It may be the season to be jolly, but not with prepackaged commercial caramel apples.  They may be contaminated with potentially fatal Listeria.  Not good.

The CDC says:

Out of an abundance of caution, CDC recommends that U.S. consumers do not eat any commercially produced, prepackaged caramel apples, including plain caramel apples as well as those containing nuts, sprinkles, chocolate, or other toppings, until more specific guidance can be provided.

As of December 18, 2014, a total of 28 people have been reported as infected with the outbreak strains of Listeria monocytogenes.

• Five people have died–from eating caramel apples.
• 26 have been hospitalized, in 10 states.
• Nine cases are in a pregnant woman or her newborn infant.
• Three children have meningitis.
• 83% of the 18 ill people said they ate commercially produced, prepackaged caramel apples.
• None of the 18 ill people said they ate plain apples, or plain caramel candy.

Here’s the Epi chart of reported cases:

Food safety attorney Bill Marler checked FDA records for previous recalls of apples potentially contaminated with Listeria.  His list:

• December 11, 2014 – Giant Eagle issued a recall of Giant Eagle Apple Pistachio Salad and Apple Pistachio Salad with Chicken due to potential Listeria monocytogenes contamination. To date, Giant Eagle has received no reports of customer illnesses associated with this recall.
• November 14, 2013 – Crunch Pak® of Cashmere, Washington is voluntarily recalling 5,471 cases of Crunch Pak® Apple Slices due to a possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes.
• November 7, 2013 – Garden-Fresh Foods has initiated an expansion of previous recalls of fresh ct vegetables, ready-to eat salads, slaws, dips and spreads.
• December 8, 2012 – Freshway Foods is voluntarily recalling 6,671 pounds of sliced apples.
• August 10, 2012 – Missa Bay, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ready Pac Foods, Inc., of Swedesboro, New Jersey is voluntarily recalling a total of 293,488 cases and 296,224 individually distributed units of fruit, vegetable, and sandwich products containing apples.
• August 6, 2012 – Reichel Foods, Inc. of Rochester, Minnesota is voluntarily recalling a limited amount of Dippin’ Stix Sliced Apples & Caramel with Peanuts.

The moral: when it comes to food safety, no food source is sacred.

Add this to your list of food safety hazards to avoid.

Have a food-safe holiday season!

The Government Accountability Office has just released a new report.

Much of the report is about the need for better coordination of the food safety oversight responsibilities of the USDA (meat and poultry) and those of the FDA (everything else), not to mention the 13 other agencies that deal with aspects of food safety (the report provides a handy summary chart).

This report points out that both agencies

have mechanisms in place to facilitate interagency coordination on food safety that focus on specific issues, but none provides for broad-based, centralized collaboration…[Existing]mechanisms do not allow FDA, FSIS [USDA], and other agencies to look across their individual programs and determine how they all contribute to federal food safety goals. Nearly all the experts GAO interviewed agreed that a centralized collaborative mechanism on food safety is important to foster effective interagency collaboration and could enhance food safety oversight. The Food Safety Working Group (FSWG) served
as a centralized mechanism for broad-based food safety collaboration and resulted in a number of accomplishments, including improved coordination. However, the FSWG is no longer meeting…Without a centralized collaborative mechanism on food safety, there is no forum for agencies to reach agreement on a set of broad-based food safety goals and objectives.

The GAO complains that “for more than a decade, we have reported on the fragmented nature of federal food safety oversight.”

Actually, its complaints go back longer than that but here’s one from 1999:

I will have to go through my files but as I recall, the GAO started arguing for a single food safety agency sometime in the early 1990s.  Political realities make that idea impossible.  Instead, we have the Food Safety Working Group which seems to have stopped meeting.

It’s good the GAO is still on the case.  We need better food safety oversight.

Tomorrow’s example: Caramel apples.

Food Politics will mourn the passing of the Colbert Report.

What, you might ask, did the Colbert Report have to do with Food Politics?

Plenty.

For one thing, I was lucky (well, nonplussed) to appear on the show in August 2009.

The topic?  Sugar trade policy.

Oh.  Of course.

I explained what this was about in a blog post.

Better, Colbert did occasional pieces: Thought for Food.

Eater has collected them all in one place (thanks to Eleanor Talbot West for sending).

Or, if you want to watch them separately…

• Thought for Food – Domino’s Smart Slice & Doritos Jacked …
• Thought for Food – Fairlife Milk & Pizza Hut’s Subconscious …
• Thought for Food – Ban on Trans Fats & McDonald’s McRib …
• Thought for Food – Kentucky Tuna & Grilled Cheese Burger …
• Thought for Food – Spreadable Sharia & Buddy Cup – The ...
• Thought for Food – Bug Food Coloring, Hot-Dog-Stuffed …
• Thought for Food – KFC’s Go Cup & Powerful Yogurt – The …
• Thought for Food – Responsible Snacking & Second Breakfast
• http://www.feedyourheaddiet.com/the-western-diet-can-be-funny.html

It was great while it lasted.  I will miss the brilliant satire.

