Archives

This morning I received an e-mail query from Jan Poppendieck, author of three truly outstanding books that I often use in classes:

• Breadlines Knee Deep in Wheat: Food Assistance in the Great Depression
• Sweet Charity Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement
• Free for All: Fixing School Food in America

Q.  I am collecting opinions on the proposal to ban use of SNAP (food stamp) funds for buying sodas.  What do you think of that idea?

A.  I started out deeply uncomfortable with the idea of the soda ban but I now support it.   The discomfort came from my general discomfort with telling people what I think they should be eating. I never comment on what individuals eat (and I hope you won’t comment on what I eat). My work deals with nutrition for populations, not necessarily individuals. So banning sodas at first seemed to me to be too personal an approach.

But I changed my mind for several reasons:

• The increasingly strong evidence that sugary drinks predispose to obesity
• The disproportionately higher rates of obesity among the poor
• The suggestive evidence that sugars in liquid form are especially predisposing to obesity
• The comparison of the SNAP approach (the benefits can be used for most any food) with that of WIC (the benefits only work for a restricted number of foods)
• The focus of soda companies on marketing to children and youth in low-income areas
• The lack of grocery stores in low-income areas
• The intense marketing of sodas to children and youth in developing countries
• The increasingly successful efforts of soda companies to co-opt health professional groups with partnerships, alliances, and grants
• The astonishing amount of money and effort used by beverage companies and associations to fight soda taxes and, no doubt, this idea as well

Soft drink companies have gotten a free ride for years.  They moved into schools and created an environment that makes it socially acceptable for children to drink sodas all day long.  If sodas are now under scrutiny for their role in obesity, it is because soda companies are reaping what they have sown.

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health (whom I do not know), has been mailing me copies of his recent blog posts on partnerships between food corporations and health organizations, particularly the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) (see my previous posts), and the American Dietetic Association (ADA) (see my previous posts on this one too).

Dr. Siegel’s current post discusses two reasons why these partnerships do more for the food companies than they do for the organizations:

1. Coca-Cola and other Big Food companies are using these partnerships to enhance their corporate image, and therefore, their bottom line: sales of unhealthy products that are contributing towards the nation’s obesity epidemic.

In its 2010 annual report, Coca-Cola writes: “…researchers, health advocates and dietary guidelines are encouraging consumers to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including those sweetened with HFCS or other nutritive sweeteners. Increasing public concern about these issues…may reduce demand for our beverages, which could affect our profitability.”

…Pepsico, in its 2010 annual report, also makes clear the connection between the company’s public image and its bottom line: “Damage to our reputation or loss of consumer confidence in our products for any of these or other reasons could result in decreased demand for our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as require additional resources to rebuild our reputation.”

2. The American Dietetic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Academy of Family Physicians are supporting companies that oppose virtually every state-specific public health policy related to improvement of school nutrition, reduction of junk food and soda consumption, and environmental health and safety.

…Through its contributions to the Grocers Manufacturers Association (GMA), Coca-Cola is opposing any and all taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (soft drinks), opposing the removal of BPA from bottles containing liquids consumed by infants, opposing legislation to simply require the disclosure of product ingredients, opposing taxes on candy, opposing bottle bills, opposing all restrictions on BPA-containing packaging, opposing standards for food processing, and opposing school nutrition standards.

…That the AAP, AAFP, and ADA have fallen for Coca-Cola’s tricks is one possibility. The other, which I find more likely, is that they have been bought off. In other words, that the receipt of large amounts of money has caused them to look the other way. It’s amazing what a little financial support will do. And of course, this is precisely the reason why companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsico include the sponsorship of public health organizations in their marketing plans.

I’m just back from the American Society of Nutrition meetings in Washington, DC, where the daily newsletter put out by the society included full-page advertisements from Coca-Cola, the beef industry, and the Corn Refiners Association (see yesterday’s post).  And then there is the astonishing example of Coca-Cola’s $10 million gift to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to head off a potential city soda tax.

