Elliot Coleman.  The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques for the Home and Market Gardener.  30th Anniversary Edition.  Chelsea Green, 2018.

The first edition of this book came out in 1989 and it has been an essential tool for organic farmers and home gardeneres ever since.  Coleman’s goal is to make everyone want to farm organically.

“Small farms,” he begins, “are where agricultural advances are nurtured.”  And, he says, “I write only about those things I know.”

Fortunately, he knows a lot.  He knows about soil fertility, pests, weeds, crop rotations, agricultural craftsmanship, land, labor, marketing, and the economics of all of this.

His philosophy?  A pleasure to read.

Humans cannot imagine a world where they are not in charge.  As a biological farmer, I work in partnership with Nature, and I’m a very junior partner.  Given the limited amount of hard knowledge available, I often refer to my management style as “competent ignorance,” and I find that a very apt description.  But my level of trust in the design of the natural world and willingness to be guided by it is discomforting to those who think we should exercise total power over Nature…The reality of today’s world is that the practical success of the many farms managed on biological lines coexists with the striking lack of interest (antagonism actually) from scientific agriculture in exploring why these farms succeed.  The foundation upon which our Maine farm operates—a sense that the systems of the natural world offer elegantly designed patterns worth following—appears to be an indecipherable foreign language to most of agricultural science.

I signed a letter published in Le Monde on September 18:  La “lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles:” une urgence sanitaire mondial.  It is addressed to the The Third United Nations High-Level Meeting on Noncommunicable Diseases taking place in New York today.  Here it is in English translation.

The Fight Against Non-Communicable Diseases: A Global Emergency

Just 10 years ago, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria were the main worldwide threat for health. But today, Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, which only receive 2% of the total financing allocated by international health partners, constitute a health emergency in high-income countries and low-income countries alike.

Changes in food consumption and increasingly sedentary lifestyles have a strong impact on human health and the environment, and increase risks of developing NCDs. For over 10 years now, Non-Communicable Diseases have become the main causes of death in the world, leading to 15 million premature deaths every year.

Today, these changes in lifestyles are hitting hard low-income and intermediate countries. Contrary to common belief, a large number of inhabitants in West Africa are faced with overweight and obesity. Who could imagine that 38% of women of childbearing age there are already overweight and 15% are obese? The increase in the consumption of animal fats and industrial foodstuffs, combined with massive urbanization source of lifestyle change more conducive to NCDs,  are the causes of these epidemiological transitions.

The agri-food industry, the driver of these changes, has an impact on both human health and the environment. The intensification of production methods, the overconsumption of meat, the massive use of chemical products in agriculture (glyphosate), and the use of chemical substances and packaging (phthalates) to preserve food have a major impact on the environment and contribute to the high level of CO2 emissions. At the same time, too much fat, too much sugar, food with too many calories and a major consumption of sweetened beverages and alcohol, or food contaminated by pesticides, combined with a reduction in physical activity, are major risk factors for NCDs.

Diabetes is a perfect illustration of this strong link between the health of populations and the health of our planet and the related challenges. In 2017, 425 million people were living with diabetes. One person died from it every 6 seconds and the disease cost USD 723 bn. Diabetes is also the leading cause of blindness, persons undergoing dialysis and non-traumatic amputations around the world. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that by 2045, there will be 628 million patients, over 80% of which will be living in low-income and middle-income countries. Diabetes will affect 42 million people in Africa and will cost the African continent USD 6.6 bn. 90% of cases of diabetes would be avoidable if we adopted ambitious prevention policies aiming at changing eating behavior and sedentary lifestyles.

Unfortunately, this objective is still a dream. For people who are already suffering from diabetes, treatments are extremely expensive for the patient, their family, but also for governments. In certain countries, these treatments are not available to all, and in others, these treatments are available, but the cost is a huge burden. In Africa, an antidiabetic drug like insulin is only available in 40% of countries and at a very high price. For example, in Mali, 56% of households with a diabetic patient devote over 40% of their incomes to healthcare payments. Policies for access to treatments are consequently essential.

• Feed the planet more healthily in order to reduce the impact of poor nutrition on human health and the environment;
• Prevent chronic diseases in order to reduce their economic burden;
• Provide patients suffering from an NCD with access to treatments essential for their care at an affordable cost or “free” thanks to universal health coverage;
• Regulate private sector involvement in order to reduce conflicts of interests and achieve real progress in the quality of food products and access to treatments.

These challenges require taking urgent measures:

—Adopt a taxation and regulations that guarantee healthy and ecological nutrition

• Adopt taxes on alcohol and sweet beverages to reduce their consumption (based on the sugar tax model in France);
• Universalize labelling on food content (like Nutri-Score);
• Ban adverts on junk food targeting the youngest public;
• Adopt positive tax measures to make healthy products with high nutritional qualities cheaper.

