I’ve just learned that I’m missing a Focus on Obesity conference in Washington DC today, organized by The Root as part of its Black, Fit & Healthy initiative.

Black Americans have the highest rates of obesity, and a conference devoted to promoting healthy diets in this population seems like a good idea.  This one has an impressive list of speakers.  Sam Kass, Michele Obama’s chef and food policy adviser, is giving the keynote, and many of the speakers are associated with government or private groups devoted to improving the diets, physical activity, and overall health of Black Americans.

The sponsors got my attention.  Two are the Office of Minority Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, and HBO, which produced the Weight of the Nation obesity documentary I discussed a few weeks ago.

But the third is the American Beverage Association (ABA), the trade association for Coke, Pepsi, and other sugary drinks linked to poor diets and overweight among children and adults.

This is the group that so opposes Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed bad on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

Not only that, but as documented by the Rudd Center at Yale, ABA members devote special efforts to marketing their products to Black Americans.  Advertising Age notes that the soft drink industry makes no apologies for targeting minorities and considers it “smart marketing.”

The Rudd study’s findings:

The irony: soft drink companies are sponsoring a conference to solve a health problem that their products helped cause in the first place.

Want to take bets on whether any of the speakers suggests cutting down on sodas or “don’t drink your calories”?

Rumors, as yet unverified, are flying:

• The American Beverage Association dreamed this conference up as a public relations move to position sodas as a solution to minority obesity, not its cause.
• Several of the speakers are former employees of, or have ties to, Coca-Cola.
• The Washington Post will be running a special section on the conference next week, flanked with American Beverage Association advertisements

If this last one is true, please save me a copy.

In the meantime, think about who is likely to derive the greatest benefit from this co-sponsorship alliance: the Office of Minority Health, Black Americans, or corporate members of the American Beverage Association.

I’ve been away for the last couple of weeks, and am just getting to accumulated mail.  I was surprised to find a letter dated June 18 from Angela Wilson, an attorney at Parks IP Law, a limited liability firm specializing in intellectual property rights.

In her letter, which you can read here in its entirety, Ms. Wilson writes:

We represent Energy Brands Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Coca-Cola company.  Recently, we noticed that Food Politics used the term “vitamin Water” in the article, “New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks,” which appeared in the June 4, 2012 edition of your publication (see attached).

I’m confused.  The article attached to the letter is my post, “Weight of the Nation: the new “Hunger in America”?, a June 4 reprint of a column I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle.  It does not refer to “vitamin Water.”

Foodpolitics.com contains an excellent search engine.  I searched my posts for “New York Plans to Ban….”   No post with that title exists.   I looked at posts about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large sodas.  My post about the soda initiative contains plenty of references to Coca-Cola, but says nothing about “vitamin Water.”

A search for “vitamin water” turns up 17 posts, the most recent in 2011.  The most relevant is an account of a class-action suit filed against Coca-Cola by the Center for Science in the Public Interest arguing that “Vitamin Water makes sugary drinks that promote obesity but positions these products as healthful because they contain added vitamins and herbs.”

Never mind.  Let’s focus on the matter at hand.  Attorney Wilson’s letter continues:

It appears that the article may have been referring to our client’s VITAMINWATER® brand, but because Food Politics used the phrase “Vitamin Water,” that may not be clear to your readers.  Accordingly, we write to request that your writers [sic] refer to our client’s trademark properly in future stories. [I used sic because I’m the only writer on this site.]

Her letter suggests that I follow some simple guidelines when referring to her client’s trademark.  You might enjoy reading the entire list for yourself, but here’s a short summary:

• DO distinguish our client’s VITAMINWATER® trademark as one word (without a space in the middle) and in all capitals or italics
• DO add the registration symbol (“®”)
• DO follow all references to our client’s trademark with the words “enhanced water”
• DON’T use terms such as “vitaminwater,” “vitamin water,” or “vitamin waters”

Ms. Wilson’s letter concludes: “When you use our client’s name correctly, you help protect the integrity of their [sic] innovative enhanced water product.”

[Why sic?  I’m a professor and can’t help this sort of thing.  “Client” is singular; “their” is plural.  Nouns and pronouns should agree.]

I can only imagine the enormous fees that Parks IP Law and Angela Wilson must be getting from Coca-Cola to get me to refer more precisely to its trademarks.

I’ll try.  I promise.

Yesterday’s international edition of USA Today (I picked it up at Heathrow) carried a full-page ad from the Ad Council, which donates its services to worthy causes every now and then.  This one, entirely in grey and white, displays logos from the Ad Council, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the parent agency of FDA.

In inch-high letters, all caps: DO YOU WANT THAT SAFE OR MEDIUM-SAFE?

In quarter-inch letters, also caps: USE A FOOD THERMOMETER TO MAKE SURE YOU COOK RAW MEAT AND POULTRY TO A BACTERIA-KILLING TEMPERATURE.

The ad also displays the Cook, Clean, Chill, Separate logo and the admonition to “Keep your family safer from food poisoning.  Check your steps at foodsafety.gov.”

