Search results: dietary guidelines

Steve Clapp.  Fixing the Food System: Changing How We Produce and Consume Food.  ABC-Clio, 2017  (but it’s out).

I wrote the Foreword to this book.  Here’s what I said:

In this welcome addition to my library of books about food policy and politics, Steve Clapp’s Fixing the Food System reviews the past and current history of calls for a national food policy, the most contentious controversies over food and nutrition issues that have impeded development of such a policy, and the work of advocates to achieve one.   As this book makes clear, this history began decades ago.

I first became aware of the importance of federal food policies in the early 1980s when I was teaching nutrition to medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).  First-year students were eager to learn about nutrition, but for personal more than for professional reasons.  They wanted to know what they—and the patients whose health problems they were learning to treat—should eat.  But by the time they were residents, I could see their dietary concerns vanish under the daily demands of patient care.  Trying to advise about diets was too difficult, time-consuming, and financially unrewarding to be worth the trouble.  It seemed unreasonable to expect doctors to take the time needed to counsel individual patients about the prevention of diet-related conditions—heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and the like.  If nutritionists like me wanted to focus on disease prevention rather than treatment, we would have to advocate to change the food environment to make healthful food choices the easy choices—even better, the preferred choices.  This meant we would have to advocate for food and nutrition policies aimed at promoting public health.

In 1983, I co-authored an article with UCSF colleagues on the need for such policies.[i]  It began:

The U.S. government helps to assure an adequate food supply for Americans by sponsoring a wide variety of food, nutrition, and agricultural support programs.  These federal activities were developed in the absence of a clearly articulated national policy, a situation that has resulted in the fragmentation of government programs and their wide disbursement among numerous agencies and departments.

Our article quoted the earliest calls we could find for a national policy to address these problems.  In 1974, long before the term “food system” came into common use, the National Nutrition Consortium of four leading nutrition and food science societies[ii] argued for a national nutrition policy that would:

• Assure an adequate, wholesome food supply, at reasonable cost, to meet the needs of all segments of the population.
• Maintain food resources sufficient to meet emergency needs and to fulfill a responsible role as a nation in meeting world food needs.
• Develop a level of sound public knowledge and responsible understanding of nutrition and foods that will promote maximal nutritional health.
• Maintain a system of quality and safety control that justifies public confidence in its food supply.
• Support research and education in foods and nutrition with adequate resources and reasoned priorities to solve important current problems and to permit exploratory basic research.

Whether offered as nutrition or food policies, these were and remain highly appropriate goals for an abundant, healthy, safe, and effective food system.

My co-authors and I went on to identify the constraints that then limited government action to achieve such goals.  Despite an emerging consensus on the basic elements of healthful diets—fruits and vegetables, balanced calories, not too much junk food (as Michael Pollan put it more recently, “eat food, not too much, mostly plants”[iii])—the greatest impediment to policy development was the controversy over the science of diet and health.  As our article understated this issue,

The effect on the nation’s health of food processing and other changes in the U.S. diet is controversial.  Salt, sugar, fiber, saturated fats, alcohol, caffeine, calories, vitamins, and food additives all elicit vigorous debate.

Today, more than 30 years later, we are still arguing about that science, and the scientific arguments still impede policy development.  In Fixing the Food System, Steve Clapp brings us up to the minute on federal progress (or the lack thereof) toward achieving a clearly articulated national food policy.  He begins and ends his book with the most recent policy proposals from leading food advocates Michael Pollan, of course, but also Mark Bittman, Olivier de Schutter, and Ricardo Salvador.  Their recent suggestions for improving our current food system reflect the many changes in agricultural production and food consumption that have taken place since 1974 but retain the basic elements of those earlier proposals.  Fixing the Food System explains why a national food policy is so badly needed and matters so much.

Steve Clapp is in a unique position to comment on food policy issues.  He’s been at the policy game for a long time.  I don’t remember when I first met him but I have been reading his work since he reported for the Community Nutrition Institute’s newsletter, Nutrition Week.  For those of us outside the Beltway in those pre-Internet days, Nutrition Week was a lifeline to the ins and outs of food politics in Washington, DC.   Later, when Steve moved to Food Chemical News, also—and still—a lifeline, I continued to read his reporting.  I often ran across him at meetings and hearings in Washington, DC and found it instructive to read what he wrote about those deliberations, not least because he got it right.

