The latest round in the debate over soda taxes, discussed earlier, is an editorial this week in the New England Journal of Medicine by Yale professor Kelly Brownell and New York City health commissioner Thomas Frieden.
The ironic opening quotation:
Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessariesof life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption,and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Will Saletan nicely summarizes Brownell and Friedan's argument in a Slate commentary that oozes disdain but makes no counter-arguments. The reader can supply them, I guess.
Brownell and Friedan point out that prices have risen faster for fruits and vegetables than for soft drinks. Here is my version of this finding, from a talk last Fall:
Relative prices have risen for fruits and vegetables, in the long term, according to the CPI.
Perhaps Brownell and Friedan's idea is not to increase the relative price of soft drinks, but merely to give fruits and vegetables and other good stuff the same level of playing field that they had formerly.
A telephone survey of 1000 people offered respondents several scenarios, describing hypothetical people with symptoms of hunger to varying degrees.
The median perception of the least severe condition appropriately described as hunger is that people “. . . sometimes could not afford to eat enough. They did not feel weak or dizzy, but they did have stomach pains. However, there was not a narrow consensus on the appropriate use of the term hunger....”
Following correspondence from my favorite Food Sleuth & Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, the Disney food story began unfolding. Melinda works on media literacy issues, so I knew she was the perfect person to go to to get the 'dig.'
From a PR Associate at Disney:
Disney Eggs were introduced in March 2009 in 2 test markets initially (Florida and New York), and will launch in Colorado in April. Disney Food, a division of Disney Consumer Products, wanted to offer a "better for you" egg that was fun for families with children. Having the quality endorsement of Eggland's Best, with their all natural, all-vegetarian patented hen feed seemed like a great fit. The eggs are high quality-stamped with Disney characters and the collections of characters will rotate every month, to refresh the product.
The Disney Eggs product line consists of Large, Extra Large, 18-pack Large, Disney Cage Free and Disney Organic eggs. All the different versions are currently being offered and were presented to retailers in the 2 markets where the product was launched (Florida and New York). The retailers decide which and how many options they want to offer to their customer base, and currently retailers are only selling the #1 variety, which is Large, and no additional varieties at this time.
Eggland's Best patented hen feed contains healthy grains, canola oil, and an all-natural supplement of rice bran, alfalfa, sea kelp and Vitamin E. The Eggland’s Best hen feed contains no animal fat, no animal by-products, and no recycled or processed food. Eggland’s Best never uses hormones, steroids, or antibiotics of any kind. Eggland’s Best eggs contain ten times more Vitamin E than ordinary eggs, 100 mg of Omega 3, shown to be beneficial to cardiac health, 25% less Saturated Fat, and 200 mcg of Lutein, shown to contribute to eye health.
Kids will love the eggs because of the Disney characters, but parents will appreciate their nutritional value as well so it appeals to the entire family. In 2006, The Walt Disney Company introduced nutritious food guidelines limiting the use of the Disney name and its characters to only those kid-focused products that meet specific limits on calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar. Today, Disney’s extensive food portfolio offers nutritious options in key meal categories including fresh produce, bread, pasta, dairy and baked goods.
In response to the Eggs: I am unsure as to the point of feeding chickens vegetarian feed. Chickens are omnivores and eat insects, worms and vegetation. I guess if we are feeding cows corn we can feed chickens vegetarian feed. I'm just not sure of the marketing tactic. Who cares whether a chicken was a vegetarian or not, beside the ability of the industry to yield to specific product, as is the case with Eggland's Best. My next point is the marketing of "farm fresh." I hope consumers realize by now that this means nothing, much like "natural." However, "Naturally Raised," is a value adding marketing claim regulated by the Agriculture Marketing Service that
"applies to livestock used for meat and meat products that were raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics, and animal (mammalian, avian, and aquatic) by-products derived from the slaughter/harvest processes including meat and fat, animal waste materials (e.g., manure and litter), or aquatic byproducts (e.g., fishmeal and fish oil)."
One of the producers of Egglands Best eggs is Morning Fresh Farms which, by looks of their operations, is by no means a small family farm (although family owned). These types of tactics further the agrarian myth that people's food is coming from an idealistic farm with a red barn and roaming cattle. The egg industry is one that is very much industrialized no matter what certifications, claims and programs they put on the carton. Egglands Best does offer Organic and Cage Free Eggs, but I can't even find a picture of a chicken on their website. It reminds me of when I asked a student where hamburgers come from and he replied: "the grocery store." Do we want kids thinking eggs come from Mickey Mouse?
In response to Disney Food: Disney Consumer Products uses their classic Disney characters to market a full line of processed foods, including frozen and dried pastas, baked goods, snacks, novelties, dairy, confectionery, beverages and breakfast foods.
