Search results: in bed with Congress

Wouldn’t it be useful if stores that accept SNAP benefits stocked some other real—as opposed to packaged—foods in addition to the apples, oranges, and bananas most of them now seem to carry (witness Walgreens)?

Congress thought so when it passed the 2014 farm bill.  This intended

to expand or preserve the availability of staple foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low income populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those areas.

In response, USDA proposed new regulations to improve what SNAP retailers had in stock.

The 2014 Farm Bill required USDA to develop regulations to ensure that stores that accept SNAP offer a broader variety of healthy food choices. The stocking provisions in the proposed rule would require SNAP-authorized retail establishments to offer a larger inventory and variety of healthy food options so that recipients have access to more healthy food choices. SNAP retailers would be required to offer seven varieties of qualifying foods in four staple food groups for sale on a continuous basis, along with perishable foods in at least three of the four staple food groups. The staple foods groups are dairy products; breads and cereals; meats, poultry and fish; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, the proposal calls for retailers to stock at least six units within each variety, leading to a total of at least 168 required food items per store.

Guess what?  Some retailers don’t like this idea.

What to do when you don’t like food regulations?  Go straight to Congress.

Now the House agriculture committee is complaining to USDA about the rule.  It says that USDA’s estimate of the cost per store ($140) is wrong.  Retailers say it will cost them $5000 per month to implement.

Who’s right?  Hence: politics.

The Congressional Black Caucus also wants the USDA to back off on this rule.  It says communities need these retailers (the quality of the foods they sell is not an issue, apparently).  Here is its letter.

Civil Eats has a good summary of the issues.

It troubles me greatly that SNAP divides advocates for the poor and advocates for health.  Don’t all of us want the recipients of federal food assistance to have access to healthful food choices?

Congress in its infinite wisdom is now doing Big Ag a big favor.  It wants to exempt checkoff programs from having to deal with pesky Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The House Appropriations Committee just approved its version of the 2017 Agriculture Appropriations bill along with committee report language getting checkoffs off the hook.

Checkoff programs, you will recall are commodity research and promotion programs run by boards and overseen by USDA.   The Milk Board, for example, does the milk mustache campaign.

Checkoffs mainly do generic marketing.  They are not supposed to lobby.  The USDA is supposed to manage the boards—but not with federal money.

So are checkoffs government programs or not?

The checkoffs like to say they are government when convenient, but not government when inconvenient.  This is one of those times.

The report language says because checkoffs are “not agencies of the federal government,” they should not be subject to FOIA laws.

I learned about this latest example of congressional protection of industry from a tweet on May 2 from Associated Press reporter Candice Choi.

Food commodity trade groups, she shows, wrote a letter to Congress to exempt checkoff programs from being subject to FOIA requests.

Congress happily incorporated that language right into the Appropriations Act.

In their article about this latest act of hypocrisy, Candice Choi and Mary Clare Jalonick write:

On April 11, a group of 14 trade associations sent a letter to Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., chairman of the House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee, and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., the subcommittee’s top Democrat, asking them to urge USDA to recognize that the promotional programs are not subject to public records requests.  The rationale was that the programs are funded by producers, according to a copy of a letter obtained by the AP.

Irony alert: A Supreme Court decision in 2005 upheld the checkoffs’ collection of fees from producers as being protected as “government speech.”

Hypocrisy alert: Trade associations wrote the letter, not the checkoff boards.  This is because the boards are not allowed to lobby, but their closely related trade associations can.

Choi and Jalonick also point out that:

The checkoff programs were established by the government at the industry’s urging as a way to collect mandatory fees from producers for promotional efforts. That has resulted in considerable marketing muscle for agricultural products. Last year, the egg board had revenue of more than $22 million; the pork board’s revenue topped $98 million in 2014.

The Fern quotes professor Parke Wilde of Tufts University, a long-standing expert on checkoff programs.  These, he says,

have always been subject to freedom of information laws. It stands to reason: Farmers and the public deserve to know what’s really going on with these well-funded USDA-sponsored programs….

Wilde obtained documents

about the 2006 decision by the Pork Board to pay $60 million to the National Pork Producers Council for the rights to the advertising slogan of pork as “the other white meat.” Wilde wrote in 2013, “It looks to me like the sale price was drastically inflated as a way of funneling money from the semi-public checkoff program to the private-sector trade association.”

