Search results: app

I’ve just started getting a new Science and Research newsletter from William Reed: Informing Business Growth.

Some of the listings focus on dietary patterns or emerging microbiome research:

But most of them focus on single nutrients, ingredients, or foods—suggesting that they are about marketing those ingredients, not necessary health (people don’t eat single foods exclusively; we eat meals and mixtures).

These are a lot of fun.  They raise the possibility of magic bullets (if only).

But watch out for the weasel words “may,” “could,” “might”.  These mean “may or may not,” “could or could not,” “might or might not.”

• Long-term multivitamin use linked to fewer heart problems: Harvard study: A daily multivitamin may protect men from cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke in the long-term, says a new study… Read
• Eating black raspberries may decrease heart disease risk: Study: An extract found in black raspberries can significantly lower arterial stiffness, a key measure of cardiovascular disease, according to data from a Korean study… Read
• New forum showcases the benefits of pulses: A networking forum to help manufacturers understand the nutritional value of pulses has been created by McGill University in Montreal, Canada… Read
• Fish oil, cocoa & plant sterols: The winning combination against heart disease?: Combining fish oil, cocoa extract and plant sterols food supplements could offer an effective defence against heart disease, a new study suggests.  .. Read
• Plant-derived bacteria shows anti-obesity effects: RCT: Heat-killed Pediococcus pentosaceus LP28 derived from the longan fruit may help trim waist lines and reduce body fat, say results from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study… Read
• Olive-sourced hydroxytyrosol effective in biscuits: Study: Olive oil phenol hydroxytyrosol has been shown to be highly bioavailable and to lower oxidised LDL (low density lipoprotein) levels when incorporated into biscuits, suggesting functional food applications could be on the horizon for this EFSA-backed polyphenol. .. Read
• Study shows Calanus oil may benefit blood pressure and heart health: Supplements containing Calanus oil may support cardiovascular health via anti-inflammatory effects in blood vessel walls, says a new study… Read
• Review supports immune health potential of larch arabinogalactan: Supplements of Larch arabinogalactan may support immune health and help reduce the incidence of common cold infections, says a new review… Read
• Insights into banana carotenoids could hold key to fighting blindness: Insights into how bananas make and store carotenoids could help in the future development of banana varieties to combat vitamin A deficiency and blindness, say researchers… Read
• Niagen to be researched for neuroprotective effect among football players: Thorne Research and ChromaDex Corp. are partnering with the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota on a study to assess the effect of nicotinamide riboside (NR) on the brains of football players… Read
• Dark chocolate rivals beetroot juice in boosting athletic performance, study shows: Dark chocolate provides similar benefits to beetroot juice consumed already by elite athletes to improve exercise endurance, a study revealing similar levels of flavanol content has suggested… Read

Wouldn’t you rather eat chocolate than beets?  That’s what such studies are about.  And I wonder how many of them are funded by the makers of the products.  Want to take a look?

Yesterday, the FDA opened for public comment its long-awaited guidance for industry about reducing salt in processed food products.  The guidance affects about 150 products.  It gives baseline data for those products and sets targets for salt reduction.

Please note that I am using the word salt, not sodium.  The targets are for sodium reduction.  Most dietary sodium comes from salt added to processed foods and pre-prepared foods.  Salt is 40% sodium.  The target dietary intake of 2300 mg sodium comes to just under 6 grams of salt a day, which is not particularly low.  It is, however, lower than current intake levels.

In a blog post, FDA official Susan Mayne said the link between sodium intake and blood pressure is “strong and well documented,” but

In fact, it’s very difficult in the current marketplace NOT to consume too much sodium. The average intake today is over 3,400 milligrams—significantly more than the 2,300 milligram limit recommended by federal guidelines. And it’s not just adults who are eating too much sodium: Children and teens consume more than is recommended.

Vox, for example, provides a terrific chart on the amounts of sodium in foods.  It starts with this:

Susan Mayne goes on to explain that

the FDA assessed the sodium content of thousands of products in the marketplace and engaged with experts in industry, academia, and government to get the best available scientific and technical input. We know that sodium has important functions in many foods, such as taste, texture, and microbial safety… Our approach encourages gradually reducing sodium in the majority of foods that contain it…Moreover, our draft targets apply to processed and prepared foods that are eaten both at home and outside the home.

