National Food Policy Conference, April 15-16, Washington DC

The Consumer Federation of America's National Food Policy Conference is an always-fascinating annual tradition. 

For 36 years, the National Food Policy Conference has been a Washington institution and a unique collaboration between consumer advocates, the food industry and government.  The conference is organized by the Consumer Federation of America and is a key national gathering for those interested in agriculture, food and nutrition policy.

This year’s conference will explore an array of important food policy issues facing consumers and the food industry. The conference will explore how immigration reform might impact our food supply and discuss the future of food shopping. Speakers and panelists will examine timely food policy topics including the debate on sugar sweetened beverages, the impact of changing animal welfare standards, an update on implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the opportunities and challenges of sodium reduction, and priority setting in a time of reduced resources.

Register today using the registration tab.  Reduced registration fees are available for college and graduate students. 

Check back here for the latest conference updates and information.Follow us on Twitter and join the conversation at #FPC2013.

A few years ago, I enjoyed participating in a debate about agricultural subsidies at this event, as part of a panel including former U.S. Rep. Charlie Stenholm, the Environmental Working Group's Ken Cook, and Bread for the World's David Beckmann, and hosted by NPR's Dan Charles.

Plenitude

In connection with Juliet Schor's book last year, Plenitude, I appreciated this video, posted four months ago. 

In our neighborhood (east Arlington, MA), my family and I have been exploring similar themes through a free dinner series (which we call "Living Richly" dinners) at our local church (Calvary Church, United Methodist), a community supported agriculture (CSA) pick-up site (from Enterprise Farm), a bike-to-school train to our neighborhood elementary school (organized by the East Arlington Livable Streets coalition), and in other ways.  I'll try to share more about this experimentation in future posts in the coming year.


New Dream Mini-Views: Visualizing a Plenitude Economy from Center for a New American Dream on Vimeo.

How can salt be reduced?

Following the long-awaited new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on salt released this week, here's a quick summary of a debate that I would find awful tiresome.

Institute of Medicine: "FDA should regulate salt."

Critics: "Big brother should not tell me what to eat."

To me, the more interesting questions are: (1) Is it important for Americans to consume much less salt; and (2) if so, how can this reduction be achieved in an economically sensible way?

The IOM report explains clearly why sodium reduction is important for our health and even for the national economy. It is apparently a myth that salt reduction is only important for a small number of people predisposed to hypertension. If you still hold that view, we'll have to postpone arguing about it until another day. The rest of the post assumes the answer to question (1) is "yes, salt reduction is important." The food industry, which is pursuing some voluntary efforts to reduce sodium in the food supply, concedes this point.

The interesting question is how salt reduction can be achieved. In calling for FDA participation in salt reduction efforts, IOM explains the collective action problem that limits the effectiveness of voluntary measures:

Regulatory action is necessary because four decades of public education campaigns about the dangers of excess salt and voluntary sodium cutting efforts by the food industry have generally failed to make a dent in Americans' intakes, the committee said. The industry's voluntary efforts have fallen short because of lack of a level playing field for all products. Companies have feared losing customers who could switch to competing products or brands with higher salt content.

[Update Apr 26, 2010: This sentence has been toned down, because of the next update below.] Moreover, the food industry's imagination on salt reduction could be more ambitious. For example, the input of the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the federal government's revision of the Dietary Guidelines emphasizes the limited options for high-tech salt replacements and claims that consumers would not accept less salty foods:

[F]ood processors have no alternatives with which to replace the sodium, and must simply accept a less salty flavor in lowered sodium products. But the consumer will not accept such products.

[Update Apr 26, 2010: Although the link above is to the GMA site and seems to have today's date, a reader tells me that the letter is actually GMA's comments on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. I regret my error in reading. To be more current, here is the corresponding passage from the GMA comments to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

There is no perfect "salt substitute " currently available. Sodium reduction in foods is often a complex, highly technical, expensive and labor intensive task that must frequently be undertaken "silently" without consumer's knowledge.]