—Develop prevention programs which will allow consumers to make better food choices, while ensuring there are living and working spaces favorable for doing a regular physical activity.

—Ensure access to high-quality treatments at a lower cost for NCDs and include the medical treatments/systems required for universal health coverage.

—Finance the global response against NCDs by a Trust Fund to structure effective prevention in countries which do not have sufficient means, and exchange expertise to support countries in their strategies to fight against NCDs.

Signatories

• Cynthia Fleury – Philosophe et Professeur au Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers)
• Stéphane Besançon – Directeur Général de l’ONG ONG Santé Diabète
• Gaël Giraud – Chief Economist Agence Française de Développement
• Cyril Dion – Réalisateur et cofondateur du mouvement Colibris
• Katie Dain – Directrice Générale de l’ONG NCD Alliance
• Pierre Salignon – Responsable des partenariats avec la société civile à l’Agence Française de Développement
• Marion Nestle – Professeur de Nutrition à l’Université de New York et écrivaine
• David Beran – Chercheur, service de médecine tropicale et humanitaire des Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève
• Jean Marie Milleliri – Secrétaire Général du Groupe d’intervention en santé publique et épidémiologie
• David Hacquin – Président de l’ONG Santé Diabète

Camille Mary – Coordinatrice ONG Santé Diabète

—Copyright ID4D

A study from The National Bureau of Economic Research finds that calorie labeling on restaurant menus reduced calorie consumption by about 3%, mainly from appetizers and main dishes, but not from drinks or desserts (oh dear).

The Cornell investigators’ description of the study is worth a look.  Here’s what got my attention:

In one restaurant, the number of calories in the appetizers ranged from 200 to 910. The entrees ranged from 580 to 1,840 calories, and the desserts from 420 to 1,150 calories.

Gulp.  No wonder people have trouble maintaining reasonable weight.  Most people require between 2000 (small, inactive) and 3000 (big, very active) calories a day.  One meal in that unnamed place takes care of that and then some, and a 3% reduction won’t make a dent.

Thanks to the Hagstrom Report for finding these studies.

I find the details of trade policy almost impossible to understand (so many arcane rules, so many countries), and am grateful whenever I read something crystal clear.

Politico explains (behind a paywall, alas) how our trade war with China is hurting US soybean farmers, beginning with:

The good news: The European Union is buying lots more US soybeans than it used to.  Purchases are up 133% over last year, and now account for 52% of EU soybean imports.

The bad news: The EU is buying US soybeans because they are cheap.  Because China is not buying US soybeans, there is a glut; prices have fallen by 20%.

Estimates are that the EU will buy $2.5 billion this year.  But last year, China bought $12.3 billion in soybeans.  That’s nearly a $10 billion loss unless other buyers can be found (the estimate is a $7 billion loss).

China is now buying soybeans from Brazil, and at premium prices.

Here’s what the American Soybean Association has to say about all this.

One more indicator:  Politico also mentions an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal detailing how more than 2,500 US dairy farmers have resorted to GoFundMe campaigns to save their farms.

I wish we grew more food for people instead of food for animals or fuel for cars, and that our agricultural policy linked to health policy.

Maybe if we did that, we wouldn’t be in this situation.  But GoFundMe campaigns?

Maybe we just need real agricultural policies.

Coming October 30: My new book about food company sponsorship of nutrition research and its effects on public health.

Here is what some early readers had to say about it:

“What happens when one of the country’s great nutrition investigators follows the money in food and science? You get this riveting, provocatively-written book, which deftly explores how the processed food industry has deepened our dependence on its products by sponsoring and manipulating food research for decades. This book should be read by anyone who has been seduced by the words, ‘New study shows…’—which is all of us.”  —Michael Moss, author of Salt Sugar Fat

“Marion Nestle is a tireless warrior for public health, and her meticulous research and irrefutable arguments are desperately needed right now. This book, as frightening as it is, compels us to discover where true health begins: nutrition starts in the ground, with real food that is sustainably grown, eaten in season, and alive.”  —Alice Waters, founder, owner, and executive chef of Chez Panisse

 “In clear, concise language, Marion Nestle details the many ways our ideas about what to eat are being manipulated by Big Food.  If you want to make better choices, read this book.”  —Ruth Reichl, former editor of Gourmet Magazine

 “Marion Nestle is a national treasure.  She has the courage to take on multinational corporations and the wisdom to separate the facts from the spin.  If you care about our food system and the health of your family, Unsavory Truth is essential reading.”  —Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation

