Archives

The Mexican state of Oaxaca became the first to ban the sales of junk foods to children under the age of 18.

The state of Tabasco did the same.

A dozen other Mexican states are considering similar actions.  The rationale is clear: the health consequences of obesity in general and with Covid-19 in particular.

One-third of Mexicans aged 6 to 19 are overweight or obese, according to UNICEF. They may not be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 now, but they can suffer myriad health issues, especially in adulthood.

And Mexico’s new warning labels are now in effect and will be required for all packaged foods by the end of the year.

Mexico has been able to implement these measures despite overwhelming food industry opposition.

How?  I credit the outstanding advocacy work of the Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and the consumer coalition, Alianza por la Salud Alimentaria.

Berkeley, California, ever at the cutting edge of public health nutrition policy, is banning junk food from checkout counters and aisles.

The new policy will require retailers larger than 2,500 square feet to stock healthy food at the register and in areas where customers wait in line, instead of items like chips, soda and candy. It forbids food items with 5 grams of added sugars and 200 milligrams of sodium, chewing gum and mints with added sugars, and beverages with added sugars or artificial sweeteners. In Berkeley, the policy will affect stores like Safeway, Monterey Market, Whole Foods and Berkeley Bowl.

As a result of efforts like these—public health campaigns, soda taxes, and other initiatives—heavy consumption of sugary drinks (more than 500 calories/day) is declining.

According to a recent study, the percentage of children who drink more than 500 calories worth of soft drinks a day declined from 11% to 3%  from 2003 to 2016, and the percentage of adult heavy consumers declined from 13% to 9%.

This trend is in the right direction.

Some parts of government are still functioning the way they are supposed to.

The U.S. Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) says USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has violated the Hatch Act and has to repay the US Treasury.

In letters to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and to Representative Marcia Fudge,  the OSC says

Secretary Sonny Perdue violated the Hatch Act on August 24, 2020, when he spoke in his official capacity at an event in Mills River, North Carolina (the “August 24 event”)…The event generally related to USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program…Because he was on taxpayer-funded travel when he engaged in the political activity at issue, the U.S. Treasury must be reimbursed for the costs associated with his political activity.  Provided that immediate corrective action is taken and the U.S. Treasury is reimbursed for such costs, OSC will decline to pursue disciplinary action and instead consider this file closed with the issuance of the cure letter.

As the letter explains,

The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President.  As the Secretary of Agriculture,
Secretary Perdue is covered by the Hatch Act and prohibited from, among other things, using his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.  Under this provision, Secretary Perdue may not use his official title while engaging in political activity or his official position to advance or oppose candidates for partisan political office.

In his speech at the event, Perdue congratulated President Trump for authorizing an additional billion dollars to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program

you just authorized another billion dollars for the hungry people of this country and to keep our farmers there. And we’ve never seen an outpouring of compassion like that for people who matter, because people matter to you. And that’s what’s important to me. And that’s what’s going to continue to happen—four more years—if America gets out and votes for this man, Donald J. Trump.

This is a particularly clear violation of the Hatch Act.  The OSC is right to call Perdue on it and insist that he repay taxpayers.

This is also yet another example of how the Farmers to Families food box program, about which I have written repeatedly, is more about politics than feeding the hungry.

The OSC investigation resulted from a complaint from Representative Fudge and several colleagues in Congress.   It’s also good to see them doing their job.

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize has been  awarded to the World Food Programme (WFP), “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.”

The WFP is the United Nations agency that distributes international food aid.

Why do I think this is good news?  This prize recognizes:

• The importance of food in maintaining a peaceful world.
• The importance of functioning food systems during the coronavirus pandemic.
• The value of United Nations agencies in maintaining peace and food security.

Why do I even ask this question? 

I am well aware of the inadequacies of food charity as a means to ensure nutrition, health and world peace.  All too often, international food aid:

• Does not reach the people who most need it
• Is siphoned off to benefit corrupt intermediaries
• Undermines local food economies
• Benefits donors more than recipients
• Is used more as a political than a humanitarian tool
• Causes more harm than good

I want to see anti-hunger policies institutionalized, not left as voluntary.

Food matters to world peace more than most people recognize.  If the prize raises recognition of the importance of food in society, it will have done good work.

