Currently browsing posts about: Food-policy

Yesterday’s post was about the UK’s efforts to restrict the marketing of junk foods to children.  This is part of a larger effort to establish a rational framework for improving the entire food system.

In 2020, the government published Part One of the Food Strategy Report it had commissioned from Henry Dimbleby.  The report comes with a 3-minute film explaining what it is about.

The Part One report announced a forthcoming Part Two to evaluate the current system and set recommendations, and explained its philosophical basis:

Should nanny tell us what to eat?

The already complex job of working out how to help different people in different circumstances is complicated by one of the fundamental questions of political philosophy: what role should the state play in the private lives of its citizens? Libertarians and public health campaigners have fought a running battle for years over this question. But when it comes to diet, even fierce opponents of the “nanny state” now recognize that the problem is serious enough to warrant greater state intervention….The vast majority of those we spoke to (and almost every parent) said they were fed up with being bombarded by junk food marketing and thought the state should intervene.

Henry Dimbleby’s Part Two report is now out (he described it to me in an e-mail as a “bit of a labour of love”).  Here it is: The UK’s National Food Strategy

His report is based on evidence summarized in a slide deck of 175 items.

The report’s 14 recommendations are summarized, with rationale and references, in a separate document.  Most of the recommendations deal with school feeding and and feeding programs for the poor.  Some are likely to get focused attention:

• Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income families.
• Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.
• Recommendation 13. Strengthen government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food.

The first recommendation comes with its own, separate report on the impact of a tax on added sugar and salt.

The responses:

From The Guardian

The government-commissioned National Food Strategy, drawn up by the restaurateur Henry Dimbleby, says the UK population’s “malfunctioning” appetites and poor diets – fuelled by consumer and manufacturer’s reliance on processed food – place an unsustainable burden on the NHS and contribute to 64,000 deaths each year.

Its most eye-catching recommendation is a levy of £3 a kilo on sugar and £6 a kilo on salt sold wholesale for use in processed food, restaurants and catering, which it says would be a world first. This would raise up to £3.4bn a year, some of which should fund an expansion of free schools meals to an extra 1.1 million children and an overhaul of itain’s food and cooking culture… Dimbleby believes the tax would incentivise manufacturers to reduce salt and sugar levels by reformulating products.

From FoodNavigator.com: From taxing salt and sugar to reducing animal proteins: The controversial proposals in the UK’s National Food Strategy paper.  In 2019 the UK government commissioned a review of the country’s food system. Today, the results are in – and the far-reaching paper includes some controversial recommendations…. Read more  [note: This has a good summary of the 14 recommendations].

From FoodManufacture.com

• National Food Strategy Part 2: sugar and salt tax plans: The National Food Strategy Part 2 has been published, revealing proposals for a sugar and salt tax on all processed products, except ingredients for home cooking, and on foods sold through foodservice channels…. Read more
• National Food Strategy Part 2: reactions: The National Food Strategy Part 2 has provoked mixed reactions, with big grocery retailers backing calls for mandatory reporting of key information, while others have criticised sugar and salt tax proposals…. Read more

And for a broad look at what’s happening in UK food policy, see: Testing Times for UK Food Policy: Nine principles and Tests, by Tim Lang, Erik Millstone, Terry Marsden.  This deals with holding governments accountable.

The Discussion Paper examines the state of post-EU UK food security and policy. It applies a multi-criteria approach, seeing food not as a matter that can be reduced to one overarching goal – cheapness, say, or supermarket availability – but as an issue on which public policy has to weigh up and include several equally worthy and evidence-based concerns. The report offers an approach to ensuring UK food security in the years ahead. It offers nine public-interest Principles which should guide future food policy. These propose that it is possible to capture a consensus on the need for change and what it entails. Each Principle leads to a Test that the UK public and policy-makers could apply to any policy proposals for the food system that emanate from Government in coming months.

Tim Lang’s book, Feeding Britain, is essential reading to understand what’s happening—and not happening—in the UK.

The UK government is thinking and acting on food policy issues.  If only ours did too.

The UK’s departure from the European Union is now a done deal, but its impact is only just now becaming clear.  Here are some observations of what’s happening.

• What will be the impact of Brexit on food and farming? | Sustain:  The UK’s exit from the EU has vast implications for our food, fishing and farming and Sustain is campaigning to ensure that our leaders continue to uphold good standards in all these areas.
• Delays at the UK/EU border “getting worse”  A new survey has asked supply chain managers to provide an update on problems at UK/European Union border posts.
• UK delays post-Brexit border checks on EU goods  The UK government has pushed back the timetable to introduce post-Brexit border checks on goods coming into the country from the European Union.
• UK’s waiver extension to Irish Sea Border checks deemed illegal by EU:  The British government has announced an extension to the waiver of post-Brexit Irish Sea border checks on agri-food products entering Northern Ireland.
• Warning over UK meat jobs as Brexit export delays continue:UK industry body The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) has warned that job losses could be on the cards following the country’s departure from the European Union.
• Post-Brexit red tape hits Scottish seafood exports, NI tradeUK seafood producers are being priced out of export markets by European competition, following continued delays at EU ports and poor preparation from Government, according to Scottish food trade bodies… Read
• Hauliers call for better system after border chaosTrade organisation Logistics UK has urged the government to review traffic and welfare management for HGV drivers following border chaos over Christmas… Read
• Trade bodies call for compensation over border blockadeTrade bodies across the supply chain have urged the government to create a compensation scheme for losses incurred due to the French border closure… Read
• Third country status for UK in trade deal with EUA trade deal has been agreed with the EU that sees the UK granted ‘third country’ listing status for exports of meat, dairy and other products of animal origin… Read
• Food supply worries persist over French border delaysFreight delays continue to cause concerns over food supply after France reopened its border with the UK but with tight restrictions… Read
• Are the challenges of 2020 likely to increase food waste?The volatility in supply and demand that characterised 2020 shows no signs of abating, driven by the continued uncertainty of COVID-19 and our messy divorce from the EU… Read

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, otherwise known as the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill has lots of bits and pieces to strengthen elements of the food system.

