The report argues that territorial food systems are better able to promote food security than industrial food systems. This is because “corporate controlled global food chains offer a flawed recipe for food security, and are full of risks and vulnerabilities:
the exposure of industrial commodity production to climate shocks;
the diversion of valuable resources into ultraprocessed foods, livestock feed, and fuel;
the standardization of diets around wheat, rice, and maize, and the growing reliance on a handful of crops and commodity exporters for global calorie intake;
the bottlenecks in fragmented and geographically-dispersed global chains;
the vast energy requirements built into high-tech digitalized supply chains – and
the dangers of making global food security contingent on ‘just-in-time’ supply chains that do not work all the time.”
The remedy: “we found that territorial markets are the backbone of food systems in many countries and regions, and make critical contributions to food security, equity, and sustainability, while building resilience on multiple fronts.”
By territorial, they mean regional, local, close-to-home markets, with short supply chains.
This exceptionally well written paper lists obesity prevalence for nearly 200 countries.
From this chart, regional variations are evident.
The prevalence of pediatric obesity in the US is 18.6%, while that in Japan, another high-income country, is 3.9%. Differences in dietary habits may play a role in this disparity. European countries and the US often embrace a diet preference of processed food, which are typically abundant in unhealthy fats, added sugars, and refined carbohydrates. In contrast, diets rich in whole grains and vegetables, which are generally regarded as healthier options, have historically been prioritized in Southeast Asian countries.
The paper describes factors associated with childhood obesity:
age
sex
school type
maternal obesity
having breakfast
number of meals per day
hours of playing on the computer per day
maternal smoking in pregnancy
birthweight
regular exercise
sleep duration
Some are fixed and can’t be changed. But most can. This list suggests a range of policy options, all of them worth consideration.
Obesity prevalence is increasing among children. We need to act now.
There is much fuss these days over the American Heritage Foundation’s extreme right-wing 2025 Mandate for Leadership project, and whether presidential candidate Donald Trump supports it or not and, if so, to what extent (see account in The Guardian).
The Project 2025 plan includes calls for replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists, eliminating the education department, putting the justice department under the president’s thumb and banning the abortion pill…Among the plan’s more drastic proposals are to fire thousands of permanent civil servants and replace them with hired conservative Trump loyalists, dismantling the federal education department, asserting presidential power over the Department of Justice – which is nominally independent – and a ban on the abortion pill.
The 2025 project’s 900 pages aim to pack the government with extreme radical conservatives, make them political appointees, and put them in charge of—and staffing—every government department.
Overall, this blueprint for destroying any inconvenient aspect of government says “trust markets, not government.”
I took a quick look at the agenda for federal agencies dealing with food issues. Here are a few things I noticed.
USDA
Understand that the word “reform” in this context means “dismantle.”
Proactively Defend Agriculture [stop focusing on climate change and renewable energy]
Reform Farm Subsidies; repeal the sugar program [hard to argue with this one]
Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions [SNAP]; Move the USDA food and nutrition programs to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Reform SNAP: reimplement work requirements; reform eligibility; reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan
Reform WIC; reevaluate excessive regulation of infant formula
Reform school meals [translation: reduce participation]; reject universal school meals
Eliminate checkoff programs [again, hard to argue]
Remove obstacles to agricultural biotechnology [e.g., GMOs]
FDA
As far as I can tell, the plan only deals with FDA’s oversight of abortion and other drugs. It says not one word about undermining the FDA’s oversight of foods and food safety [I’m guessing this an oversight].
EPA
Most of the discussion is about getting the EPA to stop fretting about climate change. But take a look at this one:
Revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances”
FTC
The report asks: Should the FTC Enforce Antitrust—or Even Continue to Exist?
On the other hand, it tosses in “The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent.”
Other provisions
Basically, the aim of this document is to give the Republican President a roadmap for replacing one deep state with another that favors conservative business interests and ideology.
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.
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
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.
I just ran across this one. The Prune Study? To prove that prunes prevent osteoporosis? Who could possibly be paying for this?