Thanks to Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report for most of these links

• Announcement of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize (video)
• World Food Program USA 
• United Nations World Food Programme — Statement by WFP Executive Director David Beasley
• WFP History 
• Associated Press — World Food Program wins Nobel Peace Prize as hunger surges 
• WFP fights hunger in food-deprived places, crises, war zones 
• The New York Times — World Food Program Awarded Nobel Peace Prize for Work During Pandemic
• The Washington Post — Nobel Peace Prize goes to World Food Program for efforts to combat hunger 
• CNN — Nobel Peace Prize awarded to World Food Programme

Readers have written me to point out that my posts rarely cover good news, and that they badly need to hear some.

Point taken: I devote this week’s blog to good news items.

Let’s start with Friday’s announcement that the USDA will extend universal school meals through June 30, 2021 (you can read the entire announcement here).

Is this an election-year ploy?  Maybe, but it’s the first thing Trump’s USDA has done that I think is worth doing.

It must have happened as a result of strong advocacy pressure.  I say this because, as The Counter’s Jessica Fu reported in August, the USDA was determined not to extend free meals to school children, arguing that it did not have the authority to do so.

“While we want to provide as much flexibility as local school districts need during this pandemic, the scope of this request is beyond what USDA currently has the authority to implement and would be closer to a universal school meals program which Congress has not authorized or funded,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue wrote in a letter last Thursday explaining the decision.

But a week later, the USDA did extend the universal meals program through the end of December this year.

Now it has extended that extension through the end of this school year.

Yes!

This means, as the announcement says, USDA will:

• Allow…meals to be served in all areas and at no cost;
• Permit meals to be served outside of the typically required group settings and meal times;
• Waive meal pattern requirements, as necessary; and
• Allow parents and guardians to pick-up meals for their children.

Universal school meals:

• Ensure food justice for children
• Make sure all children are fed
• Avoid stigma
• Avoid expensive and cumbersome exclusionary paperwork

So this is good news, but there’s more work yet to do.

• Make sure those meals are healthy and do adhere to nutrition standards.
• Make universal school meals permanent.

My go-to reference on this topic:

State voter registration deadlines are here.

Today is the last possible day in New York.  Don’t miss this one.

The cartoon, by the way, was a last-mnute addition to my 2013 book, Eat, Drink, Vote: An Illustrated Guide to Food Politics.  

The story about how the cartoon came to be is here.

Plant-based is big business.  Want to find out just how big?

One week to go: FREE plant-based meat webinar with Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Meati Foods, Planterra Foods, GFI: Where is the plant-based meat category heading, and how reliable are some of the predictions out there about how much this market could be worth over the next 10-15 years?… Read more

Two food business newsletters featured these products recently.  Here are a few selections (for the complete lcollections, click on the heading links).

FoodNavigator-USA’s Special Edition: Plant-based protein trends

From pea, soy and wheat to canola, which plant-based proteins have the potential to move from niche to the mainstream, and what factors are motivating purchasing decisions, from price and consistency of supply, to amino acid profiles, taste, functionality, sustainability credentials, to non-GMO claims? Where is the plant-based meat category heading next and how are the dynamics of the plant-based milk segment changing?

• DSM gears up for 2022 launch of canola protein isolate:  Canola is the third largest oilseed crop after soybeans and cottonseed, with an established supply chain (for oil crushing) featuring protein with a highly attractive nutritional profile and great functional properties. So why has taken so long for canola protein to be commercialized?.. Read  
• Oatmilk edges past soymilk for #2 slot in US plant-based milk retail market:  US retail sales of plant-based milk rose 17% to $2.362bn in measured channels in the year to September 6, 2020, according to new data from SPINS, which shows oatmilk – a relative newcomer – edging past soymilk to take the #2 spot in the category behind market leader almondmilk… Read
• Study: Plant-based meat alternatives improve cardiovascular risk factors compared with animal meat:  Adults who swapped out animal protein for plant-based protein saw lower levels of LDL cholesterol, moderate weight loss, and similar sodium intake and blood pressure levels (compared to animal protein consumption) after eight weeks, revealed a two-phase study conducted by researchers at Stanford Medicine and funded by Beyond Meat… Read
• Tofu’s time has come, says Nasoya: ‘It’s the simplest form of plant-based protein on the market’  US retail sales of tofu – which for years occupied a solid, but sleepy, niche in a plant-based meat category increasingly propelled by brands seeking to precisely match the taste and texture of conventional meat – have caught fire in recent weeks, says the firm behind America’s #1 tofu brand… Read
• Hannaford amps up plant-based offerings, enjoys triple digit growth in fresh plant-based meat  Hannaford has significantly expanded distribution of plant-based items across the store, adding signage to make it easier for shoppers to identify plant-based products, and introduced long-term price promotions and marketing efforts including digital offers with unusually high redemption rates as part of an ongoing collaboration with the Plant Based Foods Association… Read
• Impossible Foods hits back at ‘disingenuous, desperate disinformation campaign’ as Lightlife attacks ‘hyperprocessed’ ingredients:  In an open letter slammed by Impossible Foods as cynical and disingenuous and dismissed by one commentator as a “PR stunt,” Lightlife Foods has attempted to distinguish itself from ‘food tech’ rivals in the plant-based meat arena by positioning itself as “a real food company,” with products “developed in a kitchen, not a lab.”.. Read