Despite the voluntary nature of the guidance and the lengthy timeline (up to ten years) for implementation, the makers of processed foods are sure to object.  At their urging, the House committee on appropriations, in draft report language, urged the FDA to postpone guidance on salt until the CDC and Institute of Medicine update the Dietary Reference Intake standards for sodium intake.

The Salt Institute, the trade association for the salt industry, issued a press release charging malpractice:

The issuance today of new “voluntary” sodium reduction mandates by the FDA is tantamount to malpractice and inexcusable in the face of years of scientific evidence showing that population-wide sodium reduction strategies are unnecessary and could be harmful. This effort will limit the food choices of Americans, not increase them as the FDA claims. It will make our food less safe and endanger public health.

In JAMA, CDC Director Thomas Frieden rebuts the scientific arguments point by point and, in my view, demolishes them.  He explains how important this initiative is to public health:

Thirty-nine countries have established sodium targets for foods and meals, with 36 of those adopting voluntary approaches. Setting targets helps create a level playing field for the food industry, supporting reductions already begun by companies such as Walmart, Darden, Unilever, PespsiCo, General Mills, Mars, Nestlé, and others. The United Kingdom set voluntary sodium reduction targets in 2003; from 2003 to 2011 sodium intake decreased 15%. During this same period, average blood pressure decreased, and, following no change in prior years, deaths from ischemic heart disease and stroke decreased by approximately 40% [the reference for this last statement is BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004549].

Most people would be healthier cutting down on salt intake.  Food company executives know this.  Politico Morning Agriculture points out that some Big Food companies have joined the public health community in supporting the FDA’s proposal.

The band of strange bedfellows – the American Heart Association, Mars, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Nestlé, PepsiCo, American Public Health Association, Unilever and the Center for Science in the Public Interest – all signed on to a letter last month to Senate Appropriations ag subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran and ranking member Jeff Merkley to support the FDA on sodium. Find that here.

From a public health perspective, the FDA initiative is a step in the right direction but could go further.  It should have required mandatory salt reduction.  Judging from the Salt Institute’s reaction, this is still a big step.  The New York Times quotes Michael Jacobson:

“The F.D.A. found a sweet spot between doing nothing and regulating…This will at least give the public benchmarks against which we can gauge sodium content of foods.”

FDA resources:  

• Federal Register Notice.  The home page explains how to submit comments by October 31 to Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0055
• Draft Guidance Document in PDF (132KB)
• Draft Food Categories and Draft Voluntary Targets for Sodium Reduction (Appendix Table 1) (XLSX: 43KB)
• Summary Explanation of the Draft Food Categories and Draft Voluntary Targets for Sodium Reduction (Appendix Table 1) (PDF: 277KB)
• Sodium Reduction At A Glance
• Presentation: FDA’s Voluntary Sodium Reduction Initiative (PPTX 3MB) 
• Constituent Update: FDA Issues Draft Guidance to Industry for Voluntarily Reducing Sodium
• Blog: Reducing Sodium in the Food Supply
• At a Glance: Lowering Sodium in the Food Supply
• Frequently Asked Questions on FDA’s Sodium Reduction Strategy
• Additional Information and History of Actions on Sodium Reduction

Every now and then I like to try to catch up with the arcane topic of trade agreements (see last week’s post).  Today, I’ll deal with the other one still in play, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office states the administration’s position on the TPP.  Ballotpedia.org has a helpful summary of where we are on it.

For this one, should you be at all interested, the full text of the TPP is available online.  Like all trade agreements in which the U.S. participates, the TPP is about reducing and eliminating tariffs.  In principle, this is supposed to foster competition and create business opportunities and, as the Trade Representative’s Office says, “leveling the playing field for American workers & American businesses.”

The TPP was signed by the U.S. and the 11 other participating countries in February.  But for us to participate in it, Congress has to ratify the agreement.  It has not yet done so, not least because the TPP is caught up in election-year politics.

Contributing to slow approval is the weak endorsement of the International Trade Commission, which was required to report on the agreement’s economic effects.  Its conclusion: TPP would improve the economy by 2032 (the target year, apparently)—but by less than 1%.  The report gives examples of the increased percentage over baseline in 2032:

• Annual real income: $57.3 billion (0.23 %)
• Real GDP: $42.7 billion (0.15 %)
• Employment would be 0.07 %
• Exports: $27.2 billion (1.0 %)
• Imports: $48.9 billion (1.1 %)
• Agriculture and food output: $10.0 billion (0.5 %)

So TPP has an upside, but a small one.