Disney Food, Health & Beauty takes an active role in the development and marketing of a diverse array of quality, innovative products that touch consumers' lives each day. Through new food licensing programs, product reformulations and relationships with leading manufacturers and retailers around the world, the Disney food group offers nutritious alternatives parents approve of and kids love.
Some of my favorites are Mickey Pizza's, Disney Campbell's Spaghetti O's, Disney's General Mills Cereals, and Disney Tummy Ticklers & Bellywashers (100% juice drinks).
While at first glance, it may seem that Disney is promoting healthier foods then the typical commercially processed and advertised foods, I side with Marion Nestle on the point that kids don't need special 'kid-friendly' foods to eat. Should we be inundating kids with more advertising? Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood would say no. I would argue that this contributes to more disconnect between people and food culture.
America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF) in 2007 could not provide documentation requested by EPA's inspector general (.pdf), who was curious about a subcontract with the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) to conduct clean water inspections on hog farms.
I would call that a case of the fox guarding the henhouse, except that the barnyard metaphors would become too cumbersome.
This two-year-old controversy was in the news last month, because it complicated one of the Obama administration's appointments to the EPA. According to a brief from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI):
Former top EPA lawyer Jon Cannon withdrew from consideration as the agency's deputy administrator because of an investigation into the nonprofit America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF), where he once served on the board of directors. An EPA inspector general's report (.pdf) claimed the now defunct ACWF mismanaged more than $25 million in federal grants by allowing a subsidiary of the National Pork Producer's Council to conduct clean-water assessments on hog farms.
Because of my earlier inability to acquire documentation about the federal pork checkoff program's $60 million dollar arrangement to purchase the "Other White Meat" brand from the NPPC, I was interested to read how this newer story also turned on a question about appraising the worth of the NPPC's contract. From the EPA Inspector General's report:
The Foundation did not comply with EPA regulations when procuring contracts and obtaining prior approval for contract costs. The Foundation claimed outlays of $21,107,498 ($12,308,145 under grant X82835301 and $8,799,353 under grant X783142301) for contracts awarded to conduct on-farm assessments. The first contract was originally awarded in fiscal year 1999 to the National Pork Producer's Council (Council). Subsequent contracts were awarded to Environmental Management Solutions, LLC, a 100 percent owned subsidiary of the Council. Environmental Management Solutions, LLC later changed its name to Validus Services, LLC (collectively referred to as Validus). The contract was extended several times through fiscal year 2005.
All of these contracts were awarded without competition and without a cost or price analysis. In correspondence with the Director, EPA’s Grants Administration Division on July 27, 2005 and September 21, 2005, the Foundation’s Executive Director said that it did not perform a cost or price analysis because there were no sources of comparable data for it to use. Title 40 CFR 30.45 states that some form of cost or price analysis is required in connection with every procurement action. Price analysis may be accomplished in various ways, such as comparison of price quotations submitted, market prices and similar indicia.
These contracts with industry trade associations should be competitively awarded and documented. I think the operations of the major animal agriculture checkoff programs and their associated trade associations play an under-appreciated role in U.S. food policy.
Nutrition and physical activity were featured in the recommendations, with at least as much emphasis as medical care.
Among the Commission’s key recommendations are:
• Give kids a healthy start. Ensure that all children, especially very young children in low-income families, have high-quality education and child care. This means increasing federal government spending to support early childhood development for young children in low-income families. This recommendation is critical, because evidence is now very strong that early childhood has a tremendous impact on a person’s health across a lifetime.
• Ban junk food from schools. Feed children only nutritious foods in schools. Federal funds should be used exclusively for healthful meals.
• Get kids moving. All schools (K-12) should include at least 30 minutes every day for all children to be physically active. Although children should be active at least one hour each day, only one third of high school students currently meet this goal.
• Help all families follow healthy diets. More than one in every 10 American households lack reliable access to enough nutritious food. Federal supplemental nutrition programs should be fully funded and designed to meet the needs of hungry families with nutritious food.
• Eliminate so-called nutrition deserts. Create public-private partnerships to open grocery stores in communities without access to healthful foods. Many inner-city and rural families lack this access; for example, Detroit, a city of 139 square miles, has just five full-service grocery stores.
“For too long we have focused on medical care as the solution to our health problems, when the evidence tells us the opposite,” said RWJF President and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A. “We must make it possible for more people to make healthy decisions and avoid getting sick in the first place. The Commission has provided us with a principled, sensible and experience-driven blueprint. We cannot afford to wait to implement these recommendations.”
The Commission sought to sidestep traditional political controversies in health policy by addressing both the personal and the political aspects of health care.
“Everyone must be involved in the effort to improve health because health is everyone’s business,” said Co-chair Alice M. Rivlin, former head of the White House Office of Management and Budget and the first director of the Congressional Budget Office. “People should make healthy choices by eating better, getting enough physical activity and not smoking. Communities and employers should support those choices by creating healthy environments. And the federal government should make and enforce healthy policies, like ensuring that all subsidized food is healthy and junk food is eliminated from schools.”
