I went to Mets v. Cubs at Citifield last night (Cubs 10, Mets 6, 11 innings). While everyone else was engrossed in the game, I was distracted by the vendors.
They wore calorie label buttons!
I managed to get one.
Is anyone evaluating this public health education method?
Whether it does any good or not, I wish I could have gotten the button for peanuts: 960 calories!
If you want to work on improving the meals at your kids’ schools, much help is available. Just in, for example:
From the Center for Ecoliteracy: Rethinking School Lunch: Cooking with California Food in K-12 Schools: a Cookbook and Professional Development Guide. You don’t have to be in California to take advantage of this resource. It’s full of recipes and good ideas, as are other resources from the Center.
From Amy Kalafa: Lunch Wars: How to Start a School Food Revolution and Win the Battle for Our Children’s Health, Tarcher/Penguin 2011. Kalafa is the writer and producer of the film about school food—Two Angry Moms. This is her how-to guide to getting involved in and doing something useful about your kids’ school food programs.
From Sarah A. Robert and Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower: School Food Politics: The Complex Ecology of Hunger and Feeding in Schools Around the World. Peter Lang, 2011. This is a collection of essays (one of them mine) from writers and thinkers about school feeding programs, domestic and international. It ends with a long list of groups working on school food issues.
And on my bookshelf from the last couple of years:
Janet Poppendieck’s Free for All: Fixing School Food in America. University of California Press, 2010. My blurb says “Extraordinarily well thought out, beautifully written, sympathetic, and compelling. Anyone who reads this book will find the present school lunch situation beyond unacceptable. Free for All is a call for action on behalf of America’s school kids, one that we all need to join.” Poppendieck is a strong advocate for universal school meals. Me too.
Institute of Medicine. School Meals: Building Blocks for Health Children. National Academies Press, 2010. This influential committee report says what needs to be done to establish food-based (rather than nutrient-based) standards for school meals.
Kevin Morgan and Roberta Sonnino. The School Food Revolution: Public Food and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Earthscan (UK), 2008. The UK has its own problems with school meals and so do other countries. This book presents international case studies focused on sustainability and social justice.
Susan Levine. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America’s Favorite Welfare Program. Princeton, 2008. If you want to understand the history of how school lunches came to be in America, here’s the source.
Ann Cooper and Lisa M. Holmes. Lunch Lessons: Changing the Way We Feed Our Children. Collins, 2006. Cooper was one of the first chefs to get into schools and get fixing. This is a how-to from one who did it.
Robert W. Surles. Chef Bobo’s Good Food Cookbook. Meridith 2004. I have a soft spot for this one because I’ve been keeping an eye on Chef Bobo’s program at the Calhoun School in Manhattan for years now. He revolutionized school meals at one school and this book explains what he had to do to do that. He’s still there and still cooking!
You would like to do something about school meals but don’t know how? No excuses!
A new report just out from the Children’s Food Campaign of Sustain, a food advocacy group in the UK, says that its government’s Responsibility Deal with the food industry about marketing practices is good for food companies but not so effective for public health.
The report finds that the UK government’s Responsibility Deal is “likely to fail because industry commitments are weak, voluntary, and ignored by numerous big food companies.”
The UK Coalition Government launched its Public Health Responsibility Deal in March 2011. This covered five areas—food, alcohol, physical activity, health in the workplace, and behavior change.
The core of the Deal is voluntary partnership with industry.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley promised industry that the Deal would be “built on social responsibility, not state regulation.” Instead, government would promote personal responsibility for health choices and voluntary agreements with companies.
Predictably, the report lists 33 national food companies that have failed to commit to one or more voluntary pledges on:
It also lists 13 well known companies, including Birds Eye, Budgens, Domino’s Pizza and Nandos that failed to sign up to any health pledges at all.
The campaign concludes: “food pledges are underwhelming.”
So much for voluntary partnerships and alliances. Nobody should be surprised.