Contrast this assessment of the consumer's tolerance with the fascinating and quite well-written Chapter Three of the IOM report, which marshals the evidence for a more optimistic conclusion:

The food supply contains a vast array of commercially successful products and ingredients – fresh, prepared, and manufactured – whose sodium levels range from very high to moderate to very low. The fact that the same individual for example, might be fully satisfied with two snacks of widely varying sodium levels – one a fresh apple and the other a handful of salted pretzels – reminds us how dependent the sodium taste issue is on wider flavor contexts.... [T]he salt taste challenge might be as much a matter of reconsidering flavor options in recipe selection and menu development ... as needing to overcome technical challenges with salt substitutions.

[Update Apr 26: This sentence has been edited to remove an implication that the food industry didn't know these insights. The good food scientists probably recognize these points.] Here are some marketing insights that I draw from the IOM report (my paraphrase):

• Consumers can become happily acclimated to a lower sodium environment over time, just as it took time for them to become accustomed to the current strangely high-sodium environment.
• We could give consumers greater freedom of choice by reducing salt in processed foods and letting everybody use salt shakers; it turns out that people add only 20% as much sodium when they are free to make their own choices.
• There is a difference between "taste" and "flavor." Salt is a "taste." Real "flavors" can be used to make less salty foods delightful.
• Many foods can have less sodium without tasting less salty, by modifying the size of salt particles and their placement on the surface of a food.

Although consumers might eat less processed foods, and more real whole foods, we might enjoy life just fine with less sodium.

In Seattle: "The Search for Affordable Nutrient Rich Foods"

A new study (.pdf) from King County (Seattle), Washington, looks into some of the leading concerns in national discussions of local food retail access -- (1) whether supermarkets are found in poor neighborhoods, and (2) whether food prices are higher in poor neighborhoods. Nadia Mahmud, Pablo Monsivais, and Adam Drewnowski find supermarkets in neighborhoods of all income levels. For most chains, outlets were found in both poor and rich neighborhoods. Each chain offered approximately the same prices in a store sampled from a poor neighborhood and a matched store sampled from a rich neighborhood. Yet, the chains differed from each other, with some chains having much higher prices in both kinds of neighborhood. The paper names the chains and has nice maps and tables of actual prices.

A question (not just an answer): How much does a nutritious diet cost?

How much does a nutritious diet cost?

Some say that the high price of healthy food is making us obese and unhealthy. Others wonder how that could be so, because (even with recent inflation) food of all sorts has been comparatively cheap in the United States for many years, due to government policy and technological change in the food system.

The leading source of disagreement about the cost of an adequate diet is different definitions of "adequate," not different price estimates. Your estimate of the minimal necessary cost depends on your opinion on questions like the following:

• whether a high level of meat and dairy is necessary for an adequate diet,
• whether your vision of healthy food includes foods marketed as healthy (organic yogurt, low-fat cereal) or simple basic staples (whole grain rice, cabbage, carrots),
• whether diets should be judged by their adherence to USDA's Pyramid recommendations,
• whether diets should be judged by their adherence to the National Academies' nutrient recommendations, and
• whether you think low-income people can cook at home, or whether instead convenience and restaurant foods are central to your definition of adequacy.

More subtly, your estimate of minimal cost depends on your opinion about whether people can change their diets in order to meet cost and nutrition goals, or whether it is inevitable that any realistic diet closely resembles the current average diet.

Reasonable answers about the cost of a nutritious diet, corresponding to different definitions of nutritious, range from even less expensive than the federal government's Thrifty Food Plan to much more expensive.

No wonder this issue generates a lot of argument! Most people on all sides of this issue leave these key assumptions implicit and unstated. Yet, these assumptions strongly influence conclusions about minimal costs.

In a recent article in the Journal of Consumer Affairs (free abstract, pay site for full article), "Using the Thrifty Food Plan to Assess the Cost of a Nutritious Diet," Joseph Llobrera and I use USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) framework to clarify the relationship between assumptions and cost estimates for nutritious diets. Let me know by email if your library does not have the journal. There is a related seminar on the Friedman School website. If you would like to play around with these models yourself, see our Thrifty Food Plan calculator. In both the seminar and the calculator, I should have emphasized more strongly that all of the dollars are in 2001 dollars per adult in the household, not adjusted for inflation (if you didn't know this, the amounts would seem unrealistically low).

For some readers, the whole computation will seem beside the point. They may reason that is clearly wrong to set the TFP cost target too low, but harmless to set it too high, so why not just pick the highest estimate? For a number of reasons, I think better food assistance policy comes from trying to choose the right estimate for a minimal cost target, rather than padding the estimate too much.

