If you are an e-mail subscriber to this blog, you should have received this message today.  Despite its off-putting wording, it is legitimate.

You receive this email because publisher of feed Food Politics imported you to this list, claiming you were already subscribed to this content in other ways previously. Please confirm that this is correct and you want to receive this content by clicking here, or decline if you don’t want to receive it.

For reasons unknown to me, Google has cancelled its long-standing Feedburner subscription service.

Subscriptions are being transferred to something called follow.it.

I thought the transfers would be automatic—apparently not.

If you would like to continue to receive my blog in your email, please click on the “confirm” link.

I’m so sorry for the awkward transfer.  If I had known, I would have alerted you in advance.

My apologies and thanks for subscribing.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Dem-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (Dem-MA) have reintroduced their bipartisan bill for a Green New Deal, H. Res. 109, aimed at preventing further climate change.

The Green New Deal provides for improvements to food systems and to food access (with my editing and emphasis):

• Resolved that it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—healthy food.
• The goals should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (the “Green New Deal” mobilization”) that will require workfing collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including by (a) supporting family farming, (b) investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health, and (c) bulding a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.
• To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization will require providing all people of the United States with clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

The details are yet to come, but this plan has much to offer and deserves widespread support.

The Green New Deal was first introduced in 2019.

• Text of the original bill, February 7, 2019
• A 7-minute video about the bill narrated by AOC
• A Food First backgrounder on the bill
• A paper by Raj Patel and Jim Goodman setting the Green New Deal in political context

This ad appeared in yesterday’s New York Times.

The ad is signed jointly by JBS and Pilgrim’s, but JBS owns nearly 80% of Pilgrim’s, so this is JBS’s ad.

At the bottom of this ad, you can read about the company in very small print:

JBS is the second-largest food company in the world, producing high-quality beef, chicken and pork products, alokng with innovative prepared foods and plant-based alternatives that reimagine the future of protein….

The company is based in Brazil, where burning of the rainforest to grow soybeans—to feed cattle–produces massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

In this ad, JBS promises to achieve “net-zero emissions” by 2040.

How?  It’s a bit vague on details.

We’re setting time-bound, science-based targets and backing them up with $1 billion in capital over the next decade.  We’re supporting producers by investing $100 million by 2030 in on-farm research.

We will cut our own emissions by 30% by 2030 and eliminate Amazon deforestation from our supply chain within five years.

For the record, JBS’ annual revenues are nearly 40 times higher than what it plans to spend on this over the next 10 years.

The company’s revenues have been declining.  Does that explain its sudden interest in preventing climate change?

This looks like classic greenwashing to me.

Before believing that this is not greenwashing, I’d like to see those “time-bound, science-based targets” and to know who is holding JBS accountable for meeting them.

Katie S. Martin.  Reinventing Food Banks and Pantries: New Tools to End Hunger.  Island Press, 2021.

After Janet Poppendieck’s Sweet Charity?, and Andy Fisher’s Big Hunger, I didn’t think there was anything new to say about private charitable food handouts in the U.S., but this book surprised me.

Reinventing is a how-to manual for people working in the food banking and food pantry system.  Katie Martin’s goal is to make this system more dignified, healthier, and politically focused for participants.

Martin recognizes that a volunteer-run system for distributing charitable food is unsustainable.  She wrote this book to encourage longer term solutions to food and nutrition insecurity.

What if our success is measured not simply by the pounds of food we distribute but by the reduction in people who need our services?  Or the number of people who are connected to additional services?  Or the number of people who make fewer trade-off decisions between paying for food, rent, or medicine.  Or the number of people who have improved health outcomes based on the food and services they receive? (p. 26)

The book provides step-by-step guides to talking about hunger in policy rather than individual terms, to making food pantries more hospitable and better connected to social resources, to providing participants with choices, to training volunteers, to evaluating how programs work, and to dealing with systems change.

Every chapter ends with actions steps and encouragement to take one step, make one change.

Yes!