This bill:

• Extends the 15% increase in SNAP benefits through September 30, 2021
• Makes more SNAP benefits available to Puerto Rico, Samoa, Marianas
• Increases support for WIC, especially for fruit and vegetable purchases
• Continues Pandemic-EBT (free meals for school children excluded from schools)
• Provides funds for debt relief and outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
• Establishes a new grant program for restaurants and bars to meet payroll and other expenses
• Expands income support for families with children through tax credits for child care and earned income

In addition, the Biden Administrration has done some other things to reduce food insecurity

• Extends state waivers for free school meals through summer 2021

What’s still needed:

• A comprehensive plan for creating a food system that promotes health and sustainability
• Universal school meals
• Universal Basic Income

Some of these new measures are steps in that direction.  They just need to be continued.  Advocate!

I have a few suggestions.  Maybe you can think of others?

• Appoint committed experts to head federal agencies dealing with food issues (especially USDA, FDA, FTC, EPA, CDC).
• Rehire the experts who quit or were fired during the Trump administration.
• Bring the Economic Research Service back to Washington DC.
• Rescind the public charge and work rules that have led to SNAP de-enrollment; restore SNAP outreach.
• Refocus agricultural supports on food for people (rather than feed for animals or fuel for cars).
• Promote small- and mid-size agricultural production.
• Provide incentives for agricultural production that conserves and regenerates natural resources.
• Insist on fair pay for farm, packing house, restaurant, and grocery workers, and on safe working conditions.
• Use every means possible to promote diets that reduce the risk of overweight and the diseases for which it increases risk.
• Create a food agency to coordinate existing policies to develop a food system healthier for people and the planet.

Hey, I can dream.

Anything in this direction will be a big step forward.

Food Policy Action started keeping score on congressional votes on food issues in 2013, but the last time I wrote about its scorecard was in 2017.2020

It has just published its 2020 interactive Scorecard, which you can use to check how your state’s legislators score on food issues.

As Food Policy Action puts it, the “scorecard underscores Senate’s failure to feed hungry, protect workers.”

Food Policy Action identifies six ways Trump has hurt eaters, food workers and farmers.

The purpose of the Scorecard is to hold legislators accountable.  Now is the time to do that.

Vote with your votes by November 3.

Berkeley, California, ever at the cutting edge of public health nutrition policy, is banning junk food from checkout counters and aisles.

The new policy will require retailers larger than 2,500 square feet to stock healthy food at the register and in areas where customers wait in line, instead of items like chips, soda and candy. It forbids food items with 5 grams of added sugars and 200 milligrams of sodium, chewing gum and mints with added sugars, and beverages with added sugars or artificial sweeteners. In Berkeley, the policy will affect stores like Safeway, Monterey Market, Whole Foods and Berkeley Bowl.

As a result of efforts like these—public health campaigns, soda taxes, and other initiatives—heavy consumption of sugary drinks (more than 500 calories/day) is declining.

According to a recent study, the percentage of children who drink more than 500 calories worth of soft drinks a day declined from 11% to 3%  from 2003 to 2016, and the percentage of adult heavy consumers declined from 13% to 9%.

This trend is in the right direction.

The American Journal of Public Health has just published an editorial I did with Nick Freudenberg, who directs the Urban Food Policy Institute at the CUNY School of Public Health.

“A Call for a National Agenda for a Healthy, Equitable, and Sustainable Food System” [it’s open access and you can read it at that link]

Here’s the abstract:

In less than a month, US voters will choose their next president and Congress, creating the opportunity for food, farm, and social justice activists to shape a new federal food agenda. Whether Democrats sweep the election or Republicans retain the Senate or White House, the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the deepening economic crisis, and the continuing disruptions from climate change demand rethinking how federal food policies can contribute to improved human and planetary health. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 27, 2020: e1–e3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305926)

Our goals:

1. Reduce hunger and food insecurity
2. Dismantle systemic racism in the food system
3. Make healthy affordable food available to all Americans
4. Reduce burden of diet-related diseases
5. Support agricultural practices that reduce carbon emissions and other forms of pollution
6. Protect food workers
7. Promote food democracy

The Rockefeller Foundation has a new report out: Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System.

The report summarizes what Covid-19 has added to our dysfunctional food system.  It proposes three goals:

• An integrated nutrition security system that treats access to healthy food as a right and embeds healthy food access as a core component of
  health and education
• Reinvigorated regional systems as part of a better-balanced nationwide food chain that includes diverse, agile, and prosperous local and regional food chains alongside a robust national chain, designed to serve all communities from rural to urban.
• Building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.

It summarizes all this in one graphic.

The challenge, of course, is how.