Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Oct 21 2022

Weekend thinking: holding food corporations accountable (or trying to)

The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) has released its latest Index report on the progress of the 11 largest U.S. food and beverage companies on their commitments to make, market and sell healthy food and drinks.

The report’s dismal conclusion:

While all companies have placed a greater focus on nutrition in their corporate strategies since the first index was released in 2018, their actual products have not become healthier, and they are not making sufficient efforts to safeguard children from the marketing of unhealthy products.

Collectively, these copanies have sales of about $170 billion annually and account for nearly 30% of all U.S. food and beverage sales.

The report’s overall findings (the Index is a composite on a scale of 10):

Specific findings:

  • Only 30% of their products meet criteria for “healthy,” 70% do not. This is only marginally better than in 2018 (see link to my post on this below).
  • Companies say they have a greater focus on nutrition and health, but are not doing much about it.
  • Only four companies are trying to improve the affordability of their healthier products.
  • Companies say they are trying to protect children from the harmful effects of marketing unhealthy products, but they are not doing much about it.

ATNI recommends that companies fix these problems and that the government “support such changes by introducing more effective and enforceable standards and legislation that prevent the marketing of unhealthy products and push companies to apply reformulation strategies on their products.

I like this recommendation, despite its being couched as “encourage,” rather than as a demand:

Companies are encouraged to actively support (and commit to not lobby against) public policy measures in the US to benefit public health and address obesity as enshrined in the National Strategy on food, hunger, nutrition, and health

Comment: Results liket these come as no surprise.  To repeat: food companies are not social service or public health agencies; they are businesses with stockholders who demand returns on investment as the first priority.

Expecting companies to change products to make them less attractive or to stop marketing to children means asking them to go against their business interests.

Until companies are rewarded for focusing on social values, public health, and environmental sustainability, ATNI’s evaluations are unlikely to have much of an impact on corporate behavior.

Documents

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Oct 20 2022

Plant-based meat is in trouble?

The big news in the plant-based food world last week was Beyond Meat’s retrenchment and legal hassles.   Here’s how these issues are being covered by the food business press.

Right now, this sector looks bleak, but who knows how this will play out.  Not me, for sure.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Oct 19 2022

Today: NYU Bookstore, 6:00 p.m. A presentation on Slow Cooked.

The bookstore is on Broadway between Washington Place and Waverly Place, close to the Astor Place (6) and 8th Street (R, W) subway stops.  Admission is free and does not require registration.  I will talk about the book, answer questions, and be happy to sign any that are offered.  Should be fun!

Oct 18 2022

Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons: What this means

The headline says it all: Kroger to acquire Albertsons for $24.6bn solidifying its position as #2 grocery retailer with 11.8% market share.

This will make Kroger second only to Walmart’s 17.1% share.

Take a look at what this means.

The Kroger Co. Family of Stores

  • Baker’s
  • City Market
  • Dillons
  • Food 4 Less
  • Foods Co
  • Fred Meyer
  • Fry’s
  • Gerbes
  • Jay C Food Store
  • King Soopers
  • Kroger
  • Mariano’s
  • Metro Market
  • Pay-Less Super Markets
  • Pick’n Save
  • QFC
  • Ralphs
  • Ruler
  • Smith’s Food and Drug

Now add in the Albertsons Companies’ Family of Stores

  • Albertsons
  • Safeway
  • Vons
  • Jewel-Osco
  • Shaw’s
  • Acme
  • Tom Thumb
  • Randalls,
  • United Supermarkets
  • Pavilions
  • Star Market
  • Haggen, Carrs
  • Kings Food Markets
  • Balducci’s Food Lovers Market

All of these will now be Kroger’s.  Monopoly capitalism, anyone?

Kroger’s press release says:

Kroger has a long track record of lowering prices, improving the customer experience and investing in its associates and communities. Consistent with prior transactions, Kroger plans to invest in lowering prices for customers and expects to reinvest approximately half a billion dollars of cost savings from synergies to reduce prices for customers. An incremental $1.3 billion will also be invested into Albertsons Cos. stores to enhance the customer experience. Kroger will also build on its recent investments in associate wages, training and benefits. Kroger has invested an incremental $1.2 billion in associate compensation and benefits since 2018. The combined company expects to invest $1 billion to continue raising associate wages and comprehensive benefits after close.

Who will hold Kroger accountable for these promises?

