Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Jun 4 2018

US vetoes any mention of soda taxes in WHO committee report on preventing noncommunicable (chronic) disease

The AP reports that the reason the WHO committee on preventing noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) did not recommend soda taxes is that the US representative vetoed the idea.

The Trump administration has torpedoed a plan to recommend higher taxes on sugary drinks, forcing a World Health Organization panel to back off the U.N. agency’s previous call for such taxes as a way to fight obesity, diabetes and other life-threatening conditions.

The move disappointed many public health experts but was enthusiastically welcomed by the International Food and Beverage Alliance — a group that represents companies including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo. and Unilever.

The WHO committee’s report appeared in The Lancet last week.  About soda taxes, it said:

The Commissioners represented rich and diverse views and perspectives. There was broad agreement in most areas, but some views were conflicting and could not be resolved. As such, some recommendations, such as reducing sugar consumption through effective taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and the accountability of the private sector, could not be reflected in this report, despite broad support from many Commissioners.

It did not include soda taxes in its tax recommendation:

Implement fiscal measures, including raising taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and consider evidence-based fiscal measures for other unhealthy products.

This omission is striking in view of WHO’s strong previous positions on the need to reduce NCDs as part of the agency’s Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, and on reducing sugars and taxing sodas as a means to achieve those goals:

Again a US veto?  Recall the infamous incident in 2003 when the US blocked the agency from recommending a reduction in sugar intake.

The US should not be holding WHO hostage to public health measures.

WHO should not be caving in to US threats.

NCDs are the major cause of worldwide death and disability and we need worldwide efforts to prevent them.  This calls for cooperation, not blackmail.

Shame.

Jun 1 2018

Weekend reading: Declining US investment in agricultural research

The USDA reports that investment in agricultural research is declining (since 2009) in high-income countries, particularly in the U.S.

The U.S. share of total agricultural investment in research was 35% in 1960; it fell to 25% in 2013.

What with global problems of hunger, chronic disease, and climate change, shouldn’t we be doing more agricultural research, not less?

The documents

May 31 2018

The latest on the beer industry from BeverageDaily.com

The industry newsletter,  BeverageDaily.com, offers a collection of recent articles about the beer business.

Tags:
May 30 2018

Diet and cancer risk: the latest research evidence

The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research have published their third compendium of information about diet and cancer risk.

By this time, their research base is so enormous that it takes them 12,000 pages to cover it.   The summary alone is more than 100 pages.

Consequently, they have created an online toolkit with a matrix for dealing with the information.

The matrix provides an interactive summary of dietary correlates .  Here is a clip from the section on factors that decrease cancer risk, convincingly or probably.

And here is a clip from the section on dietary correlates of increased cancer risk.

On the website, you can click on the bubbles to be directed to pages discussing the evidence for each of these factors.

The bottom line?  Eat your veggies.  Don’t gain excess weight.  Avoid excess alcohol and processed meats.  Be active.

Very handy, this.

The site also provides further information about these particular factors:

Tags:
May 29 2018

Pay inequality in the food business

The New York Times describes the enormous gap between the pay of company chief executives and their employees.

Its two printed pages of lists compare CEO total annual compensation (in millions of dollars) to the median pay of employees (in $ thousands).  

Median means half the employees get that amount or more, but the other half gets that amount or less.

I looked for the data on companies that produce, food, beverage, or agricultural products.  I could not find many (where is Coca-Cola?).  Several of the companies of interest—Monsanto, Sysco, and Procter & Gamble, for example—list the pay of the CEOs, but not employees.

Even so, the comparison is striking.  Repeat: CEO pay is in $ millions; worker pay is in $ thousands.

COMPANY CEO TOTAL ANNUAL

COMPENSATION,

$ MILLIONS

MEDIAN WORKER PAY,

$ THOUSANDS

Mondelez   42.4   42.9
Weight Watchers   33.4     6.0
PepsiCo   25.9   47.8
Walmart   22.2   19.2
McDonald’s   21.8    7.0
Archer Daniels Midland   15.8   57.3

The Times interactive lists provide calculations of the ratios (and its account explains the limitations of these data—part-time work, etc).

If you need quantifiable evidence for income inequality, here it is.

May 28 2018

Memorial Day Food for Thought

May 25 2018

Weekend reading: Farms and rural communities at risk

American Farmland Trust has a new report out documenting the rapid loss of farmland to urban and suburban development.

Action Aid USA has videos demonstrating how “Agribusiness Is Devastating to Family Farmers, Rural Communities, and the Environment.”

May 24 2018

Pork (the meat, not goodies in the farm bill)

One of the industry newsletters I read regularly is GlobalMeatNews.com, which occasionally collects articles on specific topics into “special editions.”  This one is about pork.

Still the most-consumed meat in the world, the pork sector is shifting quickly with global markets opening for processors on a weekly basis. In this special newsletter, we look at the lucrative Chinese market that everyone is looking to break into, as well as work being done to tackle diseases in the pork sector.

A note on the pork study: it elicited a tirade in the New Food Economy about how so much of nutrition research is correlational and says little about causation.  The writer singles out the pork study as one of three examples of possible misuse of statistics.

Feeding infants puréed pork and increased body length? Trick question. P = 0.001—so something really seems to be happening. But does greater body length in infants actually matter? We’ll let the scientists pursue this one on their own until they come up with something that’s not just statistically significant but meaningful…The point isn’t to prevent you from snacking on prunes and chocolate while you shovel puréed pork into the baby. Do it if you want to, and given the marvelous powers of the placebo effect, you’ll probably be happy you did. But stop treating studies like these as if they contain the truth.

The study, no surprise, was sponsored by NIH but also by the National Pork Board, among other industry groups.  The Pork Board issued a press release: “New Study Finds Pureed Pork Supports Infant Growth.”

Tags: