Weekend reading: a how-to for sustainable food systems
Darryl Benjamin and Lyndon Virkler. Farm to Table: The Essential Guide to Sustainable Food Systems for Students, Professionals, and Consumers. Chelsea Green, 2016.
Darryl Benjamin and Lyndon Virkler. Farm to Table: The Essential Guide to Sustainable Food Systems for Students, Professionals, and Consumers. Chelsea Green, 2016.
Ninjas for Health posts this graphic from someplace in the emails leaked to DCLeaks (it’s good they are going through them so we don’t have to).
The Ninjas point out that Coke divides the policies into three categories based on likelihood of happening and impact on sales:
The policy with the biggest impact greatest likelihood of materializing? Increased soda taxes.
No wonder soda companies are fighting back against them.
Nancy Huehnergarth pointed out in an email that a ban on advertising to children under the age of 12 shows up in the “Prepare” category, even though soda companies insist that they do not advertise to young children.
It’s interesting to see what Coca-Cola thinks has a high likelihood of happening: Protectionism against sugar imports, mandatory environmental labels, emission reduction targets, and the mysterious “provisions for lobbying.”
The company has a lot to worry about, apparently.
PepsiCo, yesterday, announced that it had launched its sustainability report with an agenda for 2025.
The sustainability promises look good, but reporters called me for comments only on the first goal in its Products agenda:
For the record, the other Product goals are:
The reporters’ questions assumed that Pepsi plans to reduce the sugar in its full-sugar beverages.
Maybe, but that’s not clear from the press release or the report.
Here’s what I want to know:
I ask, because Pepsi’s track record on sugar reduction is not encouraging. In 2009, Pepsi set a goal to reduce the average amount of added sugars in its drinks by 25% by 2020.
The result? An increase in average sugars of 4% so far (Pepsi got into trouble with investors who wanted marketing focused on full-sugar beverages).
Pepsi’s sustainability report says the company is working hard to find ways to reduce sugars and “these efforts could yield significant progress.” Let’s hope they do.
The report also explains how the company plans to reach its lower-sugar goal:
I hope the company does these things, despite its unfortunate record on sugar promises. We need to wait and see whether the company delivers on this one.
But I’m thinking: Surely this announcement must be designed to head off the ongoing soda tax initiatives. Pepsi is pouring millions of dollars into fighting the taxes directly and through its membership in the American Beverage Association.
Pepsi wants to have things both ways: to appear to promote healthier beverages while it is fighting public health measures to reduce soda intake.
Let’s give the company the benefit of the doubt and hope it delivers on its promises—while doing everything we can to get those taxes passed.
Here’s one of the articles that quotes me:
The last time Pepsi tried to position itself as doing something for health, its investors got very upset,” Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies & Public Health at New York University, said in an email. In 2012, investors got mad at PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi for focusing on getting revenue from healthy products, Business Insider reported.
“[PepsiCo] will continue to do everything it can to promote its most profitable products,” Nestle said. “These, alas, tend to be the ones with full sugar.”
I am late getting to the FDA’s July announcement of the release of its work plan for the next ten years, Foods and Veterinary Medicine (FVM) Program’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2016-2025.
The FDA organized the plan under goals for:
The FDA based the plan on basic principles:
Comments can be submitted on the strategic plan at any time. Instructions for how to do so are here.
One possibility is to ask for further details. The plan does not say how the FDA will accomplish the objectives, how much it will cost to achieve them, or whether it has adequate funding for everything it does (hint: it doesn’t).
Some of what it wants to do is puzzling. For example, one Nutrition objective is this:
2.1: Provide and support accurate and useful nutrition information and education so consumers can choose healthier diets consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other evidence-based recommendations.
I assume this refers to Nutrition Facts labels and menu labels, but one of its sub-objectives is:
Strategy 2.1d: Promote collaboration with stakeholders, including industry, consumer, and public health groups, to enhance consumer nutrition education directed towards age and demographic groups with specific needs.
I wish the report said more about this. Surely the FDA is not suggesting that the food industry take responsibility for nutrition education? I hope not.
The documents:
Paul Freedman. Ten Restaurants that Changed America. Liveright/WW Norton, 2016.
I was happy to be asked for a blurb for this fascinating, entertaining, and beautifully produced (color illustrations!) volume. Here’s what I said:
Is it even remotely possible that ten restaurants—from Delmonico’s to Howard Johnson, Sylvia’s, and Chez Panisse—could change the way America eats? Paul Freedman draws on deep historical research, analysis of contemporary sources, and interviews with surviving players to give us an elegantly written, fascinating, and, dare I suggest, gossipy account of the individuals and social trends that made these restaurants famous. Whether or not you’ve ever eaten in any of these restaurants, you will have a wonderful time reading this book and will gain unexpectedly delightful insights into modern American life.
