Search results: food policy action

The first report is from the UK.   Fat Chance? Exploring the Evidence on Who Becomes Obese is a curious example of what happens when a sugar company (AB Sugar) partners with a health organization (2020 Health) to produce a policy document.

The report examines the role of age, gender, socioeconomic factors, the built environment, mental health and disability, sleep, bullying and child abuse, smoking, ethnicity, and religion as factors in obesity—everything except diet and activity levels.

The press release for the report gives key findings, among them:

• Obesity rates are rising rapidly among the poor as well as other groups who experience social instability.
• Uncertainty seems to be a significant factor for weight gain.
• Fast food outlets near working environments have a significant impact on the BMI of men; the lack of green space has an impact on obesity rates particularly among girls.
• Half of all people suffering with psychosis are obese.
• Parental obesity, especially in mothers, is a far more predictive factor in childhood obesity than is ethnicity.

Its authors write:

What is particularly highlighted in recent research, though rarely explicitly stated, is that obesity rates seem to be deeply influenced by social change (not just influences within static social categories). The studies we have compiled for this review show a subtle trend that has become increasingly evident over the last decade. It is highlighted in economic mobility, rising rates of mental illness, technological habits and engagements, and rapidly shifting urban ground. Argued here, broadly speaking, is that many of these categories strongly hint to a meta-structure that remains profoundly under-researched and largely ignored. This is the structure of uncertainty, a type of habitus that influences the terms of emotional engagement between an individual and their daily life. Insidiously, it undermines health seeking behaviour by making daily decision processes cognitively intolerable and emotionally taxing.

They conclude:

…approaches to obesity that recognise and incorporate complexity might impact a host of rising health problems that affect communities across Britain. The same interventions that encourage healthy BMI may improve energy levels through metabolic process and sleeping habits, while reducing risk of mental health problems, diabetes and a range of other comorbidities not discussed in this report.

But they don’t say what those interventions might be.

Could they possibly have something to do with removing sugary drinks and foods from local environments?

For doing just that, the World Cancer Research Fund International has produced Curbing Global Sugar Consumption: Effective Food Policy Actions to Help Promote Healthy Diets & Tackle Obesity.

Examples of actions which have had these effects include school nutrition standards in Queensland, Australia; a vending machine ban in France; a front-of-package symbol that led to product reformulation in the Netherlands; soda taxes in France and Mexico; a programme targeting retail environments in New York City, USA; a programme promoting increased water consumption in schools in Hungary; school fruit and vegetable programmes in Netherlands and Norway; a healthy marketing campaign in Los Angeles County, USA and a comprehensive nutrition and health programme in France.

The first report asks us to solve problems of poverty, instability, and mental health before taking action to prevent obesity, even when actions are known to be effective.  The second calls for such actions now.

Could AB Sugar’s sponsorship possibly have something to do with this difference?

The Associated Press reported that First Lady Michelle Obama rallied supporters of the USDA’s nutrition standards for school meals in an off-the-record telephone call “with advocacy groups to discuss ongoing efforts around school nutrition and the significant advancements we have made to make it easier for families to raise healthy kids.”

Today the House Committee on Appropriations is doing its markup on the agricultural appropriations bill.  This is likely to overturn nutrition standards established by scientific experts in order to:

• Reverse USDA’s nutrition standards for school meals.
• Reverse the exclusion of white potatoes from the WIC package.

As Politico puts it,

In the case of WIC and white potatoes, the provision follows on strong lobbying by the industry which is hoping to win similar language Thursday when the full Senate Appropriations Committee is slated to consider its own version of the same agriculture bill.

…For the industry, concerned that younger women have moved away from potatoes, gaining access to WIC is an important marketing tool.

Just as strongly, critics worry that the end result will be to open the door to other special interests and wreck a long-standing commitment by Congress to let independent scientists decide what foods are most needed.

As I see it, the food industry couldn’t get its way through the usual rulemaking processes, so it did an end run and got Congress to overturn the work of no less than three committees of the Institute of Medicine.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack explains what’s at stake:

The House bill would undermine the effort to provide kids with more nutritious food and would be a major step backwards for the health of American children, just at the time childhood obesity rates are finally starting to level off. School nutrition standards are developed by independent experts, over 90% of schools report that they are successfully implementing them, and studies show they are working to help kids be healthier. USDA has continued to show flexibility in implementing these new standards, and Congress should focus on partnering with USDA, states, schools, and parents to help our kids have access to more healthy food, not less.