In the article, we find that the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan cost level can purchase a nutritious diet if (1) you think nutrient constraints (adequate protein, for example) are more important than food category constraints (plenty of meat), or (2) if you think it is reasonable to expect people to drastically change their current consumption pattern. If, instead, you think substantial meat and dairy amounts are essential to an adequate diet and you defer to the current consumption pattern of low-income consumers, you will probably prefer a more generous TFP cost target.

Update: Slate's Daily Bread food business blog has a thoughtful post about this article (gently needling the online presentation as "a little geeky" -- ha!).

Massachusetts approves calorie labeling measure

Massachusetts joined New York and California passing legislation to provide consumers the calorie information for the food they are purchasing at food establishments.

From the HHS press release:

Food establishments with 20 or more locations in Massachusetts will be required to provide that information at the point of purchase ― either on the menu board or on the restaurant’s menu. The new rules, which will take effect in November 2010, will cover approximately 50 chain restaurant companies, representing more than 5,000 locations in Massachusetts. An 18-month implementation timeline will allow local health departments and the industry the opportunity to familiarize themselves and prepare for the new regulation.

While more research needs to be done, preliminary research shows that providing consumers with calorie information does effect choice. A literature review by Harnack and French, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity in 2008, showed that five out of six studies provided some evidence consistent with the hypothesis that calorie information may influence food choices in a cafeteria or restaurant setting. They claim, however, the results "suggest the effect may be weak or inconsistent."

Again, from the HHS press release:

Health regulations like the one passed today are popular with consumers. A study conducted in February 2009, gauging reaction to New York City’s calorie labeling law, showed that of those who visited restaurants with posted information, 89% considered it a positive change — and 82% report that nutritional information on menus had made an impact of their ordering.

The measure adopted today is part of Mass In Motion, a wide-ranging statewide initiative to promote a range of wellness activities for Massachusetts residents, businesses and communities. Last month, the Public Health Council also passed regulations allowing for Body Mass Index measurements for all school children in Massachusetts.

Additionally, health officials will soon announce grants for communities to establish wellness initiatives at the local level. These efforts, combined with an expanded state-sponsored Workplace Wellness program and an interactive web site (www.mass.gov/MassInMotion), represent the most comprehensive effort to date to deal with the serious problem of overweight and obesity in the Commonwealth.

The new regulation underwent a thorough public review process that included two public hearings and the submission of comments from more than 100 individuals and groups. More information at www.mass.gov/dph.

On a national note, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn have introduced the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL) geared at chains with 20 or more outlets. The restaurants would be required to post calories on menu boards and food displays. In addition, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium would be required on printed menus. The house version of the bill (HR 2426) has 34 cosponsors and is in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The senate bill (S 1048) has three cosponsors and is in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Limiting bonuses for executives in bailed-out institutions

Does this passage from today's Washington Post make sense?

Some bank executives warned yesterday that the government is forcing them toward a disastrous choice between accepting restrictions on compensation that could cripple their ability to compete with rivals, or returning billions in federal aid, which could retard lending and damage the economy.

The executives claim their institutions cannot afford to grant bonuses merely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars or low millions, instead of the tens of millions, during a single recessionary year. They claim the result of such small bonuses would be that critical staff would be hired away by competitors who are still willing to pay bonuses in the tens of millions.

Who, exactly, are these healthy competitors? They are make-believe. Remember, many competitors also received government money. And, even if healthy competitors existed, and were willing to pay tens of millions to steal talent from the bailed-out institutions, is it wise public policy for the government to say, "No, there is a compelling national interest in keeping these financial talents in failing institutions rather than allowing them to move to healthy institutions"?

By any standard except the U.S. standards, I would be considered a dogmatic free market economist. I think it is fabulous to live in a country where everybody respects the power of markets, where labor markets are competitive, and talent is rewarded. It makes total sense to me that financial wizards get paid many times what ordinary working people are paid even in a recessionary year when they are being bailed out by the government. Five times as much. Ten times as much. Fine!

But, I just don't believe the incentive structure is really going to fall apart if the federal government prevents these bailed-out institutions from paying 100 times as much as ordinary people make, while at the same time giving these institutions billions of dollars in bail-out money from taxes on those same ordinary people.