Addition: A reader just sent this link to Colbert’s in-character testimony to Congress on agricultural labor issues (from the expressions on the faces of the people sitting behind him, they must have been taking him seriously).

This is my week to be talking about the Dietary Guidelines, apparently.  Yesterday’s Politico Morning Agriculture, a news source on which I greatly depend, noted yet another attack on the Dietary Guidelines, this one from a group called  The Healthy Nation Coalition.

The Coalition wrote a letter to the secretaries of USDA and HHS, the agencies sponsoring the Guidelines, with many complaints about process and ineffectiveness.

I had never heard of this group, so I went to its website and laughed when I saw this graph—a terrific example of why epidemiologists insist that association does not necessarily say anything about causation.

The implication here is that the Dietary Guidelines either cause obesity (something patently absurd) or have had no effect on its prevalence (something only to be expected given the other changes in society that predisposed to obesity beginning in the early 1980s).

If anything, the Dietary Guidelines are a result of those forces in society, not their cause.

I have my own issues with Dietary Guidelines (see Fo0d Politics), mainly about the use of advice that is euphemistic (“choose lean meats”) or incomprehensible (reduce SoFAS—solid fats and added sugars), and their focus on nutrients (fat, sugar, salt) rather than foods.

But I can’t understand what this Coalition is about or what it wants.

Its website says the Coalition formed because

A sense of community has arisen around questioning our current approach to food and nutrition. Healthy Nation Coalition has its beginnings in the ancestral health, Weston A. Price Foundation, and low-carbohydrate nutrition communities.

I understand what the Coalition does not want.  It

suggests that the 2010 Guidelines are not appropriate for population-wide diet recommendations, especially with regard to restrictions on dietary fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and salt.

indicates that the 2010 Guidelines may lead to increased risk of weight gain, diabetes, and chronic disease in many populations.

indicates that reducing intake of sugars and starches has health benefits.

indicates that adequate, complete protein is a critical part of the adult diet and that many adults benefit from intakes above current minimum recommendations.

Here’s what it says it wants

the Healthy Nation Coalition proposes that this process be removed from the USDA and HHS and given to one or more independent agencies, offices, or entities that can create dietary guidance that is without bias and responsive to the needs of the people of America.

Really?  Like what?

The “ask” in the letter is this:

It is the duty of USDA and DHHS leadership to end the use of controversial, unsuccessful and discriminatory dietary recommendations. USDA and DHHS leadership must refuse to accept any DGA that fail to establish federal nutrition policy based on the foundation of good health: adequate essential nutrition from wholesome, nourishing foods. It is time to create DGA that work for all Americans.

But what would they look like?

I don’t recognize any of the names of the individuals listed as part of the Coalition.

Can anyone explain to me what this group wants and is about?

I had to laugh when I read Andy Bellatti’s blog post on the latest food industry front group, the Back to Balance Coalition.

A few years ago, Andy started a group called Dietitians for Professional Integrity to advocate for greater financial transparency and ethical sponsorships within the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Dietitians for Professional Integrity does not believe that it’s a good idea for the country’s largest organization of nutrition professionals to be sponsored by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, and other Big Food giants.

I could not agree more.  And the same could be said of the American Society for Nutrition.  See, for example, one of its recent sponsored sessions.

Friday, December 5, 7:00 am – 8:45 am

Sponsored Satellite Program and Breakfast:

Defining Moderation: Should There Be Dietary Guidance for Chocolate?

Sponsored and organized by the National Confectioners Association

As I keep pointing out, you can’t make this stuff up.

But to return to the Back to Balance Coalition.

The Back to Balance Coalition brings together food and beverage organizations, health advocacy groups, and nutrition professionals who are supporters of balance, variety and moderation in dietary guidelines. The group aims to bring forward common sense, practicality, economic, and cultural relevance into dietary guidance.

As Andy puts it, “Leave it to the food industry to appoint itself as the sole definer of what constitutes balance, variety, and moderation.”

The beleaguered 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, as I explained yesterday, is under pressure from Congress to avoid saying anything about how food production and consumption might affect the environment, despite estimates that agriculture accounts for 15% to 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Back to Balance Coalition has a different agenda.  It does not want the Dietary Guidelines to say a word about eating less of any foods its members sell.

Instead, it wants the Guidelines to talk about choice [my translations follow]:

• Empowering choice is more effective than restricting it [so you will keep choosing our highly profitable junk foods].
• All foods can fit within a healthful, overall dietary pattern if consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined with physical activity [please ignore the amounts of money we spend to market our unhealthiest products].
• Restricting food choices by classifying specific foods as “good” or “bad” is often overly simplistic and may foster unhealthy eating behaviors [you might not buy our products!].
• Guiding Americans on which nutrient rich food choices to make versus not to make, and focusing on portion guidance to provide “how to” practical advice, can help people make wise food choices within the context of the total diet [never mind the fortunes we sink into promoting supersize junk foods].

To the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Courage!

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is meeting today by teleconference.