I particularly enjoy Freeman’s writing. Here is an excerpt from his chapter on Le Pavillion (page 336) on what it’s like to get into a high-end restaurant these days:
[I]t is hardly as if American high-end restaurants have become that much more democratic. Although it is customary to begin any account of the modern restaurant boom by conjuring up the bad old days of damask tablecloths, dress code, leather-covered menus and haughty maîtres-d’-hôtel, restaurants today impose distinctions that would never have occurred to Henri Soulé: near-impossible reservations, no reservations, the speakeasy restaurant type with no visible sign, special telephone lines for favored customers, or forcing clients to pay in advance of their meal. The model is no longer the nightclub of the Copacabana or El Morocco type, but the culinary version of a dance club complete with velvet rope and line of suppliants, lacking only a bouncer.
Freedman sprinkles wonderfully gossipy digressions throughout. Here’s one from his chapter on the Four Seasons (page 372):
President John F. Kennedy’s forty-fifth birthday on May 19, 1962, was celebrated there. Guests, who contributed $1,000, had a rather modest meal of baked crab, chicken broth with spring wheat, beef medallions and birthday cake. Kennedy had spent so much time chatting with each table, had time only for cream of asparagus soup and a beer before going off to Madison Square Garden where Marilyn Monroe sang him a rather suggestive version of “Happy Birthday.
That comment ought to take you right to YouTube, where you can the “suggestive version” for yourself.
I’ve been following the story of Hillary Clinton’s Wikileaked e-mails (which John Podesta says the Russians released to sway the election) but never dreamed that I would turn up in them.
But Crossfit’s Russ Greene sent me his blog post yesterday and there I am [the photo comes from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald].
Coke’s Surveillance of Marion Nestle
Strangely, the DC Leaks database does not include any Coca-Cola emails from August 2015, the month that the New York Times first exposed the Global Energy Balance Network. Nonetheless, it does reveal that Coke sent a representative to attend and take notes on Dr. Marion Nestle’s speech at Sydney University in January.
Dr. Nestle, an NYU professor who most recently published “Soda Politics,” spoke on conflicts of interest in health science and government food policy. She mentioned the GEBN as a case study in soda-influenced science.
Nestle moderately concerned Coke. They mentioned the need to “Monitor social media,” but stated that Nestle achieved “very limited pick up from yesterday’s presentation – #sodapolitics.”
Of course the pick up was limited. This was a private, invitation-only meeting with Sydney nutritionists deliberately kept small so as not to compete with my subsequent public lectures (see below for the media list).
Who was the Coca-Cola note taker? I have no idea but the notes seem fine.
Coke’s Surveillance of CSPI
I also turn up in the e-mails related to Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Evidently, Coca-Cola was tracking the social media response to a CSPI report on its marketing to children.
The most shared tweet was this one – https://twitter.com/CSPI/status/732239510138949633, which was mainly because Marion Nestle re-tweeted it.
By now I assume that someone from Coca-Cola is taking notes at every talk I give and reporting in to headquarters.
What does all this have to do with Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
As Russ Greene explains, the emails reveal that Capricia Marshall, who is working on the Clinton campaign, is also working for Coca-Cola’s communications team.
The evidence that Marshall is working on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is extensive and undeniable. HillaryClinton.com features her prominently at Clinton campaign events.
Just to make things easy for Coca-Cola, here’s my Australia media list
March 10 ABC 7:30, TV interview with Sarah Whyte on Coca-Cola’s funding of research: Sweet Talk
March 2 ABC-FM interview with Margaret Throsby, Classic FM, on Soda Politics
March 1 Lecture to Sydney Ideas: Soda Politics: Lessons from the Food Movement, U. Sydney
March 1 ABC News radio and print interview with David Taylor, on Soda Politics
Feb 29 Interview (online) with ABC Sydney on Soda Politics
Feb 27 “At Lunch With” column in the Sydney Morning Herald: “the powerful foodie”
Feb 24 Podcast of lecture on Soda Politics at the University of Melbourne
Feb 22 Lecture at symposium at Deakin University, Melbourne (this is an mp4 file requiring a lengthy download)
Feb 19 Radio interview with Mark Colvin, ABC News (Sydney) on Soda Politics
Feb 19 Podcast interview with Colvinius, ABC News (Sydney) on Soda Politics
The World Health Organization took two actions yesterday to encourage people to cut down on consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.
