Jocelyn C. Zuckerman.  Planet Palm: How Palm Oil Ended Up in Everything—and Endangered the World.  The New Press, 2021.  

Here’s my blurb for this book:

I’ve always thought of palm oil as just another best-to-avoid food ingredient for its high level of saturated fat, but can never look at it the same way again after reading Planet Fat.  I now understand that oil palms represent the darkest underside of late-stage capitalism, responsible as they are for land grabs, forest devastation, peat burning, greenhouse gases, loss of biodiversity and orangutan habitat, junk food, chronic illness, and food insecurity, all accompanied by unthinkable levels of corruption, criminality, and violence: accidents, thievery, arson, and murders.  This is an ugly story, compellingly told.  It needs to be read. 

And here are a few short excerpts.

The first:

In 2019, the World Health Organization compared the tactics used by the palm oil industry to tose employed by the tobacco and alcohol lobbies, no slouches when it comes to playing dirty…Across the globe, those who’ve dared to speak out against the industry, whether laborers, peasant farmers environmental activists, or investigative journalists, often ave been met with violence [p. 17]

With reference to a “technically safeguarded” national park in Indonesia:

The past decade and a half have seen roughly five thousand acres of its park converted to oil-palm plantations.  Today, only 4.5 million acres of the ecosystem remain forested.  Here as elsewhere in Indonesia, palm oil companies have secured permits through backroom deals with local officials or have simply pad others to clear the land illegally [p. 116]

One reason for concern:

While it’s true that many of the world’s people could use more calories…the global glut of palm oil is in fact diminishing food security, in a fairly drastic way.  It’s common to blame sugar for the world’s weight problems, but in the last half-century, refined vegetable oils have added far more calories to the global diet than has any other food group.  Between 1961 and 2009, for example, the availability of palm oil worldwide went up a staggering 206 percent [p. 162]

I’ve been collecting items on the effects of Brexit on food issues in the UK.  These are even more complicated because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Just Food tracks this issue on an ongoing basis.

Here are some of the items collected by Just Food, along with some others I’ve picked up.

• UK food exports to EU improve after post-Brexit slump:  New data have revealed what happened to UK food exports to the European Union in February following a post-Brexit slowdown in January.
• UK meat, seafood exports to EU “picking up” – government:  There are indications UK exports of meat, seafood and dairy to the EU are recovering, the country’s government has suggested.
• UK meat processors warn of ongoing post-Brexit trade problems:  The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), which represents businesses in the UK meat sector, has reported on its members’ experiences under post-Brexit trading rules.
• UK food, drink exports to EU slump post-Brexit:  The body representing UK food and drink manufacturers has highlighted the risk to small businesses amid a post-Brexit slump in exports to EU.
• Delays at the UK/EU border “getting worse”:  A new survey has asked supply chain managers to provide an update on problems at UK/European Union border posts.
• COVID-19: one year on – what now for food supply chain?  It has now been just over a year since the industry had to contend with the seismic impact of COVID-19, which brought a tremendous strain upon supply chains, retailers and producers… Read
• Brexit could cost UK meat exporters 50% of trade, says BMPA:  UK meat exporters could permanently lose half their trade due to Brexit, according to the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA)… Read
• British food faces ‘outright export bans’ in wake of EU exit:  British food businesses face ‘outright export bans’ and ‘structural’ barriers to trade with Europe thanks to bureaucracy linked with Brexit, according to the House of Lords EU Environment sub-committee… Read

NutraIngredients.com had an intriguing (to me, at least) article about the latest complaints about FDA’s lack of action on GRAS ingredients—those Generally Recognized As Safe.

A recent paper claims FDA is in the dark as to how many new ingredients have come onto the market via the GRAS process. Only limited progress has been made in the decade since a Congressional report first raised the issue and directed the Agency to make changes, the authors found.”

The article referred to a this paper, Ten years post-GAO assessment, FDA remains uninformed of potentially harmful GRAS substances in foods.

The starting point for this paper is a study done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ten years ago: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)

The new paper argues that ten years later, the FDA has done little to address the GAO’s concerns.

Since 2010, FDA has addressed only a few of the criticisms regarding its process for establishing a food substance as GRAS. …most critically, FDA has chosen to remain uninformed about food substances self-determined as GRAS by manufacturers…FDA cannot fulfill its statutory obligation for ensuring the chemical safety of the U.S. food supply if it does not know which substances, in which quantities, have been added to foods.

This took me right back to a blog post I did in 2016: The FDA’s unfortunate ruling on GRAS regulations.

Conclusion: “Addition of mushrooms to USDA Food Patterns increased several micronutrients including shortfall nutrients (such as potassium, vitamin D and choline), and had a minimal or no impact on overall calories, sodium or saturated fat.”

The Rockefeller Foundation has produced what I view as an incredibly important guide to describing—“framing”—food system issues in ways that will encourage support for transforming the U.S. food system.

For effective advocacy, issues have to be “framed” in a way that the public can understand and respond to.

“Framing” is a concept made famous by George Lakoff.  It refers to the way political messages are designed to resonate with voters.  But it also refers to how public health messages can be designed to be more effective in encouraging people to act in the interests of their own health (wear masks, for example).

For food system change, the Rockefeller Foundation issued an action guide:  Reset the Table: Messaging Guide,

One of the consistent needs expressed by those seeking to transform the food system is a shared narrative to motivate and sustain the needed changes in the system. This narrative and messaging guide focuses on the long-term food system transformation while responding to the evolving circumstances presented by the pandemic, economic downturn, and racial justice reckoning being experienced in the United States.

Its guide is part of a longer report giving the research basis behind the messages: Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System.