In an e-mail, the Pew Charitable Trusts wrote:

We are disappointed that the House agriculture appropriations bill includes a provision that would weaken national nutrition standards for foods served in schools…it is unfortunate that the House would consider letting schools opt out of efforts to improve the health of children served through these program…Ninety percent of schools already report that they are meeting USDA’s updated nutrition standards for school lunches. Turning back now would be a costly mistake.”

The School Nutrition Association disagrees.  In its version of reality, “since these standards took effect, more than one million fewer students choose school lunch each day, reducing revenue for school meal programs already struggling to manage the increased cost of preparing meals under the new standards.”

To this, Claire Benjamin of Food Policy Action, asks:

Why are Members fighting to roll back school nutrition standards? Our nation is facing a health and obesity crisis, and rather than think about the future of our children the members pushing for these rollbacks are only thinking about future campaign contributions,” said Claire Benjamin, managing director of Food Policy Action (FPA). “Schools have already made real progress implementing the reforms, and it is extremely disappointing that some members of Congress are advocating for business as usual.”

Other responses:

• The National WIC Association says “Don’t let Congress pick WIC foods.”
• United Fresh asks Congress to make no changes to the fruit and vegetable provisions.
• The National Potato Council says “we want in.”

Write your Congressional representatives and ask them to leave nutrition standards to scientists, not food companies with vested interests in selling their products to government food assistance programs.

Additions, May 20:

• American Public Health Association letter to Congress signed by numerous state and national organizations
•  Washington Post story (I’m quoted)
• The Hill story: “GOP Takes on Michelle Obama“
• Alliance for a Healthier Generation statement in support of school nutrition standards
• USDA says it will allow more flexibility in the controversial whole grain requirement
• USDA’s new factsheet

Addition, May 21:

• Mark Bittman’s excellent comments
• Mission Readiness says the military needs healthy kids

Addition, May 24:

• Major General says school nutrition standards are a matter of national security

This ad was in last Sunday’s New York Times.  It appears again today with blurbs added.

Full disclosure: I’m one of the many people interviewed for the film and appear in three 10-second clips.

Fed Up! is a stunningly hard-hitting exposé of the food industry’s role in promoting unhealthy diets and childhood obesity.  It spares nothing in showing the devastating effects of obesity on kids (I found those parts painful to watch).

The film’s main message is that the food industry, in collaboration with government, is responsible for creating a food environment that promotes poor health.

It is especially tough on food company marketing and industry-sponsored research.

It is also—I think, unfortunately—tough on Michelle Obama and her Let’s Move! campaign.

Mrs. Obama is not the problem.  The food industry’s marketing and co-opting practices are the problem.

We can debate whether it was wise or useful for Let’s Move! to partner with the food industry, but the campaign has done much to bring issues of childhood obesity to public attention.

It’s ironic that the accomplishments of Let’s Move!—the White House garden, the Healthy Hunger-Free Act of 2010, the new school food nutrition standards, the new nutrition standards for WIC, and the new food label, for example—are at this very moment under fierce attack by food companies, their trade associations, and their friends in Congress.

With that said, the film is well worth seeing.  Don’t miss it.  Get your friends to see it.  Let the debates begin.

How to see Fed Up!

• Watch the trailer here.
• Find out where it’s playing here.
• Share it on social media here.
• See Katie Couric’s excellent ABC News interview here.
• Read the New York Times review here.

As for the debate, please enjoy:

• The Grocery Manufacturers Association statement about Fed Up! and its Q and A in response to the film
• International Food Information Council review
• The National Confectioners Association statement

Additions

• Jerry Hagstrom on the lack of “policy muscle”
• Nancy Huenegarth’s review in Food Safety News
• The food industry’s stealth campaign against the film
• Michele Simon’s take on the film.
• IFIC’s new point-by-point rebuttal of scientific statements in the film.
• Mark Bittman on the most important movie ever made.
• Food Policy Action — Real Fed Up Facts (in response to GMA)

As I’ve said before, USDA is at long last taking a first step toward declaring Salmonella an adulterant on poultry products.

Here’s the headline: USDA Finalizes Policy to Protect Consumers from Salmonella in Raw Breaded Stuffed Chicken Products:  an adulterant in raw breaded stuffed chicken products when they exceed a specific threshold (1 colony forming unit (CFU) per gram or higher) for Salmonella.