Just last year, a FOIA request from The Guardian, revealed that the egg checkoff, working with Unilever, agreed to use its influence to have Hampton Creek’s Just Mayo removed from Whole Foods.

Lobbying or not?  You decide.

The National Farmers Union says it

strongly opposes the blurred lines between the commodity trade associations and the checkoff boards. Our policy states that mandatory producer assessments should not go to organizations that engage in lobbying, and no contracts should be awarded to organizations that carry out political or lobbying activities.

FOIA is a central pillar of transparency in our democracy. It provides for an open government where citizens can request records from federal agencies – with some exemptions for national security, law enforcement and personal privacy…Take a look at the letter NFU sent today, and let your members of Congress know that this language is not in the best interest of family farmers, ranchers or consumers.

Thanks to The Hagstrom Report for this list of references

▪ Capital Press — Commodity groups seek Freedom of Information exemption for checkoff boards

▪ National Public Radio — Under Attack, Commodity Promotion Programs Try To Hide Their Emails

▪ U.S. Food Policy —Checkoff program supporters seek to shield checkoff boards from freedom-of-information scrutiny

▪ The Guardian — Largest U.S. food producers ask Congress to shield lobbying activities

▪ Fortune — Where’s the Beef? You Won’t be Able to Find Out if Agricultural Groups Get Their Way

Last week, I wrote about the dairy industry’s petition to avoid having to follow FDA rules about labeling artificial sweeteners on the front of milk cartons.

Cara Wilking, Senior Staff Attorney at the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University points out that the Sugar Association, the trade association for producers of cane and beet sugar, is right on top of this issue.

To assist consumers in making informed choices about what is sweetening the products they purchase, the Sugar Association petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting changes to labeling regulations on sugar and alternative sweeteners.

In this petition we asked that artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols be identified on the front of the package along with the amounts, similar to what is required in Canada.

If it is important to you to know if the product you purchase contains artificial sweeteners, let your congressional representatives know that FDA needs to take action on this important consumer issue.

The Sugar Association, obviously, represents the producers of cane and beet sugar. It wants to sell more sugar.  It doesn’t like artificial sweeteners much.  [Recall: it doesn’t like me much either—go to Media and scroll down to the bottom to read the Sugar Association’s letter threatening to sue me].

In contrast, the dairy industry wants to sell more milk.  Sweetened milk, no matter with what, sells to kids.  School kids are a big market for the dairy industry.  This market, however, is not doing well these days, according to the dairy industry’s August 2012 School Channel Survey.

Schools and processors are realizing 59% of current potential…Milk potential stands at 6.29 milks per student each week…Actual usage is 3.74 milks per student each week.  Elementary schools: 70% of potential being realized, down 1 point Secondary schools: 50%, down 1 point over last year.

Achieving ‘a milk with every meal’ translates into nearly 300 million incremental gallons….

Of course artificial sweeteners should be prominently labeled.  The Sugar Association has this one right.

Whatever your opinion, you can file comments at www.regulations.gov. Search for docket number FDA-2009-P-0147.

 

It’s hard to believe how thoroughly Congress is in bed with the food industry but here is another example: the House has just inserted language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012  requiring the Federal Trade Commission’s Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to Children to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of the final recommendations in its report.

This, of course, will delay or even kill the IWG’s recommendations for voluntary nutrition standards for marketing foods to kids (see previous posts).

Get this: Section 626 of the Act says:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Federal Trade Commission to complete the draft report entitled “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children: Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts” unless the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children complies with Executive Order 13563.

And what, pray tell, is Executive Order 13563?  Agencies may:

• Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs
•  Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society
• Select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
•  To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives
• Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation

Recall that the industry spent a reported $37 million to oppose the IWG recommendations.  Apparently, it was money well spent.

Let’s hope the Senate has sense enough to delete this section so that the FTC can put its long-delayed and already watered-down standards in place.

Additions, December 18: No such luck.  Consider this passed.  Thanks to Michele Simon for pointing out that Congress cannot legally require a cost/benefit analysis of the IWG guidelines because they are voluntary and, therefore, not regulations.  And thanks to Margo Wootan for explaining how and where to contact Congress.

