Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Robert Applebaum, Senior Research Scholar, Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University

Significant Figures is a series from The Conversation in which scholars explain an important number in the news.

---

---

When the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare, was enacted in 2010, lawmakers hoped it would help reduce the number of uninsured Americans. That year, an estimated 48.2 million people – about 18% of the U.S. population under age 65 – did not have health insurance.

By 2023, the number of uninsured Americans had dropped by nearly 50%, to 25.3 million people under 65, or 9.5% of the total population.

I’m a gerontologist who studies the U.S. health care system. ACA health care subsidies are at the center of a now monthlong U.S. government shutdown that could become the longest in U.S. history. So I looked at the available data about ACA marketplace plan usage in Florida to understand how the debates in Washington could affect access to health care in the Sunshine State going forward.

How the ACA expanded access to health insurance

The ACA implemented a three-pronged strategy to expand access to affordable health insurance.

One was the use of fines. The government fined anyone – until 2018 – who chose not to get health insurance. The government also fined businesses with 50 or more full-time employees that didn’t offer their employees affordable health care plans. The idea was to offer incentives for healthy people to get insurance to lower costs for everyone.

Ultimately, the fines had little impact on the number of insured Americans, with one notable exception: The employer-required expansion allowed young adults ages 19 to 25 to remain on their parents’ health insurance plan. For this group, the uninsured rate dropped from 31.5% in 2010 to 13.1% in 2023.

Second, the ACA allowed for Medicaid to be expanded to low-income Americans who were employed but working in low-wage jobs. The expansion of Medicaid to low-income workers at 138% of the federal poverty level was originally required nationwide. But a 2012 Supreme Court ruling allowed states to choose whether they would participate in Medicaid expansion.

As of 2025, 16 million Americans are covered by the expansion. However, 10 states, including Florida, have opted out.

The third way the ACA changed the health insurance system is that it established health insurance subsidies that the government can provide. Those subsidies are for low- and moderate-income Americans who do not receive health insurance through their employers and aren’t eligible for Medicaid, Medicare or any other government-operated health insurance program.

This established a private health insurance marketplace that would include federal subsidies to make insurance more affordable. As of October 2025, more than 24 million Americans currently get their health insurance through the subsidized marketplace.

Florida and the ACA marketplace

The number of people insured under the ACA in each state varies. But the state with the largest number of residents on marketplace insurance plans is Florida. About 4.7 million Florida residents are covered through these plans, representing 27% of the state’s under-65 population, compared to the national average of 8.8%. Of those on marketplace plans, 98% receive a subsidy at some level.

There are several reasons why this rate is so much higher in Florida than elsewhere.

First, only 40% of Sunshine State residents are covered by an employer-based health insurance plan, compared to 49% for the nation as a whole.

This is the lowest rate in the country. A contributing factor is that Florida ranks fifth in the proportion of workforce that is self-employed, with 1.3 million Floridians in this category.

The state’s lower rate could also be related to the high number of seasonal and part-time workers in the tourism industry.

Another reason is that the state has relatively few people enrolled in Medicaid, the federal program that provides mainly low-income people with health insurance coverage. Among Floridians ages 44 to 64, only 11% are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 17% for the nation overall.

Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, and it’s also more restrictive than most states about who can enroll in the program.

States set their own Medicaid eligibility criteria, and they determine what services Medicaid will cover and at what cost. Florida has the second-lowest Medicaid expenditures per enrollee in the nation, and it ranks last on Medicaid expenditures for adults under 65.

An uncertain path ahead

Because Florida residents rely heavily on marketplace plans, ending ACA subsidies would have a big effect on Floridians.

Unless Congress reverses course and preserves the insurance subsidies that have not been renewed, the average marketplace plan premium is predicted to increase by more than 100%, from $74 to $159 per month. An American earning $28,000 annually – $13.50 per hour – would see a fivefold increase, from $27 to $130 per month. And a worker making $35,000 per year would see their premium increase from $86 to $217 per month.