And here’s the Advance Copy of Final Rule: Salmonella in Not-Ready-To-Eat Breaded Stuffed Chicken Products.  

What this rule means: raw breaded stuffed chicken shown to have more than one colony forming unit of Salmonella (basically none) cannot be sold.  Period.

I have long argued:

• Chicken should be free of pathogenic bacteria when we buy it.
• We should not have to run our kitchens like biohazard laboratories.
• Poultry producers should be responsible for eliminating pathogens in their flocks.

Finally, the USDA is taking some action on this.  It promises to start rulemaking on other chicken products.  This can’t come too soon.

As for the chicken industry, alas: NCC [National Chicken Council] Expresses Grave Concerns with New FSIS Salmonella Regulation

NCC is gravely concerned that the precedent set by this abrupt shift in longstanding policy has the potential to shutter processing plants, cost jobs, and take safe food and convenient products off shelves, without moving the needle on public health….“NCC estimates that on an annual basis, over 200 million servings of this product will be lost, 500-1000 people will lose their jobs, and the annual cost to industry is significantly higher than USDA’s estimates. It is likely that this proposal would drive smaller producers of this product out of business entirely.

If you want to know why it’s taken the USDA so long to get this done, and only in one product, the NCC is your answer.

Additional resources

• Salmonella in Not Ready-To-Eat Breaded Stuffed Chicken Products: Final determination and response to comments
• The AP Story on the ruling

I am deluged with emails urging me to say something about the trade dispute between Mexico and the United States over genetically modified (GMO) corn.

Let me confess immediately to a particular difficulty understanding international food trade.  I find the abbreviations (NAFTA, USMCA) and odd terminology (Sanitary, Phytosanitary) off-putting and confusing.

With that confessed, here is my understanding of what this trade dispute is about.

Under the terms of USMCA (the U.S. Mexico Canada Free Trade Agreement), passed in 2020, the three countries must accept each others’ products without tariffs or other unnecessary barriers.

Unnecessary is subject to interpretation.

In February 2023, Mexico published a presidential decree prohibiting the use of GMO corn in Mexico’s dough and tortilla production.  It also announced its intention to phase out the glyphosate herbicide.

These decrees affect imports of corn from the US, which is mostly GMO.

The US says the USMCA does not allow Mexico to ban GMO corn because doing so has no scientific justification.

In response, Mexico issued a 189-page report reviewing and detailing the scientific basis for the ban.

A trade tribunal has been set up to adjudicate this dispute., with the decision expected later this year.

Almost everyone I’ve heard from views Mexico’s analysis as highly convincing.

• Tim Wise of the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy argues that Mexico’s scientific defense is strong.
• Carey Gillem sees Mexico’s report as a firm rebuttal to the US position: Mexico smacks US over GM corn and glyphosate; she also writes: “We are defending your products:’ Emails reveal coordination between US government, industry in foreign trade disputes
• The Center for Food Safety has produced its own analysis of the positions: U.S. Tries to Force Potentially Hazardous GM Corn on Mexico
• The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network supports Mexico’s position.
• Friends of the Earth submitted supporting analysis and documentation.

The biotechnology industry, unsurprisingly, supports the US position:

• Biotechnology Innovation Organization: BIO Reiterates Lack of Basis for Mexico’s Ban on Genetically Modified Corn

This dispute raises serious issues of national food sovereignty—who gets to decide how a country’s food system works.

• Mexico wants to protect the genetic integrity of its native corn landraces.
• Mexico also wants to protect its population against what it sees as hazards of GMO corn and the glyphosate herbicide used with it.
• The US wants to use this trade agreement to force Mexico to accept its GMO corn.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Stay tuned.

I’m just getting around to reading this report from three groups in the UK: Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) and the Alcohol Health Alliance (AHA): Holding us back: tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food and drink.

I learned about it from an article in The Guardian:

The report gives the health statistics: 13% of adults in England smoke, 21% drink above the recommended drinking guidelines, and 64% are overweight or living with obesity,.

NOTE: this report—unlike so many others—examines the political and economic causes of poor health.  It says practically nothing about personal choice or responsibility.  Instead, it focuses on industry profits and the costs of industry profiteering to society.

