Martha Hodgkins, ed.  Letters to a Young Farmer: On Food, Farming, and Our Future.  Princeton Architectural Press, 2017.

This publication is from the Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture.  Its executive director, Jill Isenbarger, explains what it is:

Letters to a Young Farmer, written by some of the most influential farmers, writers, leaders, and entrepreneurs of our time, offers advice, observations, gratitude, and a measure of harsh reality.  Farming is a difficult endeavor and an arduous undertaking at best, yet farming remains one of the most important, tangible, and meaningful things one can do to improve human and environmental health and community well-being.  And it is vital to our future.

The book contains 36 letters, all inspiring.  One of them is mine (you can read it here).

Yes, says Martin Tobias’s must-read commentary in The Lancet.

The commentary cites a paper in the same issue arguing that low social rank, meaning “powerless to determine your own destiny, deprived of material resources, and limited in the opportunities open to you,” has a profound effect on lifestyle and life chances.  Its authors base these views on a study of 1·7 million adults followed up for mortality (all cause and by cause) for an average of 13 years.

Even with use of a crude categorisation of social rank based on occupation (professional, intermediate, and unskilled), the study was able to quantify the social gradient in mortality: an approximately 20% increase in risk per unit decrease in rank.

Tobias’ commentary recommends evidence-based strategies to minimize the impact of social hierarchy on health:

I’ve been asked to comment on the recent presidential election held by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND—formerly the American Dietetic Association).

I’m not a member of the Academy, but I followed this election with great interest because one of the candidates (who ultimately lost) is a consultant for food companies but did not say so.

A member of the Academy called for transparency and posted the names of the candidate’s clients on Twitter.  For this, she was severely criticized.

The only point at issue here is the need for disclosure.  Whether the lack of disclosure cost the candidate the election is hard to say.

Conflicts of interest caused by financial relationships with food companies are a big issue in the Academy, which has been struggling hard to develop policies that will protect it from conflicts of interest.

Andy Bellatti, of Dietitians for Professional Responsibility, had three questions for the candidates:

• What are your thoughts on possible outreach strategies to bring dietitians who are currently not members of the Academy back into the organization?
• How would you like to see the current conversation on corporate sponsorship continue over the next year?
• What would you like to say to dietitian colleagues who want to see more robust criteria around exhibitor presence and session sponsorship at FNCE?

Unfortunately, neither candidate responded to them.  Their answers would have been instructive.

Much has been written about the politics of this particular election, all of it worth reading.

• Ninjas for Health:  Coke is running for president of the National Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics
• Mic.com:  Leaked emails reveal largest group of dietitians wants to hide ties to Big Soda
• Andy Bellatti:   The Academy’s new president-elect & reflections on this recent election
• Munchies Vice Media: America’s largest group of dietitians almost run by Big Soda

Let’s all give thanks to Philip Brasher who is writing a series of articles on the 2018 farm bill for Agri-Pulse.

If you are curious—and brave enough—to dive into this incredibly important but overwhelmingly detailed and phenomenally politicized piece of legislation (my take on the farm bill is here) , here is the place to start.

He’s done three so far:

• Lesson #1: Every farm bill is unique – the last one was a doozy
• Lesson #2: The Farm Bill ‘Math’ is complicated and ever-changing
• Lesson #3: Regional divides make writing a farm bill more of a gamble

More to come.  Don’t miss them.

In the meantime, just to get you started on the politics, literally hundreds of farm groups signed a letter to Congress urging it not to cut farm programs.

The undersigned organizations, representing America’s agriculture, nutrition, conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy, trade, local government, plant/animal health, agricultural sciences and veterinary medicine, labor, outdoor recreation, equipment manufacturing, cooperatives, hunters, anglers and crop insurance sectors, strongly urge you to reject calls for additional cuts to policies within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry or the House Committee on Agriculture.

During consideration of the 2014 Farm Bill, the Agriculture Committees made the difficult choices necessary to deliver a bipartisan bill. Budget cuts made in that bill should be recognized as Agriculture’s contribution to deficit reduction. We know the committees will once again face challenging budgetary and policy choices in the development of the 2018 Farm Bill. That is why it is so important you ensure the committee process for the farm bill can proceed with some budget flexibility.

I’ll be following this as best I can.  Stay tuned.

The chair of the House Ag Committee , Mike Conaway from Texas, provides his votes on issues summarized in a handy chart.  ‘

According to Politico, his opinion on whether SNAP should omit sugary beverages is unclear, although

He did offer his take on sugar-sweetened drinks: “Sugary drinks have a clear impact on people’s health, but if we eliminated them off the face of the earth, I don’t know that obesity rates would be any different.”