At 13.4%, Florida already has the third-highest proportion of uninsured residents under 65. It is safe to assume that if the federal marketplace subsidies disappear and health insurance premiums become unaffordable for more people, the result will be more uninsured Floridians. And if healthy, younger people can’t afford insurance, premiums are likely to go up for everyone else with insurance.

The path to resolve the ongoing debate is uncertain. In my view, however, it is clear that states such as Florida, Texas and Georgia, which haven’t expanded Medicaid and rely heavily on the marketplace plans, will be dramatically affected by cuts to federal subsidies.

Robert Applebaum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why are 4.7 million Floridians insured through ACA marketplace plans, and what happens if they lose their subsidies? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-4-7-million-floridians-insured-through-aca-marketplace-plans-and-what-happens-if-they-lose-their-subsidies-268269

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” President Donald Trump said in late October 2025 of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea north of Venezuela.

The Trump administration asserted without providing any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. Fourteen boats that the administration alleged were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck, killing 43 people.

On Oct. 24, the administration began a substantial military buildup in the region. The Pentagon moved the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and some of its strike group, along with several other naval ships, to the Caribbean and moved F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico. This is the largest U.S. naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

According to the White House, the naval buildup and strikes on boats in international waters are part of counternarcotics operations. The vessels targeted allegedly belonged to Venezuelan drug smugglers, though the administration has produced no evidence that there were drugs on the boats, or what type. Trump has named fentanyl as one of them.

At times the president and some of his advisers have referred to the operators and occupants of the boats as “narco-terrorists.” But they have offered no explanation why the people would be considered terrorists.

The president and his advisers’ own words have also indicated that the larger intentions of the administration could be to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.

But as a former political-military analyst and former senior adviser at the Department of Defense, I find it hard to discern a coherent strategy or objective.

The puzzling drug angle

The boats that have been hit all had origins in, or connections to, Venezuela, and all were struck in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific north of Colombia, making the operation particularly puzzling. Venezuela is not a major producer of fentanyl or cocaine. The major cocaine trafficking routes are in the Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.

Typically, the U.S. Coast Guard stops vessels suspected of carrying illegal drugs in international waters. In 2025, the Coast Guard has interdicted a record amount of illegal drugs and precursor chemicals in the Caribbean. It is notable that the amount of methamphetamine precursor chemicals interdicted far exceeds that of fentanyl.

After interdiction, the Coast Guard typically begins a process that adheres to legal strictures, detaining the crew and eventually turning them over to a U.S. law enforcement agency.

But the Trump strikes have summarily killed most of the people on the boats and presumably destroyed any of the alleged illicit drugs. Many observers and legal experts have said the killings amount to murder.

Trump’s preoccupation with Venezuela

Trump has had a fixation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua for some time, adding to his administration’s focus on Venezuela.

The administration designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization in January, along with several other drug cartels. But the White House statement announcing the designation made no mention of any behavior or activity that would constitute terrorism.

Under U.S. law, terrorism is defined as politically motivated violence, usually targeting a civilian population, intended to bring about political change. The terrorist designation allows the government to pursue actions such as seizing assets and imposing travel restrictions on those appearing on the list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

But the designation of a criminal gang with no clear political ideology or objectives mischaracterizes the group. That calls into question some of the White House’s motivations.

Then there’s the odd incident of the covert operation that wasn’t covert.

In early October, The New York Times reported that Trump had authorized covert operations in Venezuela and authorized the CIA to conduct “lethal strikes” inside the country.

Surprisingly, Trump confirmed that he had indeed authorized covert action. Yet the defining feature of a covert operation is that the role of the government is hidden.

Trump’s fixation on Venezuela goes back to his first term, when he also had Maduro’s regime in his sights. The administration eventually charged Maduro with leading the Cartel de los Soles – Cartel of the Suns – an informal criminal network tied to high-level Venezuelan military officials believed to have conducted drug trafficking into the U.S. The White House has also claimed that Maduro controls Tren de Aragua.

