Posts dated: February2011

I’ve been asked to explain my brief appearance on the Colbert Report (so brief, that if you blinked, you missed it).  On February 1, Colbert did a “Thought for Food” piece about Walmart’s recent food initiatives.

What was I doing there?  Colbert used a clip from an ABC News interview from January 20.  I was away from NYU that day and taped the interview in a studio at Cornell University.

And once again, here’s my NPR interview with Robert Siegel on All Things Considered about the Walmart announcement.

I’m eager to see how the Walmart promises get put into action.

Enjoy the weekend!

I’m still trying to understand how it happened that USDA’s plan for peaceful coexistence among growers of alfalfa—genetically modified (GM), industrial (but not GM), and organic (definitely not GM))—failed so miserably.  It was the first time that USDA seemed to be recognizing the legitimacy of complaints that GM crops are contaminating organic crops.  I thought this was a food step forward.

But the USDA ended up approving GM alfalfa with no restrictions—just promises to study the matter.

I’ve now seen some explanations that not only make sense, but also shed considerable light on how agricultural politics works in Washington these days.

Sam Fromartz, author of Organic, Inc, writes on his blog that after USDA’s decision:

The only appeasement the USDA offered were panels on studying ways to prevent contamination from occurring in the future. But this seems akin to studying ways to protect a forest after loggers have been allowed to cut down the trees.

The decision was a stunning reversal of a more measured approach that Vilsack appeared to be taking in December, when the USDA talked about considering the impact of the GM crop on other sectors of agriculture. But that was before he faced an uproar by the GM industry and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal for playing nice with organic farmers.

Gary Hirshberg, in response to heavy criticism that he sold out to Monsanto, writes on the Huffington Post:

Stonyfield is absolutely and utterly opposed to the deregulation of GE crops. We believe that these crops are resulting in significantly higher uses of toxic herbicides and water, creating a new generation of costly “super” weeds, pose severe and irreversible threats to biodiversity and seed stocks, do not live up to the superior yield claims of their patent holders and are unaffordable for small family farmers in the US and around the world.

We believe that organic farming methods are proving through objective, scientific validation to offer far better solutions. We also believe that unrestricted deregulation of GE crops unfairly limits farmer and consumer choice.

…From the outset of these stakeholder discussions, it was clear that GE alfalfa had overwhelming political, legal, financial and regulatory support, and thus the odds were severely stacked against any possibility of preventing some level of approval, just as has been the case with GE cotton, soy, canola and corn.

Keep in mind that, according to Food and Water Watch, biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Their lobby expenditures more than doubled during that time. In 2009 alone they spent $71 million. Last year they had more than 100 lobbying firms working for them, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.

In an interview with Food Chemical News (Feb 3), Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety,  one of the groups leading the opposition to GM alfalfa:

describes USDA’s promises as a “stale gesture” toward organic and other industry groups that had worked with the department on its proposed option for partial deregulation of RR alfalfa. He speculates that USDA was prepared to go down the partial deregulation route but was “shot down at the White House level….

“It’s not about organic and GMOs,” Kimbrell continues. “The real losses are not with organic crops but with conventional crops,” such as rice commingled with Bayer’s authorized LibertyLink 601 variety and corn commingled with the StarLink variety. “The growers can’t sell their crops to Europe or Asia. The issue is how do we keep GMOs from contaminating conventional crops such as rice, corn and now alfalfa?”

Food and Water Watch, another leading group on this issue and the source of the lobbying data in Hirshberg’s comments,  points out that the USDA’s decision to allow unrestricted planting of GM alfalfa is not likely to be an isolated case.  The FDA is currently considering approval of GM salmon, and its decision is expected soon.

Both organizations are organizing protests on their websites, but this is how agricultural politics works these days.

In an article about fast food marketing, the Los Angeles Times explains as clearly as could be why Dietary Guidelines matter so much.  The article is titled “Eat less, U.S. says as fast-food chains super-size their offerings.”

