Bernard Lavallée, Le nutritionniste urbain, has supplied an English translation of the French graphic I posted a couple of days ago:
He’s done other food graphics. You can see them at this site.
Thanks for sending!
USDA deserves a thank-you note: the agency announced it is awarding $25 million in grants to help schools buy kitchen equipment. Yes!
The grants are a response to a report by the Kids’ Safe and Healthful Foods Project – a collaboration with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The report found that 88% of school districts nationwide need at least one piece of equipment, and 55% need infrastructure upgrades.
You can send a quick note of thanks to the USDA Office of Communications at oc.news@usda.gov.
Thanks are needed because nutrition standards for school meals are under intense pressure from:
School meals need help, but not that kind.
You would think that excluding white potatoes in the WIC package (because evidence shows that WIC participants already eat plenty of white potatoes) would be small potatoes, but not to the Maine potato lobby.
It has induced Congress to intervene on behalf of Maine potatoes. And, according to Politico it seems to have the votes.
As I’ve said in a couple of earlier posts, this looks to me like Congressional unraveling of nutritional gains for the WIC program.
Rumors say that Republican congressional staff have told WIC officials that Congress intends to go after the program just as it went after SNAP, and that this time WIC “won’t get off easy.”
WIC is demonstrably successful in improving the nutritional status of participating women, infants, and children.
The WIC package—the foods that are eligible to be purchased with WIC vouchers—is based on science-based recommendations of the Institute of Medicine.
Politico quotes Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
Members of Congress often say they want poverty programs to be more effective…Here, they are taking what’s widely agreed to be one of the most effective programs and making it less effective in order to serve parochial interests…If Congress begins mandating what foods to include and exclude in WIC irrespective of the scientific findings…the floodgates will be open in the years ahead for other legislators to demand inclusion of other products that their states produce and that may generate substantial campaign contributions.
How about writing your congressional representatives and telling them to maintain the integrity of the WIC program. If your representatives heard from enough constituents about this issue, they might not vote for it.
Even a quick e-mail would help.
Addition: Here’s the letter from senators to USDA Secretary Vilsack.
This is too much fun not to share. Merci á Bernard Lavallée pour le Tweet:
Sometimes I have some sympathy for the makers of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). They get such bad publicity.
The most recent example occurred at the White House during the annual Easter Egg Roll, and involved the First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS), Michelle Obama.
Meet Marc Murphy, a chef, drizzling honey over a fruit salad:
MURPHY: “Honey is a great way to sweeten things, it is sort of a natural sweetener.”
FLOTUS: “Why is honey better than sugar?”
MURPHY: “Our bodies can deal with honey…The high-fructose corn syrup is a little harder to … I don’t think our bodies know what do with that yet.”
FLOTUS: “Did you hear that? Our bodies don’t know what to do with high-fructose corn syrup. So we don’t need it.”
OK class. It’s time for a lesson in basic carbohydrate biochemistry.
The body knows perfectly well what to do with glucose and fructose, no matter where it comes from.
Now meet John Bode, the new president of The Corn Refiners Association:
We applaud First Lady Michelle Obama’s commendable work to educate the public about nutrition and healthy diets… It is most unfortunate that she was misinformed about how the body processes caloric sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrup…Years of scientific research have shown that the body metabolizes high fructose corn syrup similar to table sugar and honey.
If you’ve been following this blog for a long time, you may recall that I have a little history with the Corn Refiners.
Bizarrely, I was caught up in their lawsuit with the Sugar Association.
And I was not particularly pleased to find several of my public comments about carbohydrate biochemistry displayed on the Corn Refiners website. I did not want them used in support of the group’s ultimately unsuccessful proposal to change the name of HFCS to corn sugar.
I asked to have the quotes removed. The response: “Your quotes are published and in the public domain. If you don’t want us to use them, take us to court.”
I let that one go.
Enter John Bode, the Corn Refiners’ new president and CEO. As it happens, I became acquainted with Mr. Bode in the late 1980s when he was Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and I was working in the Department of Health and Human Services (yes, the Reagan administration).
To my pleasant surprise, he recently wrote me “warm greetings, after many years.” His note assured me that my request to have the quotes removed would be respected and that they would soon disappear. And so they have, except for a couple in some archived press releases.
Score one for John Bode.
Mr. Bode has his work cut out for him. He has to teach the world carbohydrate biochemistry, restore public acceptance of HFCS, defend against Sugar Association lawsuits, stop the Corn Refiners from being so litigious, and do some fence-mending, all at the same time.
And he must do all this in an era when everyone would be better off eating a lot less sugar of any kind, HFCS included.
It’s been a busy couple of weeks on the organic front.
To put the events in context:Organics cost more.
I think this photo comes from Jerry Hagstrom who must have seen it on the day of the annual Easter egg roll.
Sam Kass denies that the White House garden is organic. He told Hagstrom that “the sign was part of the Easter Egg Roll, not part of the kitchen garden…The planners of the Easter Egg Roll put up the sign…and he did not see it until he went down to the South Lawn during the event.” The garden uses “organic practices.”