Mind you, I’m highly in favor of following food safety procedures at home.

But most food safety problems are not due to the failure of home cooks to use thermometers.

They are caused by failures to observe food safety procedures during commercial production and preparation.

Shouldn’t meat and poultry be safe when you buy it in the supermarket?

This ad implies that the principal responsibility for food safety lies with the end user—you.

If you get sick it’s your fault because you didn’t use a meat thermometer?

USDA and DHHS:  how about getting the Ad Council to encourage meat and poultry producers to make sure their products are safe in the first place.

I’m in Europe trying to keep up with the farm bill from afar.  The House Ag Committee has come up with a a 557-page “discussion draft” of what it cutely calls the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act.

Its stated purposes are to (1) cut spending, (2) reduce the size of government, and (3) “make common-sense reforms to agricultural policy.”

The first two make the third goal an oxymoron.  I don’t see how #3 is possible, given #1 and #2.

Unlike the Senate version, the House bill:

• Cuts current spending by $35 billion over 10 years (as compared to the Senate’s $23 billion or so).
• Takes the difference out of SNAP (food stamps).  The proposed cut is $16 billion compared to $4.5 billion in the Senate version, an action that is ostensibly supposed to improve “program integrity and accountability.”

As Politico puts it, the House is

demanding deeper cuts from nutrition programs for the poor while embracing a greater government role in supporting farmers — something that won’t sit well with tea party conservatives.

Virtually all of that difference is explained by the much larger savings from food stamps — a $16 billion-plus package that triples what the Senate approved and imposes tougher income and asset tests that will disqualify hundreds of thousands of working-class households now getting aid.

The proposed deep cuts to SNAP are shocking for two reasons:

• The harm they will do to low-income households
• The breach in the long-standing deal that put SNAP in the farm bill in the first place

SNAP is in the farm bill because rural states needed the votes of urban states to pass subsidies and other supports for Big Ag producers of commodities.

This deal worked for states with large numbers of urban poor.  If their representatives voted for farm supports, farm-state representatives would vote for SNAP benefits.

This was classic logrolling.

Is the deal now breaking down?   Is Congress really willing to sacrifice benefits to the poor to maintain benefits for Big Ag?

According to The Hill, the House cuts are nothing but political posturing:

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, agreed to the cuts as a pragmatic way of moving forward with legislation important to rural lawmakers.

In an interview with The Hill, he said much of the cuts would be restored in a conference with the Senate.

…Peterson said he would have made different reforms to food stamps, and had offered an alternative plan to the GOP that was rejected. He defended his decision to back the final product as both pragmatic and politically savvy.

“It is what had to be done in order to get through committee and through the House floor,” he said.

Pragmatic and politically savvvy?  Let’s hope he’s right.

Anti-hunger advocates, however, are taking no chances.  They gathered in Washington this week to oppose the cuts.

This is a critical time.  Add your voice!

I’ve been at meetings in London and Geneva on non-communicable (what we call chronic) diseases and how to prevent them. 

On the way to Europe, I did some catching up on reading past issues of The Lancet and ran across this letter from Sally Casswell of the School of Public Health at Massey University in Auckland. 

Professor Casswell was responding to an article arguing that a major priority in chronic disease prevention should be to strengthen the capacity of countries to deliver primary care services.

Yes, professor Casswell writes, primary care is important.  But it is even more important to focus prevention efforts on the environmental factors that influence the behavior of individuals and cause them to need primary care services in the first place.

Do we really want to continue to live in a world where the oversupply and marketing of tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy processed foods, and soft drinks is tolerated simply to allow continuing profits for the shareholders of the transnational corporations producing and distributing them, while the taxpayer funds the health services and pharmaceutical response to the ensuing disease and injury?

This is a refreshing way to look at this problem, and one well worth pondering.

The third part of the PLoS Medicine series on Big Food (which I co-edited with David Stuckler) is now out.  Happy Fourth of July!

Here’s the entire PLoS collection of papers on this topic:

Editorial: PLoS Medicine Series on Big Food: The Food Industry Is Ripe for Scrutiny, The PLoS Medicine Editors, PLoS Medicine: Published 19 Jun 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001246

Essay: Big Food, Food Systems, and Global Health, David Stuckler, Marion Nestle, PLoS Medicine: Published 19 Jun 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001242

Essay: The Impact of Transnational “Big Food” Companies on the South: A View from Brazil, Carlos A. Monteiro, Geoffrey Cannon, PLoS Medicine: Published 03 Jul 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001252

Perspective: Thinking Forward: The Quicksand of Appeasing the Food Industry, Kelly D. Brownell, PLoS Medicine: Published 03 Jul 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001254

Policy Forum: Soda and Tobacco Industry Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns: How Do They Compare?, Lori Dorfman, Andrew Cheyne, Lissy C. Friedman, Asiya Wadud, Mark Gottlieb, PLoS Medicine: Published 19 Jun 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001241

Policy Forum: Manufacturing Epidemics: The Role of Global Producers in Increased Consumption of Unhealthy Commodities Including Processed Foods, Alcohol, and Tobacco, David Stuckler, Martin McKee, Shah Ebrahim, Sanjay Basu, PLoS Medicine: Published 26 Jun 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001235

Policy Forum: “Big Food,” the Consumer Food Environment, Health, and the Policy Response in South Africa, Ehimario U. Igumbor, David Sanders, Thandi R. Puoane, Lungiswa Tsolekile, Cassandra Schwarz, Christopher Purdy, Rina Swart, Solange Durão, Corinna Hawkes, PLoS Medicine: Published 03 Jul 2012 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001253

It’s hard to know what to say or do about pesticides in foods.  They are there and cannot easily be avoided. 