As part of the Commission's information gathering, I participated in a panel last Fall that provided information about food and nutrition assistance programs. Sheila Burke, one of the Commissioners, summarized:
This Commission has been charged with finding solutions outside the traditional health care system to improve the health of all Americans. Nutrition policy is an important place to start.
In the current economic climate, there is no question that demand is growing for the food benefits and nutrition education offered by programs like SNAP, NSLP and WIC. As part of the Commission’s fact finding, I had the honor of convening some of this country’s top experts on nutrition policy to address how we can use and further develop these powerful levers to improve the health of Americans quickly, directly and sustainably.
The group acknowledged that FNS program policies, such as the composition of school lunches, should be set based on sound nutrition research. The good news is that there is a growing consensus about what these nutrition standards should be. The challenge – for advocates and policymakers at all levels – is addressing the funding constraints that impede these programs from achieving the highest nutritional standards. It is clear in many cases that these programs are underfunded at a time when demand is increasing.
What struck me most was that everyone around the table – academics, advocates, federal program administrators and others – shared a commitment to finding the best way to manage these programs and get individuals the support they need in these challenging times. This shared vision is key. Achieving better health through better nutrition is not just a Federal responsibility—it requires the commitment of school districts, grocery stores, communities, and state and local governments.
I am clearing out my email in-box. I'll spare you the news about academic management controversies and share just the more fun stuff.
Boston University is hosting a conference May 8-9 entitled The Future of Food: Transatlantic Perspectives. My wife and I are going to try to get a babysitter so we can see the lecture and dinner by eco chef and food justice advocate Bryant Terry.
This coming weekend, the Lowell, MA, free film festival has a food and fair trade theme.
Along with a group of other researchers, I enjoyed meeting Michael Pollan and hearing a lecture by him on his recent visit to Tufts. A magazine article and a video are available. A colleague and I moderated our school's weekly seminar the next day, using a debate format for questions from the audience, followed by a sequence of iClicker polls of the gathered community of nutrition experts and graduate students. The debate questions concerned some of Pollan's more provocative points from his talk. Like: "Nutrition science today is about where surgery was in 1650." It was lively.
Friedman School graduate student Emily Morgan's report about fruit and vegetable consumption and waste in Australia is a featured link on VicHealth, the website for the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Morgan studied the issue while in Australia on a Fulbright.
It is the season for signing up for Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares. Some that have fallen into our orbit at one time or another in the inner Boston suburbs include Waltham Fields, PEAS, and Enterprise. If you live in east Arlington, MA, feel free to contact me by email about a pickup site some neighbors are organizing.
Okay, mission accomplished. Time to get the merit badge from BoingBoing.
Paarlberg praised the environmental potential of new "precision farming" technologies in conventional agriculture. He recommended targeted commercial pesticide applications and GMOs over organic agriculture. He argued that the alternative good food movement's emphasis on older food and farming traditions cause the movement to overlook the new industrial technologies that could really make a bigger difference for the environment.
One of his punchiest claims was that organic and local agriculture hinders the adoption of new pro-environmental technologies by preventing farmers from reaching adequate scale. Yet, when pressed, he agreed that most high-technology agriculture in the United States is conducted by farms with a scale of several hundred thousand dollars to a couple million dollars in sales. This is larger than your neighborhood CSA but not really very big from the perspective of most U.S. industries. Certainly, even within a particular small regional foodshed such as New England, there is room in the market for many competitive producers on this scale. Similarly, the federal government's organic labeling standard allows farmers of all scales to be organic.
Reflecting on Paarlberg's presentation, I could not see how local and organic agriculture really threatened most of the environmental farming technologies that Paarlberg finds most promising (GMOs, prohibited in the organic rule, are an exception that requires more discussion than time permits). Paarlberg's argument raises the question of whether organic and local food advocates can accept mid-sized family farms along with small farms as part of their sector. From advocates I have spoken with, I think the answer is "no problem."
For example, see Bob Comis at Ethicurean yesterday, discussing the need for moderately larger scale in progressive meat and poultry production, to make good meat more competitive with factory farm meat. Or, consider Kathleen Merrigan's eloquent response to tough questions from Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) at her Senate confirmation hearing today, explaining how she can advocate for sustainable agriculture and what Saxby called "production agriculture" at the same time (I'll add a link to a transcript later when it becomes available).
Mid-scale local production preserves most, though not all, of the advantages of small-scale local production. And mid-scale production lowers costs and helps the local food movement overcome skepticism about its relevance to consumers of all income levels.
Saxby sees organic agriculture and production agriculture as enemies. Instead, why can't local and organic agriculture can be production agriculture?