I say all this because he has been a keen observer of the food politics scene in Washington for decades and I can’t think of anyone who ought to know it better.  Fixing the Food System reviews the major debates he witnessed—the Dietary Guidelines, of course, but also attempts to set policy for food safety, marketing to children, hunger in America, and humane treatment of farm animals, among others.

Over the years, he also observed the work of policy advocates, and this book includes profiles of many individuals engaged in this work, some likely to be familiar to readers, whereas others may not.  Impossible as it is for me to judge whatever impact my own writing and advocacy might have, I am honored to be included among those whose work he presents.

Fixing the Food System describes political arguments over the kind of food system we ought to have and what an ideal system should accomplish.  But it is also about the importance of personal and political advocacy for a better food policies, those aimed squarely at promoting public health and environmental sustainability.

Advocacy makes a difference.  Advocates are scoring successes in improving one after another aspect of the food system.  In comparison to the 1970s or 1980s, we now have better food in supermarkets, more organic foods, more farmers’ markets, more nutritious food in schools, and impressive declines in consumption of sugary drinks.  My personal favorite among indicators of advocacy success—the change that makes me most optimistic—is the increasing number of college students who care deeply about food issues.  They are demanding local, seasonal, organic, and sustainably produced food in their cafeterias, and campus vegetable gardens.  And they are demanding and getting food studies courses and programs like the ones we started at New York University in 1996 that teach about how food is produced and consumed and the practical and symbolic meanings of food in modern culture and societies.  Today’s students are tomorrow’s advocates for healthier and more sustainable diets for everyone, everywhere, and for fixing what needs fixing in our food systems.  This book is a great starting place for this work.

–Marion Nestle, New York, June 2016

[i] Nestle M, Lee PR, Baron RB.  Nutrition policy update.  In: Weininger J, Briggs GM, eds.  Nutrition Update, Vol. 1.  New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983:285-313.

[ii] National Nutrition Consortium, Inc.  Guidelines for a national nutrition policy.  Nutrition Reviews 1974;32(5):1253-157.  The Consortium included the American Institute of Nutrition, the American Society for Clinical Nutrition, the American Dietetic Association, and the Institute of Food Technology.

[iii] Pollan M.  In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.  Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual.  Penguin Press, 2008.

The CDC and USDA are collaborating to track the prevalence of obesity in children ages 2 – 4 who participate in the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

In a new report, the agencies find obesity prevalence to have increased from 14% in 2000 to 15.9% in 2010.   But here’s the good news:  it dropped to 14.5% in 2014.

More good news: it decreased significantly among toddlers in these groups:

• Non-Hispanic whites
• Non-Hispanic blacks
• Hispanics
• American Indian/Alaska Natives and Asians/Pacific Islanders
• 61% of the 56 agencies in states, DC, and US territories

The not-so-good news is that obesity in WIC kids is still higher than the national average among kids 2 – 5 years (8.9%), but this trend is in the right direction.

What accounts for it?  The report lists several possibilities:

• Revision of the WIC package in 2009 to align with Dietary Guidelines and infant feeding guidelines from the Pediatric Academy.
• Local, state, and national obesity initiatives
• Let’s Move
• The White House Childhood Obesity Task Force report
• Institute of Medicine recommendations

Let’s keep doing more of the same and keep that trend heading downward.

I am late getting to the FDA’s July announcement of the release of its work plan for the next ten years, Foods and Veterinary Medicine (FVM) Program’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2016-2025.

The FDA organized the plan under goals for:

• Food safety
• Nutrition
• Animal health
• Organizational excellence

The FDA based the plan on basic principles:

1. Public health is the first priority
2. Partnerships are the key to success
3. Scientific expertise and research are the foundation
4. The program is committed to operating openly and transparently

Comments can be submitted on the strategic plan at any time.  Instructions for how to do so are here.

One possibility is to ask for further details.  The plan does not say how the FDA will accomplish the objectives, how much it will cost to achieve them, or whether it has adequate funding for everything it does (hint: it doesn’t).

Some of what it wants to do is puzzling.  For example, one Nutrition objective is this:

2.1: Provide and support accurate and useful nutrition information and education so consumers can choose healthier diets consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other evidence-based recommendations.

I assume this refers to Nutrition Facts labels and menu labels, but one of its sub-objectives is:

Strategy 2.1d: Promote collaboration with stakeholders, including industry, consumer, and public health groups, to enhance consumer nutrition education directed towards age and demographic groups with specific needs.

I wish the report said more about this.  Surely the FDA is not suggesting that the food industry take responsibility for nutrition education?  I hope not.

