The Food Foundation in Great Britain has produced a report on the status of the British food industry.
The full report is here.
Here’s what the writers of the report would like the food industry to do:
Like American food companies, British food companies put profits to shareholders as their top priority. Knowing this, the report calls on government to set mandatory standards.
We need to do this too.
Here’s a report worth reading:
For reasons of history—and, alas, racism—laws requiring minimum wages do not apply to restaurant workers, farm workers, and home employment workers, all mostly people of color.
This report focuses on restaurant workers who depend on tips:
Unique among pay inequities, the subminimum wage for tipped workers was an original pay gap created intentionally to deny Black women any wage at all, forcing them to live on tips. This original and intentional pay inequity has been compounded over the last 160 years since Emancipation by ongoing inequities in hiring by employers and tipping and harassment by customers — resulting in an unlivable situation for Black women. The fact that Black women persist in the restaurant industry is a testament to many of these workers’ pride in their work as hospitality professionals who deserve to be remunerated as such.
The report offers three key findings:
It presents data arguing for having minimum wage laws apply to all workers. Seven states have passed such laws; the rest need to.
A big question for discussion is whether plant-based meat alternatives are better for health and the environment than regulat meat. Are they? Here is one study.
Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products.
Christopher J. Bryant. Front Nutr. 2022 Jul 19;9:934438. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.934438. eCollection 2022.
Rationale: There are strong reasons to move away from industrial animal agriculture for the good of the environment, animals, our personal health, and public health. Plant-based animal product alternatives (PB-APAs) represent a highly feasible way to reduce animal product consumption, since they address the core consumer decision drivers of taste, price, and convenience.
Method: This paper reviews 43 studies on the healthiness and environmental sustainability of PB-APAs compared to animal products.
Findings: In terms of environmental sustainability, PB-APAs are more sustainable compared to animal products across a range of outcomes including greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and other outcomes. In terms of healthiness, PB-APAs present a number of benefits, including generally favourable nutritional profiles, aiding weight loss and muscle synthesis, and catering to specific health conditions.
Conclusion: As more conventional meat producers move into plant-based meat products, consumers and policymakers should resist naturalistic heuristics about PB-APAs and instead embrace their benefits for the environment, public health, personal health, and animals.
Conflict of interest: Although there is no specific conflict of interest or funding related to this project, the author is an independent research consultant and works with alternative protein companies.
Comment: You would think that plant-based meat alternatives would be better for the environment than beef but without an agreed-upon method for assessing environmental impact, much depends on researchers’ assumptions. This literature review was done by a consultant who does research for companies making alternative-to-meat proteins. His conclusion based on his study—the takeover of small plant-based meat companies by Big Meat is a Good Thing—is predictable from his conflicted interest. I’d prefer an independent assessment of the environmental implications of these products.
***********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
TODAY: Seattle Town Hall, 7:30 p.m. Information is here.
***********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
TODAY: Petaluma, 140 Kentucky, Copperfield’s Books, 7:00 p.m. Information is here.
**********
Nature Food has an issue devoted largely to the topic of cell-based meat.
It is worth reading for getting an idea of where current thinking is on this issue, and also because of Phil Howard’s latest take on power on industry the cellular food category.
See his commentary article below.
- Cultured meat needs a race to mission not a race to market, Dwayne Holmes, David Humbird, Jan Dutkiewicz, Yadira Tejeda-Saldana, Breanna Duffy et al.Comment
- A virtue-ethical approach to cultured meat, Carlo Alvaro
- Cultivated meat as a tool for fighting antimicrobial resistance, Eileen McNamara & Claire Bomkamp
- Thick and thin food justice approaches in the evaluation of cellular agriculture, Garrett M. Broad & Robert M. Chiles
- Cellular agriculture will reinforce power asymmetries in food systems, Philip H. Howard
- Challenges of assessing the environmental sustainability of cellular agriculture, Hanna L. Tuomisto
- The triple bottom line framework can connect people, planet and profit in cellular agriculture, Marianne Jane Ellis, Alexandra Sexton, Illtud Dunsford & Neil Stephens
- Transforming a 12,000-year-old technology, Bruce Friedrich
Research Highlight: The price is right for artificial meat, Anne Mullen
***********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
TODAY: 3:30 pm, lecture followed by a reception. Robertson Auditorium, Mission Bay Conference Center, 1675Owens Street Unit 251. Register here.
**********
FRAC, the Food Research & Action Center, emailed this press announcement: FRAC and More Than 30 National Organizations Urge Senators to Include Provisions to Expand Community Eligibility in Child Nutrition Reauthorization
The groups signed a letter calling for:
Yes!
Here’s what FRAC says about community eligibility:
Community eligibility allows high-need schools to offer free meals to all students at no charge. It reduces administrative work for school districts; allows them to focus on providing healthy and appealing meals to students; supports working families who don’t qualify for free school meals; ensures that all students have the nutrition they need to learn and thrive; and eliminates unpaid school meal fees…Studies have shown participation in school meals improves students’ attendance, behavior, and academic achievement, and reduces tardiness. Students who eat breakfast at school perform better on standardized tests than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at home, and have improved scores in spelling, reading, and math.
We had universal school meals during the pandemic. This was:
Universal school meals would save administrative costs. Yes, they would cost more, but not that much more.
And the payoff in kids’ health would be terrific.
This one is a no brainer.
Do it, please.
***********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
TODAY: San Francisco, Omnivore Books on Food, 3885 Cesar Chavez at Church. Information is here.
*********
I was happy to see this press release from the USDA: Biden-Harris Administration Invests $80 Million to Improve Nutrition in School.
School districts can use the funds to purchase upgraded equipment that will support:
This adds to what this administration is already doing for school meals. It’s an impressive list.
What’s next? Universal school meals, please.
***********
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
Join Health Affairs for a virtual conversation between me and Angela Odoms-Young of Cornell University discussing the evolution of US food and nutrition policy, the current policy landscape, and thoughts on what lies ahead. It’s at 1:00 p.m. EDT. To join the Webinar, register here.