I don’t follow cookbooks closely but was surprised to see Stained Page News’ account of an entire cookbook genre devoted to cooking with Cannabis.

I knew about Elise McDonough’s writings in High Times, but had not paid much attention to her Official High Times Cannabis Cookbook when it came out.  Stained Page News explains:

Author Elise McDonough is foundational to the modern cannabis cookbook space. A cannabis consumer since her teens, she eventually found herself working for the flagship subculture magazine High Times while taking classes at New York’s Natural Gourmet Institute. McDonough says that the magazine would field recipes from contributors, who often sent them in without photography, and they’d have to re-create the dish in order to print it. “That really got me into the idea of cooking with cannabis—learning a lot of techniques, an interest in food style and prop styling for photography, that got me started,” she said.

Here is SPN’s Guide to Cannabis Cookbooks

• The Official High Times Cannabis Cookbook by Elise McDonough and the Editors of High Times
• Brownie Mary’s Marijuana Cookbook
• Marijuana Cooking: Good Medicine Made Easy by Bliss Cameron and Veronica Green
• The Cannabis Kitchen Cookbook by Robyn Griggs Lawrence
• Cooking With Herb: 75 Recipes For the Marley Natural Lifestyle by CI hedella Marley and Raquel Pelzel
• Bong Appetit by the Editors of Munchies
• The Art of Weed Butter by Mennlay Golokeh Aggrey
• The Art of Cooking with Cannabis: CBD and THC-Infused Recipes from Across America by Tracey Medeiros
• Edibles: Small Bites for the Modern Cannabis Kitchen by Stephanie Hua with Coreen Carroll
• Cannabis Drinks: Secrets to Crafting CBD and THC Beverages at Home by Jamie Evans

Disclaimer: I have never cooked from any of these and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the recipes or their quality.  But if you do cook from them,

• Keep the foods away from young children
• Stay home, don’t drive
• And follow this advice from those more in the know than I am

Dariush Mozaffarian (Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts), Sheila Fleischhacker (Georgetown University Law Center), and the chef, José R. Andrés, now of World Central Kitchen, propose to drop the term “food security” and replace it with “nutrition security.”

For decades, US policies to address hunger and food insecurity have focused largely on providing sufficient calories or quantities of food. However, effectively addressing the current diet-related challenges in the US will require a shift beyond these concepts to the broader concept of nutrition security. Addressing nutrition security, which can be defined as having consistent access, availability, and affordability of foods and beverages that promote well-being and prevent (and if needed, treat) disease, may be the next needed approach to inform clinical care and public policy.

Their point: it’s not enough to provide adequate calories to people who need food; those calories should come from foods that promote health.

…many policies and programs to address food security continue to place a greater emphasis on access to quantity, rather than quality, of food. The prevalence of obesity and diabetes is at an all-time high, with highest risk among individuals who are food insecure. Traditionally marginalized minority groups, as well as people living in rural and lower-income counties, are more likely to experience disparities in nutrition quality, food insecurity, and corresponding diet-related diseases. Clearly, the current approach is not sufficient.

And they recognize the need for “upstream” public policies to promote healthier diets:

An emphasis on nutrition security also could serve as a better guide for public health investments and national research, for which a growing coalition of antihunger, clinical, public health, and business groups recognizes the critical need for a stronger evidence base to accelerate food and nutrition solutions. From a societal standpoint, because poverty and food insecurity are closely associated, efforts must be made to reduce the level of poverty in the US.

This is a short editorial piece titled “Prioritizing Nutrition Security in the US.”

I’m for it.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has announced the end of the Farmers to Families food box program.  As reported by The Counter,

The reality is the food box program was set up to respond to Covid. There were a lot of problems with it, a lot of problems,” said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in a congressional hearing on Wednesday. Over the last year, we’ve reported on many of those problems—namely high prices, uneven distribution, and lack of oversight.

This program, which has cost at least $5.5 billion to date, was ostensibly supposed to help farmers by buying their produce and provide food to people who needed it by distributing it through food banks and pantries.