Are they harmful in the small doses found on foods?   Convincing studies one way or the other are hard to do. 

The Alliance for Food and Farming is an industry group with a stated mission “to deliver credible information to consumers about the safety of all fruits and vegetables.”

Its new report is called “Scared Fat.”  It reassures you that pesticides on fruits and veggies do no harm, so relax.

 The Maryland Pesticide Network and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future take a precautionary approach: whenever possible, avoid.

They have produced Best Management Practices Guide for Mimimizing or Eliminating Use of Pesticides for homeowners, farmers, property managers who want to do just that or at least minimize use of these chemicals.

If you prefer to avoid, take a look.

And enjoy your  4th of July salads!

My once-a-month (first Sunday) Q and A column in the San Francisco Chronicle deals with recent city initiatives.

Q:Why do municipalities continue to try to tell us what to eat or drink through taxes (the 1-cent soda tax on the Richmond ballot in November) or outright bans (eliminating super-size soft drinks, proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York)?  Richmond residents could just buy their sodas in neighboring towns, and 1 cent seems hardly enough to influence anyone. New Yorkers could just buy two drinks if they want more. Isn’t this all rather silly?

A: Silly? On the contrary. These are dead-serious attempts to address the health problems caused by obesity through “environmental” change – changing the context in which we make food choices.

By now, health officials are well aware that asking individuals to take responsibility for making their own healthy food choices hasn’t got a prayer of success in the face of a marketing environment that encourages people to eat everywhere, all day long, in very large portions and at relatively low cost.

This is the default food environment, where it’s useless to tell people they need to eat less and expect them to do it. They can’t. Instead, it makes sense to try to change the food environment to make healthy choices the easy choices.

Healthy by design?

Suppose, for example, that all kids’ meals at fast-food restaurants were healthy by design and automatically provided milk or water.

You could still order a soda for your kid, but you would have to ask for it – and pay extra. If you are like most people, you won’t bother. That’s why the default matters.

Cities are trying to change the default. One change may or may not make a difference – we don’t know that yet. But changing the default might well make healthy choices easier in schools, fast-food restaurants and other institutions.

Bloomberg’s proposal in New York, to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces, is one such step. From my standpoint, 16 ounces is generous. It’s two full servings and provides about 50 grams of sugars, 200 calories and 10 percent of daily calories for someone who consumes 2,000 calories a day.

Portion sizes used to be a lot smaller. Decades ago, Coca-Cola advertised 16-ounce bottles as “big” and enough to serve three over ice.

If we could recognize that larger portions have more calories – and act on this knowledge – we might have an easier time maintaining weight. But we can’t, at least not easily.

The Richmond soda tax proposal recognizes that more than half of Richmond schoolchildren are overweight or obese. This percentage is higher than in other areas of Contra Costa County.

Even more striking, city officials estimate that two-thirds of Richmond adolescents consume more than 400 calories a day from soft drinks.

Kids who habitually drink sugary sodas tend to have worse diets, to be fatter and to display more risk factors for chronic diseases than kids who don’t.

This makes sugar-sweetened beverages an obvious target for environmental approaches to obesity prevention. Sugary sodas have calories but no nutrients. They are consumed in large amounts. They are highly correlated with obesity and health risks. They are “liquid candy.”

Sugary drinks should be once-in-a-while treats, not daily fare.

Richmond officials hope that the tax will encourage healthier choices. They deliberately set the proposed tax small so it would not unduly burden low-income residents.

One penny per ounce – 16 cents on a 16-ounce soda – may not be enough to change behavior, but it sends a clear message: It’s less expensive to drink water, and it’s healthier to reduce soda intake.

Funding programs

The Richmond proposal has one other critically important feature. It specifies that soda tax revenue will be used to fund city programs to address and reduce childhood obesity, especially in low-income areas where obesity rates are high.

These experiments are worth national attention. They may well do some good for individuals, and I can’t see how they would cause harm in any way except, perhaps, to the economic interests of soda companies.

Soda companies are taking these initiatives seriously. They are pouring millions of dollars into lobbying and community campaigns against both proposals.

Both have elicited plenty of public discussion, much of it focused on the rights of individuals versus the public health interests of government.

What I like about these initiatives is that they do not infringe on individual rights – people can buy as much soda as they want. The proposals simply try to make the default food environment slightly more conducive to healthy choices.

I’m hoping both proposals go forward. I can’t wait to see how they play out.