I am a long-time reader of Food Chemical News, a weekly newsletter covering a huge range of food issues and invaluable for someone like me who lives outside the Beltway and does not have access to the ins and outs of Washington DC politics.
An item in the August 30 issue caught my attention: USDA secretary Tom Vilsack’s instructions to his department’s new Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21).
Get this: Vilsack told AC21 to come up with a plan for compensating organic or conventional farmers whose crops become contaminated by GM genes through pollen drift.
According to Food Chemical News, Vilsack gave a three-part charge to the panel:
Vilsack urged the committee to address the questions in order and not yield to temptation to address the third question first.
“This is a very specific charge,” Vilsack stressed. He also told the AC21 not to worry if their proposed solutions would require an act of Congress or new regulations. “Don’t worry about the mechanism. We’ll figure out how to make it happen.”
Why is Vilsack doing this?
“What motivates me is an opportunity to revitalize the rural economy,” the agriculture secretary declared. “I have no favorite [type of agriculture] here. I don’t have that luxury. I just want to find consensus. I believe that people who are smart and reasonable can find a solution.”
Responding to a question from panel member, Vilsack said the AC21’s failure to come up with solutions would result in “continuation of what we have today….If we want to revitalize rural America, we can’t do it while we’re fighting each other.”
Deputy USDA secretary Kathleen Merrigan cited the recent droughts and flooding as an “overwhelming time for agriculture.”
I wonder how we are going to prevent the loss of more farmers and encourage young people to take up farming….you have to come up with scenarios where there’s lack of data. You don’t have to figure out the politics. That’s my job and the secretary’s. Just answer the questions [in the charge] and let us carry the water.
Interesting, no?
Could this possibly mean that instead of Monsanto suing organic or conventional farmers whose crops get intermingled with patented GM varieties, Monsanto might now have to pay the farmers for the damage caused by the contamination?
I can’t wait to see what AC21 comes up with.
I just received a message from Samantha Graff, the director of legal research at Public Health Law & Policy, an advocacy group in Oakland, California.
This morning, she writes, 36 legal scholars—including several experts on the First Amendment—weighed in on the food industry’s fight against proposed nutrition standards for foods and beverages marketed directly to children. This is the very issue I wrote about in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle column and have discussed in previous posts.
In a letter sent this morning to federal agencies, the legal scholars point out that because food and beverage companies are free to ignore the nutrition recommendations, the draft principles “do not restrain or compel anyone’s speech. They are not, in fact, government regulations at all.”
A key industry strategy has been to recruit lawyers to write white papers charging that the proposed nutrition standards violate First Amendment rights to free speech.
Recall that Congress asked the FTC to join with the FDA, CDC, and USDA to recommend standards for food products marketed to kids. These agencies, collectively known as the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG), issued Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts. This report outlines proposed voluntary standards that have been open for public comment.
My initial reaction: the standards were much too generous. But that’s not how the food industry sees them. Food companies realized that the standards exclude large proportions of the junk foods they currently market to kids.
They created a new lobbying group, “Sensible Food Policy Coalition” (shades of George Orwell’s 1984). This group is doing everything it can to block the proposed standards. Its website links to white papers opposing the recommendations on First Amendment grounds.
David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, responded to some of these claims in a recent blog post, in which he emphasizes the voluntary nature of the proposals.
I’ve said it before and repeat: I am not a legal scholar but intention seems to matter in legal decisions. The intent of the First Amendment was to protect political and religious speech. I cannot believe that the intent of the First Amendment was to protect the right of food companies to market junk foods to kids.
Marketing to children is unethical. It should be stopped. And it’s the government’s responsibility to do it.
My monthly (first Sunday) Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Q: My kids are heading back to school, and I’m braced for another year of fighting about what they get for lunch. The school says there is a new law that makes things better. Will it?
A: There is indeed a new law. Getting it implemented, however, will take some doing. With much fanfare, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. But unless your children attend one of the 1,250 schools that applied for and won an award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s HealthierUS Schools Challenge, they might graduate before seeing its benefits.