Independent observers assert that opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia handily won the 2024 presidential election. The government-controlled National Electoral Council, however, declared Maduro the winner. If the White House has greater intentions in Venezuela, such as regime change, which some anonymous officials have suggested, Trump has tipped off Maduro to be vigilant.

Thorny issues

If the goal of the administration is interdiction of dangerous illicit drugs like cocaine, Colombia is a much bigger source. Venezuela acts mainly as a minor trans-shipment conduit rather than a producer.

In terms of mitigating the effects of drugs and narcotics in the United States, multiple studies over decades have found that measures taken to decrease demand in the U.S. rather than supply-side interdiction are more effective in reducing harm.

With little public information to suggest an overall strategy or objective, legal problems related to the maritime strikes become apparent.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the activities were a “counter drug operation.” But he went further in saying that instead of interdicting the boats, they would be blown up.

The method of interdiction and destruction of the boats and lives of those involved by a military strike presents problems, especially in terms of U.S. armed forces performing law enforcement duties. This would be proscribed by the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal armed forces from performing law enforcement activities.

As for actions targeting Venezuela, Trump has said he would not ask Congress for a declaration of war but would notify it of any ground operation.

The 1973 War Powers Act, which requires the president to notify Congress before hostilities and brief it afterward, would apply to this situation. But almost every president since its passing has ignored it at some point.

Though some Republicans in Congress have objected to the military actions so far, the Senate in early October voted down a resolution that would have prevented further strikes in the Caribbean.

The Trump administration continues to depict its activities in international waters as a military operation and the smugglers as enemy combatants. Most legal experts dismiss this and characterize the strikes as extrajudicial killings.

In reply to a flippant and profane response from Vice President JD Vance about the killings, Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on social media, “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

If Trump and his advisers like Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are taken at their word in scattered statements on the activities around Venezuela, many questions remain, such as why the boats are being destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted.

Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

– ref. Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization – https://theconversation.com/trumps-anti-venezuela-actions-lack-strategy-justifiable-targets-and-legal-authorization-268363

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ethan Murray, Postdoctoral Researcher, NOAA Hurricane Research Division, University of Colorado Boulder

Hurricane Melissa grew into one of the most powerful Atlantic tropical cyclones in recorded history on Oct. 28, 2025, hitting western Jamaica with 185 mph sustained winds. The Category 5 hurricane blew roofs off buildings and knocked down power lines, its torrential rainfall generated mudslides and flash flooding, and its storm surge inundated coastal areas.

Melissa had been wobbling south of the island for days, quickly gaining strength over the hot Caribbean Sea, before taking a sharp turn to the northeast that morning.

As a hurricane researcher, I work with colleagues at NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory to improve predictions of hurricanes’ tracks and strengths. Accurate forecasts of Melissa’s turn to the northeast gave many people across Jamaica, Cuba and the eastern Bahamas extra time to evacuate to safer areas before the hurricane headed their way.

Throughout 2025, most hurricanes similarly veered off toward the open Atlantic, sparing the U.S. mainland. To understand the forces that shaped these storms and their paths, let’s take a closer look at Melissa and the 2025 hurricane season.

The origins of Atlantic tropical cyclones

Before they evolve into powerful hurricanes, storm systems start out as jumbled clusters of clouds over the open ocean.

Many of 2025’s Atlantic tropical cyclones began life far from the U.S. coastline in the warm waters west of Africa, near the Cape Verde islands. These Cape Verde hurricanes are consistently blown toward the United States, especially during peak hurricane season.

The driving force steering these storms is a hot, semi-permanent high-pressure air mass often found spinning above the Atlantic Ocean known as the Bermuda high or Azores high.

When this high-pressure system, or subtropical ridge, is positioned farther east, closer to the Azores islands, its strong, clockwise-rotating winds typically curve tropical cyclones briskly out to sea toward their demise in the cold North Atlantic. When the high-pressure ridge is closer to the U.S. and centered over Bermuda, it can send storms crashing into the U.S. coast.