The documents:

• Federal Register Notice
• FDA Home Page for the Plan
• The Strategic Plan for 2016-2015
• Blog: Charting a Path Forward on Food Safety, Nutrition and Animal Health

As it promised in response to a petition from the KIND fruit-and-nut bar company (as I discussed in a previous post), the FDA is now asking for public comment on what “healthy” means on food package labels.

You might think that any food minimally processed from the plant, tree, animal, bird, or fish would qualify.

But “healthy” is a marketing term for processed food products (not foods).  

As Politico Morning Agriculture reminds us, things got complicated when KIND, which makes products from whole nuts, said its bars deserved to be called “healthy.”

In 2015, KIND received a warning letter from FDA arguing the company violated federal rules by using “healthy” on its packages. KIND then petitioned the agency, and, after an exchange about why the current definition is outdated, FDA decided to reverse course. For example, it requires that a food be low-fat to be labeled “healthy,” a standard that a nut-based bar doesn’t meet, while products like fat-free puddings do.

The FDA’s rules now say:

The term “healthy” and related terms (“health,” “healthful,” “healthfully,” “healthfulness,” “healthier,” “healthiest,” “healthily” and “healthiness”) may be used if the food meets the following requirements: 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)

OK.  I know you can’t read this (you can look for it here). The point is that to qualify as “healthy,” a product has to be low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; relatively low in sodium; and contain at least 10% of the Daily Value per serving for vitamins A or C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber (with some exceptions).  There are also rules for levels of nutrients added in fortification.

The FDA wants input on whether all of this makes sense in the light of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines and the KIND petition.

In its inimitable FDA-speak:

While FDA is considering how to redefine the term “healthy” as a nutrient content claim, food manufacturers can continue to use the term “healthy” on foods that meet the current regulatory definition. FDA is also issuing a guidance document stating that FDA does not intend to enforce the regulatory requirements for products that use the term if certain criteria described in the guidance document are met.

If I correctly understand the meaning of “does not intend to enforce the regulatory requirements,” the FDA, while waiting for your comments, will allow manufacturers to call products “healthy” as long as the products:

(1) Predominantly contain mono and polyunsaturated fats regardless of total fat content; or

(2) Contain at least ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per serving of potassium or vitamin D.

In other words, if your food product is made with a low saturated fat oil and contains potassium or vitamin D, it is by definition “healthy.”

Correction, September 29: An FDA official wrote to say that I didn’t quite get this right.  

Actually, if a food exceeds the low fat requirement currently in our definition, we will not take any enforcement or compliance action as long as the food meets all of the other requirements in the definition, namely that it is low in saturated fat, cannot exceed the specified levels of cholesterol and sodium, and contains at least 10 percent of the daily value for beneficial nutrients.  

Second, we are not saying that foods must contain potassium or vitamin D to be labeled as “healthy.”  We are simply indicating that potassium and vitamin D can be substituted for the beneficial nutrients now listed in the current regulations, in line with the new Nutrition Facts label regulations.

My apologies to the FDA for misunderstanding the notice.

The FDA’s request is good news for KIND bars.

But it smacks of “nutritionism”—the use of these two single nutrients (as well as others on the short list of beneficial nutrients) as indicators of quality in processed food products (and don’t get me started on vitamin D, which is a hormone, not a vitamin, and best obtained by getting outside in the sun once in a while).

Understand: this effort is not about semantics; it is about marketing.

Would you like to weigh in on what you think qualifies a food as “healthy?”  Here’s how:

• Federal Register Notice for the Guidance for Industry 
• Federal Register Notice for the Request for Information
• Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products
• Blog: Making Sure ‘Healthy’ Means What It Says on Food Packages
• “Healthy” on Food Labeling 

Food Navigator is an industry newsletter with articles about topics of interest to food companies.  This is one of its occasional collections of columns on a particular topic, in this case, beans, seeds, and grains.

Beans, chickpeas, peas and lentils are now appearing as added value ingredients in every part of the store, from chips and snacks to salads, soups, pastas, dips and baked goods. Non-GMO, gluten-free, high in protein, fiber and micronutrients, and low in fat, beans in particular are undergoing a PR renaissance among consumers, who have been eating them for years in tacos and burritos, but now see them as a more wholesome alternative to soy, rice, corn and potatoes in their snacks. So where will they go next, and who is driving innovation, both from a formulation, and branding perspective? We also take a look at ancient and ‘heirloom’ beans and grains.