What about the downside?

For starters, see the letter filed in January by 1500 groups opposing the agreement, and this BMJ paper, just out, about the TPP’s potential to block public health policies such as front-of-package food labels.

Public Citizen also has concerns.  These include, among others, that the TPP would:

• Make it easier for corporations to offshore American jobs.
• Push down domestic wages.
• Flood the U.S. with unsafe imported food.
• Permit big pharmaceutical corporations to keep lower cost generic drugs off the market.
• Tacitly permit human rights violations in partner countries (the agreement does not mention “human rights”).

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) has problems with the “fast-track” rules passed by Congress earlier this year.  Under these rules, Congress is only allowed to vote yes or no on the agreement.  It cannot amend it. The IATP says:

Provisions in the chapter on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards, for example, would reduce the food safety inspection capacity of food imports, and relegate controversies over GMOs to questions of market access rather than public or environmental health. The inclusion of investor state rules would give foreign corporations new ways to challenge a wide range of environmental and consumer laws around the world for alleged loss of anticipated profits. New rules on patent protections would limit farmers’ ability to save seeds. The agreement fails to acknowledge climate change while expanding an extractive mode of globalization. Like previous failed trade agreements, there are a lot of promises to help farmers that will likely result in the accelerated loss of family farms.

Should you want to do some advocacy on this issue, the IATP has produced a timeline for urging Congress to say no to the TPP, and a handy form for doing so.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a long post attempting to explain the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a trade agreement under negotiation since then with the European Union.  Like all trade agreements, this one is done secretly, making it difficult for interested parties to weigh in.

But Greenpeace Netherlands has now leaked what it says are the texts of 13 chapters of the TTIP.  These include 248 pages of internal documents dating from TTIP talks at some uncertain date.  These include chapters about food and agriculture, as well as many other issues.

The documents include a 25-page “Tactical State of Play” on the negotiations similar to a 20-page public EU report, but with more detail on points of disagreement and consensus.

Greenpeace claims that the documents demonstrate major risks for the climate, environment and consumer safety.  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative strongly disagrees, and European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malström says the leaked documents only reflect negotiating positions.

I took a look at the leaked Chapter X Agriculture [US: Market Access].  The European Union proposes, for example:

• [On public health and safety] The Parties recognize that their respective societal choices may differ with respect to public policy decisions affecting agriculture. In this regard, nothing in this Agreement will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity that each side deems appropriate.
• [On sustainability] The Parties recall the prominent role of sustainability in its economic, social and environmental dimensions in agriculture and aim at developing a fruitful cooperation and dialogue on agricultural sustainability issues. To this end, the Parties shall work together to…exchange ideas and share experience in developing sustainable farming practices, particularly with regards to organic farming, and environmentally friendly rural development programs.
• [On geographical indicators] The Parties shall cooperate in matters related to geographical indications…The Parties reaffirm the importance of origin-linked products and geographical indications for sustainable agriculture and rural development, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises.

On international agricultural development, the United States proposes

The Parties shall work to promote international agricultural development and enhanced global food security by: (a) promoting robust global markets for food products and agricultural inputs; (b) seeking to avoid unwarranted trade measures that increase global food prices or exacerbate price volatility, in particular through avoiding the use of export taxes, export prohibitions or export restrictions on agricultural goods; and (c) encouraging and supporting research and education to develop innovative new agricultural products and strategies that address global challenges related to the production of abundant, safe and affordable food, feed, fiber, and energy.

You have to read between the lines to figure out what they are really talking about (GMOs in the case of this last one).

Politico Pro’s analysis suggests that several issues remain unresolved:

• The link between agriculture and car parts: we take European car parts and they take our agricultural exports.
• Protection of wine names. The EU does not want us to use European names for our wines; Washington does.
• The EU’s October proposal to cut back on antibiotic use in livestock is not in these documents.
• The sanitary and phytosanitary chapter (the one that deals with food safety) finds little agreement on use of animal growth hormones or GMOs.
• GMOs: The US wants the EU to accept them. The US language says “Each Party shall endeavor to meet applicable timelines for all steps in its approval or authorization processes for products of modern agricultural technology.”

Perhaps in response, the EU has now released its own version of the agriculture chapter, and  the European Commission has released all of its working documents related to the TTIP, including draft proposals on agriculture and other matters.