 

II.  The need for nutrition science leadership in promoting policies to prevent and treat disease

Three-quarters of American adults are overweight or obese and at increased chronic disease risk, yet nobody is screaming much about it (except for the MAHA people).

As the Government Accountability Office put it in 2021,  “federal strategy needed to coordinate diet-related efforts.”

Chronic health conditions (like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity) are costly and deadly—causing over half of U.S. deaths in 2018. They also exacerbated the pandemic: Americans with such conditions were 12 times more likely to die after contracting COVID, according to the CDC.

Yet chronic conditions are largely preventable with a healthy diet and other behaviors like exercise. The federal government leads 200 different efforts, spread across 21 agencies, to improve Americans’ diets. But agency efforts are fragmented and there are gaps in key scientific research, including for children. A strategy for working together could help.

In its recommendations, the GAO says:

Congress should consider identifying and directing a federal entity to lead development and implementation of a federal strategy for diet-related efforts aimed at reducing Americans’ risk of chronic health conditions.

The GAO comments:

The White House sponsored a conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health on September 28, 2022. In advance of that event, the White House released a national strategy aimed at ending hunger in America and increasing healthy eating and physical activity by 2030. [Note: I wrote about these events extensively.  For example, here]

However, we do not believe the White House strategy satisfies our matter because it does not contain the necessary information about outcomes and accountability, resources, and leadership. In particular, without designated leadership, it may be difficult to sustain the strategy over time. Therefore, as of March 2024, the matter remains open.

In October 2024, it still remains open.  I see this as an urgent priority.

Tomorrow: Personalized nutrition

As I keep saying, eating less is bad for business.

If you need proof, just look at how the food industry is scrambling to figure out what to do in response to the effects of GLP-1 drugs in decreasing appetite and food “noise.”

Here are a few examples.

The threat

Weight loss drugs may be melting US ice cream demand: Demand for frozen dairy products in the US has been declining for decades. Consumers’ growing interest in GLP-1 weight loss products is putting further pressure on demand…. Read more

Ozempic’s Effect on Food Innovation: Anti-obesity drugs have dropped on the food business in the last year like ChatGPT has dropped on the world. And according to experts assembled for a recent Mattson webinar on the topic, the effects of new appetite suppressants including Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound have only begun to be felt among American consumers and the food industry that sells to them.

The promise

Nestlé introduces Vital Pursuit brand to support GLP-1 users in the US: Nestlé is introducing Vital Pursuit, a new line of foods intended to be a companion for GLP-1 weight loss medication users and consumers focused on weight management in the US. The products are high in protein, a good source of fiber, contain essential nutrients, and they are portion-aligned to a weight loss medication user’s appetite. The new line is also well-suited to support a balanced diet for anyone on a weight management journey. Vital Pursuit is the first food brand from Nestlé intended for GLP-1 users with the goal of complementing the eating habits of millions of Americans who are currently prescribed a weight loss medication or actively working to manage their weight.

Food Companies Want a Piece of the Ozempic Pie, Too: Last fall, word of a looming existential threat to the packaged food industry began to bubble up in earnings calls and among analysts. Drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro, experts feared, could be a little too effective at curtailing people’s cravings for snacks and sweets, and if too many people got on the drugs, their changing habits could eventually do the industry real harm. Could buyers begin to forsake Doritos and Oreos and Pizza Bagels?

Danone Targets Health, Nutrition as Food Industry Braces for Ozempic Era: The food company is targeting like-for-like sales growth of 3%-5% for the 2025 to 2028 period, with operating income rising at a faster pace than sales. Danone plans to double down on health and nutrition in the coming years as food companies seek to tackle the effects of Ozempic and other blockbuster weight-loss drugs on eating habits.

Supergut’s Marc Washington on ‘Ozempic era’ opportunity: The IPA World Congress + Probiota Americas 2024 in Salt Lake City highlighted many of the innovations happening in the prebiotics space, including how GLP-1s are impacting the category…. Watch now

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which said that the courts were required to uphold regulatory decisions of federal agencies unless Congress said otherwise.  The court majority called the doctrine “fundamentally misguided.”

The decision involves food politics in two ways: (1) the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involved fishing, and (2) it has profound implications for food regulations.

(1) The case, as described in SCOTUSblog: “Can fishermen be required to pay for federal monitors? And by the way – should Chevron be overruled?”

