Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Apr 11 2018

Will the new food label ever appear?

Remember way back when the FDA proposed updating the Nutrition Facts label?  It’s hard to keep track of the delays but the label, first proposed in 2016, is scheduled to appear in supermarkets near you by January 1. 2020 for manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual food sales and to January 1, 2021 for those below that amount.

In March, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced new guidances for perplexed food makers who still can’t figure out what they are supposed to say on labels.

The fiber guidance is particularly interesting.  FDA wants “dietary fiber” to have a proven health benefit, thereby excluding substances like chicory root, oat hulls, or other added plant components.

CSPI points out that the guidance is plenty clear enough, many food manufacturers are already using the new label, and the long delay is unnecessary.

I agree.  FDA: stop dilly-dallying on the food label.  The absurd delay makes it look like you are caving in to industry objectiosn.

Tags: , ,
Apr 10 2018

Home-delivered meals save health care costs!

It’s always seemed obvious to me that feeding hungry people would prevent nutritional deficiencies, and that feeding healthy diets to people who needed them would make them healthier.

We now have evidence.

The study appeared in Health Affairs:

For the people who received medically-tailored home-delivered meals, the net savings in medical costs was $220 per person per month.

For those just getting home-delivered meals, the savings was $10 per month per person.

These results are spectacular—nutrition programs hardly ever show effect sizes this large.

As the L.A. Times puts it,

The new study offers some clear evidence that even costly nutrition programs can pay handsome dividends when they are focused on low-income Americans who tend to have especially complex medical problems.

It quoted me:

New York University food and nutrition expert Marion Nestle, who was not involved with the study, called the savings almost too large to be real.  “If it were that simple: you just have to give people meals to keep them out of hospitals?” Nestle said. “Wow! I’m for it!”

I sure am.  Healthy home-delivered meals look like a great way to promote health and reduce health-care costs.  A win-win.

Apr 9 2018

FoodNavigator on Sugars and Sweeteners

Here is another collection of Food Navigator articles on special topics from a food-industry perspective.

Special Edition: Sugar reduction and sweeteners

Food and beverage manufacturers have a far wider range of sweetening options than ever before, from coconut sugar to allulose, monk fruit and new stevia blends. This special edition looks at the latest market developments, the changing political landscape, formulation challenges and consumer research.

Tags:
Apr 6 2018

Weekend reading: Intro to the Farm Bill

The 2018 Farm Bill is due in six months but it impossible to follow without a scorecard.  Fortunately, we have help.

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Harvard’s Law School Food Law & Policy Clinic in collaboration with a group of other law-school programs has produced a series of reports on its Farm Bill website.

These are grounded in history and organized by issue and goal.  They are a great place to start to understand the issues.

Tags:
Apr 5 2018

Global Meat News Focus on Brazil

One of the ways I keep up with current issues is through daily newsletters focused on the food industry.  This example comes from GlobalMeatNews.com.

Global Meat News: Focus on Brazil

One of the major players of the global meat industry comes under the spotlight. Brazil is always near the top of the list when it comes to production and exports, and it’s a nation that other countries pay close attention to. This special focus on Brazil looks at some of the top news stories to come out of the country’s meat sector over the past few weeks.

Apr 4 2018

South Africa’s really bad Listeria outbreak: record-setting and not over yet

Outbreaks of foodborne illness occur frequently but some of them grab my attention more than others.

Take, for example, the Listeria outbreak still going on in South Africa, reasonably well understood, and now under litigation.

I’ve been tracking it by reading Food Safety News, following food-safety lawyer Bill Marler’s blog, and now keeping up with the class action suit filed in that country.

As of late March, the outbreak, which started in January 2017, has caused at least 982 cases of illness—and that’s just how many have been reported.

Of these, the final outcome is known for 70% (687 cases).  Among these, the death rate is distressingly typical for Listeria infections—28% (189 deaths).

The South African version of the CDC has produced an epi curve:

Note that products were not recalled until most cases were identified.  This outbreak was hard to solve.

Marler tweeted an Infographic on how the Listeria spread.

The good news: new cases are declining.

But in January this year, long before these figures were reached or the cause identified, the World Health Organization called this the largest Listeria outbreak ever recorded.

