Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Nov 11 2020

One reason why we need a more rational food policy: farm payments

I am all for making sure that farmers make a decent living but most agricultural subsidies go to Big Ag—the producers of corn and soybeans fed mainly to animals or, in the case of corn, as ethanol for car fuel.

These taxpayer-funded payments are enormous and represent increasing percentages of the income of Big Ag.

For example, see this chart from the Wall Street Journal.

As part of the Trump administration’s effort to get votes from farmers and ranchers, it pledged $37.2 billion to them in the spring and summer with an addition $14 billion in September.

Why is this about the election?  The Washington Post says “Trump’s farmer bailout gave $21 billion to red counties and $2.1 billion to blue ones.”

At a campaign rally in Wisconsin last week, President Trump didn’t mince words about how much his administration had done to bolster the economic fortunes of farmers…I gave $28 billion to the farmers, many of them right here, $28 billion, $12 billion and $16 billion, two years”… That redistribution was facilitated through the Agriculture Department’s Market Facilitation Program. According to data obtained by the Environmental Working Group through a Freedom of Information Act request, that program disbursed more than $23 billion in the 2018 and 2019 program years.

From a report from Agricultural Economic Insights:  USDA’s direct payments to Big Ag will equal 36% of net farm income, up from 22% in 2018=2019.  These payments used to account for around 10% of net farm income.

Check out its map:

Finally, it’s good to review the big picture of what happened to food and farming under Trump.  Civil Eats has an excellent review by Lisa Held.

To offset the effects of the tariffs, in 2018, USDA began distributing cash payments through the Commodity Credit Corporation at unprecedented levels, with no appropriations or oversight from Congress. In 2020, as the pandemic hit the farm economy, it added another source of government payments via the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). Overall, Trump’s USDA has handed out more government dollars to farmers than any administration prior. In both 2019 and 2020, more than 40 percent of farm incomes came from federal assistance—the only thing keeping farm incomes afloat.

Those payments have been controversial because they have almost exclusively benefited the largest farms and agriculture companies. Two-thirds of the trade aid payments went to agriculture producers in the top 10 percent, including corporations, such as the $67 million paid to JBS USA, a subsidiary of the Brazilian-owned meatpacking giant. Small farms, especially diversified operations and those run by socially disadvantaged Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers, have largely been unable to access CFAP assistance.

All of this leaves plenty of room for improvement.

President-elect Biden: get to work!

Nov 10 2020

What should Biden do about food policy?

I have a few suggestions.  Maybe you can think of others?

  • Appoint committed experts to head federal agencies dealing with food issues (especially USDA, FDA, FTC, EPA, CDC).
  • Rehire the experts who quit or were fired during the Trump administration.
  • Bring the Economic Research Service back to Washington DC.
  • Rescind the public charge and work rules that have led to SNAP de-enrollment; restore SNAP outreach.
  • Refocus agricultural supports on food for people (rather than feed for animals or fuel for cars).
  • Promote small- and mid-size agricultural production.
  • Provide incentives for agricultural production that conserves and regenerates natural resources.
  • Insist on fair pay for farm, packing house, restaurant, and grocery workers, and on safe working conditions.
  • Use every means possible to promote diets that reduce the risk of overweight and the diseases for which it increases risk.
  • Create a food agency to coordinate existing policies to develop a food system healthier for people and the planet.

Hey, I can dream.

Anything in this direction will be a big step forward.

Nov 9 2020

Industry-funded study of the week: fruit juice

If you are a marketer of fruit juice, you have a problem.  Fruit juice has a lot of sugar and retains little of the fiber of whole fruit.  Dietary recommendations increasingly suggest limits on the amounts consumed, especially for children.

But according to the trade group, the Juice Products Association, “The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concur that 4 to 6 ounces of 100% fruit juice per day is appropriate for young children. For children age 7 and older, the AAP recommends a daily serving of 8 to 12 ounces per day.”

No it does not!  The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests a limit to that amount.  Big difference.

Juice should not be introduced into the diet of infants before 12 months of age unless clinically indicated. The intake of juice should be limited to, at most, 4 ounces/day in toddlers 1 through 3 years of age, and 4 to 6  ounces/day for children 4 through 6 years of age. For children 7 to 18 years of age, juice intake should be limited to 8 ounces or 1 cup of the recommended 2 to 2.5 cups of fruit servings per day.

What about adults?  Adults do not need more sugars or the calories they provide.   They too would be better off eating fruit.

Juice trade associations to the rescue.

The study:  100% Fruit juice intake and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and randomised controlled studies. , et al.  European Journal of Nutrition (2020)

Methods: This is a meta-analysis of prospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the relationship between consumption of 100% fruit juice (FJ) and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CV).

Conclusions: “The results of these analyses indicate that 100%FJ consumption is not associated with higher CV risk. A non-linear inverse dose–response relationship occurs between 100%FJ consumption and CV disease, in particular for risk of stroke, probably mediated by the decrease in blood pressure.”

Funding: “Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This project was funded by the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN) via an unrestricted grant. AIJN was not involved in the design, conduction, analysis and interpretation of the results.”

Comment: Why would anyone think that fruit juice, of all things, would be associated with heart disease risk?  You would have to be drinking a lot of it —at the exclusion of healthier foods—for it to make  a significant difference.  The only point of this study is to try to convince adults to drink more juice.  When I was a kid, fruit juice was expensive and we drank it in 4-ounce glasses.  If you drink fruit juice at all, that’s still a good idea.