Summary: The National Marine Fisheries Service had been requiring “the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing… the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.”  Commercial fishing companies, which do not like having observers on board, challenged the Chevron doctrine.  Koch Industries paid for the challenge, as part of its long-standing deregulatory agenda.

Significance: businesses objecting to agency regulations can sue the agencies and let judges decide.

The courts (politically appointed judges) can overrule the agencies ‘ public health and safety regulations.

(2) Implications for food, nutrition, and public health regulations

The decision is widely interpreted as putting food and nutrition policies at grave risk, particularly those of the FDA.  Here is a preliminary list of what is at stake.

• FDA: food safety, sodium, front-of-package nutrition labeling, the healthy front-of-package label claim, GRAS determinations, dietary supplements, chemical toxins.
• Many of these proposed regulations were already at risk because of disinterest or lack of understanding by agency officials who seem unwilling to argue forcefully for public health measures.  This lack is seen most clearly in a Wall Street Journal interview with Jim Jones, the FDA’s new Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, who appears uninterested in taking on regulations to reduce production as well as consumption of ultra-processed foods. [this discussion runs from 13:20 to 17:02].
• USDA: meat and poultry safety, Salmonella and E. coli as adulterants, pesticides, herbicides, meat industry consolidation reduction, safe handling instructions, labeling requirements.
• EPA: slaughterhouse pollution, water quality, PFAS
• FTC: dietary supplement health claims

Comment: There are undoubtedly more regulations in play that I haven’t thought of.   Food companies (like businesses in general) do not like being regulated.—too cumbersome, too expensive, too intrusive, too limiting on profits.

Now, a company fviewing any of these rules as inconvenient can take the FDA to court.  Doing so:

• Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges.
• Ties up federal agencies in legal challenges.
• Reduces agency resources for inspections and other regulatory work.
• Casts a chill on developing new regulations development.

This decision has been applauded by the business community.

For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

I’ll bet we won’t have to wait long for the first cases to be filed.

I haven’t said anything about pet food in a while, in part because I’m waiting to see what the FDA is planning to do about it, if anything.  The FDA currently regulates pet food the same way it regulates feed for farm animals.  Pet food labels look like feed labels.  They do not have Nutrition Facts or Pet Food Facts labels, making their contents difficult to understand.  There is a push to improve that situation and I .wish it were stronger.

FDA regulation of pet food

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pet food similar to that for other animal foods. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled. In addition, canned pet foods must be processed in conformance with the low acid canned food regulations to ensure the pet food is free of viable microorganisms.

I don’t see much sign that is changing.  Members of Congress introduced the PURR [Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform] Act to give the FDA authority over the  labeling and ingredient review process for dog and cat foods, currently up to the states.

As explained by Pet Food Industry,

The Pet Food Institute (PFI) noted in a press statement that the proposed bill language solely impacts pet food label reviews and codifies ingredients and marketing claims in the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Official Publication.

AAFCO sets ingredient definitions, label standards and laboratory standards and everybody uses them.

I wish it would propose Pet Food Facts labeling.

The pet food marketing—news

• U.S. pet owners spend over $2B on Valentine’s gifts for pets: February 14 iwas another chance for American pet parents to express their love to their companion animals…Today’s most popular gifts include heart-covered knitwear, scarves, tiaras, plush toys, cozy ‘human dog beds,’ and, of course, healthy treats.

Pet food ingredients—news

• PR Newswire Ÿnsect granted approval to use mealworm proteins in dog food It is the first time that mealworm-based ingredients for pet foods have been approved in the USA. Read More
• Cat owners more accepting of unseen insect-based ingredients: In a survey, the majority of survey respondents were willing to feed cat foods and treats containing insects to their pets, but the form of the insect-based ingredients mattered.Read more
• ‘World’s first’ cultivated pet food seeks regulatory approval: Meatly has created the ‘world’s first’ cans of pet food that uses cultivated chicken as a protein source, ready for rollout to stores across the UK pending regulatory approval…. Read more
  

My book with Malden Nesheim, Feed Your Pet Right, has a lot to say about these issues.  It’s still useful for understanding what they are about.  It’s really not a manual for feeding pets (although we did include recipes).  It’s an analysis of the pet food industry, something I still think worth knowing about.