Because that high-pressure system was positioned further east in summer and fall 2025, many of the season’s strongest storms, such as hurricanes Erin, Gabrielle and Humberto, swung east of the U.S. mainland. Combined with an active jet stream above the Southeast U.S., most tropical cyclones were steered away from the Atlantic coast.

The clouds that eventually became Hurricane Melissa traveled farther to the south, avoiding the Bermuda high and making their way into the Caribbean Sea.

Tropical cyclones’ high-stakes balancing act

After a tropical cyclone forms, its path is guided by the movement of air surrounding it, known as atmospheric steering currents. These steering currents direct the forward movement of storms in the Atlantic at speeds ranging from a sluggish 1 mph to a blistering 70 mph or more.

Hurricane Melissa’s meandering track was determined by these steering currents. At first, the system was caught between winds from high-pressure systems to its northwest and southeast. This setup trapped the storm over the warm Caribbean Sea for days, just to the south of Jamaica.

As a tropical cyclone is steered by outside forces, its internal makeup also constantly evolves, changing how the storm interacts with its steering currents.

When Hurricane Melissa was a weak, lopsided system, it didn’t receive much of a push from its upper-level environment. But as the hurricane gained strength from the very warm ocean below, it grew taller. Like a skyscraper reaching high into the air, major hurricanes like Melissa have towering thunderstorms and feel more of a push from upper-level winds than weaker storms do.

Melissa’s center also became aligned vertically, allowing the tropical cyclone to rapidly intensify from 70 mph to a staggering 140 mph sustained winds in 24 hours.

Eventually, the precarious atmospheric balancing act holding Melissa in place collapsed. A ripple in the jet stream known as an atmospheric trough steered the hurricane to the northeast and into the Jamaican coast.

Melissa’s snail’s pace of about 2 mph was rare but not unheard of. Slow storms like Melissa are more common in October, as steering currents are often very weak or pushing in opposite directions, which can trap a tropical cyclone in place. Similar steering currents affected Hurricane Matthew in 2016.

Tragically, stalled tropical cyclones often bring prolonged rainfall, winds, flash flooding and storm surge with them. The wind and downpours can be extreme for mountain communities, as their high topography enhances local rainfall that can trigger mudslides and flooding, as Jamaica saw from Melissa.

Improving storm track forecasting

Meteorologists generally understand how atmospheric steering currents guide tropical cyclones, yet forecasting these wind patterns remains a challenge. Depending on the atmospheric setup, certain hurricanes can be harder to forecast than others, as changes to steering currents can be subtle.

New approaches to hurricane track forecasting include using machine learning models, such as Google DeepMind, which outperformed many traditional models in forecasting storm tracks this hurricane season. Rather than solving a complex set of equations to make a forecast, DeepMind looks at statistics of previous hurricane tracks to infer the path of a current storm.

NOAA Hurricane Hunter reconnaissance data can also accelerate progress in predicting tropical cyclone paths. Recent tests show how accounting for specific measurements from within a hurricane can improve forecasts. Certain flight patterns that Hurricane Hunters and drones fly through strong hurricanes can also improve predictions of a storm’s path.

Scientists and engineers aim to further improve hurricane track and intensity forecasts through research into storm behavior and improving hurricane models to better inform the public when danger is on the way.

Ethan Murray receives funding from the Office of Naval Research and National Science Foundation. He works for The University of Miami and NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.

– ref. Hurricane Melissa turned sharply to devastate Jamaica − how forecasters knew where it was headed – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-melissa-turned-sharply-to-devastate-jamaica-how-forecasters-knew-where-it-was-headed-268183

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ben Belton, Professor of International Development, Michigan State University

Drones have become integrated into everyday life over the past decade – in sectors as diverse as entertainment, health care and construction. They have also begun to transform the way people grow food.

In a new study published in the journal Science, we show that use of agricultural drones has spread extremely rapidly around the world. In our research as social scientists studying agriculture and rural development, we set out to document where agricultural drones have taken off around the world, what they are doing, and why they have traveled so far so fast. We also explored what these changes mean for farmers, the environment, the public and governments.