Am I missing something?

This isn't U.S. Food Policy, and it isn't my area of expertise. But, in the current environment, all government policy depends on the success of financial recovery policy. I am sure, if I make some newbie mistake, somebody will correct me in the comments.

What is your food rule?

In the New York Times, Michael Pollan writes:

Will you send me a food rule you try to live by? Something perhaps passed down by your parents or grandparents? Or something you’ve come up with to tell your children – or yourself?

I will post your suggestions on my Web site and plan to include the best in a collection of food rules I’m now compiling. Thanks in advance for your contribution.

Here is my food rule:

Buy foods as if they were priced correctly.

Just for example, if energy were priced correctly, from a long-term environmental perspective, much local food would be comparatively less expensive and much highly processed and packaged nationally marketed food would be more expensive. If petroleum-based nitrogen fertilizer were more expensive, and if hog and poultry producers were responsible for external costs, then there would be fewer factory farms and more farms would raise multiple animal products and crops in a more holistic nutrient management system. If advertising did not favor silly and less-nutritious branded products, basic healthy commodity foods would be trendy.

Rudd report on soft drink taxes

The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has a very timely report on soft drink taxes (.pdf).

An engaging section at the end offers point-by-point contrasts between what "opponents" and "proponents" say about soft drink taxes. Here are some examples and my comments on them.

Opponents say:
Soft drink taxes are regressive. They will disproportionately hurt the poor and minorities who spend a larger proportion of their income on food.

Proponents say:
Soft drink taxes have the potential to be most beneficial to low-income people, who:
-- may currently consume more soft drinks;
-- may be more sensitive to higher prices and therefore stand to benefit most from reducing consumption.

This is especially true if the revenues are used for programs that
will benefit the poor, or for subsidies on healthier foods which can
offset concerns that the tax is regressive.

While everyone must eat, sugared beverages are not a necessary
part of the diet and generally deliver many calories with little or no
nutrition.

To make the proponents' point even more broadly, it is good public policy to expect the tax system as a whole to be progressive, but it would be bad policy to expect every disaggregated sales tax to be progressive.

Opponents say:
The government should stay out of private behavior. It should not try to regulate what people eat or drink.

Proponents say:
The government is already deeply involved in what we eat, from farm subsidies to setting nutritional standards for school meals. Historically, major government interventions have been successful in improving and protecting the public’s health. Examples include smoking restrictions and tobacco taxes, mandated seat belt usage, fluoridated water, and vaccinations.

It is true that government interventions can promote the public interest. However, on this question about personal food and beverage choices, I'd encourage the proponents to listen very carefully to the opponents' concern. The proponents should spend more ink calling for reforms to misdirected government policies (such as subsidies for inputs to corn sweeteners) than calling for taxes to change public behavior. Public policy to address obesity wins more public agreement when the public strongly senses a heartfelt deference to consumers' own preferences.

Here is a rhetorical argument that proponents can pursue in states where sales taxes are lower for groceries than for other goods: "Soft drinks should be taxed fairly, just like all other consumer goods subject to sales tax. Soft drinks should not be taxed using the special lower tax rate for food necessities. This policy reform does not tell consumers what to do. It merely puts soft drinks in the appropriate category of goods subject to sales tax." In such states, proponents should never get caught in a sound bite that makes them seem more eager to direct consumer choices.

Opponents say:
Soft drink taxes can’t be compared to cigarette and alcohol taxes. The use of tobacco and alcohol can have adverse consequences for non-users (for example, second hand smoke, and drunk driving accidents, called “negative externalities”). This is not true for soft drink consumption.

Proponents say:
Obesity also has negative externalities which affect us all. Among them are significant overall health care costs, including higher medical, disability, and insurance premium costs. For example, obesity-related medical expenditures were estimated in 2002 to be $92 billion, half of which were paid for with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid and Medicare.

The proponents, here, have chosen an argument that may be too broad to win public agreement. By the same argument about shared insurance risk pools, one could justify fairly severe government interventions to influence personal choices that affect health. Contrast this argument with the much stronger public appeal of policies to protect children from soft drink sales and marketing in schools.

At the end of the day, I'd support much stronger public policies to address soft drink consumption and obesity, but the proponents' arguments in this report could be strengthened with some pruning.