The European Commission also released a report on the state of the negotiations.  Several points are unsettled.  The EU, for example:

• Indicated it does not support a US proposal on modern agricultural technologies.
• Insisted on the importance of animal welfare provisions in trade agreements and the relevance of the matter for SPS [Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues, such as food safety].
• Stressed the importance of joint efforts to fight AMR [antimicrobial resistance] at all levels in all fora and argued for the inclusion of AMR in the SPS Chapter.

On our part, the U.S. goals for agricultural trade are

• Eliminate tariffs and quotas
• Address SPS measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT).

More than two dozen Senators urged U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to ensure there is “a strong framework” for agriculture in the TTIP, warning that its absence could have a negative impact on Congressional support for any deal.

As long as the negotiations continue in secret, all of this will remain mysterious and out of the reach of the public.  This makes trade negotiations inherently undemocratic, something Greenpeace attempted to reverse in releasing the leaked documents.

Guest Blog

The FDA’s new rules for food labeling are finally here

The changes are a step toward better health and less obesity, especially in children

By Marion Nestle on May 24, 2016

The FDA’s announcement of final rules for its overhaul of labels on food packages is a signature accomplishment of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign to end childhood obesity within a generation.

In 2010, in setting the agenda for Let’s Move!, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity called for improving the clarity, accuracy, and consistency of food package labels to enable parents and children to make healthier food choices.  The Task Force noted that more than half the adult public used food labels to decide what to buy, but that the current labels had hardly changed since the FDA’s regulations of 1993.

The FDA actually began work on revising the food label in 2005 with a request for public input on updating serving sizes, and it began formal rulemaking in 2008.  The FDA proposed rules and issued its last call for comments in 2014.

I attribute this nine-year process to details and politics.

First, the details. The Federal Register notice on the food label takes up 943 pages, and it takes another 170 pages to explain the changes in serving sizes.

FDA’s fact sheet on the changes explains the politics.  Most changes are relatively uncontroversial: the greater emphasis on calories, the removal of calories from fat, the requirement for “dual column” labels for “per serving” and “per package,” the updating of serving sizes to more closely reflect actual intake, and the rewording of the Daily Value footnote.  As Michelle Obama put it, ”you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator, or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you’re buying is actually good for our kids.  So that’s a phenomenal achievement.”

Indeed it is, especially in light of a political climate in which the food industry and Congress do all they can to undermine public health measures in school food and child nutrition programs.

Mrs. Obama alluded to the ongoing political controversy: “most important of all, this label will tell you how much sugar in your snack was added during processing, and how much of it comes from ingredients like fruit.”

The new food label distinguishes between intrinsic sugars in food and those added in manufacturing; it also sets a Daily Value for the maximum amount of sugars recommended for diets of 2,000 calories a day.  I credit the Center for Science in the Public Interest for this accomplishment; it petitioned FDA for these changes in 2013 (its first added sugar petition was in 1999).

The Washington Post got right to the core of the controversy: “Why the sugar industry hates the FDA’s new Nutrition Facts label.” Americans consume roughly twice the amount of sugar recommended for good health, and sugars are rampant in processed foods.  All it takes is one 16-ounce soft drink to reach the 50-gram daily maximum.

The Sugar Association, the trade group for producers of sugar cane and sugar beets invokes science as the reason for its intense opposition: “We are concerned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that is not grounded in science, and could actually deter us from our shared goal of a healthier America.”

The Association argues, correctly, that the sugars that occur naturally in fruits are biochemically identical to those added in manufacturing.  But this argument misses how added sugars dilute the nutritional value of food products.  Much research supports the health benefits of eating fruit, whereas added sugars raise risks for obesity and other chronic conditions.

The Sugar Association does not really care about science.  It cares about what will happen to sales if people read labels and reject products with added sugars.  This, of course, is one of the purposes of Added Sugars on food labels.

The Association has reason to worry.  Since 1999, per capita consumption of sugars has fallen in the United States, although it still exceeds the 10 percent of calories recommended by the World Health Organization last year.  The new label should accelerate that downward trend.

An even greater worry is that labeling added sugars might encourage manufacturers to reduce the amounts in their products.  The FDA’s listing of trans-fatty acids on food labels in 2006 led to an immediate reductionin the use of hydrogenated oils as ingredients in food products.  I expect to see grams of sugars decline by the time these rules take effect in May 2018 (small food producers get until May 2019).