From toys to farm tools

Just a few years ago, agricultural drones were expensive, small and difficult to use, limiting their appeal to farmers. In contrast, today’s models can be flown immediately after purchase and carry loads weighing up to 220 pounds (100 kg) – the weight of two sacks of fertilizer.

Their prices vary from country to country due to taxes, tariffs and shipping costs. In the U.S., a drone owner can expect to spend US$20,000 to $30,000 for the same equipment that a farmer in China could buy for less than $10,000. However, most farmers hire service providers, small businesses that supply drones and pilots for a fee, making them easy and relatively affordable to use.

Agricultural drones are now akin to flying tractors – multifunctional machines that can perform numerous tasks using different hardware attachments. Common uses for drones on farms include spraying crops, spreading fertilizer, sowing seeds, transporting produce, dispensing fish feeds, painting greenhouses, monitoring livestock locations and well-being, mapping field topography and drainage, and measuring crop health. This versatility makes drones valuable for growing numerous crops, on farms of all sizes.

Technological leapfrogging

We estimated the number of agricultural drones operating in some of the world’s leading agricultural countries by scouring online news and trade publications in many different languages. This effort revealed where agricultural drones have already taken off around the world.

Historically, most agricultural technology – tractors, for example – has spread from high-income countries to middle- and then lower-income ones over the course of many decades. Drones partially reversed and dramatically accelerated this pattern, diffusing first from East Asia to Southeast Asia, then to Latin America, and finally to North America and Europe. Their use in higher-income regions is more limited but is accelerating rapidly in the U.S.

China leads the world in agricultural drone manufacturing and adoption. In 2016, a Chinese company introduced the first agriculture-specific quadcopter model. There are now more than 250,000 agricultural drones reported to be in use there. Other middle-income countries have also been enthusiastic adopters. For instance, drones were used on 30% of Thailand’s farmland in 2023, up from almost none in 2019, mainly by spraying pesticides and spreading fertilizers.

In the U.S., the number of agricultural drones registered with the Federal Aviation Administration leaped from about 1,000 in January 2024 to around 5,500 in mid-2025. Industry reports suggest those numbers substantially underreport U.S. drone use because some owners seek to avoid the complex registration process. Agricultural drones in the U.S. are used mainly for spraying crops such as corn and soy, especially in areas that are difficult to reach with tractors or crop-dusting aircraft.

Safer, but not risk-free

In countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam, millions of smallholder farmers have upgraded from the dangerous and tiring job of applying agrochemicals by hand with backpack sprayers to using some of the most cutting-edge technology in the world, often using the same models that are popular in the U.S.

Shifting from applying chemicals with backpack sprayers to drones substantially reduces the risk of direct exposure to toxins for farmers and farmworkers.

However, because drones usually spray from a height of at least 6 feet (2 meters), if used improperly, they can spread droplets containing pesticides or herbicides to neighboring farms, waterways or bystanders. That can damage crops and endanger people and nature.

Saving labor or displacing it?

Drones save farmers time and money. They reduce the need for smallholders – people who farm less than 5 acres (2 hectares), which account for 85% of farms globally – to do dangerous and tiring manual spraying and spreading work on their own farms. They also remove the need to hire workers to do the same.

By eliminating some of the last remaining physically demanding work in farming, drones may also help make agriculture more attractive to rural youth, who are often disillusioned with the drudgery of traditional farming. In addition, drones create new skilled employment opportunities in rural areas for pilots, many of whom are young people.

On the downside, using drones could displace workers who currently earn a living from crop spraying. For instance, according to one estimate from China, drones can cover between 10 and 25 acres (4 to 10 hectares) of farmland per hour when spraying pesticides. That is equivalent to the effort of between 30 and 100 workers spraying manually. Governments may need to find ways to help displaced workers find new jobs.

Sky’s the limit

Drones spray and spread fertilizers and seeds evenly and efficiently, so that less is wasted. They may also reduce damage to crops in the field and consume less energy than large farm machines such as tractors.

