Search results: USDA meat

Advocates have been pressing USDA for years to (1) get data on what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits, and (2) permit pilot studies of what happens to purchases of soft drinks if you exclude them from the benefit package.

In 2012, I did a post on the 2012 SNAP to Health report.  Its recommendations:

1.  Protect SNAP benefits.
2.  Collect data

Lots of people have been trying to get USDA to produce data.  Anahad O’Connor, the author of the New York Times account, filed a Freedom of Information request with USDA.  In response, USDA sent him a report it had commissioned from IMPAQ, a “beltway bandit” consulting firm.  His story is here (I’m quoted).

Now we have a partial answer.  IMPAQ analyzed data from one large, unnamed retailer (could it be Walmart?).

Here’s USDA’s summary of the study (and here’s the complete study).

The USDA says the study shows that SNAP recipients buy pretty much the same amounts of what everyone else buys.

Summary category data show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households focused their spending in a relatively small number of similar food item categories, reflecting similar food choices. The top five summary categories totaled about half of the expenditures for SNAP households and non-SNAP households (50 versus 47 percent). Commodity-level data (in the full report) show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

My reading of the report suggests that in this study, SNAP recipients spent more of a combination of their SNAP benefits and their own private money on:

• Sugar-sweetened beverages
• Hamburger
• Frozen meals
• Salty snacks
• Lunch meats
• Flavored milk
• Kids cereals
• Frozen French fries
• Convenience foods in general
• Infant formula

The report does not discuss why these differences might exist but it would be interesting to find out.

If sugar-sweetened beverages really comprise 9.5% of purchases, that comes to $6 billion a year.

That’s why taking them off the list of eligible foods is worth a try.

Recent SNAP news

The USDA is sponsoring a pilot project to allow SNAP participants to buy foods online from certain retailers, including Amazon in three states, Fresh Direct in New York, and various grocery chains in other states.

The idea is to make it easier for SNAP participants to get access to healthier foods.

I hope the USDA is keeping score on what gets bought online, and whether foods cost more.  The benefits are not allowed to be used for delivery costs.

The New York Time published its annual food issue on Sunday, this one with the theme, “Can Big Food Change?”

In the circles in which I travel, Michael Pollan’s “Big food strikes back: Why did the Obamas fail to take on corporate agriculture?” caused the biggest stir.  Here’s what set people off:

On “Outlobbied and Outgunned:”  The word I’ve been using to describe food industry lobbying against Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign is ferocious.

I’ve always thought that Mrs. Obama must have picked the goal of Let’s Move!—“Ending childhood obesity in a generation“—as a safe, bipartisan issue that Republicans and Democrats could all get behind.  Doesn’t everyone want kids to be healthy?

I can’t imagine that she could have predicted how controversial matters like healthy school lunches or nutrition standards for food advertising to kids would become.

Whatever.  The food industry’s response to everything Let’s Move! tried to do was ferocious.

Despite all that, as I’ve said, Let’s Move! managed to accomplish some important gains: healthier school meals, more informative food and menu labels, the White House garden, and—most important—getting food issues on the national agenda.

On “the food movement barely exists:” I once taught a course on food as a social movement with Troy Duster, a sociologist then at NYU, who had much experience teaching about social movements.

He made one point repeatedly: those who are in the middle of a social movement cannot possibly judge its effectiveness.  You can only know when a movement has succeeded or failed when it is over.

This one is not over yet.

This movement, fragmented in issues and groups as it most definitely is, may not have clout in Washington, DC, but it is having an enormous effect on supermarkets, food product manufacturers, fast food chains, the producers of meat, eggs, and poultry, and young people in this country.

How else to explain:

• The vast improvement in the quality of foods sold in supermarkets
• The rush of food product makers to remove artificial colors, flavors, trans-fats. and other potentially harmful food additives, including sugars and salt
• The insistence of fast food chains on sourcing meat from animals raised without hormones or antibiotics
• The actions of meat, egg, and poultry producers to care for their animals more humanely
• Soda tax initiatives in so many cities

And my personal favorite,

• The enormous numbers of college students clamoring for courses about food systems and the role of food in matters as diverse as global resource inequities and climate change.

As Troy Duster kept telling us, it’s not over until it’s over.

While waiting for enlightenment, let’s celebrate the proliferation of food organizations.  They are all working on important issues and doing plenty of good.

And yes, let’s encourage all of them to move beyond the local, engage in national politics, and put some pressure on Washington to come up with better food policies.