Its cause?  “Polony,” a ready-to-eat meat product produced by a company called Tiger’s Enterprise Food.  This company holds about one-third of South Africa’s $412 billion processed meat market.

A large number of meat products have tested positive for Listeria and have been recalledTiger brands says cost of the recalls will be high.

More bad news:

Tiger Brands knew for at least a year that its polony had been contaminated with Listeria, but apparently even when warned in March that

listeria was rampant at its Polokwane factory, the Tiger Brands operation continued to churn out tons of potentially dangerous products, choosing to do only a  “silent recall” of one brand, Mielie Kip,  on February 14. The factory was shut down only last weekend, after the listeria strain was confirmed as being the deadly ST6.

South Africa had developed food-safety standards for the processed meat industry in 2014, but the industry blocked them.

Bill Marler has now teamed up with  Richard Spoor Incorporated Attorneys to file a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands.

A forensic investigator plans to bring murder charges against the company.

One other interesting aspect is the suspected ingredient in polony:

Remember “pink slime?”  Meet “white slime,” a slurry of chicken part leftovers (bone marrow, bone fragments, cartilege, and even meat) thought to be the cause of the outbreak and imported from Brazil, no less.

Brazil, however, pleads innocent and says its products are not to blame.

Marler has offered some free advice to the CEO of Tiger brands, but it may be too late.

Stay tuned.

Apr 3 2018

FDA says public health matters, promises to consider nutrition issues

Last week, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb spoke at the National Food Policy Conference in Washington, DC where he announced FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy.

His speech, Reducing the Burden of Chronic Disease, specifies five areas that FDA intends to consider (meaning, at best, proposing suggestions for public comment and going through FDA’s interminable rulemaking process):

  • Modernizing health claims
  • Modernizing ingredient labels
  • Modernizing standards of identity
  • Implementing the Nutrition Facts Label and Menu Labeling
  • Reducing sodium

The documents:

My immediate reactions: sounds good, but short on commitment.

I was impressed that Gottlieb focused on public health and prevention:

We can’t lose site of the public health basics – better diet, more exercise, and smoking prevention and cessation…The public health gains of such efforts would almost certainly dwarf any single medical innovation or intervention we could discover.

Yes!

I was particularly interested in two initiatives under consideration:

Front-of-package icon for “healthy”

This is to be based on a food-based definition that focuses on the healthful attributes of a food product—not, apparently, on its content of sugar, salt, or saturated fat.  Only healthful attributes?

This sounds like a highly pro-industry position, since research on front-of-package labeling is pretty clear that warning labels about unhealthful attributes (salt, sugar, saturated fat) are most effective in discouraging purchases of “ultraprocessed” foods.  The warning labels used in Chile, for example, are proving to be highly effective.

Gottlieb did not mention the the FDA-sponsored reports on front-of-package labeling performed by the Institute of Medicine early on in the Obama administration.  Those were serious attempts to develop an effective front-of-package labeling system that identified nutrients to be avoided.  The FDA seems to have forgotten about those reports.

Reduce sodium

This is the item that got the most attention.  Gottlieb said: “There remains no single more effective public health action related to nutrition than the reduction of sodium in the diet.”

OK, but if that’s true, how about ensuring that food companies gradually reduce sodium in their products, as was done in the UK.  No such luck.  Instead: “I’m committed to advancing the short‐term voluntary sodium targets” (my emphasis).

I suppose “voluntary” could work, but if sodium reduction isn’t across the board, companies will have little incentive to risk changing their formulas.

In short, Gottlieb’s words reflect modern public health thinking the good news) and it’s great that FDA is considering taking these actions (also good news).  Now, let’s see what the agency actually does.

 

Apr 2 2018

US Food Assistance, 2018 Overview

USDA has just published its latest overview of US food assistance.

Here’s what this is about:

These percentages apply to total USDA spending on 15 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs: $98.6 billion in FY 2017.

The bottom line: expenditures are down and have been declining for the past 4 years.  $98.6 billion is 4% less than in 2016 and nearly 10% less than the all-time high of $109.2 billion set in FY 2013.

How come?

Note: The prevalence of food insecurity has not changed.

Although USDA attributes the drop to improvements in the economy, the prevalence of food insecurity has not changed.

Therefore, we have to ask: Could tougher eligibility requirements and application procedures have anything to do with this?