Why would fast food chains want to offer hot dogs, hamburgers, and burritos ranging from 800 t0 1,600 calories each?  How’s this for a candid answer:

The bottom line is we’re in the business of making money, and we make money off of what we sell,” said Beth Mansfield, spokeswoman for CKE Restaurants Inc., which owns the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s chains. “If we wanted to listen to the food police and sell nuts and berries and tofu burgers, we wouldn’t make any money and we’d be out of business.

You want to help people stay healthy?  That makes you food police.

If you care about public health, you can expect to be called names.  But that shouldn’t stop you from trying to create a healthier food system.

And thanks to Sheila Viswanathan of the GoodGuide for sending the article.

I have now had time to look at the full report of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines–all 95 pages of what they are calling “the policy document.”

Oh no!  What happened to the Selected Messages for Consumers that I posted yesterday?  “Enjoy your food” is not in it and neither are any of the other clear, straightforward messages.  This is a big disappointment.

Nevertheless, the document is well worth reading.

It addresses my complaints about the executive summary.  It explains the meaning of the annoying SOFAS (solid fats and added sugars).  It discusses the need to improve the food environment.

Let me share a few thoughts about selected issues.

SOFAS

The report translates its advice (pages 62-68).   It translates  “Cut back on foods and drinks with added sugars,” a nutrition euphemism, as:

Drink few or no regular sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks, and fruit drinks.  Eat less cake, cookies, ice cream, other desserts, and candy.  If you do have these foods and drinks, have a small portion.

But it translates “Cut back on solid fats” in yet another euphemism:  “Select lean meats and poultry, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products.”  This, no doubt, is to avoid the politically impossible “eat less meat.”

Added sugars

The report lists synonyms for added sugars that you might find on a food label (page 75).  The 2005 Dietary Guidelines included “fruit juice concentrates” on that list.  The 2010 guidelines do not.  The Table lists “nectars” but not fruit juice concentrates.  How come?  It doesn’t say.

Food group patterns

The report describes healthy patterns for diets ranging from 1,000 to 3,200 calories a day.  For a diet containing 2,000 calories, you are only allowed 258 calories a day from SOFAS.  That’s all? One 20-ounce soft drink contains more than that and so does  one tablespoon of butter and a 12-ounce soft drink.  No wonder the guidelines don’t want to be specific about foods when they mean “eat less.”

Sodium

The recommendation to reduce sodium intake to 2,300 or 1,500 mg per day is addressed to the wrong people.  Individuals cannot do this on their own since most salt is already added in restaurant and processed foods.  The report recognizes this:

• Consume more fresh foods and fewer processed foods that are high in sodium.
• Eat more home-prepared foods, where you have more control….
• When eating in restaurants, ask that salt not be added….
  

Vegetarian and vegan diets

The report includes diet plans for lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans (pages 81 and 82).  Applause, please.  When I was on the dietary guidelines advisory committee in 1995, we tried to say something useful about vegetarian diets but were forced to add something about the nutritional hazards of such diets, minimal as they are.  Not having to do this is a big improvement.  But you too only get 258 calories for SOFAS.

How about changing the food environment?

The report makes it clear that the food environment strongly influences the food choices of individuals, and it urges efforts to

• Improve access to healthy foods
• Empower people with improved nutrition literacy, gardening and cooking skills
• Develop policies to prevent and reduce obesity
• And for kids, fix school meals, encourage physical activity, and reduce screen time

In short, there is plenty to work with here.  You just have to look hard and dig deep to find it.

What is the food industry’s reaction?

Just for fun, I’ve been tracking some of the industry reactions.  The soy people love it.  The report mentions soy along with nuts and seeds in the USDA’s meal patterns (page 79), and soy has its own category in the vegetarian and vegan diets (page 81 and 82).

The meat people don’t love it so much.  They are a little worried that seafood is pushed more than meat, but the American Meat Institute is giving it a nice spin, pointing out that the overall meat recommendation has not changed since 2005.

And the Salt Institute?  “Dietary Guidelines on Salt Drastic, Simplistic, Unrealistic.”

I rest my case.