And then there’s The Food Marketing Institute , which posted this appreciative tweet:*

It’s a quiet news day so let’s enjoy one of Food-Navigator’s occasional special editions in which it collects articles on a specific topic, in this case sugar marketing trends in the Asia-Pacific region:

Special Edition: Asia-Pacific’s sugar fads

From breakthroughs in ingredients to lively debate over ways to keep consumers healthy, Asia-Pacific has gained a new confidence in its approach to sugar and sweeteners. We explore this spirited segment in a new FoodNavigator-Asia special edition.

• Groundbreaking natural low-GI sugar revealed, with Nobel link: Until not long ago, Holista CollTech was best known for being the only company to produce ovine collagen using patented extraction methods. Over the last year, though, the Malaysian-Australian biotech company has courted a number of headlines in quick succession, the most recent being that it will file for a patent for natural low-GI sugar that it is developing… Read
• Thailand’s sugar major looks at ways to capitalise on high prices: Thailand’s biggest sugar manufacturer has filed a legal application with financial regulators to raise money for the expansion of its core sugar business, with proceeds to be used to build the company’s first new sugar refining factory. .. Read
• Asia-Pacific sweetener market dynamics: Asia-Pacific stands out both as a region with high sweetener consumption and consistent growth. By 2019, the region is predicted to overtake declining Western Europe. .. Read
• The age of the soda tax: Moves in Asia-Pacific: Debate over sugar taxes hit the limelight last year, with the controversial topic grabbing headlines around the globe.  .. Read
• Ethnicity not found to affect GI beverage response in Asia: The glycaemic response (GR) to beverages does not vary depending on Asian ethnicity, with Chinese, Indian and Malay displaying similar responses, a first of its kind study has established… Read
• Severe obesity rockets in Korea: Younger people at greater risk: Cases of severe and extreme obesity have doubled in Korea over the past 12 years, with people in their 20s and 30s most likely to be piling on the pounds… Read
• Chinese sweetener prices rising at last after spate of plant closures: After a year-long race to the bottom by Chinese manufacturers, acesulfame-K sweetener prices have grown steadily since May, with analysts expecting further increases then stabilisation as suppliers, including segment giant Anhui Jinhe, hold back on production… Read

The Environmental Working Group and Food Policy Action are trying to get a head start on the upcoming Farm Bill.  Their new initiative: Plate of the Union.

This has four objectives:

• Stop taxpayer subsidies going to Big Ag polluters – instead, invest in healthier farms.

• Protect and improve vital anti-hunger programs.

• Increase federal investments in organic agriculture.

• Expand federal programs to revitalize land and reduce food waste.

These are critically important goals.  Everyone who cares about food needs to understand the farm bill and what it does.

But how to achieve them?

I’d like to know the action plan.  Stay tuned.

I’m out of the country for a few weeks (México) and missed the House hearing on whether SNAP-eligible food items should continue to include sugary beverages.

From what I gather, most witnesses opposed any change in the program, with one from the American Enterprise Institute the lone holdout.

As I discussed in the chapter on SNAP in Soda Politics, I continue to think that taking sugar-sweetened beverages out of the package is a no brainer.

• They are sugars and water and have no nutritional value.
• Tons of research links their consumption to a higher risk for obesity and its consequences.
• SNAP recipients spend a lot of taxpayer money on them.
• SNAP recipients may well have worse diets and higher proportions of chronic disease than equally poor people who do not get SNAP benefits.
• Surveys say that SNAP recipients would not mind this change.
• SNAP recipients can always buy sodas with their own cash.

I recognize that not everyone sees things this way.  I suspect that people opposed to this idea are worried that any change to SNAP will leave it vulnerable to cuts, and they could well be right.

Here are their arguments:

• The Hill: Restricting what recipients of SNAP benefits eat won’t fix nutritional issues
• FoodDive: Grocery and food industry to Congress: No SNAP soda ban
• Washington Post: How liberals undermine the food stamp program
• Politico: Few fans for restricting SNAP purchases

Politico provides some sound bites on the topic:

• “Food surveillance violates the basic principles of this great country.” — Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
• “What can we do to incentivize rather than punish?” — Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
• “If you want to do a pilot program, I’m happy to co-sponsor one at the White House. I’m worried about our president’s eating habits.” — Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.)

The state of Maine, however, has just renewed its request to USDA to remove sugar-sweetened beverages and candy from SNAP-eligible items.

Maine believes the purchase of sugar sweetened beverages and candy is detrimental to the health of the SNAP population, and is antithetical to the purpose of the SNAP program.

SNAP is supposed to be a nutrition program, no?  Nutrition is about a lot more than calories (and this from someone who wrote a book about calories).