Whoever at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is doing the analysis and summaries of the farm bill deserves much praise for performing a major public service.

The Senate version of the bill under discussion right now is 1009 pages long and estimated to cost taxpayers $969 billion over the next ten years, of which nearly 80% goes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps).

The NSAC account deals with the big issues: the lack of conservation requirements attached to taxpayer subsidies for crop insurance, the enormous complexity of the bill, and the lack of an overriding vision of what the farm bill should do. 

In one sense, the Senate bill reflects not so much a new farm policy as a new, confusing, and costly set of options targeted at different segments of commodity agriculture…the emerging bill is a bundle of contradictions with respect to subsidy caps and conservation requirements…. This results from, among other things, the complete lack of clearly identified policy goals.…All of this would be complicated enough by itself, but as the headlines and hearings of the past several weeks amply demonstrate, before this farm bill is finished, it will very likely get more complicated still.

As I have said repeatedly, the farm bill is a vast collection of specific programs aimed at specific constituencies, each with its own lobbyists and congressional supporters.  It is so big and covers so many issues that nobody in Congress can possibly be expected to understand more than a tiny fraction of what is involved.  Hence: lobbyists.

I will leave consideration of the big issues to the NSAC analysts, and just focus on a few very small ones that caught my eye as an example of the absurdity of conducting farm policy through this mechanism.  The current Senate proposal:

Adds popcorn to covered commodities: Only some crops are eligible for federal support.  These include wheat, corn, grain sorghum,barley, oats, long grain rice, medium grain rice,pulse crops, soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts.  Now: “The Secretary shall study the feasibility of including popcorn as a covered commodity by 2014.”

Specifies use of fortified foods in international food aid: “adjust products and formulations,including potential introduction of new fortificants and products, as necessary to cost ffectively meet nutrient needs of target populations, to test prototypes;to adopt new specifications or improve existing specifications for micronutrient fortified food aid products.”

Calls for a report on honey: “Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with affected stakeholders, shall submit to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a report describing how an appropriate Federal standard for the identity of honey would promotes honesty and fair dealing and would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry, and United States agriculture.

Removes Canada geese from within five miles of airports, especially JFK: “by the first subsequent molting period for Canada geese that occurs after the date of enactment of this Act, publish a management plan that provides for the removal, by not later than 1 year after the date of publication, of all Canada geese residing on the applicable land.”

On the brighter side, it also:

Expands farmers’ market promotion to include local food: “domestic farmers’ markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities; and local and regional food enterprises that are not direct producer-to-consumer markets but process, distribute, aggregate, store,and market locally or regionally produced food products.”

NASC’s assessment:

that may be, as the saying goes, the best that can be accomplished under current circumstances.  If so, one would hope that if nothing else, it would spur a major re-evaluation and thorough overhaul between now and the next farm bill to create something that might begin to approximate a goal-driven, fairer, less costly, more rationale, less environmentally damaging, more economic opportunity-creating, and less market distorting approach then where it appears the current process will end up. 

Hey—we all can dream.

My monthly Food Matters column for the San Francisco Chronicle:

Q: I forced myself to watch all four hours of HBO’s “Weight of the Nation.” I get it that obesity is a scary problem and I’m supposed to be eating less. What I don’t get is how I’m supposed to do that when food companies can do what they want and the government lets them.

A: I am with you on this one. I also looked at the website (theweightofthenation.hbo.com) and a report from the Institute of Medicine, “Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation.” These all are components of a public-private partnership campaign to bring the personal and economic costs of obesity to national attention.

As The Chronicle’s David Wiegand put it in his Datebook review (see: sfg.ly/KO2vgI), the show “pulls no punches, spares neither the multibillion-dollar food and advertising industries nor public officials for not only failing to fix the problem but actually making it worse.”

I thought the series focused too much on what you have to do on your own to manage your weight: take small steps, set realistic goals, focus on portion control, monitor your calorie intake.

I wish it had spent as much time on countering the actions of the food industry, called by Kelly Brownell of Yale’s Rudd Center as “powerful, pernicious and predatory.”

I also wish it had been more courageous in demanding that government help check the excesses of food industry marketing to make it easier for Americans to cope with the social, economic and business drivers of obesity that the series documented so well.

I saw that courage in an accompanying video for kids, which won’t be shown nationally until the fall. Watch for it. School kids in a Rethinkers club in New Orleans wanted to improve the lunches in their school. They went into action and figured out how to make the system work for them. They succeeded by learning to “speak truth to power” and “hold feet to the fire.”

Why aren’t adults doing the same? For an explanation, take a look at the institute’s report. Its recommendations do speak some truth to power. Although its No. 1 goal promotes physical activity (a thoroughly uncontroversial recommendation), its No. 2 is to fix the environment to make healthier food options routine and easy, especially by discouraging consumption of soft drinks.

As for holding feet to fire, the report warns that if companies don’t adopt nutrition standards for kids’ marketing within two years, policymakers should consider making them mandatory.