It needs to be held accountable.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Oct 17 2022

Industry-funded study of the week: potatoes yet again

The Alliance for Potato Research & Education is explicitly “Dedicated to advancing the scientific understanding of the role potatoes play in promoting the health of all people.”

As the Alliance explains:

Potatoes are a nutrient-rich vegetable and one of the top sources of potassium in Americans’ diets, yet they are often singled out as a food to limit. This recommendation is often based on misperceptions that eating potatoes is linked to increased cardiometabolic disease risk, even though potatoes contribute to overall fruit and vegetable consumption.  However, a newly published study in the Journal of Nutritional Science finds that advice may be unwarranted

Guess who sponsored that study.

  • The study:  Potato consumption is not associated with cardiometabolic health outcomes in Framingham Offspring Study adults
  • Conclusion: In this prospective cohort, there was no adverse association between fried or non-fried potato consumption and risks of T2DM/IFG, hypertension or elevated triglycerides.

  • Funding: This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute …with additional support from the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. The funders had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article…The authors have declared that no conflict of interest.

Comment: We can argue about the effects of potatoes on insulin and blood sugar levels, a contentious issue because the ways they are cooked and prepared influence digestion of their starches to sugars and how quickly those sugars are absorbed.  But industry funding confuses the arguments, as it has a high probbility of inducing more than the usual level of bias into the results.  Much industry influence occurs at an unconscious level where it is unrecognized by rsearchers, so much so that they do not see it as a conflict of interest.  I think it is.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Oct 16 2022

Today is World Food Day

Information and registration is available HERE.  

Watch LIVE HERE.

Oct 14 2022

Weekend reading: Follow up to the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health

As a follow up to the White House Conference on Hunger, I’ve been collecting fact sheets (my version of what happened at the conference is here)

Official information is available on the conference website.   You can even watch it; links to videos of the sessions are posted here.

Note that everything in the fact sheets refers to the conference “Pillars.”  As a reminder, these are:

  1. Improve Food Access and Affordability
  2. Integrate Nutrition and Health
  3. Empower Consumers to Make and Have Access to Healthy Choices
  4. Support Physical Activity for All
  5. Enhance Nutrition and Food Security Research

Fact sheet #1: The Biden-Harris Administration Announces More Than $8 Billion in New Commitments as Part of Call to Action for White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health

These [commitments] range from bold philanthropic contributions and in-kind donations to community-based organizations, to catalytic investments in new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery. At least $2.5 billion will be invested in start-up companies that are pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity. Over $4 billion will be dedicated toward philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices, and increases physical activity.

Fact sheet #2: From Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow:   Anti-Hunger and Healthy Food Successes

As long as we have hunger and food insecurity in America, we have work to do…We’ve put policies in place that take big steps to strengthen the food safety net, incentivize purchases of healthy fruits and vegetables, and provide more resources for food banks and other organizations to address hunger and nutrition issues in their communities.

Fact sheet #3: From USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS): Leveraging the White House Conference to Promote and Elevate Nutrition Security.

FNS’s work aligns closely with the National Strategy, which outlines steps the government will take, while calling on the public and private sector to address the intersections between food, hunger, nutrition, and health.

It is fair to ask what the conference will produce and how government and private agencies will be held accountable for their commitments.  For that we must wait and see.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Oct 13 2022

Will we ever get better labeling of alcoholic beverages? Yet another try.

My book talk today: Online with Hunter’s Food Policy Center in conversation with Charles Platkin, 9:30 to 10:30 a.m.  Registration is HERE.

******

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announces that it and the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League are filing a lawsuit calling on the Treasury Department to compel a decision on mandatory alcohol content, calorie, ingredient, and allergen labeling on alcoholic beverages.

Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendants’ nearly nineteen-year delay in responding to a 2003 petition submitted by Plaintiffs, 66 other organizations and eight individuals, including four deans of public health.  [See Petition]…The Petitio urged TTB to reequire alcohol labelig with the same basic transparency consumers expect in foods.  For alcohol, that means labeling that has alcohol content, calorie, and ingredient information—including ingredients that can cause allergic reactions.

Nineteen year delay?  Yes.  Why?  The alcohol industry would much rather that you don’t know what you are drinking.  It has opposed virtually every attempt to expose what’s in its products.

Just for fun, I looked up the alcohol labeling chapter in my book with Malden Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.

We titled the chapter, “Alcohol labels: industry vs. consumers.”

Here, for your amusement, is the table illustrating current labeling requirements.

CSPI deserves much applause for trying to fix this situation and for its patience.

We need something a lot better than this.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.