Special Edition: Plant-based innovation in APAC  [Asia-Pacific region]

The meat substitute market in APAC is expected to reach US$17.1bn in 2020, from US$15.3bn last year according to Euromonitor International. The ongoing pandemic is set to accelerate this growth alongside health, safety and environmental factors from consumers. In this special edition, we bring you the firms developing plant-based meat, egg and beverages, all this to meet APAC’s soaring protein needs.

• Liquid gold: India’s EVO Foods to launch plant-based liquid egg this year and eyes US expansion:  Mumbai-based EVO Foods is set to launch its first product in India, a plant-based liquid egg made from legumes by the end of the year with plans to enter the US market next year… Read
• One step further: Australia’s Fenn Foods set to launch ‘world’s first carbon neutral’ minced meat in APAC:  Brisbane plant-based company Fenn Foods is set to release three new products early next year under its vEEF brand, one of which will be the ‘world’s first carbon neutral’ plant-based meat… Read
• Multi-meat mimicry: Japan’s DAIZ develops new soy-processing tech to ape conventional meats:  Japan-based DAIZ has developed a new form of soybean processing technology that is able to mimic multiple types of conventional meats such as chicken, pork and fish, opening up a new avenue of additive-free plant-based creations for food manufacturers… Read  
• Affordability key in Asia: Thai plant-based meat firm pitches price point at half of Beyond Burger:  Thai plant-based meat firm Let’s Plant Meat jumped from conceptualisation to commercialisation in just 12 months for its plant-based burger patty – and is now determined to make the product ‘affordable for the masses’ in Asia… Read
• India’s Imagine Meats to roll out plant-based kebab, biryani and curry products in Mumbai:  India’s newest plant-based food start-up, Imagine Meats is set to launch a meat alternative range comprising kebabs, biryani and curry at the end of this year… Read

I cannot believe there is anything further to say about the Farmers to Families food boxes, the $4 billion USDA program that pays distributors to pick up dairy, meat, and produce, put it in boxes, and deliver the boxes to food banks, which then hand them out to people who need food.  My most recent post on the inclusion of a personal letter from President Trump in the boxes is here.

The USDA now says it has distributed 100 million of these boxes.

Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich reports  that the USDA now requires the private companies that collect, pack, and deliver the boxes “to also stuff the Trump letters into the package — an expansion of the controversial letter policy with just…days until the presidential election.”

The Counter’s Jessica Fu (to whom I owe an apology for spelling her name incorrectly the last time I quoted her) writes that “Religious groups distributing Covid hunger-relief boxes are praying with recipients, taping Bible verses onto flaps, and soliciting donations. Some of these practices may violate federal regulations.”

The Hunger Task Force says that the program is discriminatory: “Wisconsin has been underrepresented in all rounds of the program while Wisconsin’s hungry line up by the carload for assistance that has now been completely severed.”

New York legislators are also complaining.  They wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue:

in the transition between the CFAP vendors selected for rounds two and three, miscommunication from USDA has left many food pantries in New York City suddenly without food, causing upheaval in the lives of those families who were relying on their local pantries for meals.  We understand that the new vendors selected for round three of this program were required to specify the counties or boroughs to which they would provide food. However, this has forced many nonprofits and food pantries who had relationships with vendors no longer serving their county or borough to scramble to find new partnerships, with no guidance from USDA, no overlap in service
provision, and nowhere to turn for help.

On the saga goes.  It would have made so much more sense—financially, logistically, and humanely—for the USDA to strengthen SNAP enrollments and benefits.  Some of this is happening anyway, but the long history of food banks tells us that they can never meet needs on an ongoing basis.  SNAP, imperfect as it is, still is a demonstrably better means of relieving food insecurity.