•  Manufacturers answer FAO’s call to increase pulse consumption in 2016 with new bean-based snacks: In declaring 2016 the year of the pulse, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN issued a call to action to increase the consumption and popularity of legumes such as chickpeas, lentils and beans which are under used in the US… Watch now
• How consumer demand is resurrecting ancient grains from the past: Data from SPINS reveals that sales of products featuring ‘ancient grains’ grew 16.6% year-over-year to $198,884,358 in 2016… Read
• Rancho Gordo brings heirloom beans to American doorsteps: Working with farmers from Central California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and Mexico, Napa-based Rancho Gordo is resurrecting long-forgotten beans and bringing them back to the American table…Read
• Modern Table Meals serves up bean pasta as meal kits or plain: The team of moms is cornering the category with a double whammy-pulse-based pasta for both the time-strapped parent and the aspiring chef with more time on their hands… Read
• The Good Bean rides bean-based snacking wave in the Year of the Pulse: The Good Bean – a Berkley-based snack brand built around the garbanzo bean (chickpea) – more than doubled its sales in 2015 and expects to do so again in 2016 as pulse-based snacking (beans, peas, lentils) gains momentum. .. Read
• US volumes of pulses surge 8% in 2015, outpacing overall fresh food growth of 1%: Volumes of pulses (defined as leguminous crops – beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils – harvested for dry grains) surged 8% in the US in 2015, while overall volumes of fresh food (retail, foodservice, institutional channels combined) grew by a more modest 1%, according to Euromonitor International… Read
• Beans, peas, lentils, chickpeas: The hottest ingredients in the snack developer’s toolbox? North American pulse growers still export a lot of their wares, but domestic demand has ramped up significantly in recent years as beans, peas, chickpeas, and lentils have started to infiltrate every aisle in the grocery store, from hummus, bean dips, pasta and salads, to chips, brownies and nutrition bars, according to pulse processor AGT Food and Ingredients…Read
• Inclusion of pulses in processed food grew the fastest, says Pulse Canada: Of the many culinary ways pulses can be used, inclusion as an ingredient in snack foods or pasta really ramped up, Pulse Canada data says. We chatted with the industry association to learn more about the state of pulses… Read
•  Full of beans: Banza chickpea pasta now in 2,000+ stores… ‘It’s been a wild ride!’: Unlike some of the more esoteric products at Expo West, Banza chickpea pasta is aimed squarely at mainstream consumers who are looking for more protein and fiber in their pasta, but are not prepared to compromise on taste or texture (no mush). .. Watch now
•  Bean pasta category emerges to meet demand for high-protein, fiber-packed and gluten free options: Ongoing interest in products that are gluten free and better for you are colliding with the international push to celebrate 2016 as the year of the pulse to create a burgeoning category of pasta created from legumes rather than more traditional wheat or rice… Display
• Whole grains consumption increases thanks to plant-forward diet, focus on new flavors: Once shunned for their distinct taste and texture, whole grains are gaining acceptance among more Americans for these same attributes thanks in part to innovative restaurateurs and chefs who are using them to round-out increasingly popular plant-forward dishes, according to the Whole Grains Council… Read
•  Taste Test Friday: Banza chickpea pasta with One Hop Kitchen Bolognese offers a twist on a classic: On the menu for this edition of Taste Test Friday is a blind sampling of a classic American-Italian meal: pasta with Bolognese sauce – but with a twist. .. Watch now
• World Peas acquired by Snack it Forward: Austin based World Peas – best known for its coated peas and fava bean snacks, has been acquired by L.A. based Snack it Forward LLC – which makes freeze-dried fruit snacks (Sunkist Fruit Chips) and trail mix… Read
• NY start-up unveils the ultimate plant-based protein snack: BRAMI lupini beans: Lupini beans have a nutritional profile to die for. The problem is, most Americans have never heard of them. But that could change rapidly if the New York based entrepreneur behind BRAMI snacking beans gets his way… Read
•  Soup-To-Nuts Podcast: Quinoa’s rise to superfood superstar status and the challenges it must address: Quinoa was one of the first superfoods to take America by storm more than a decade ago, and one of the few such stars to sustain its reign long enough to push past being a fad food to become a staple on restaurant menus and households across the country, but the popular grain faces challenges as it become commoditized. .. Listen now
•  Whole grains 101: Highlights from the 2015 Whole Grain Summit: The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans say half of our grains should be whole. So how are we doing? FoodNavigator-USA headed to Portland, Oregon, for the 2015 Whole Grain Summit  – organized by Oregon State University and the Grains for Health Foundation – to find out….. Display
• Eating more whole grains could reduce risk of chronic diseases, study finds: New research that demonstrates a clear association between eating whole grains and the reduced risk of chronic diseases supports the 2015 dietary guideline’s recommendation that Americans “shift” their diet by making at least half their grains whole grains. .. Read
•  Selling complex carbs in a post Grain Brain world: Do grains really make us fat and sick? Grains, according to the author of best-selling book Grain Brain, are “silent killers”. Not only are they making us fat, says Dr David Perlmutter, “but even healthy ones like whole grains can cause dementia, ADHD, anxiety, chronic headaches, depression, and much more…” But is there any truth behind these assertions, and if not, what can the grain chain do to fight back?.. Watch now