In combination, these factors may increase the amount of food that can be produced on each acre of land, while reducing the amount of resources needed to do so. This outcome is a holy grail for agricultural scientists, who refer to it as “sustainable intensification.”

However, much of the evidence so far on yield gains from drone-assisted farming is anecdotal, or based on small studies or industry reports.

The drone revolution is reshaping farming faster than almost any technology before it. In just five years, millions of farmers around the world have embraced drones. Early signs point to big benefits: greater efficiency, safer working conditions and improved rural livelihoods. But the full picture isn’t clear yet.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Agricultural drones are taking off globally, saving farmers time and money – https://theconversation.com/agricultural-drones-are-taking-off-globally-saving-farmers-time-and-money-265154

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Félice Lê-Scherban, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Drexel University

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is the largest, most effective tool the U.S. has to reduce food insecurity. As of late 2025, it helps more than 42 million people – including 2 million Pennsylvanians and nearly half a million Philadelphians – buy groceries.

But starting Nov. 1, 2025, Pennsylvania will stop distributing SNAP benefits due to the federal government shutdown, which began Oct. 1.

Félice Lê-Scherban, a public health researcher and associate professor of epidemiology at Drexel University, studies food insecurity among low-income young children and their families in Philadelphia. The Conversation U.S. asked her about the program and what impact its suspension would have – especially in Philadelphia.

What is SNAP?

SNAP benefits – sometimes called food stamps – are provided through a federally funded program administered by the states. The amount of help received depends on a family’s income and the number and ages of the people in the household. Currently, benefits average just over US$6 per person per day. In Pennsylvania, the monthly benefits are loaded onto participants’ electronic benefits transfer cards, or EBT cards, during the first 10 business days of each month.

Researchers have found that SNAP benefits reduce poverty and food insecurity – a term for when people don’t have consistent access to enough food for all household members to lead active, healthy lives. It also contributes to healthy growth and development in childhood, and lower risks for obesity, diabetes, hypertension and poor mental health later in life.

Studies have also found that when eligible families lose access to SNAP benefits, even temporarily, they are more likely to get sick, and their children are at a greater risk of developmental delays.

Additionally, losing SNAP and similar benefits can strain household finances, forcing low-income people to choose between skipping meals or forgoing other basic needs like rent, utilities and prescription drugs.

How is the government shutdown affecting SNAP benefits in Pennsylvania?

The Department of Agriculture notified SNAP state agency directors in October that it would stop funding the program should the shutdown continue past Nov. 1. The federal agency directed all states to withhold November benefits until further notice.

The USDA is taking this step even though it has more than $5 billion in its coffers, which could fund approximately two-thirds of what the nation spends each month on SNAP benefits.

In the more than 60-year history of SNAP and the programs that preceded it, the USDA has never before refused to spend contingency funds to disburse monthly benefits. During previous shutdowns, including the 35 days in 2018-2019, the federal government used the department’s contingency funds to ensure SNAP wasn’t interrupted.

On Oct. 17, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services issued a statement to the more than 2 million Pennsylvanians participating in SNAP. It warned them that they won’t receive their November benefits or any benefits thereafter until the USDA releases funds again.

Pennsylvania is also among 17 states that have suspended approving new SNAP applications until the government reopens, leaving hundreds, if not thousands, of food-insecure families in a prolonged state of hardship.

This disruption is likely to rattle the broader economy. About 12% of U.S. grocery sales are made with SNAP benefits, and over 9,800 supermarkets and other Pennsylvania retailers accept them.

What does this mean for people in Philadelphia?

There are over 470,000 SNAP recipients in Philadelphia – 3 in 10 Philadelphians – who will not receive these benefits until the government shutdown ends.

In the meantime, state agencies are urging people who get SNAP benefits to visit food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens, which are run by nonprofits and not the government. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that those organizations will be able to keep up. For every meal nonprofits provide, SNAP provides nine.

