Really, we have to rethink USDA.  It has just awarded $4.8 million grants to community groups to promote local agriculture as part of a $65 millioncampaign to Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.  Local food!

And HHS, not to be outdone, is awarding $650 million in grants for community initiatives to improve diets and get people more active.  Prevention!

OK, these are tiny fractions of the Departments’ budgets but I read them as symbolic steps in a new and terrific direction.  More of the same, please.

If I read the tea leaves correctly, soda taxes are on their way.  Kelly Brownell and Tom Friedan broached the idea earlier this year.  York state tried and failed to implement them.

Since then, as we learn more about the role of sugary drinks as a factor in obesity, public health support for the idea is growing.  Last week, Jim Knickman, President of NYSHealth wrote an op-ed in the New York Post in favor of the taxes.    Now the New England Journal of Medicine – as prestigious a journal as they come – is publishing another article from  Brownell, Frieden, et al on the public health and economic benefits of taxing sugary soft drinks.

And the evidence accumulates daily.  Children and adults who habitually drink sodas are more likely to be obese and have worse diets than those who do not.  The latest study from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and a policy research group at UCLA makes just this point.

The study found that 41 percent of children (ages 2 – 11), 62 percent of adolescents (ages 12 – 17) and 24 percent of adults drink at least one soda or other sugar-sweetened beverage every day. Regardless of income or ethnicity, adults who drink one or more sodas or other sugar-sweetened beverages every day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.

The result of all this is what the New York Times is calling in its print headline, “tempest in a soda bottle.”  I’d call it a Category 5 hurricane.

As I love to point out, it did not used to be OK for kids to drink sodas all day long.  Now it is.  Taxes might encourage some changes in these recent practices.  It will be interesting to watch this idea progress.

Later in the day: as for pushback, here is a link to the ad from the “Americans Against Food Taxes.”  Why am I thinking this is an astroturf client of the Center for Consumer Freedom?  Just a wild guess.

I’ve just been contacted by Mike Smith of Change.org.  This group is organizing a letter-writing campaign about the Smart Choices program.  You don’t know what this is about?  See previous posts.  Here’s what he says:

At Change.org we are also outraged by the Smart Choices program and are concerned that members of the American Dietetic Association and nutrition experts are allied with Smart Choices, happy to mislead the public about what constitutes a healthy / smart choice. We’ve already had 3,000 people email the Smart Choices panel demanding they stop shilling for Kellogg’s and better support consumers in this action campaign…We’ve had big successes in the recent weeks — we got the Department of Labor to release its list of slave made goods to consumers, had Chipotle agree to better rights for their tomato farmers, and persuaded Live Nation to cancel concerts by an anti-gay musician. Having you on board will hopefully tip the balance and encourage the Smart Choices board to make crucial changes that won’t allow Froot Loops to be presented as a Smart Choice.

How about adding your voice to the protest against the Smart Choices program, or what has now become known as the “Better than a Doughnut” program?  It’s easy to do.   Just click on this link.   Thanks Mike.

Update September 18:  Here’s another good reason to be concerned about this program.  It was paid for by industry to the tune of $1.47 million, according to Forbes.

I spoke too soon (see previous post).  For government food safety information, try www.foodsafety.gov.   Bill Marler, the lawyer whose Seattle firm represents victims of food poisonings, has just launched www.foodsafetynews.com.  These will be covering much of the same information, but from distinctly different perspectives, I’m willing to bet.  It will be instructive – and fun – to compare!  Cheers to both for putting all that information in one place.

I can hardly believe it but the USDA is about to define what “natural” means for meat and poultry products (on the link, look for Docket No. FSIS-2006-0040A).

At the moment, the USDA has two definitions of “natural.”  Its Food Safety and Inspection Service says meat and poultry can be labeled “natural” if they are only minimally processed and don’t have any artificial flavorings, colorings, preservatives, or other additives.   But the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has its own ideas.  It says “naturally raised” means the meat must come from animals raised with no hormone growth promoters, no antibiotics, and no animal by-products.  Hmm.  How about all of the above?

Let’s hear applause for the new USDA administration for taking this on.  OK FDA: now it’s your turn!

If you are trying to keep up with food safety information – and trust me, this is not for the faint-hearted – it has just gotten a little bit easier.  The government has launched a new site at http://www.foodsafety.gov/index.html.  If we can’t have a single food agency, we can at least have a single food safety site.  It’s got a widget to track outbreaks, links to regulatory information, and plenty of advice for consumers.  Now, if Congress would just pass some decent food safety laws….

The British Food Standards Agency is about to take on the high amount of salt in processed foods.  Leading cereal makers are not happy about this.   They don’t the think the campaign is appropriate because cereals account for “only” 5% of the salt in British diets.  Salt reduction is the new frontier of concerns about health.  Expect to hear lots more about how much of it is in processed and restaurant foods this year.

A colleague brought back a couple of brochures she picked up at a McDonald’s in London.  They make interesting reading, especially the parts about genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

“The Simple Facts About Our Food” (printed April 2007) says:

The feed used for rearing our chickens is not genetically modified and is free from antibiotic growth promoters…We know consumers in the UK often express concern about GM products or ingredients and therefore we can reassure you that we do not use any GM products or ingredients containing GM material in our food.

“That’s What Makes McDonald’s” (2008) says:

Our free range eggs…come from hens fed on a non-GM diet and are free from artificial colorants…We’d like to reassure you that we don’t use any GM products or ingredients containing GM material in our food.

Have questions?  McDonald’s U.K. answers them (sort of) at www.makeupyourownmind.co.uk.

GM labeling (or non-GM) is a no brainer.  If McDonald’s can do it in the U.K., it can do it here.  And so can all other food makers.  You don’t have to decide whether GM is good, bad, or indifferent to want it labeled.  Labeling would reduce suspicion, if nothing else.

And I wonder how those GM Nutrageous candy bars (see previous post) are doing in the U.K.