It is completely understandable why food and beverage companies would want to buy silence from health professionals.  It is much less understandable why health organizations would risk their credibility to accept such funding.  Professor Siegel’s analyses of these issues are worth close attention.

It’s fun to watch lobbying in action, especially when it is so overt.  I’ve just been sent a copy of this “Dear Colleague” letter organized by the Corn Refiners’ Association.  The letter comes from two members of Congress.  It asks other members of Congress to write the FDA to change the name of High Fructose Corn Syrup to Corn Sugar.

From the Corn Refiners:

Dear [Member of Congress],

As your Member’s district has a strong interest in corn or corn sweetener, I am sending you this Dear Colleague letter for your consideration. Representatives Tom Latham and Daniel Lipinksi are circulating the letter, pasted below, for your boss’ consideration. The Corn Refiners Association, with support from the National Corn Growers Association has petitioned the FDA to allow use of the name ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative to High Fructose Corn Syrup on ingredient labels. This letter outlines our support for this petition.

From Representatives Tom Latham (Rep–Iowa) and Daniel Lipinski (Dem–Illinois):

Dear [FDA] Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg,

We write to express our support for a petition to use “corn sugar” as an alternate name for high fructose corn syrup on ingredient labels that would help consumers avoid confusion about the foods they buy. We endorse prompt review and approval of petition FDA-2010-P-0491, which was submitted by the Corn Refiners Association.

The petition requests the term “corn sugar” be permitted as an optional name for high fructose corn syrup on ingredient labels to avoid customer misconceptions. Evidence suggests that current terminology encourages misunderstanding in the marketplace regarding the nutritional profile and composition of corn sweeteners, and the alternate name would help dispel some of the confusion. According to a recent nationwide MSR Group survey, around 70 percent of Americans surveyed could not correctly identify high fructose corn syrup when presented with the American Dietetic Association’s definition. The same research found that “corn sugar” is a better alternative because it gives consumers a more accurate understanding of the product’s fructose content, calories and sweetness.

The product used in most foods—including yogurts, baked goods, condiments, and salad dressings—actually has the lowest fructose content of any sweetener on the market. Despite this fact, MSR Group’s research showed that most Americans believe high fructose corn syrup to be higher in fructose than table sugar; misinformation perpetuated by the substance’s name.

High fructose corn syrup is made from corn grown here in the United States by a critical industry that provides Americans thousands of good jobs. Equally important, it enables American consumers greater choice and affordability at the grocery store. Unfortunately, significant misperceptions about this ingredient have circulated in the media, in large part due to its name.

The American Medical Association has indicated that sugar and high fructose corn syrup have similar compositions, while the American Dietetic Association has determined that these two sweeteners are nutritionally equivalent and indistinguishable to the human body. These facts are sometimes lost in the confusion surrounding the ingredient’s name, and we believe that allowing use of the alternate term, “corn sugar,” would allow consumers to make accurate decisions about added sugars in their diets.

We support expeditious review and approval of this petition.

If enough members of Congress write such letters, the FDA is likely to pay attention, no?

This is one of a series of occasional Q and A’s from Eating Liberally’s Kerry Trueman.

Submitted by KAT on Wed, 04/13/2011 – 9:12am.

I am starting to put together a resource list for anyone who would like to advocate for better school food.

I began by asking Margo Wootan, of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) how she answers questions about how to help schools improve their food.  Her advice is to visit your local school (CSPI has a ToolKit for this):

• Meet with principal, teachers, parents, food service directors and staff
• Talk about how to encourage stronger wellness policies for nutrition and physical activity
• Focus on healthier meals and removal of less healthful items from vending machines

It’s also useful to work on national policies to make it easier for schools to serve healthier meals (CSPI has guidelines and resources for this).