One issue, no doubt, will be the House directive in the appropriations bill (page 50 of this draft):

Dietary Guidelines.—The Committee is concerned that the advisory committee for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is considering issues outside of the nutritional focus of the panel. Specifically, the advisory committee is showing an interest in incorporating sustainability, climate change, and other environmental factors and production practices into their criteria for establishing the next dietary recommendations, which is clearly outside of the scope of the panel. The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that the advisory committee focuses only on nutrient and dietary recommendations based upon sound nutrition science and not pursue an environmental agenda. Should environmental or production factors be included in the panel’s recommendations to USDA and
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Committee expects the Secretary to reject their inclusion in the final 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Amazing, how Congress thinks it knows more about nutrition thank nutrition scientists.

Let’s grant that Congress knows what the political fallout will be from these guidelines.

NPR interviewed Kate Clancy, who has been arguing for the need to include environmental considerations in dietary guidelines for years.

In 1986, nutritionist Kate Clancy, then teaching at Syracuse University, co-authored [with Joan Gussow] an article called “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability.” It was addressed to her colleagues, Clancy says. She wanted them “to take a broader view of what they were advising people to do, with regard to their diet. It wasn’t just nutrients.” She urged them to consider not just what foods contribute to personal health, but also what types of food “contribute to the protection of our natural resources.”

Makes sense, no?

Too bad politics trumps science in this Congress.

Several readers alerted me to a Reuters article about the FDA’s “lost pleasure” analysis of the effects of the new menu labeling rules.

U.S. health regulators estimate that consumers will suffer up to $5.27 billion in “lost pleasure” over 20 years when calorie counts on restaurant menus discourage people from ordering french fries, brownies and other high-calorie favorites.

The lost-pleasure analysis, which is criticized by some leading economists and public health groups, was tucked into new regulations published last month by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration…Public health advocates alerted Reuters to the inclusion of the analysis, which they say makes such regulations more vulnerable to challenges by industry because it narrows the gap between the government’s projections of a regulation’s benefits and costs. Amit Narang, an attorney at Public Citizen, said the lost pleasure calculation could help companies or trade groups to challenge the menu rule in court.

I searched the FDA’s Federal Register notice but could not find the word “pleasure” anywhere in it.

No wonder.  I was looking at the wrong document using the wrong search term.

The right document is the FDA’s impact analysis of menu labeling. The correct term is “consumer surplus” (see page 92).

If consumers respond to this information [calorie labels] by reducing consumption there will be a loss in consumer welfare associated with substitution away from certain food…We acknowledge that the reduction in consumer surplus, as a proportion of gross benefits, could range from 0 to 100 percent. Due to limitations in available data regarding the degree to which consumer surplus is lost in the face of consumption changes as a result of menu labeling…we simply adjust gross benefits downward by the midpoint of the range, or 50 percent, uniformly distributed between 10 and 90 percent, and estimate the loss in consumer surplus to range from $2.2 billion to $5.27 billion.

The readers who sent this to me were incredulous that an economic value—in the billions, yet—would be assigned to eating less junk food.

I had heard this before.  Some years ago, I gave a talk on obesity to a conference of agricultural economists.  During the Q and A, I was asked how I accounted for the costs of the loss of pleasure people might feel for not being able to eat so much.

I did not have a good answer to that question then, and I still don’t, other than suggesting that the pleasures of health easily compensate for those costs.

But you have to love the way economists think, no?

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, is again using the appropriations process to micromanage nutrition standards for school meals and the WIC program, against the advice of the Institute of Medicine and other health experts.

The new appropriations bill includes several provisions relevant to issues I discuss frequently here.  By all reports, this is the best that can be expected, given the makeup of this Congress.

• Section 751 grants exemptions to states from the whole grain requirements for school meals “Provided, That school food authorities demonstrate hardship…in procuring specific whole grain products which are acceptable to the students and compliant with the whole grain-rich requirements (my translation: forget whole grains and recommendations by health experts.  They are way too much trouble).
• Section 752 says that no federal funds may be used to pay the salaries of people doing work “that would require a reduction in the quantity of sodium contained in federally reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools…until the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children (We know more about the effects of salt on health than do health professionals and expert committees).
• Section 753 says Congress won’t pay the salaries of anybody who tries to “exclude or restrict, he eligibility of any variety of fresh, whole, or cut vegetables (except for vegetables with added sugars, fats, or oils) from being provided under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (no, you can’t keep white potatoes out of the WIC program).

Chalk these up to effective lobbying by the School Nutrition Association, makers of salty snacks, and the potato lobby.

The good news, such as it is:

• Congress did not roll back most of the USDA’s food standards for school meals.
• It only cut SNAP by $400 million.
• It only cut WIC by $93 million.

These must be considered enormous victories, given the circumstances.

Addition, December 12:  The Hagstrom Report quotes USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack:

On the provision to require the availability of white potatoes in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Vilsack said, “With all due respect to the politicians who make the law, I have more confidence in pediatricians and more confidence in medical science than in political science.”