“Marion Nestle has been a guiding light for sanity, credibility, and justice in food and nutrition for decades; she stands alone in her field. In Unsavory Truth, she exposes the awful deceptions practiced on eaters by manipulative food companies using ‘scientific research’ try to make themselves look good.”  —Mark Bittman, author of How to Cook Everything

 “Marion Nestle is a truth-teller in a world awash with nutrition lies of one kind and another. In this scintillating and eye-opening book, Nestle reveals how much of our confusion about food in modern times has been spread by the food industry itself, which passes off marketing as science and funds ‘research’ designed to show that its products are harmless. Unsavory Truth is essential reading for anyone in search of hard facts about what to eat.”  —Bee Wilson, author of First Bite and Consider the Fork

I listened in yesterday to the webinar on USDA’s proposed relocation and reorganization of the Economic Research Service.  Participants included Scott Swinton (Michigan State University), Cathie Woteki (former undersecretary for research at USDA), Susan Offutt (former ERS head), Gale Buchanan (another former undersecretary for research, USDA), and Stephen Censky (current USDA deputy secretary). The former officials were unanimous in arguing that the proposal to relocate the agency outside of Washington DC and reorganize it into the USDA Secretary’s office was “ill-conceived,” made no sense, was done without appropriate consultation, was potentially illegal, would politicize the agency, and would damage, if not destroy, an agency that is the jewel of USDA. The USDA says the reasons for doing this are easier recruitment, cheaper rent, closer alignment with the Secretary’s policy initiatives, and getting the agency closer to stakeholders.  None of these bears up under even the most casual scrutiny. So what is this really about? I’m guess that this is about getting political control over—silencing—an agency that conducts independent, unbiased, nonpartisan research that risks leading to inconvenient truths. Here, for example, are some recent publications [with my comments].

• Participation in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Effect of Local Labor Market Conditions in Oregon: Local labor market conditions were strongly linked to the probability of leaving SNAP… When labor market conditions were measured at the local level, researchers estimated a greater responsiveness by SNAP recipients to labor market conditions, as opposed to what other researchers have measured at the State or national levels [if there aren’t jobs available, people will need to stay on SNAP].
• Household Food Security in the United States in 2017: An estimated 11.8 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2017, lacking access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all their members. That is down from 12.3 percent in 2016 [but still high].
• High-Poverty Schools Are More Likely To Adopt the Community Eligibility Provision of the USDA School Meal Programs: The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows eligible schools to offer USDA school meals to all students at no charge. During the 2016-17 school year, 47 percent of U.S. school districts eligible to use CEP used the provision in at least one school [less than half are giving kids free meals].

ERS is not broke and does not need fixing.  The proposal must be understood as an attempt to destroy the ERS.  Participants called for:

• Congressional hearings
• An independent cost-benefit analysis
• Delay further action until then or, better yet, a full stop

I am a big user of ERS data and a great admirer of the work of ERS economists. Other views on the webinar and this issue

• Agri-Pulse
• Center for Progressive Reform
• Politico (behind paywall, alas)

Additions, September 24

The groups that did the WEbinar have forwarded links:

• USDA Research Relocation and Reorganization: Perspectives from Former USDA Chief Scientists and Administrators (464 people registered).
• The recording is online .
• The slides are online.
• The webinar webpage is online.
• The sign-on letter—organizations only—to Congress is at www.tinyurl.com/ERS-Strong
• Another sign-on letter for former administration officials and heads of statistical agencies is at www.tinyurl.com/StrongERS4USDA.

These ask Congress to:

• retain the ERS in the national Capitol region;
• maintain and strengthen the integrity and independence of the ERS as a statistical agency; and
• keep the budget and personnel for the USDA Economic Research Service at least at FY 2018 levels.

Additions, September 25 (thanks to the Hagstrom Report

▪ USDA — Secretary Perdue response to Roberts and Stabenow
▪ American Statistical Association — Count on Stats
▪ — Fact Sheet
▪ — Friends of Agricultural Statistics and Analysis Sign-On Letter Opposing USDA re-organization and re-alignment of the Economic Research Service
▪ — USDA Economic Research Service Sign-On Letter – Former administration officials and statistical agency leaders
▪ — NIFA Relocation Letter to Congress
▪ Center for Progressive Reform — Draining Washington of Science and Talent

Here is the latest collection of industry articles on dairy alternatives and plant-based meats—all doing quite well these days.

Dairy Alternatives

DairyReporter.com has a Special Edition: The rise of these plant-based products.  

Many dairy companies, rather than ignoring the rise in plant-based alternatives to dairy products, are jumping on the bandwagon, either through developing their own vegan and vegetarian product range, or through acquisitions, such as Danone’s high-profile takeover of WhiteWave.  This special newsletter looks at some of the latest developments in the plant-based dairy alternatives space.