Consider? “Weight of the Nation” showed how the food industry reacted when the Federal Trade Commission tried to propose voluntary standards.

In two years? The institute already gave the food industry two years to act – six years ago. Its 2006 “Food Marketing to Children and Youth” report stated that if the industry didn’t stop advertising junk foods on children’s television programs within two years, Congress should legislate marketing standards.

In 1968, the CBS television documentary “Hunger in America” shocked the nation and galvanized Congress to pass legislation to reduce poverty and malnutrition.

“Weight of the Nation” is equally shocking. It impressively and compellingly defines the problem of obesity, its consequences and its causes, personal and societal.

But I wish the series – and the Institute of Medicine – had been able to rise above the politics and say more about how we as a society could do better to improve school food, limit the relentless marketing of sodas and junk foods, and make it easier for everyone to afford and have access to healthier foods.

Food companies are businesses. In today’s investment economy, they must not only make a profit but must increase the profit every 90 days. Business imperatives mean that they could help make healthier choices easier, but won’t unless forced to. That’s what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on big sodas is trying to do (see: sfg.ly/L45K0t).

At the very least, I’m hoping the HBO program will encourage viewers to press for political action to prevent obesity. If it does, history will judge this documentary to be as important a democratizing influence on our society as was “Hunger in America.”

If the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is placing ads attacking Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the size of soft drinks to 16 ounces (see yesterday’s post), he must have done something right.

CCF, as I have explained previously, is used as an attack dog by the National Restaurant Association and other food and beverage organizations to stave off criticism of their contributions to obesity, poor health, and environmental degradation.

It gets paid to use tactics that food and beverage companies are afraid to do on their own because they might offend customers or stockholders.  Its funders get to hide behind these tactics.

CCF does not disclose its contributors.  Could the American Beverage Association have paid CCF to do this ad?

Coke and Pepsi are prominent members of the Beverage Association.  If so, they are now on record in overt opposition to public health efforts.

I welcome statements from the American Beverage Association and its members to the contrary.

Yesterday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a ban on sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, delis, sports arenas, and movie theaters.

The reactions have been ferocious, and not only from the soda industry, which placed this ad in today’s Times.

The New York Times also weighed in with an editorial arguing that the mayor has now gone too far and should be sticking to educational strategies.

Alas.  If only educational strategies worked.  But they do not.

We know this from what it took to discourage people from smoking cigarettes.  We also know this from research on eating behavior.  This shows that it doesn’t take much to get people to eat too much.

Just barrage us with advertising, put food within arm’s reach, make food available 24/7, make it cheap, and serve it in enormous portions.

Faced with this kind of food environment, education doesn’t stand a chance.

That’s the point the Mayor’s proposal is trying to address, however clumsily.  After all, a 16-ounce soda is two servings.

Sugary drinks—especially large ones—make sense as a target for a portion size intervention.

• They have calories but no nutrients (“liquid candy”).
• The larger the serving size, the more calories they contain.
• They are widely consumed, often to the extent of hundreds and sometimes thousands of calories a day.
• Research links them to obesity (people who habitually consume sugary drinks tend to have worse diets and weigh more than those who don’t).
• People tend to drink the amount that is in the container.

The sugary drink industries have much to answer for their role in obesity promotion.

• They put billions of dollars into advertising, much of it directed to children and minority groups.
• They lobby Congress and federal agencies to prevent laws and regulations that might affect sales.
• They co-opt health organizations to neutralize criticism (hence: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ advice to focus on “education and moderation”)
• They attack public health professionals who advise “don’t drink your calories.”
• They attack the science and make it appear confusing (see the above ad which does not mention studies that show otherwise).
• They price drinks to favor the largest size servings; an 8-ounce soft drink costs much more per ounce than a 2-liter bottle.

If the Beverage Association really wanted to help Americans eat more healthfully, it could change all of those practices.

The Mayor is committed to improving the health of New Yorkers and is trying to figure out ways to do that.

Beverage companies are interested in one thing and one thing only: the financial health of beverage companies.  And they have convinced many Americans that the financial health of beverage companies trumps public health.

Education?  I’m for it if it’s focused on educating the public how beverage companies really operate.

Addition: The New York City Health Department has been collecting endorsements from public officials and health advocates and is posting them online. I’m in good company.

Cheers to the FDA.  It just said a firm no to the Corn Refiners’ petition to be allowed to call High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) “corn sugar.”

The FDA’ s rationale:

• Sugar is solid, dried, and crystallized.  Syrup is liquid.  HFCS is liquid.  Therefore, it is syrup, not sugar.
• Corn sugar already has a regulatory definition: dextrose (glucose).  HFCS contains fructose as well as glucose.  Therefore, it is not corn sugar.

As I mentioned earlier, I filed comments to the FDA on the Corn Refiners’ petition:

The [Corn Refiners’] website quotes comments I have made to the effect that HFCS is biochemically equivalent to sucrose. It is. But I do not believe that biochemical equivalence is a good reason for the FDA to agree to a name change at this point.