Big businesses are currently profiting from ill-health caused by smoking, drinking alcohol and eating unhealthy foods, while the public pay the price in poor health, higher taxes and an under-performing economy.

The wage penalty, unemployment and economic inactivity caused by tobacco, alcohol and obesity costs the UK economy an eye-watering £31bn and has led to an estimated 459,000 people out of work.

Meanwhile each year, the industries which sell these products make an estimated £53bn of combined industry revenue from sales at levels harmful to health.

The press release emphasizes the need to curb industry practices: More needs to be done to tackle the unhealthy products driving nearly half a million people out of work.

It recommends, among other things:

• The Government should take a coherent policy approach to tobacco, alcohol and high fat, salt and/or sugar foods, with a focus on primary prevention.
• Public health policymaking must be protected from the vested interest of health-harming industry stakeholders.

To do this, it suggests these actions to decrease sales of harmful products (my summary):

• Restrict advertising
• Set age limits  for purchase.
• Do not allow prominent placement in shops.
• Raise prices; tax.
• Educate the public about risks (the one place where personal responsibility is considered).

COP-28, the UN’s climate change conference is happening in Dubai, right now.

I’m trying to make sense of it.  For starters, the irony:

• A climate-change conference in an oil-rich state
• The head of the conference publicly states “there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels.”
• Lots of people fly there in carbon-emitting private jets

But food—the effects of agriculture on climate change (and vice versa) is on its agenda this year—a major big deal.

That’s why a coalition of farmers, communities, business, and philanthropy has issued a call to transform food systems.

Here’s my collection of food-related items.

I.  Food Tank’s Danielle Nierenberg is on the job: more than 30 Food Tank partnered events are scheduled.

Once again, four pavilions will be devoted to food systems: Food and Agriculture, led by our partners and friends at FAO, CGIAR, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and The Rockefeller Foundation; Food Systems, spearheaded by the European Union-backed program EIT Food and a variety of other groups including the Food and Land Use Coalition; Food4Climate, organized by a variety of partners—including youth voices—pushing for a more humane and sustainable food system; and the Sustainable Agriculture of the Americas Pavilion facilitated by IICA, bringing together the global north and south across the hemisphere.  You can read Food Tank’s coverage of the roadmap, which was announced last year, here.

II.  FoodDive: Food system transformation on the menu at COP28

III.  Reuters: Countries urged to curb factory farming to meet climate goals

IV.  The lunch menu: The summit is featuries roughly two-thirds plant-based menu to highlight the link between greenhouse gas emissions and livestock.  But the meat industry is fighting  back.

V.  DeSmog: Big Meat Unveils Battle Plans for COP28

VI.  The Guardian: Plans to present meat as ‘sustainable nutrition’ at Cop28 revealed: Documents show industry intends to go ‘full force’ in arguing meat is beneficial to the environment at climate summit.

VII.  The Meat Institute

The Meat Institute and the Protein PACT for the People, Animals & Climate of Tomorrow will highlight animal agriculture’s commitments and progress toward global goals in multiple high-level engagements at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai November 30-December 12. The Protein PACT has organized or assisted with inviting expert speakers for six panels across five COP28 pavilions, including:

• December 5 panel in the Food Pavilion, co-organized by IICA and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) on the topic of sustainable and healthy livestock production systems
• December 6 panel in the IICA pavilion, organized by the ​​Canadian Alliance for Net-Zero Agri-food on the topic of achieving net zero in agrifood systems
• December 8 panel in the IICA pavilion, organized by the Protein PACT on the topic of principles, practices, and proof for animal agriculture driving climate and food security solutions
• December 9 panel in the IICA pavilion, co-organized by IICA and ILRI on the topic of innovation and investment in livestock systems for climate change adaptation and  mitigation

VIII.  International Dairy Federation & European Dairy Association side event: How Animal Source Food Nourishes The World In Times of Climate Change.

IX. Vox: There’s less meat at this year’s climate talks. But there’s plenty of bull.  Meat and dairy are driving the climate crisis. Why won’t world leaders at COP28 do anything about it?

X.  Food Navigator: on The Emirates Declaration.  Food is finally at the top table but measurable targets are missing.  Over 130 prime ministers and presidents have today signed the Emirates Declaration at COP28 – a first of its kind commitment to adapt and ‘transform’ food systems as part of action on the climate crisis…. Read more

Comment: The Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action is the firsr statement out of this meeting.  It doesn’t mention fossil fuels (the elephant in this particular room) or meat.  But it does propose:

1. Financial and technical support for sustainable solutions, capacity building, infrastructure, and innovations for farmers, fisherfolk, and other food producers.while conserving, protecting and restoring nature.