A report from something called Academic Reviews draws a conspiracy-theory picture of organic farmers:
Our review of the top 50 organic food marketers….reveals that anti-GMO and anti-pesticide advocacy groups promoting organic alternatives have combined annual budgets exceeding $2.5 billion annually and that organic industry funders are found among the major donors to these groups…These findings suggest a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices that have generated hundreds of billions in revenues.
Finally, the findings strongly suggest that this multi-decade public disinformation campaign has been conducted with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal in direct contradiction to U.S. government stated policy for use of said seal….As a result, the American taxpayer funded national organic program is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on false and misleading health, safety and quality claims.
Michele Simon points out that the report is the work of the two founders of the publication, which is supported by an impressive list of food and biotechnology industry supporters.
The authors make no statement about conflicts-of-interest.
Consumer Reports has a new survey of the attitudes toward organics of 1,016 adults. The survey found:
The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is meeting in San Antonio this week. Advocates for maintaining the highest possible standards for organic production are worried about the NOSB’s notice last September to eliminate the rule that synthetic materials approved for the organic production be reviewed every five years (see Federal Register).
Advocates for Small Organics worry that the NOSB’s actions will damage the credibility of the USDA organic seal. Some members of Congress agree.
the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and March Against Monsanto San Antonio (MAMSA) staged protested the sunset of the 5-year rule at the meeting.
OCA says the NOSB made the change
Here’s a photo of the protest. Things must have gotten hot and heavy. The political director of the Organic Consumers Association was arrested. The group issued this statement:
When the bureaucrats running the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) call in the police to remove the political director of the Organic Consumers Association for protesting an illegal policy change, and continue to ignore the expressed concerns, and block her from attending the public meeting today, it’s clear that we need a new balance of power between the organic community and the organic industry.
This is the price of success for organics. Everyone wants to cash in.
Addition: Ellen Fried reminds me of this terrific graphic of who owns what in organics.
Mal Nesheim and I have an editorial in a recent issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: “Advice for fish consumption: challenging dilemmas.”
We commented on a research article evaluating blood mercury levels in adults eating seafood.
In it, we point out that
the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise Americans to consume 8 ounces (227 g) of seafood per week to reach an average intake of 250 mg/d of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.
This recommendation represents a substantial increase over current consumption amounts of ∼3.5 oz/wk. It is based on “moderate, consistent evidence” that the health benefits of increased seafood consumption outweigh the risks associated with methylmercury, a toxic contaminant of large predatory food fish (tilefish, shark, swordfish, king mackerel) and, to a lesser extent, albacore (white) tuna.
To avoid this toxin, the guidelines advise eating seafood typically found to be low in methylmercury, such as salmon, anchovies, sardines, and trout.
Such advice, however, leads to at least 3 dilemmas. Eating more fish might raise methylmercury intake above safe amounts. Pressures to consume more fish might place impossible demands on an already threatened seafood supply. And the obvious solution—fish farming—raises concerns about what farmed fish are fed and how farmed fish affects the environment.
We urge the 2015 Dietary Guidelines committee to take all this into consideration when making recommendations about fish consumption: “We hope that its advice for seafood consumption will help a confused public resolve some of these dilemmas and make wise seafood choices.”
Wise seafood choices may be an oxymoron, alas.
Yesterday, Health Commissioner Mary Bassett announced that the National Alliance for Hispanic health and nine other New York City organizations had filed an amicus—“friend of the court”—brief in support of the ban on sales of sodas larger than 16 ounces (the “soda cap rule”).
The amicus brief filed today…is a reminder of what this rule is about: protecting the health of New Yorkers. Corporate lawsuits and well-financed marketing campaigns do not change the documented scientific fact that there is an obesity and diabetes epidemic in our city, with the epicenter in our poorest neighborhoods. We must protect New Yorkers from corporate practices that value profits at the expense of their customers’ health.
The Alliance issued its own statement.
“The beverage industry has pursued a strategy of legal obstruction and put profits over the health of its customers,” said Dr. Jane L. Delgado, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the nation’s leading science-based advocate for Hispanic health.
The amici brief concludes:
The problem that the Rule addresses – the impact of sugary drinks in contributing to obesity and other diet-related chronic disease – is an issue of importance and urgency for millions of New Yorkers. The crisis calls for action – including the incremental action of reducing the portion sizes of sugary drinks in restaurants. For the one of every three children born in 2000 who will develop type 2 diabetes, and for the one of every two African-American and Hispanic girls who will get the disease, the question is not whether the Rule was justified but rather “What else is being done?” It is for their sake that the Rule was adopted. It is for their sake that the Board concluded thaqt the inconvenience to the thirsty of having to order another soda was worth it. It is for their sake that amici urge this Court to uphold the Rule.
The soda cap rule is on appeal to the State Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, a hearing is scheduled for June 4.
Congratulations to the new Commissioner for keeping this idea alive.