• Global Dairy Preferences, Perceptions, Priorities: As consumer attitudes about dairy are changing, regional and demographic differences add further complexity. Our global survey sheds light on key purchase influencers for dairy and dairy alternative products in 13 countries worldwide…   Click Here
• Vegan cheese alternatives – closing the flavor gap: While many vegans are not overly concerned at finding products that resemble non-plant based foods, those experimenting with vegetarian, vegan or flexitarian lifestyles are often looking for plant-based foods similar to those they are cutting from their diet… Read
• Launch of Plant-Based Foods of Canada: Dairy giant Danone is one of several members of Canada’s plant-based food industry that has announced the formation of Plant-Based Foods of Canada (PBFA)… Read
• Riot Foods will bring new plant-based ‘dairy’ products to market in 2019: Riding the success wave of plant-based dairy alternatives, brands are looking to capitalize on consumer demand by developing more products. Riot Foods is launching to help fill that void… Read
• Veganism still growing despite dissatisfaction with food options: 90% of US vegetarians are considering veganism, even though half of US vegans are dissatisfied with their food choices. With less structured diets trending among young consumers, food brands need to innovate and expand their offerings, according to a study from Ingredient Communications… Read
• If goatmilk gets a pass, so should almondmilk, says nonprofit; NMPF counters: ‘A goat produces milk; a bean or seed does not’: If dairy farmers are OK with the lacteal secretions of goats, sheep, and buffalo being described as ‘milk,’ provided the word is prefaced with a modifier (goat’s milk, sheep milk), they should accept the same tactics from firms selling almond and soy milk, says one nonprofit health advocacy organization… Read
• ‘World Plant Milk Day’ celebrates second year: While the war of words over whether plant-based dairy alternatives can use the term ‘milk’ rages in the US, having already been banned in other areas, the ProVeg UK and Plant Based News creation World Plant Milk Day is being marked for the second time on August 22… Read
• Flexitarianism is no fad, meat and dairy sector warned: Social media sites like Instagram have fueled interest in veganism, according to a new report, but plant-based eating is not just a passing trend… Read
• More young, liberal Americans identify as vegan or vegetarian than any other group, little change from 2012: Only 5% of Americans identify as vegetarian and just 3% identify as vegan despite a much wider range of meat-free and dairy-free options on the market, a Gallup report finds… Read

What about plant-based meat?

• According to another industry newsletter, GlobalMeatNews.com, sales of plant-based meats are doing really well—up by 23% in the last year and worth close to $1 billion.
• Cultured meat cos agree to replace term ‘clean meat’ with ‘cell-based meat’ and form trade association:  As the debate over labeling conventions and regulatory frameworks intensifies in the burgeoning cell-cultured meat arena, a group of start-ups seeking to grow meat from cells without slaughtering animals has agreed to form an industry trade association and adopt the term ‘cell-based meat’ to describe their wares, FoodNavigator-USA understands… Read
• Hormones/antibiotic-free claims, followed by animal welfare, are the top consumer drivers for cell-based meat, says Mattson: New survey data from food development specialist Mattson suggests that the #1 thing consumers see as appealing about cell-based meat (grown from animal cells in a culture, without slaughter) is that it could “help reduce the amount of hormones and antibiotics we consume” (cited by 39% of respondents). Read more

I first wrote about soda company pouring rights contracts in 2000.  I also discussed these contracts in Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning).

These contracts are still a big issue, at least at the college level.

A site called MuckRock has just published an analysis of 38 pouring rights contracts, which it obtained through open-records requests from public universities.

Good for them!  The contracts make riveting reading.

Coke and Pepsi compete for these contracts and it is easy to understand why.  They provide for exclusive sales of the winning company’s products on school campuses.

The companies give the schools money, often in the millions.  In return, the schools are required to promote—heavily—the contracted products.

As MuckRock documents, the contracts demand lots of space and exposure for the products.  They turn colleges and universities into pushers of sugary beverages.  This, at a time when everyone would be healthier avoiding sugary drinks or consuming them in small amounts.

MuckRock posts the contracts so you can read them for yourself.

Is your college not listed?  MuchRock says:

Well, we want to expand our survey to your school, too. Help us out by sending us the name of a public college or university, and we’ll submit a request for its alliance in the Battle of the Colas.

This is great investigative reporting.  When I wrote my 2000 article, I based it on one contract leaked to me by a school food official appalled by this marketing technique.  At the time, Coke and Pepsi were contracting with junior high and elementary schools.  Fortunately, they have stopped doing that and are now concentrating on older kids.

That’s some progress, I guess.

Want to get pouring rights off of your campus?  Good luck with that.  This is a perfect example of money vs. public healh.  Guess which is more likely to win.