Here is an example of how this kind of research-based framing works:

And here is an example of the messaging in action:

These are great suggestions for ways to talk about food issues.

Required reading!

Pet foods may seem unrelated to food politics but they constitute a vital part of the food system  For one thing, they use up a large part of the byproducts of human food production that would otherwise be wasted.

They also are big business.  The US pet foods brought in $99 billion in sales in 2020.

Nestlé (no relation) is one of the largest pet food producers.  As Quartz puts it, Nestle’s big bet on pet food is paying dividends during the pandemic.

A beloved animal friend for you means big business for Nestle. According to an earnings report released today, the Swiss company reported 3.5% organic growth so far in 2020, and 4.9% growth in the third quarter, its highest level of quarterly growth in the past six years…its pet food brand, Purina PetCare, was a main contributor in each of the company’s global markets, growing 10.6% so far this year, CFO Francois-Xavier Roger said on a call for investors.

To my great amusement, pet food marketing closely follows current food fads.  Why am I amused?  Dogs don’t care what they eat, but their humans do.

• Cell-based meat for pets: A handful of startup companies are using cell-based meat in pet food, a large market now supplied by food-bearing animals; one uses cells from mice for cat food and cells from rabbits for dog food. (Modern Farmer)
• Unleash the Power of Postbiotics in Pets:  Pet parents continue to turn towards natural foods, recognizable ingredients, and supplements. As this trend and purchasing pattern continues, we see another ingredient category emerge – Postbiotics.  Read more

And we now have insect-based pet foods.

• Insect protein demand by pet food may be 165k tons by 2030:  As a pet food ingredient, insect meal can serve as an alternative protein source for dogs and cats with allergies or sensitivities. The pet food market currently accounts for the largest share of demand for insect protein and is likely to remain one of the largest, one industry professional said.Read more
• Insect-based pet foods not risk for zoonotic pandemic:  A team of researchers at Ÿnsect has been working to assess potential risks from mealworm farming operations.  Read more
• Insect-based pet food news: Like insects themselves emerging in spring, insect-based pet food ingredient suppliers and the products that use them have been active lately. Mars Petcare plans to introduce an insect-based cat food, Lovebug, in the United Kingdom.

Pet food safety is an ongoing issue, particularly from Salmonella contamination.  What interested me about this particular recall—Billy+Margot Wild Kangaroo and Superfoods Recipe Dog Food—was its main ingredient, wild kangaroo, and that it is being marketed as a superfood (no such thing exists).

If you have purchased Billy+Margot Wild Kangaroo and Superfoods Recipe in a 4 lb bag, with lot code V 07 Feb 2022 from any retail store nationally, please stop feeding the product to your dogs, dispose of this product immediately, wash your hands accordingly, and sanitize affected surfaces.

Weight loss in dogs and owners:  If one loses weight, the other does too!

My ongoing interest in this topic is a result of having written two books about pet foods:

• Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine (2008)—an account of the pet food recalls of 2007 and their implications for the health of dogs and cats, but also for the FDA, food safety policy in the United States and China, international food trade, and the pet food industry itself.
• Feed Your Pet Right (with Malden Nesheim, 2010)—an examination of the booming pet food industry—its history, constituent companies, products, and marketing practices.

The USDA has compiled a long list of documents related to the cost of the leading 15 foodborne microbial illnesses that affect Americans.   It also has produced a summary of this information.

Fifteen pathogens account for over 95 percent of the illnesses and deaths from foodborne illnesses in the U.S. (those for which the CDC can identify a cause).

The CDC estimates that these 15 pathogens cause about 8.9 million cases of illness, 54,000 hospitalizations, and 1,480 deaths each year.

In 2018, these cost about $17.6 billion in health care, hospitalization, lost wages, and other economic burdens, an increase of $2 billion over estimates in 2013.

Five pathogens are responsible for most of these costs.

Economists have an odd way of estimating these costs.  They factor in an economic value for preventing each death from foodborne illness.  In 2013, they estimated the value of each death prevented as $8.7 million; this estimate increased to $9.7 million each in 2018.

The bottom line: we need to do a much better job of preventing foodborne illness for reasons of cost as well as human suffering.

I got a press release from the USDA last week: USDA Releases 90-Day Progress Report on Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today published the 90-Day Progress Report on Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry.

The report represents an important step toward in President Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and shift towards a whole-of-department approach to climate solutions. The Order, signed January 27, states that, “America’s farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have an important role to play in combating the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by sequestering carbon in soils, grasses, trees, and other vegetation and sourcing sustainable bioproducts and fuels.”

This report is the result of a presidential executive order in January requiring the USDA to say how it plans to promote climate-friendly agriculture.  It pretty much summarizes what the USDA has been doing and intends to do more of in the future.

Actually, the USDA has a lot to say about climate change.  It just wasn’t allowed to, at least publicly, during the previous administration.

For example, the USDA published Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry in May 2016.

The agency has web pages devoted to climate-change topics; each of these comes with additional pages on sub-heading topics.

• Climate solutions
• Climate change
• Climate hubs (regions) 
• USDA agencies involved in climate change efforts
• USDA training programs in regenerative agriculture
• Research on climate change

It looks to me as though this agency is taking a lead role on climate change, at least in some ways.

But what about meat?  Politico notes that the Biden administration is keeping hands off that issue.

President Joe Biden is not going to ban red meat. In fact, his administration isn’t doing much to confront the flow of harmful greenhouse gases from the very big business of animal agriculture.

The Agriculture Department’s newly published “climate-smart agriculture and forestry” outline says almost nothing about how Biden aims to curb methane emissions from livestock operations. But environmentalists argue that any effort to shrink the farm industry’s climate footprint is half-baked if it relies on voluntary efforts and doesn’t address America’s system of meat production.