Additionally, the Pennsylvania state budget impasse – the Commonwealth has been without a budget for nearly four months – has already affected other state-run programs that food banks in Philadelphia rely on.

This is particularly troubling because even when receiving their full benefit, most people who are enrolled in SNAP across the country say that they frequently struggle to afford a healthy diet.

Low-income parents and guardians in Philadelphia, according to research I’ve conducted and studies by my colleagues, say they strain to stretch their dollars to feed their children amid rising food prices, and sometimes skip meals or delay paying bills when the benefit runs out before the end of the month.

A robust body of evidence has demonstrated the serious mental and physical harm that food insecurity – even for short periods – causes across the lifespan. It can lead to billions of dollars of avoidable costs due to health care and educational needs, and lost productivity.

How this disruption of SNAP and other nutrition programs increases food insecurity will be hard to measure. The Trump administration has canceled the USDA’s long-standing annual report on food security.

What can state and federal leaders do to fund the program?

The federal government and Pennsylvania lawmakers have options to at least restore some SNAP benefits in the state while the shutdown continues.

The USDA can reverse its earlier ruling and disburse its more than $5 billion in emergency funds and issue guidance that states should continue to accept and process new SNAP applications. This would help states provide at least partial benefits to their residents enrolled in SNAP and ensure that new applicants get all the benefits they’re eligible for.

The federal government can allocate discretionary and reserve funds to SNAP for the duration of the shutdown so benefits are not interrupted. The government did this with Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC benefits, as well as farm aid earlier this month.

The government of Pennsylvania and other state governments can pick up the costs of the program for November with their own state budget stabilization funds, also known as “rainy day funds.” Pennsylvania’s rainy day fund holds more than $7 billion – well above what’s needed to cover its SNAP benefits for November. Some states have already committed to doing this.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

Félice Lê-Scherban is the Philadelphia site principal investigator of Children’s HealthWatch. She receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. SNAP benefit freeze will leave millions nationwide struggling to pay for food – including 472,711 people in Philadelphia – https://theconversation.com/snap-benefit-freeze-will-leave-millions-nationwide-struggling-to-pay-for-food-including-472-711-people-in-philadelphia-268337

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Haddad, Professor of American Studies, Penn State

Walk into any grocery store to stock up for Halloween and you will discover that, for chocolate treats, you have two basic choices:

Will it be Mars or Hershey?

I often buy both, but that is beside the point. The point is that the two giants compete for market share, but both enjoy robust sales. In other words, a relatively stable duopoly defines the U.S. chocolate candy market.

But it wasn’t always like this.

Before the 1960s, the Hershey Chocolate Corp. reigned supreme as the undisputed chocolate king. It was in that decade that Mars went for Hershey’s jugular. Hershey Chocolate’s response brought lasting change – to its candy business, the local community and Hershey Park, its chocolate-themed amusement park.

As a professor of American studies at Penn State Harrisburg who has recently published a book on Hershey Park, I am astounded by how these changes continue to reverberate today.

Milton Hershey’s paternalistic capitalism

Before the 1960s, change was not a word one associated with either the town of Hershey, Pennsylvania, or its famous chocolate company. Better words would be “stability” and “productivity” – and this was by the founder’s design.

When Milton Hershey entered the confection industry in the 1880s, violent clashes between corporations and labor roiled American society. Hershey imagined a better way: paternalistic capitalism.

In the early 1900s, he built a chocolate factory and planned community out in the farms and pastures of central Pennsylvania. Instead of offering men and women wage-earning jobs and nothing else, he took care of his workers. They owned nice homes and benefited from a generous array of free or subsidized services and amenities: snow removal, garbage collection, trolley lines, good schools, a junior college, zoo, museum, sports arena, library, community center and theater.

They even had their own amusement park.

But this was a reciprocal relationship. In return, employees were expected to work hard, exhibit loyalty, practice clean living and refrain from labor agitation. With the exception of a strike during the Great Depression, the company and town lived in harmony. Milton Hershey called the place an “industrial utopia,” and residents largely agreed.