I also know about a few groups that are working on school food issues.  Some have published guides to getting started or other useful materials.  These range in scope from local to national, and from hands on to policy.:

• Nourish Life: these materials focus on food and sustainability in schools and communities
• The National Farm to School Network
• One Tray
• School Food FOCUS
• Better School Food in partnership with Slow Food USA
• Center for Ecoliteracy’s project on Rethinking School Food
• Cook for America provides consultation to schools and school districts
• Public Health Advocacy Institute suggests ways to use the legal system to improve school food

Do you know of other resources to help beginners get started on school food advocacy?  Please send.  My plan is to post a revised version as a Q and A.  Thanks!

I’m at a meeting in Washington DC of the American Society of Nutrition. At the exhibits, David Schnackenberg, who runs a website on the history of military nutrition, gave me these dietary guidelines from 1861. They are from a monograph by Dr. John Ordonaux, “Hints on the Preservation of Health in the Armies: for the Use of Volunteer Officers and Soldiers.”

• Soldiers should be fed a mixed diet of animal and vegetable substances.
• A variety of foods are needed to avoid monotony and increase assimilation.
• A healthy diet must conform to the physiological requirements of the season with less animal fats in the summer dietary, and more starch, vegetables, and fruits.
• Fresh fruits are always preferable to dry or preserved ones.
• Farinaceous vegetables are more nourishing than roots or grasses.
• The best soldiers in the world are fed on dark colored bread.
• French army dietaries provide nutritious soups made with meat or vegetables.
• The woody fibre of the vegetable provides bulk as well as nourishment.
• Each company should have at least one educated cook.
• Beans, unless thoroughly cooked, are only fit for horses. When half-cooked, they will provoke indigestion and diarrhea.
• Ardent spirits are not necessary for health and the soldier is better off without them.
• Soldiers must be well fed to bear the fatigues of marching, to encounter unaffected the changes of climate, and to develop a high muscular tone.

As I keep saying, basic nutrition advice has, in fact, not changed much over the years.  The big change in the last 150 years is the invention of junk foods. Dr. Ordonaux did not have snacks and sodas to contend with, nor today’s extensive obesity among army recruits.

When giving talks here and there, I am invariably asked how listeners can get involved in social and political action on food issues.

From the standpoint of personal responsibility, it’s easy: Vote with your fork!  Buy and eat according to your principles to the extent that you can.

But participating in democratic processes is also part of personal responsibility, and here is where things get more complicated.  Over the next week or so, I am going to post suggestions about how to get involved in a variety of food issues, starting with work on the 2012 Farm Bill, the legislation that governs everything having to do with agricultural policy in the United States—subsidies, water rights, organics, food assistance programs, and anything else you can think of.

I only am familiar with a few organizations gearing up to work on this bill:

• Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: Advocates to bring agricultural policy in line with health policy.
• Food and Water Watch:  Advocates to bring agricultural policy in line with health and environmental policy.
• National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: Advocates for small and medium-size farms.
• Organic Trade Association: Advocates for organic producers.
• National Food Security Coalition: Advocates for improved SNAP (food stamp) benefits, access to food in inner cities, and food justice.
• Food Research and Action Center (FRAC): Advocates for improved food assistance programs.

If you know of others, please tell me about them in a comment.

Also: please mention groups advocating for better school food, limits on food marketing to children, and other food policy issues—groups that beginners might want to join.

Thanks!

It’s bad enough that corn is grown for ethanol, but cassava?  Many populations depend on cassava for food.

According to today’s New York Times, cassava is the new “go to” crop to burn for fuel.  Doing this, of course, prices cassava beyond what people can afford:

It can be tricky predicting how new demand from the biofuel sector will affect the supply and price of food. Sometimes, as with corn or cassava, direct competition between purchasers drives up the prices of biofuel ingredients. In other instances, shortages and price inflation occur because farmers who formerly grew crops like vegetables for consumption plant different crops that can be used for fuel.

The Times graph of the increase in use of food for biofuel is sobering:

New York Times, April 7, 2011

The rise in food prices has stopped temporarily, but prices are still an astonishing 37% higher than a year ago, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. 

None of this makes sense to me.  We need a sensible food policy and a sensible energy policy.