Bridget Huber of The Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) has produced a don’t-miss” article in The Nation: “Welcome to Brazil, where a food revolution Is changing the way people eat: How the country challenged the junk-food industry and became a global leader in the battle against obesity.”

As she explains, Latin America is leading worldwide opposition to food industry marketing, and much is happening in Brazil.

She writes about the advocacy work of Carlos Monteiro, Professor of Nutrition in the School of Public Health, University of Sao Paolo, who says:

The local food system is being replaced by a food system that is controlled by transnational corporations…this dietary deterioration doesn’t just harm bodily health but also the environment, local economies, and Brazil’s rich food traditions. We are seeing a battle for the consumer.

She further explains:

Over the last 30 years, big transnational food companies have aggressively expanded into Latin America. Taking advantage of economic reforms that opened markets, they’ve courted a consumer class that has grown in size due to generally increasing prosperity and to antipoverty efforts like minimum-wage increases and cash transfers for poor families. And as sales of highly processed foods and drinks have plateaued (and even fallen, in the case of soda) in the United States and other rich countries, Latin America has become a key market…In recent years, Brazil has inscribed the right to food in its Constitution and reformed its federal school-lunch program to broaden its reach while bolstering local farms.

And in 2014, the Ministry of Health released new dietary guidelines that made healthy-food advocates across the world swoon [I did a post on them when they were released].  Monteiro helped lead the team that wrote them; the guidelines transcend a traditional nutrition-science frame to consider the social, cultural, and ecological dimensions of what people eat. They also focus on the pleasure that comes from cooking and sharing meals and frankly address the connections between what we eat and the environment.

Huber’s investigative report is long and detailed, and well worth the read.

And it comes with a great graphic comparing the situation in Brazil with that of the U.S. (this is just an excerpt):

Those of us advocating for food systems that are healthier for people and the planet have much to learn from our colleagues in the South.

Brazilian researchers have published a study clearly aimed at countering Brazil’s dietary guidelines, which the authors say, include advice to “avoid fast food.”

The study, which looked at the nutritional quality of children’s lunches, comes to three conclusions:

1. The nutrition quality of lunch in fast food restaurants is similar to a typical Brazilian meal [Really?  Who paid for this?].
2. The restaurant meals could fit into a balanced diet from time to time [Of course.  Anything can].
3. Every meal observed here could be improved with regard to sodium and fiber to promote children’s health in adulthood [Ditto].

Did you guess?

The authors acknowledge Equilibrium Consultancy which led this study. Funding by McDonald’s Corporation for the project was primarily to Equilibrium.

This is yet another industry-funded study with results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  These especially require scrutiny of hypotheses, methods, and interpretation and repetition by independently funded investigators.

The Los Angeles Times has reprinted a story about Big Sugar’s hold on Florida politics.  The story appeared first in the Miami Herald (but don’t even try to read it there; the ads make the site impenetrable).

The LA Times version is worth a look.

Between 1994 and 2016, a review of state Division of Elections records by The Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times Tallahassee bureau shows, the sugar industry led by United States Sugar and Florida Crystals has steered a whopping $57.8 million in direct and in-kind contributions to state and local political campaigns. (The total does not include federal contributions.)

It appears to be money well spent. On issue after issue, regulators, legislators and governors have erred on the side of softening the impact of adverse rules and regulations on cane growers and other powerful and polluting agriculture interests, including cattle operations north of Lake Okeechobee.

The sugar industry beat back a voter-approved amendment that would have forced it to pay for cleaning up its own nutrient-rich runoff into the Everglades, instead shifting much of the cost to taxpayers. It won repeated delays of strict water quality standards. It has fended off calls for buyouts even after one of the largest companies, U.S. Sugar, offered to sell itself to the state. And it has undermined attempts to use a second constitutional amendment, Amendment 1, to be used to buy farmland for Everglades cleanup.