It issued a report urging national governments to consider taxes: “Taxes on sugary drinks: Why do it?
Governments can take a number of actions to improve availability and access to healthy foods and have a positive influence on the food people choose to consume. A major action for comprehensive programmes aimed at reducing consumption of sugars is taxation of sugary drinks. Just as taxing tobacco helps to reduce tobacco use, taxing sugary drinks can help reduce consumption of sugars.
It defines sugar drinks as products that contain added sugar, corn or fruit-juice concentrates and include carbonates, fruit drinks, sports drinks, energy and vitamin water drinks, sweetened iced tea, and lemonade.
It also took immediate action to remove sugary drinks from its Geneva headquarters
The agency explained this action:
The move signifies how seriously WHO is taking its leadership role in implementing policies to improve public health…By implementing this policy WHO is setting a positive example for Member States, other organizations and visitors…WHO vending machines, restaurants and coffee shops will continue to sell water, fizzy water, and unflavoured milks with different fat contents, teas and coffees, and beverages with non-sugar sweeteners (such as diet and zero calorie drinks). Sugar packets for use with tea and coffee will continue to be served.
These actions are getting plenty of attention.
The Guardian pointed out that:
Battle lines are being drawn in Colombia, where a consumer movement is pressing the case for a sugary drinks tax and the industry is fighting back…Last month, the Asociación Educar Consumidores – the consumer organisation which, like its Mexican equivalent, has backing from Bloomberg Philanthropies in the US – produced an educational video to be broadcast on television, warning that drinking too many sugary drinks can lead to diabetes and other diseases.
But after a complaint from Postobón, the Colombian beverage giant, the government’s regulatory agency charged with consumer protection banned any showing of the video on TV, saying it was inaccurate and could confuse the public.
Michael Bloomberg, now a global ambassador for WHO issued a statement.
A growing number of cities and countries – including Mexico – are showing that taxes on sugary drinks are effective at driving down consumption. The World Health Organization report released today can help these effective policies spread to more places around the world, and that will help save many lives.
The International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) issued a statement:
ICBA is disappointed that this technical committee’s report advocates the discriminatory taxation solely of certain beverages as a ‘solution’ to the very real and complex challenge of obesity. We strongly disagree with the committee’s recommendation to tax beverages, as it is an unproven idea that has not been shown to improve public health based on global experiences to date.
Healthy Food America says the soda industry has spent $30 million to fight soda taxes, just this year.
WHO has just given its blessing to soda taxes. Will countries respond? How much more is the soda industry willing to spend to stop taxes?
Stay tuned.
Other accounts:
The New York Time published its annual food issue on Sunday, this one with the theme, “Can Big Food Change?”
In the circles in which I travel, Michael Pollan’s “Big food strikes back: Why did the Obamas fail to take on corporate agriculture?” caused the biggest stir. Here’s what set people off:
On “Outlobbied and Outgunned:” The word I’ve been using to describe food industry lobbying against Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign is ferocious.
I’ve always thought that Mrs. Obama must have picked the goal of Let’s Move!—“Ending childhood obesity in a generation“—as a safe, bipartisan issue that Republicans and Democrats could all get behind. Doesn’t everyone want kids to be healthy?
I can’t imagine that she could have predicted how controversial matters like healthy school lunches or nutrition standards for food advertising to kids would become.
Whatever. The food industry’s response to everything Let’s Move! tried to do was ferocious.
Despite all that, as I’ve said, Let’s Move! managed to accomplish some important gains: healthier school meals, more informative food and menu labels, the White House garden, and—most important—getting food issues on the national agenda.
On “the food movement barely exists:” I once taught a course on food as a social movement with Troy Duster, a sociologist then at NYU, who had much experience teaching about social movements.
He made one point repeatedly: those who are in the middle of a social movement cannot possibly judge its effectiveness. You can only know when a movement has succeeded or failed when it is over.
This one is not over yet.
This movement, fragmented in issues and groups as it most definitely is, may not have clout in Washington, DC, but it is having an enormous effect on supermarkets, food product manufacturers, fast food chains, the producers of meat, eggs, and poultry, and young people in this country.
How else to explain:
And my personal favorite,
As Troy Duster kept telling us, it’s not over until it’s over.
While waiting for enlightenment, let’s celebrate the proliferation of food organizations. They are all working on important issues and doing plenty of good.
And yes, let’s encourage all of them to move beyond the local, engage in national politics, and put some pressure on Washington to come up with better food policies.
Here are the other articles in the magazine, all of them well worth reading.