That’s because the law has to be turned into regulations, an interminable process that has barely begun.
Significant changes
But never mind the law’s odd title. It is meant to do good things. It increases school meal eligibility for low-income children. It encourages local farm-to-school networks and school gardens. It expands access to free drinking water in schools (yes, this is necessary in some places).
Most important, the law gives the USDA the right to set food standards for school meals.
Now the USDA can specify numbers and sizes of food servings, rather than nutrient percentages. This should make it easier for schools to serve foods, not food products, and offer more and larger servings of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
The USDA can also apply these standards to all foods sold during school hours – breakfasts and lunches, but also “competitive” foods sold in vending machines, a la carte lunch lines and school stores. California is already doing this, but the new law takes it national.
As always, the devil is in the details. The USDA’s proposed rules for implementing the law take up 78 pages of microscopic type in the Federal Register. Because the USDA worried about the effects of the new rules on meal acceptance, participation rates, practicality and cost, it made some compromises.
Its standard for added salt seems generous, and it did not set one for added sugars. The USDA assumed that if other standards were followed, there would not be much room for sugary foods.
Except for milk. The USDA standards require milk to be low-fat but allow it to be flavored (translation: sugar-sweetened). Otherwise, the USDA says, children might not drink milk and will not get enough calcium.
Chalk this up to dairy lobbying. Schools account for more than 7 percent of total milk sales in the United States, but more than half of all flavored milk.
Lobbyists in motion
The proposed standards have set other lobbies in motion, too. One proposal is to encourage children to try new vegetables by restricting starchy vegetables – white potatoes, corn, green peas and lima beans – to one cup per week.
Makers of french fries and produce lobbying groups went to work, and 40 members of Congress have demanded reconsideration. The beef and poultry industries want the proposals to place more emphasis on high-quality, nutrient-rich proteins that offer all essential amino acids in a serving (neither protein nor amino acids are lacking in American diets).
The USDA’s proposals elicited more than 130,000 letters of comment, and the agency now has to deal with them. Officials say they have not even started on the rules for competitive foods.
The USDA must issue final rules by December 2013 and will undoubtedly give schools even more time to implement them. This gives lobbyists plenty of opportunity to create mischief.
Congress might backtrack. Under pressure to cut spending, the House of Representatives added a rider to its agriculture spending bill urging the USDA to scrap the proposals. The House must think the additional 6 cents per meal authorized by last year’s bill was overly generous.
Much is at stake here. School food matters because schools set an example. Schools that offer poor-quality food because it is cheaper are telling children that what they eat is not important. If a school promotes sales of sodas and snacks, it reinforces the idea that children are supposed to be eating junk foods.
Effects on learning
I have much sympathy for what school food professionals are up against, financially and bureaucratically. Nevertheless, I’ve visited plenty of schools – even in low-income communities – where children are served grown-up food, eat it happily and are eager try new tastes.
Successful school food makes the political personal. The cooks cook. They know the students’ names. They make it clear that they care about what the kids eat. They are invariably backed up by a principal committed to the belief that what kids eat affects their health and learning.
The USDA is trying to make it easier for schools to serve healthier meals. Write your congressional representatives to support the proposed school food standards.
Marion Nestle is the author of “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page G – 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle, September 4, 2011.
In response to readers’ requests, I have been monitoring comments and deleting those in three categories: (a) pornographic, (b) vulgar, and (c) personal rather than focused on the issues under discussion.
To expand on (c): I welcome comments on any aspect of issues related to food politics, regardless of whether I do or do not agree with the positions expressed.
I am deleting comments that focus exclusively on the personal.
For example, I am deleting comments like “she only posts comments that agree with her position.” Comments like this are not only false, but add nothing to the discussion of the issues.
I very much regret having to do this.
Here’s what it’s likely to look like, courtesy of the designer, Lia Tjandra, and University of California Press.
Publication is still a long way off—it’s scheduled for March 2012. I will post occasional progress reports. Stay tuned!