Here are the other articles in the magazine, all of them well worth reading.

• George Steinmetz, SuperSize: The dizzying grandeur of 21st century agriculture (photos)
• Corby Kummer, Pie in the sky: Is it possible to make a more healthful frozen pizza? (I’m quoted)
• Ten Genoways, Close to the Bone: The fight over transparency in the meat industry
• Malia Wollan, Brand new hue: the quest to make a true blue M&M

I did a bunch of interviews about the sugar industry’s funding and manipulation of research this week (see the list at the bottom of the post).

I tried to point out that in the fuss over sugars vs. saturated fat, calories get forgotten.  They shouldn’t be.

The balance between fat and carbohydrate matters much less when calorie intake is balanced by physical activity.

The Atlantic notes that Americans eat and waste vast amounts of food, using USDA data on the amount of calories made available by the food supply.

I love the USDA’s “Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System.”  Here’s how to use it:

• Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to Nutrient Availability.
• Click on Nutrients.
• Download Excel Spreadsheet.
• Click on the worksheet, “Nutrients and other components of the US food supply.”  Have fun checking out the trends from 1909 to 2010.  We have available to us 4000 calories per day per capita.
• Click on the second worksheet, “US Food supply: Nutrients contributed from major food groups.”  Now you can see where the calories come from:  Grain products and fats and oils together account for more than 1800 of the 4000 calories in the food supply.  Add in sugars and sweeteners and you are up to 2500.  Meat, poultry, and fish brings it over 3000.

Hmmm.

This is why I co-authored a book on the topic: Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.

Chase Purdy writing in Quartz says “The system for catching dangerous pathogens in America’s food supply is finally working.”

Here’s the best evidence: the remarkable decline in cases of STEC (Shigella Toxin E. Coli).

Quartz quotes food safety lawyer Bill Marler: “You look back over time and, from 1993-2003, about 90% of my firm’s revenue was from E. coli cases connected to hamburger.”

What changed?  Regulation.

The USDA now considers STEC to be an adulterant and does not permit meat and poultry contaminated with it to be sold.

But then there’s Salmonella.  It is not considered an adulterant.  Why not?  Because it occurs so frequently that USDA considers it normal.  Cases of Salmonella have not declined as much as they should.

In the meantime, the FDA is diligently following through on its food safety rulemaking.  On August 24, it opened three more sets of draft guidance documents for public comment.

• Draft Guidance for Industry #235 – Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Food for Animals: helps producers of animal feed comply with Good Manufacturing Practice requirements.  And see .  Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance for Industry on Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Food for Animals
• Draft Guidance for Industry #239 – Human Food By-Products for Use as Animal Food: helps providers of byproducts of human food production with how to use them safely in animal feed.  And see Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance for Industry on Human Food By-Products for Use as Animal Food
• Draft Guidance for Industry for Classification of Activities as Harvesting, Packing, Holding, or Manufacturing/Processing for Farms and Facilities: helps food companies decide if and how FSMA rules apply to their operations.  And see Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance for Industry for Classification of Activities as Harvesting, Packing, Holding, or Manufacturing/Processing for Farms and Facilities

FDA officials explain:

When we were drafting and seeking public comment on the rules that will implement theFDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), we promised that we would do whatever we could to help the regulated industry understand and meet the new requirements….Meeting the FSMA mandate involves cooperation between the FDA and the food industry. From the smallest food operation to the largest company, we want to be sure that we’re all on the same page and these draft guidances will help get us there.

Onward and upward.  This is progress.  It would be nice if it went faster but it’s real progress—even if Bill Marler still has plenty of work to stay busy.

The Senate’s proposed GMO labeling bill gives food companies three options:

• An on-package code that consumers can scan with a smartphone
• A 1-800 number
• A symbol to be developed by USDA

None of these does what Mars is already doing on M&Ms, for example—a straightforward, easy-to-read, quickly understandable statement that the product is “partially produced with genetic engineering.”

Now, the FDA has just produced a technical assessment of the Senate bill.

This makes it clear that the Senate has no idea what labeling rules entail.  Some examples:

• We note that provisions to allow information regarding the GE content of food to be presented only in an electronically accessible form and not on the package label would be in tension with FDA’s statute and regulations, which require disclosures on food labels.
• We are concerned that USDA’s regulations implementing the mandatory standard under this bill could conflict with FDA’s labeling requirements.
• We note several points in the drafting of the bill that raise confusion.
• It appears that the intent is to have the bill apply to all foods except those that are essentially meat, poultry, or eggs, and that the drafters may have assumed, incorrectly, that products covered by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act are not covered by the FD&C Act.
• [One section requires] the USDA regulations to “prohibit a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because [of a certain fact]”. This is unclear — the language of “prohibit[ion]” and of ‘be[ing] considered”, if taken literally, would mean that an advocacy group that thought of these foods as being bioengineered would thereby have violated the USDA regulation and could be subject to sanctions.