I see the new label as a political win for public health and Let’s Move!  But let’s keep this in perspective.  Healthful diets are based on foods, not food products.  We would all be healthier eating foods that do not come with Nutrition Facts panels, and saving most of those that do for once-in-a-while occasions.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Recent Scientific American Articles by Marion Nestle

• What Science Says about Eating Right
• Eating Made Simple

This is one of Food Navigator-USA’s special editions in which this industry-focused newsletter collects several of its posts on particular topics—in this case, organics.

But first, take a look at the USDA’s summary of trends in organic food sales:

Special Edition: Where next for organics?

According to the Organic Trade Association, organic sales increased from $3.6 billion in 1997 to over $39 billion in 2014. But can the meteoric growth continue? And will organic ultimately replace the more nebulous ‘all-natural’ as consumers increasingly look for claims that are underpinned by consistent standards?

• Annie’s president: Today 4-5% of the US food market is organic, but we could get to 20%: As the debate over the meaning of the most controversial term in food marketing (‘natural’) heats up now the FDA has finally weighed in, more food companies will seek organic certification, predicts Annie’s president John Foraker, who reckons organic will ultimately account for 20% of the US food market (vs around 5% today)… Read
• From croplands to chicken coops, organic manufacturers get their hands dirty to anticipate looming shortage: Companies from Chipotle to Costco are creatively coming up with ways to keep their organic supplies steady, but mid-sized, natural category veterans are concerned about the big fish jumping into a small and shrinking pond… Read
• Nearly three-quarters of families make an effort to buy organic food, OTA survey reveals: Buying organic is a top priority for many American parents, especially when it comes to the food they feed their children, according to new research form the Organic Trade Association. .. Read
• OCA sues Hain Celestial, Honest Co, over organic labels; Hain insists it ‘fully complies’ with USDA standards: Organic infant formula products from high-profile brands Earth’s Best (Hain Celestial) and The Honest Co contain a “spectacular array” of ingredients that are prohibited under the Organic Food Production Act, according to lawsuits filed by The Organic Consumers Association earlier this month… Read
• USDA reports 12% increase in US certified organic operations between 2014 and 2015: New data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reveals a 12% increase in US certified organic operations between 2014 and 2015, while the total retail market for organic products is now valued at more than $39bn in the US and $75bn+ worldwide… Read
• Mom Made Foods: Everyone wants to feed their kids nutritous meals, but not everyone has time to cook them every night: If you visited Expo West, you probably noticed that a large number of the exhibitors were touting snacks or beverages. Frozen meals? Not so much. But while the world probably doesn’t need another nutrition bar or cold pressed juice brand, busy parents would definitely like more options when it comes to what to give their kids for dinner, says Mom Made Foods founder Heather Stouffer… Read
• USDA wants to strengthen animal welfare rules under the organic standard: A proposed regulation that would strengthen and clarify organic animal welfare standards would align consumers’ expectations with production practices and improve their confidence in the organic seal, according to USDA… Read
• Good Food Made Simple to transition to organic: ‘We want to be clear what we stand for, and ‘all-natural’ is not clear’: Good Food Made Simple – one of a new wave of companies on a mission to revitalize the frozen food aisle – is transitioning its burritos and wraps to a ‘made with organic ingredients’ platform and ditching the much maligned term ‘all-natural’ as part of a brand refresh… Read
• Limit certifications on packs to most important to maximize impact: Product packaging today often is cluttered with so many certifications that consumers’ can’t absorb everything in the brief time they look at labels in stores, and as a result the icons’ impact is diminished and manufacturers likely aren’t getting their full value, according to a CPG marketing manager… Read
• EXPO WEST 2016: ‘Unstoppable’ growth in natural, organic and healthy?: From the apparently ‘unstoppable’ growth in the natural and organic products industry to the FDA’s ‘natural’ probe, check out our gallery of highlights from the education sessions at Expo West… Display
• ‘Organic is now mainstream’: Daymon exec talks Gatorade’s organic launch: PepsiCo recently announced the launch of organic Gatorade for 2016, something an executive with Daymon Worldwide said is a forward-thinking move that is quickly becoming the norm… Read
• USDA expands insurance for farmers transitioning to organic production: The financially daunting three-year transition to certified organic production just became a little less risky for farmers thanks the USDA expanding crop insurance to better reflect the product’s actual value… Read
• Organic meat & dairy has more omega-3 but amounts aren’t ‘nutritionally relevant’: Organic meat and dairy products have more healthy omega-3 fatty acids according to a large meta-analysis review – but experts have warned the amounts are too small to actually have an impact on diet… Read
• Heavenly Organics’ shows “profits can create peace” by providing ethical jobs in conflict areas: Under cover of darkness, deep in Northern and Central India and the Himalayans, harvesters for Heavenly Organics gently brush away sleeping bees from wild hives to collect the velvety, organic raw white honey that fills the firm’s award-winning confections and line of pure honey. .. Read

I kept hearing rumors this week that Michelle Obama would announce the revised Nutrition Facts panel at today’s summit meeting of the Partnership for a Healthier America, the public-private partnership organization that supports Let’s Move!