The study: Koltun, K.J., Strock, N.C.A., Weaver, C. et al. Prunes preserve cortical density and estimated strength of the tibia in a 12-month randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women: The Prune Study. Osteoporos Int35, 863–875 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-024-07031-6
Method: “evaluate the effects of 50 g and 100 g of prunes vs. a Control group on vBMD, bone geometry, and estimated strength of the radius and tibia via peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in postmenopausal women. Women (age 62.1 ± 5.0yrs) were randomized into Control (n = 78), 50 g Prune (n = 79), or 100 g Prune (n = 78) groups.”
Results: “The most notable effects were observed at the 14% diaphyseal tibia in the Pooled (50 g + 100 g) Prune group, in which group × time interactions were observed for cortical vBMD (p = 0.012) and estimated bone strength (SSI; p = 0.024); all of which decreased in the Control vs. no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.”
Conclusion: “Prune consumption for 12 months preserved cortical bone structure and estimated bone strength at the weight-bearing tibia in postmenopausal women.”
Funding: “We thank the California Prune Board (Award Number: 180215) for the funding and prunes.”
Comment: The California Prune Board is working hard on this. I’ve posted at least one previous study on the same theme. I’ve read the Results several times and still am not getting what’s claimed versus ‘no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.'” But even if there is an effect, the question is: compared to what? Do other dried fruits provide similar effects? What about whole fruits? This is a one-food study designed to produce results that can be used in marketing. What’s going on here?
We Work Hand-in-Hand with California’s Prune Growers and Handlers
The California Prune Board (CPB) works to unite California’s diverse prune growers and handlers around activities that benefit the industry today and pave the way for its bright future. As we all know, California Prunes are the best in the world – and CPB serves the industry by helping to drive demand and premium value.
The biotech giant Bayer has lobbied Congress over the past year to advance legislation that could shield the company from billions of dollars in lawsuits, part of a national campaign to defeat claims that its weed killer Roundup causes cancer in people who use it frequently…By erecting new legal barriers to bringing those cases, Bayer seeks to prevent sizable payouts to plaintiffs while sparing itself from a financial crisis.
Apparently, the House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision—drafted by Bayer—to protect the company against further lawsuits claimng that the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other cancers.
Bayer helped craft that measure, then circulated it among lawmakers to rally support before later pushing the House to add it to the farm bill, the people familiar with the effort said.
Bayer also
has sought to reshape federal, state and local laws, hoping to erect a blockade against future lawsuits. Over the past year, the company has helped advance bills in Idaho, Iowa and Missouri, according to state lobbying records, each of which could effectively immunize the company against allegations that its chemicals can cause cancer. Top company executives have promised to push these policies more aggressively — and in a wider array of states — in the coming legislative year.
Comment
In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion. What was it thinking? Lawsuits based on the health effects of glyphsate were already well underway, with the courts sometimes awarding plaintiffs millions of dollars in damages.
Thousands of such lawsuits are in play. Bayer admits to 170,000 in total. Bayer settled a lot of them for billions, but at least a third of these claims are still unresolved.
Bayer says glyphosate is not carcinogenic and the Environmental Protection Agency agrees. But the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, identifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.”
Juries, appalled by evidence that Monsanto had hidden evidence of harm, sometimes rule in favor of plaintiffs.
The height of 5 year olds has been falling since 2013.
Obesity among 10-11 year olds has increased by 30% since 2006.
Type 2 diabetes among under 25s has increased by 22% in the past 5 years.
Babies born today will enjoy a year less good health than babies born a decade ago.
As it says in the introduction,
Crucially, the report not only highlights a deeply worrying increase in conditions driven by calorie dense diets such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, but also highlights the equally concerning and substantially less talked about results of poor-quality diets and undernutrition….All children should be able to eat in way that fuels their bodies and minds, giving them sufficient calories and nutrients to be free from hunger and diseases of nutritional deficiency, while being protected from the bombardment of ultra-processed, highly sugary and salty foods that most often contribute to excess calorie intake but lack vitamins, minerals, fibre, healthy fats and quality protein.
Comment
I’m guessing if a similar study were to be done in the United States, its results would be similar. Children are the future of our nation and society; they deserve good health and protection against junk food.