The Senate bill is decidedly corporate-friendly.  It is decidedly not consumer-friendly.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks so.

The Senate just voted to reverse a decision of Congress last year to remove catfish inspection from the FDA (which is usually in charge of regulating seafood) and give it to the USDA (which usually regulates meat and poultry).

Why did the 2008 and 2012 farm bills say that catfish inspection should be given to USDA?

It depends on whom you ask.

• Defenders say it’s because USDA has the resources to protect us against unsafe Vietnamese catfish.
• Critics said it’s to protect the Mississippi catfish industry against the food safety hazards of cheap imported catfish from Vietnam.

Indeed, the USDA inspection program is finding antibiotics and other unapproved carcinogens in catfish imported from Vietnam.

This issue, however, is a sticking point in US negotiations with Vietnam over the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Vietnam wants the USDA catfish inspection removed as an unfair barrier to trade.

As I wrote about this issue in 2013,

What is this about?  Not fish safety, really.  It’s about protecting catfish farmers in the South and setting up “more rigorous” safety criteria that will exclude competitive foreign catfish imports, especially from Vietnam.

Food retailers and retail trade associations are for reverting inspection to FDA. They say USDA’s catfish inspection program will take years to allow imports from Vietnam, thereby causing the cost of domestic catfish to rise.

But today, Politico Morning Agriculture reports that more than 100 House Republicans are urging repeal of the USDA’s catfish inspection program, pointing out that

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 10 times stated that this program is “duplicative” and at “high risk” for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement…This is not a food safety issue.  USDA acknowledges that catfish, regardless of where it comes from, is considered a “low risk food.”

When I wrote this issue previously, I got comments that I needed to better appreciate the superiority of USDA’s import safety program.  As I said in response:

It’s not surprising if USDA’s import safety system is better than the FDA’s.  USDA gets $14 million a year to run its currently non-operating catfish inspection system.  The FDA gets $700,000 and, according to the Government Accountability Office, has managed pretty well with it.

My conclusion then and now:

If the political fuss over catfish inspection reveals anything, it is why we so badly need a single food safety agency—one that combines and integrates the food safety functions of USDA and FDA—to ensure the safety of the American food supply.

Documents

• The Senate resolution
• USDA’s catfish inspection program

This is one of Food Navigator-USA’s special editions in which this industry-focused newsletter collects several of its posts on particular topics—in this case, organics.

But first, take a look at the USDA’s summary of trends in organic food sales:

Special Edition: Where next for organics?

According to the Organic Trade Association, organic sales increased from $3.6 billion in 1997 to over $39 billion in 2014. But can the meteoric growth continue? And will organic ultimately replace the more nebulous ‘all-natural’ as consumers increasingly look for claims that are underpinned by consistent standards?