It is highly unlikely that public misunderstanding of nutritional biochemistry and the differential physiological effects of glucose vs. fructose will be addressed and corrected by changing the name of HFCS to corn sugar.

…the name change is not in the public interest. Its only purpose is to further the commercial interests of members of the Corn Refiners, and that is not one the FDA should be concerned about.

I was referring here to the legal and public relations wrangling between the Sugar Association, which represents the growers of cane and beet sugar (sucrose), and the Corn Refiners.

I have complained previously about the in-your-face behavior of the Corn Refiners in attempting to protect its share of the sweetener market: its strange advertisements; its use of my quotes (they told me the quotes are in the public domain and if I don’t like it I can sue them); its aggressive lobbying; its stated intention to use the term “corn sugar” whether the FDA approves it or not.

The Sugar Association’s behavior is not much better.  It has taken the Corn Refiners to court over the naming issue.

I was amused to receive two e-mails this week from its public relations firm complaining about the Corn Refiners’ clumsy PR response to a UCLA  study ostensibly showing that HFCS makes rats “fat and stupid.”  This study, however, did not compare the effects of sucrose and HFCS and its results, even if confirmed, could apply to any source of fructose.

The second e-mail sent links to the FDA’s decision and the Sugar Association’s response.

The FDA’s ruling represents a victory for American consumers,” said Dan Callister, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation. “It reaffirms what most consumer advocates, health experts and policy officials have been saying all along: only sugar is sugar. HFCS is not sugar. The next step is for the federal court to end the CRA’s misleading propaganda campaign.

Sugars, plural, are sugars.  Sucrose is glucose and fructose.  So is HFCS.

Everyone would be better off eating a lot less of both.

And that brings me to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest attempt to promote the health of his constituents: banning any sugary drink larger than 16 ounces from restaurants, movie theaters, and street carts.

I can’t wait to see how the Beverage Association deals with this one.

Addition June 1: Rosie Mestel of the L.A. Times has an excellent account of this in which she quotes from these comments.  Her story is accompanied by a PR photo from the Corn Refiners Association.  What are these people thinking?

FoodNavigator-USA.com did a special edition “Where next for natural sweeteners?”  “Special editions are collections of previously published articles on topics of interest to this newsletter’s food industry readers.

Why do this?  The holy grail of food technology is to find a no-calorie sweetener that tastes as good as sugar, has no bitter aftertaste, and can be marketed as “natural” because it’s extracted from plants. Examples: Stevia extracted from leaves Monk fruit sweetener.

As with high fructose corn syrup, not everyone considers these sweeteners to be natural since they have to go through chemical processing steps.

Stevia is extracted from leaves with ethanol.  Whether this process can be considered natural is currently under debate in Europe.  Some European regulators prefer “extracted from a plant source.”

Here are some of the articles.  For the complete collection, click here.

Monk fruit sweetener firm: ‘We hear daily that people are looking for alternatives to stevia’

It might not have garnered as much publicity as stevia, but monk fruit (luo han guo) “has found a niche within the all-natural market but will hit mass market sooner than stevia in this space”, according to one leading supplier… Read

Tate & Lyle: Monk fruit sweetener attracting most interest in dairy and beverages

Dairy and beverages are proving the most popular application areas for monk fruit sweetener Purefruit, says Tate & Lyle… Read

Different processes, lower cost, better taste: Is stevia still on track for mainstream success?Taste issues and high cost repeatedly have been raised as possible obstacles to widespread acceptance of stevia-derived sweeteners, but one of the many new suppliers entering the market claims that these are no longer the hurdles they once were… Read

Steviol glycosides are not ‘all-natural’, says new class action lawsuitA class action lawsuit filed in California this week argues that steviol glycosides should not be considered natural, owing to the “chemical processing” sometimes used to extract them from the stevia leaf… Read

Stevia buyers beware: There are some ‘awful’ extracts out there…

While traders “jumping in and out of the stevia marketplace” are disrupting prices and standards by peddling some “awful” extracts, high-quality stevia suppliers in it for the long-haul will ultimately prosper, according to one leading player… Read

Stevia in snacks and baked goods – stealth, competition, and potential

While stevia is beginning to take off in a number of baked goods and snack categories in the US, Asian and South American markets, some other emerging ‘natural’ sweeteners look ready to take it on in the segment, claims Datamonitor… Read

Naturally-positioned sweeteners to lead market growth: Report

The US alternative sweeteners market will grow by 3.3% a year to reach about $1.4bn in 2015 – and naturally positioned sweeteners like stevia and agave nectar will lead the way, claims a new report from market research organization Freedonia… Read

• DMAA does not naturally come from a food.
• Most of it is produced synthetically
• It might not be safe.

I’m catching up on some reading over the long weekend.  Here are some selections from the latest issue of Childhood Obesity (Click here for the complete Table of Contents).