessons are also applicable to programs that provide other kinds of items, such as food stamps and low-rent housing payments.

The socio-economic impact of cheese is an area of study that has application and relevance to a broad range of fields. When distributed by the government, ‘cheese’ is a resource that is associated with many complex effects. The variety of ways in which free cheese influences other goods, services, and resources together with the vast numbers of people to whom it has been distributed suggest that this is an important resource and that the economic and social implications of its distribution could be profound. Economists, nutritionists, agriculturalists, social welfare analysts, political scientists, and many others are interested in or concerned about government cheese distribution and its impact and might benefit from learning more about it, whether their main interest is in the cheese itself or in the programs designed to distribute it.

2. Historical Background and Evolution of Government Cheese Programs

The cheese given out in the first year of the program came from a pool of about 470 million pounds of cheese owned by the CCC. In the second year of the program, a comparable pool, also amounting to about 470 million pounds, existed. In anticipation of a similar pool in the third year, the food basket of the poor would again contain about two pounds of government cheese. The actual amount turned out to be over 0.6 pounds, nearly double the amount distributed each of the previous two years.

During the first two years of the program, the cheese was given to welfare organizations along with grants to help defray the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing the cheese. These grants were first reduced in 1983 and then eliminated, so that the program simply became one of distributing “cheese and nothing more.”

The government cheese program arose from a federal milk price support program administered by what was the National Dairy Products Corporation. This program’s operation is as follows: The Commodity Credit Corporation, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, would buy cheese left unsold in the commodity markets and distribute it to welfare organizations throughout the United States. In turn, the welfare organizations would give the cheese to the poor, in those supplements to their diets that were found to be essential in the periodic updating of the Department of Agriculture’s most “up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the nutritional needs of populations.”

3. Benefits and Challenges of Government Cheese Distribution

The concern over the beneficial utilization of the cheese and other donated foods became an all-consuming project for many of the major national organizations working for improved food programs. For years, the National Dairy Council has had its test kitchens develop cheese recipes, and in 1968, it and state dairy councils cooperatively published menus and recipes for using cheese. Subsequently, the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service has taken on leadership in providing better information about cheese and other donated foods. At the same time, studies and reports began to focus on the food needs of the poor and the aged in the poorest quality and least nutritious diets, food storage, and use. These were supported and coordinated by national hunger projects and several Congressional subcommittees which were insured statutory authority to propose remedies.

The socio-economic impact of government cheese distribution is difficult to quantify. Some people state that distribution of cheese is helpful as it is another source of food and saves money to use for other expenses. For example, some have described the cheese block as a surrogate dollar bill for its spending power. Cheese programs also may serve as an important mechanism for distributing agricultural surpluses to low-income families, to children, the elderly, and to others in need.

4. Case Studies and Success Stories

Finally, there are powerful arguments that local communities, states, or other entities might find it in their self-interest to go beyond the requirements of food stamp or other federal laws, perhaps through a combination of revenue sharing and public service employment, and expand these programs. Assistance from the federal government should be provided to local communities, but the final responsibility for feeding the nation’s distressed people is one that is shared by us all. Although it is gratifying to note the cooperation evident in the fiscal year 1982 funding, it is equally important that we continue to discuss new and innovative forms of assistance. Surely the homeless and others in critical need cannot afford to wait while we argue about a need for well-designed research.

Until we have a better understanding of the impacts of programs to provide food free or at reduced prices to people who need assistance, such programs will continue to be controversial and subject to cutbacks in financing. It is vital that we learn more about the nature of the populations served by these programs, the costs they impose, and the benefits they confer. Do they improve nutrition status? We believe that community programs found in many states that are buying surplus cheese from the government and providing part of the purchase price are among the most cost-effective forms of holding down costs. Meanwhile, income is being provided where it is most seriously needed, and dignity is respected because the consumer is given a choice of a number of different foods. It seems that these combination efforts should be expanded and that other programs should be developed that provide a small amount of cash or food stamps with surplus commodities whenever feasible. Research must focus on the evaluation of these kinds of activities.

5. Policy Recommendations and Future Directions

It is apparent that the government’s present method of distributing cheese in urban areas is not acting as an effective intervention in support of American agriculture farmers. Little, if any, benefit is actually received by them. The distribution system adopted has operated, conversely, to all practical goals, as a disincentive to the purchase of these and competing products from other food product alternatives by the public and has placed a significant additional burden on strategies to remain internationally competitive. More specifically, this is exacerbated by the availability of lower-cost products that already provide both a more readily nutritious and diversified meal program, which has historically contributed to migration, unemployment, and children’s developmental achievement. Furthermore, the program emphasizes artificial shortages of these healthy food products, thus contributing even more to the present epidemic of food insufficiency plaguing the nation.

The government cheese program, as a distribution system for surplus dairy products, should be reduced and incrementally eliminated in urban areas. This reduction should be replaced with additional funding and patronage for existing economic alternative programs, such as the school lunch program, food stamp program, and the general distribution of food commodities through existing distribution systems sponsored by local churches and community organizations. Rather than completely eliminating the program, a market mechanism for acquisition should be implemented. In this manner, rural farmers will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the proceeds, but without massive federal government intervention in the free-market system. This is consistent with the economic policies and incentives implied in H.R. 3407 – The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the Family Farm Act, which suggests increases in support prices and costs for developing national marketing policy programs.