“Moving to Hershey,” one recalled, “was like moving to paradise.”

Harmony also defined Hershey’s relations with Mars. At the time, Hershey produced only solid chocolate – think of Hershey bars and Kisses. In contrast, Frank Mars’ company specialized in chocolate-covered snacks, suches Snickers or Milky Way, in which milk chocolate is poured over nuts, caramel or nougat.

Where did that chocolate coating come from?

Hershey, of course.

In those days, Mars was a client, not a rival. Without competition, Hershey enjoyed the luxury of not having to worry about market share. Amazingly, the company did not advertise under Milton Hershey and continued this policy after his death in 1945.

Hershey in crisis

Everything changed in 1964. The catalyst for change was Forrest Mars, the founder’s hard-charging son who was a true disrupter.

After seizing control of his father’s company, Forrest Mars set his sights on dethroning Hershey. As reporter and author Joël Glenn Brenner explains, the younger Mars boldly terminated the partnership with Hershey while ordering his engineers to learn how to make Hershey-caliber chocolate in six months. He also modernized the factory and ordered a surge in advertising, all to wrestle market share away from Hershey, the “sleeping giant.”

The strategy worked. By the decade’s end, Mars had caught Hershey in terms of market share and pushed the chocolate colossus into crisis.

The good news for Hershey was that it had at the helm two forward-looking leaders, Harold Mohler and Bill Dearden. Though standard practice had always been to hire locally and from within, Mohler and Dearden recruited outsiders with MBAs from Harvard and Wharton to initiate sweeping reforms aimed at modernizing its archaic business practices.

The company opened a public relations office, conducted market research, installed IBM mainframe computers to crunch numbers, retrained its sales force and created a marketing department. Many employees, a new executive joked, were so behind the times that they had thought marketing was “what their wives did … with a shopping cart.”

This effort culminated with the release of the company’s first TV commercials starting in 1969. The sleeping giant had awoken.

The company’s next move altered the town forever. As a cost-cutting measure, it terminated the free services and amenities at the core of Milton Hershey’s vision. The era of paternalism was over.

As the company liquidated assets, residents howled in protest.

“It was a very traumatic time for the community,” one executive recalled.

For residents, the only consolation was that at least the amusement park would stay the same.

Or would it?

By the late 1960s, Hershey Park had degenerated into what one executive called “an iron park with a bunch of clanging rides.” Leadership faced a pivotal decision: renovate the park or close it forever.

The park had such a “rich heritage,” one executive recalled, that to shutter it would “put a stamp of negative feeling within the community.”

The company elected to renovate.

Hersheypark’s transformation

But how to renovate was another matter.

In the 1960s and 1970s, owners of traditional amusement parks had to think twice before investing in their properties. That was because Disneyland, the nation’s first theme park, had caused a sensation when it debuted in 1955. Its incredible popularity, and the opening of the more spectacular Disney World in 1971, placed pressure on old-fashioned amusement parks everywhere.

After commissioning a feasibility study, Hershey officials decided to gamble: Instead of fixing up the old amusement park, they would convert it into a Disney-style theme park. To pay for the massive overhaul, they redirected capital earned from the dismantling of Milton Hershey’s paternalism. Reborn as “Hersheypark” in 1973, the ever-growing complex has become a mecca for chocolate lovers and thrill-ride seekers from across the Northeast.

Every year, Halloween reminds me of this remarkable transformation. The stores become stocked with Hershey brands, and the theme park comes alive with its spooky “Dark Nights” entertainment.

In the past, workers at the Hershey plant would joke that they had “chocolate syrup in their veins.” These days, they clearly have innovation too, and that creative spirit is largely due to Forrest Mars. By giving Hershey the jolt it needed, he shook up the status quo and changed the chocolate company, town and park forever.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

John Haddad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Hershey’s chocolate survived an attack from Mars − and adopted a business strategy alien to its founder – https://theconversation.com/how-hersheys-chocolate-survived-an-attack-from-mars-and-adopted-a-business-strategy-alien-to-its-founder-267722