Nov 6 2020

Weekend reading: Potato Politics

Rebecca Earle.  Feeding the People: The Politics of the Potato.  Cambridge University Press, 2020.


The historian Rebecca Earle uses the potato as an entry point into investigations of some of the most important political issues of our time: immigration, free-market capitalism, and globalization.  As she puts it, her book

offers a deep history of the concept of food security and fresh account of how eating became part of modern politics.  It also helps to explain our own fraught relationship with dietary guidelines by showing how healthy eating became embedded within a neoliberal framework valorising personal responsibility and choice rather than state-led intervention” (p. 3).

A couple more excerpts to give you an idea where she is headed with this.  Malthus, she says, had a “dismal vision of catastrophic population increase.”  With this vision

came pessimism about the potato’s capacity to contribute to national well-being.  Far from increasing trade and boosting economic exchange, the potato bcame an obstacle to modernity, because it helped sustain precisely the sectors of the population that capitalism aimed to eradicate” (p. 141).

Later, she describes the Peruvian International Potato Center (its Spanish acronym is CIP):

Peru is not alone in its gastronational celebration of local potato varieties.  A number of countries, from Denmark to Ecuador, have likewise established national potato days, or sought to protect specific varieties under international legislation…International regulatory structures thus help to nationalise potatoes by according them formal status as part of the national patrimony.  Its long history as an overlooked, localised food resource now enables the potato to toggle between the global food system and notions of culinary heritage, in a way that other major commodities such as sugar or maize have largely failed to do (pp. 197-198).

Nov 5 2020

The latest on cell-based meat

USDA to launch rulemaking process for labeling of cell-cultured meat; ‘success will turn, in large measure, on the nomenclature used,’ says attorney: How should meat grown from cultured animal cells be labeled? In a joint FDA/USDA webinar, officials said they would work together to come up with joint principles to govern the labeling of products under their respective jurisdictions (FDA: seafood; USDA: livestock & poultry) before launching a rulemaking and comment process, although no firm timetable has yet been established…. Read more.

  • You can watch a video about regulation of these products here.
  • The joint framework for regulation is here.

FoodNavigator-USA.com has been collecting items on cell-based meats.  I’ve selected a few of interest.  For others, click here.

Nov 3 2020

Vote with your vote. Today!

Nov 2 2020

Industry-funded study of the week: Alcohol

Even after writing Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat I could hardly believe this particular example.

The Study: Exploring the Influence of Alcohol Industry Funding in Observational Studies on Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Health.   Moniek Vos, Annick P M van Soest, Tim van Wingerden, Marion L Janse, Rick M Dijk, Rutger J Brouwer, Iris de Koning, Edith J M Feskens, Aafje Sierksma.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 11, Issue 5, September 2020, Pages 1384–1391.

Methods:  This is a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of studies examining the health effects of alcohol consumption that are used as the basis of international guidelines for alcohol consumption.

Results and conclusions: “only a small proportion of observational studies in meta-analyses …are funded by the alcohol industry. Based on this selection of observational studies the association between moderate alcohol consumption and different health outcomes does not seem to be related to funding source.

Funding: “The authors reported no funding received for this study.”

Author disclosures: “MV, APMvS, TvW, MLJ, RMD, RJB, IdK, and AS were employed by the Dutch Beer Institute during the study and writing of the manuscript. This Institute is funded by Dutch Brewers, which is the trade organization of the 14 largest beer brewers in the Netherlands. EJMF reports no conflicts of interest.”

Comment: This one defies credulity: an industry-funded study—most authors work for the beer industry—of whether industry funding affects research outcome.

Guess what?  It didn’t find any effect.

For years, the alcohol industry has been working hard to convince regulators and the public that moderate drinking, especially of wine and beer, is not only harmless but actually improves health.  This study is an example of how this industry attempts to accomplish that goal.

For another egregious example, see this post.

Oct 30 2020

Food marketing effort of the weekend: Happy Halloween!

You might think that Halloween is—or was pre-Covid—a fun activity for your kids, but it’s underlying purpose is to sell candy, as much as possible to as many people as possible.  It’s a big part of total annual candy sales (Valentine’s Day is another).

Let’s start with The Counter’s account of how the candy industry convinced everyone to buy record-breaking amounts of candy, while public health authories were discouraging trick-or-treating.

Is it possible to trick-or-treat safely?  Suggestions:

What’s happening with Halloween in New York City?

ConfectionaryNews.com has produced a Special Edition: Fright night: How American candy companies are gearing up for Halloween

No doubt, Halloween is going to feel different this year, but as John Downs, president and CEO of the NCA [National Confectioners Association] says: “it isdefinitely happening!​”

In this special edition newsletter we focus on how the confectionery industry in the USA is preparing for one of its main holiday seasons.  Halloween is estimated to generate over $4bn in revenue for candy companies and while the festivities are going ahead, the emphasis is on staying safe and following guidelines.

To help consumers and its members prepare for this year’s event the NCA has launched its Halloween Central portal with up-to-date advice from top health experts on how to celebrate safely.  With online sales of candy soaring, we look at an innovative solution from Mars Wrigley with the launch of its virtual Treat Town app for those who are unable to join the outdoor fun this year.  We also report on how other big companies, including Hershey and Ferrero, intend to lift spirits this Halloween – and new kid on the block Stuffed Puffs completes our round-up with a spooky twist on a camp-fire classic.

Check-out the articles below to find out more – and have fun but stay safe this Halloween.