• Annie’s president: Today 4-5% of the US food market is organic, but we could get to 20%: As the debate over the meaning of the most controversial term in food marketing (‘natural’) heats up now the FDA has finally weighed in, more food companies will seek organic certification, predicts Annie’s president John Foraker, who reckons organic will ultimately account for 20% of the US food market (vs around 5% today)… Read
• From croplands to chicken coops, organic manufacturers get their hands dirty to anticipate looming shortage: Companies from Chipotle to Costco are creatively coming up with ways to keep their organic supplies steady, but mid-sized, natural category veterans are concerned about the big fish jumping into a small and shrinking pond… Read
• Nearly three-quarters of families make an effort to buy organic food, OTA survey reveals: Buying organic is a top priority for many American parents, especially when it comes to the food they feed their children, according to new research form the Organic Trade Association. .. Read
• OCA sues Hain Celestial, Honest Co, over organic labels; Hain insists it ‘fully complies’ with USDA standards: Organic infant formula products from high-profile brands Earth’s Best (Hain Celestial) and The Honest Co contain a “spectacular array” of ingredients that are prohibited under the Organic Food Production Act, according to lawsuits filed by The Organic Consumers Association earlier this month… Read
• USDA reports 12% increase in US certified organic operations between 2014 and 2015: New data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reveals a 12% increase in US certified organic operations between 2014 and 2015, while the total retail market for organic products is now valued at more than $39bn in the US and $75bn+ worldwide… Read
• Mom Made Foods: Everyone wants to feed their kids nutritous meals, but not everyone has time to cook them every night: If you visited Expo West, you probably noticed that a large number of the exhibitors were touting snacks or beverages. Frozen meals? Not so much. But while the world probably doesn’t need another nutrition bar or cold pressed juice brand, busy parents would definitely like more options when it comes to what to give their kids for dinner, says Mom Made Foods founder Heather Stouffer… Read
• USDA wants to strengthen animal welfare rules under the organic standard: A proposed regulation that would strengthen and clarify organic animal welfare standards would align consumers’ expectations with production practices and improve their confidence in the organic seal, according to USDA… Read
• Good Food Made Simple to transition to organic: ‘We want to be clear what we stand for, and ‘all-natural’ is not clear’: Good Food Made Simple – one of a new wave of companies on a mission to revitalize the frozen food aisle – is transitioning its burritos and wraps to a ‘made with organic ingredients’ platform and ditching the much maligned term ‘all-natural’ as part of a brand refresh… Read
• Limit certifications on packs to most important to maximize impact: Product packaging today often is cluttered with so many certifications that consumers’ can’t absorb everything in the brief time they look at labels in stores, and as a result the icons’ impact is diminished and manufacturers likely aren’t getting their full value, according to a CPG marketing manager… Read
• EXPO WEST 2016: ‘Unstoppable’ growth in natural, organic and healthy?: From the apparently ‘unstoppable’ growth in the natural and organic products industry to the FDA’s ‘natural’ probe, check out our gallery of highlights from the education sessions at Expo West… Display
• ‘Organic is now mainstream’: Daymon exec talks Gatorade’s organic launch: PepsiCo recently announced the launch of organic Gatorade for 2016, something an executive with Daymon Worldwide said is a forward-thinking move that is quickly becoming the norm… Read
• USDA expands insurance for farmers transitioning to organic production: The financially daunting three-year transition to certified organic production just became a little less risky for farmers thanks the USDA expanding crop insurance to better reflect the product’s actual value… Read
• Organic meat & dairy has more omega-3 but amounts aren’t ‘nutritionally relevant’: Organic meat and dairy products have more healthy omega-3 fatty acids according to a large meta-analysis review – but experts have warned the amounts are too small to actually have an impact on diet… Read
• Heavenly Organics’ shows “profits can create peace” by providing ethical jobs in conflict areas: Under cover of darkness, deep in Northern and Central India and the Himalayans, harvesters for Heavenly Organics gently brush away sleeping bees from wild hives to collect the velvety, organic raw white honey that fills the firm’s award-winning confections and line of pure honey. .. Read

Wouldn’t it be useful if stores that accept SNAP benefits stocked some other real—as opposed to packaged—foods in addition to the apples, oranges, and bananas most of them now seem to carry (witness Walgreens)?

Congress thought so when it passed the 2014 farm bill.  This intended

to expand or preserve the availability of staple foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low income populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those areas.

In response, USDA proposed new regulations to improve what SNAP retailers had in stock.

The 2014 Farm Bill required USDA to develop regulations to ensure that stores that accept SNAP offer a broader variety of healthy food choices. The stocking provisions in the proposed rule would require SNAP-authorized retail establishments to offer a larger inventory and variety of healthy food options so that recipients have access to more healthy food choices. SNAP retailers would be required to offer seven varieties of qualifying foods in four staple food groups for sale on a continuous basis, along with perishable foods in at least three of the four staple food groups. The staple foods groups are dairy products; breads and cereals; meats, poultry and fish; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, the proposal calls for retailers to stock at least six units within each variety, leading to a total of at least 168 required food items per store.

Guess what?  Some retailers don’t like this idea.

What to do when you don’t like food regulations?  Go straight to Congress.

Now the House agriculture committee is complaining to USDA about the rule.  It says that USDA’s estimate of the cost per store ($140) is wrong.  Retailers say it will cost them $5000 per month to implement.

Who’s right?  Hence: politics.

The Congressional Black Caucus also wants the USDA to back off on this rule.  It says communities need these retailers (the quality of the foods they sell is not an issue, apparently).  Here is its letter.

Civil Eats has a good summary of the issues.

It troubles me greatly that SNAP divides advocates for the poor and advocates for health.  Don’t all of us want the recipients of federal food assistance to have access to healthful food choices?