And here is the graphic from the White House press release:

Congratulations on the long-awaited changes:

• Calories big and bold
• Added sugars

• Serving sizes updated
• “Dual column” labels for “per serving” and “per package”
• Daily Value footnote: “The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet.  2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.”
• Nutrients: Vitamin D, Calcium, Iron, and Potassium.  Voluntary: Vitamins A and C.

Expect to see this on food packages in two years (small food producers get an additional year to comply).

Here are the relevant FDA documents:

• Federal Register notice on the food labels (943 pages)
• Federal Register notice on serving sizes (170 pages)
• Slide show
• Commissioner’s statement (“Voice Blog”)
• Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label
• At a Glance Fact Sheet
• Web Q&A

Here are the early comments (I will be adding more as they arrive):

• Helena Evich Bottemiller in Politico Morning Agriculture (I’m quoted).
• CSPI’s congratulatory statement
• Julia Belluz in Vox (I’m quoted)
• Sabrina Tavernise in the New York Times (I’m quoted)
• Roberto Ferdman in the Washington Post (I’m quoted)
• The Sugar Association’s response: “We are concerned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that is not grounded in science, and could actually deter us from our shared goal of a healthier America.”

The new food label is an extraordinary accomplishment, especially in the light of a political climate in which the food industry and its friends in Congress fight public health nutrition measures tooth and nail.

For background, see some of my posts on food labels since 2008:

• Food-Navigator’s review of what’s happening with the label proposals, 2014
• The FDA’s last call for comments on the label proposals, 2014
• The politics of the FDA’s proposed labels, 2014
• CSPI’s petition for Added Sugars, 2013
• The FDA’s first call for comments, 2008

Addition, May 26: Politico reports that 6 food trade groups commissioned a study to demonstrate that the cost of implementing the new food labels would be much higher than estimated by the FDA.  Although the paper does not disclose its funding (or if it does, I missed it), Politico says the funders included the Corn Refiners Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Sugar Association, the American Bakers Association, and the International Dairy Foods Association.  As with most industry-funded studies, they got what they paid for.

Wouldn’t it be useful if stores that accept SNAP benefits stocked some other real—as opposed to packaged—foods in addition to the apples, oranges, and bananas most of them now seem to carry (witness Walgreens)?

Congress thought so when it passed the 2014 farm bill.  This intended

to expand or preserve the availability of staple foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low income populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those areas.

In response, USDA proposed new regulations to improve what SNAP retailers had in stock.

The 2014 Farm Bill required USDA to develop regulations to ensure that stores that accept SNAP offer a broader variety of healthy food choices. The stocking provisions in the proposed rule would require SNAP-authorized retail establishments to offer a larger inventory and variety of healthy food options so that recipients have access to more healthy food choices. SNAP retailers would be required to offer seven varieties of qualifying foods in four staple food groups for sale on a continuous basis, along with perishable foods in at least three of the four staple food groups. The staple foods groups are dairy products; breads and cereals; meats, poultry and fish; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, the proposal calls for retailers to stock at least six units within each variety, leading to a total of at least 168 required food items per store.

Guess what?  Some retailers don’t like this idea.

What to do when you don’t like food regulations?  Go straight to Congress.

Now the House agriculture committee is complaining to USDA about the rule.  It says that USDA’s estimate of the cost per store ($140) is wrong.  Retailers say it will cost them $5000 per month to implement.

Who’s right?  Hence: politics.

The Congressional Black Caucus also wants the USDA to back off on this rule.  It says communities need these retailers (the quality of the foods they sell is not an issue, apparently).  Here is its letter.

Civil Eats has a good summary of the issues.

It troubles me greatly that SNAP divides advocates for the poor and advocates for health.  Don’t all of us want the recipients of federal food assistance to have access to healthful food choices?