2. Promoting food security and nutrition.

3. Supporting workers in agriculture and food systems whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change.

4. Strengthening water management .

5. Conserving, protecting and restoring land and natural ecosystems, enhancing soil health, and biodiversity, and shifting from higher greenhouse
gas-emitting practices to more sustainable production and consumption approaches, including by reducing food loss and waste and promoting sustainable aquatic blue foods.

As for how and when?

To achieve these aims – according to our own national circumstances – we commit to expedite the integration of agriculture and food systems into our climate action and, simultaneously, to mainstream climate action across our policy agendas and actions related to agriculture and food
systems.

In the meantime, consider these:

• New York Times: Airlines Race Toward a Future of Powering Their Jets With Corn: Carriers want to replace jet fuel with ethanol to fight global warming. That would require lots of corn, and lots of water.
• FERN’s Ag Insider: Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture grew 14 percent in 20 years.

What will it take to stop the impending disaster?  This has to be #1 on the advocacy agenda.

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, government agencies are, at long last, taking action on food issues.

Two examples:

I.  The Federal Trade Commission has issued warning letters to trade associations and dietitian-influencers they paid to promote sugar and aspartame on social media.

The letter to AmeriBev detail concerns about posts on Instagram and TikTok by Valerie Agyeman, Nichole Andrews, Leslie Bonci, Keri Gans, Stephanie Grasso, Cara Harbstreet, Andrea Miller, Idrees Mughal, Adam Pecoraro, and Mary Ellen Phipps, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to The Canadian Sugar Institute expresses concerns about Instagram posts by Jenn Messina and Lindsay Pleskot, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to American Beverage (formerly the American Beverage Association) gives the “or else.”

We strongly urge you to review your social media policy. You should also review the Instagram, TikTok, and other social media posts made by your endorsers as to whether they contain sufficiently clear and conspicuous disclosures of any material connections to the American Beverage Association. To help guide your review, please see the Endorsement Guides3 and the staff publication FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a federal district court injunction or an administrative cease and desist order

This action comes as a result of the investigative report in the Washington Post (it is cited in the letter).  I wrote about the Post article here and also posted the the response from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Post investigative team had this to say about the FTC’s warning letters.

Federal regulators announced warnings against two major food and beverage industry groups and a dozen nutrition influencers Wednesday, as part of a broad action to enforce stricter standards for how companies and social media creators disclose paid advertising.

Comment: Let’s hear it for the power of the press!

II.  New York State Attorney General sues PepsiCo for plastic pollution

New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed a historic and groundbreaking lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc. (PepsiCo) for harming the public and the environment with its single-use plastic packaging. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that single-use plastic produced by PepsiCo contributes significantly to high levels of plastic pollution along the Buffalo River, pollution that is contaminating drinking water and harming wildlife.

…PepsiCo, which is headquartered in New York state, manufactures, produces, and packages at least 85 different beverage brands and 25 snack food brands that predominantly come in single-use plastic containers. Plastic packaging has become a persistent and dangerous form of pollution along the shores of the Buffalo River and in its watershed. In 2022, OAG conducted a survey of all types of waste collected at 13 sites along the Buffalo River and its tributaries and found that PepsiCo’s single-use plastic packaging was the most significant. Of the 1,916 pieces of plastic trash collected with an identifiable brand, over 17 percent were produced by PepsiCo. PepsiCo’s plastic packaging far exceeded any other source of this identifiable plastic waste along the river, and it was three times more abundant than the next highest contributor.

According to the New York Times, PepsiCo:

has said it aims to make all of its packaging “recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or reusable” by 2025. The company also says it wants to cut virgin plastic by 50 percent by 2030, compared with 2020.

The company is now being held accountable for that promise.  What a concept!

Comment: While soda-and-bottled-water companies profess commitments to reducing plastic waste, they fight recycling laws (those that require bottle deposits returnable when the bottle is returned) in every way possible.  Attorney General James is doing something quite remarkable; she is holding PepsiCo accountable for some of the externalized costs of producing sodas, bottled water, and snacks.  I hope this sets a strong precedent.  Kudos!