I say “ostensibly” because its real purpose was to undermine SNAP.

Food boxes were one of three ways the Trump Administration acted to reduce SNAP enrollments and expenditures (the other two were enforcement of work requirements and invocation of the public charge rule denying residency and citizenship to people who used public benefits, even benefits to which all residents are entitled).

To review the history of this program:   In 2018, Trump’s Budget proposed to replace some of SNAP benefits with “Harvest Boxes”—along the lines of those provided by Blue Apron, apparently.   The proposal provided few details.  It was immediately criticized for its lack of information about logistics, composition of the boxes, fresh foods, and choice.

USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue did not give up on the idea, however.  The Coronavirus pandemic gave him the excuse he needed to start the program, now called Farmers to Families.

This seemed reasonable in theory.  Distributors would collect unsold produce from farmers, pack it in boxes, and deliver the boxes to food banks.  Farmers would have income for what they produced; this would help people who lost their jobs during the pandemic.

In practice, small farmers were quickly dropped from the program, Black farmers were excluded, and people who got the boxes got whatever was in them—not always what was supposed to be in them.

Here’s what the USDA says the program delivered:

To date USDA contractors have delivered 157,996,398 of fresh produce, milk, dairy and cooked meats to disadvantaged Americans across the country

35.7 million food boxes invoiced in round one (May 15-June 30)

50.8 million food boxes invoiced in round two (July 1-August 31)

15.2 million food boxes invoiced in round two extensions (September 1 – September 18)

18.8 million food boxes invoiced in BOA Contracts (September 22 – October 31)

12.4 million food boxes invoiced in round four (November 1 – December 31)

25.1 million food boxes invoiced in round five (January 19 – April 30)

I say R.I.P.  The Biden Administration’s shoring up of SNAP is better policy for food assistance.

Assistance to small farmers is another matter entirely, and one that needs immediate attention.

You might not think that avocados need any special sales efforts, but the Haas Avocado marketers are particularly aggressive in funding research to demonstrate the health benefits of this food.

I’ve written about Haas-funded avocado research previously (most recently, here and here) but here’s yet another, this time initiated by a tweet:

I think avocados are fine foods, love them, but wish their marketers would not do this.  Here’s the Good News Network headline: “An Avocado a Day May Keep Your Gut Microbes Happy, Study Shows.”  As always, the operative word is “may.”  The headline would be equally correct saying “may not.”

The study: Avocado Consumption Alters Gastrointestinal Bacteria Abundance and Microbial Metabolite Concentrations among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sharon V Thompson, Melisa A Bailey, Andrew M Taylor, Jennifer L Kaczmarek, Annemarie R Mysonhimer, Caitlyn G Edwards, Ginger E Reeser, Nicholas A Burd, Naiman A Khan, Hannah D Holscher.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2021, Pages 753–762.

Conclusions: “Daily avocado consumption resulted in lower fecal bile acid concentrations, greater fecal fatty acid and SCFAs, and greater relative abundances of bacteria capable of fiber fermentation, providing evidence that this nutrient-dense food affects digestive physiology, as well as the composition and metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota.”

Funding: Support for this research was provided by the Hass Avocado Board and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1009249.

Author disclosures: NAB, NAK, and HDH received grant funding from the Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value and the best way to get the nutrients you need is by eating a variety of them.  If you like avocados, include them in that variety.  If not, don’t.

The Haas marketers want you to think that avocados are a superfood.  Alas, there is no such thing.  All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value.  By that criterion, all fruits and vegetables are superfoods.

Here’s an example of how Haas advertises:

Did you know fresh avocados can be part of the MyPlate food guide?

• Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.

Avocados are a nutrient-dense fruit with naturally good fats and are easily incorporated into various meals and snacks. One serving (50g or one-third of a medium avocado) has only 80 calories and contributes nearly 20 vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients along with dietary fiber.

The same could be said for most other fruits and vegetables, although most will be lower in calories.