tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-94372682024-03-28T23:30:00.147-04:00U.S. Food PolicyU.S. food policy and economics from a public interest perspectiveusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger1446125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-64210079074507136192021-09-09T12:50:00.004-04:002021-09-09T12:50:54.451-04:00New USDA estimates show household food insecurity held constant in 2020 during the pandemic<p> USDA yesterday released its <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=102075">annual food security report</a>, showing that 10.5% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2020. Surprisingly, the 2020 estimate was unchanged from 2019 despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Observers expected the 2020 statistics to show a jump in household food insecurity.</p><p>The annual food security report uses data from a December food security supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), the same data source used for federal statistics on unemployment and poverty. The report asks 18 survey items about hardships experienced in the past year.</p><p>The USDA report this year includes an interesting and thoughtful discussion of differences in methodology between the CPS supplement and the Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a special federal survey designed to measure household conditions during the pandemic year. The Pulse survey used a simple food insufficiency question about hardships experienced in the past 7 days. As the pandemic worsened in 2020, this higher-frequency food insufficiency measure in Pulse showed sharp increases in hardship, followed by a return to the milder starting levels.</p><p>It will take researchers a while to sort through the distinct results in the new USDA annual report. The CPS survey has some advantages, including a higher survey response rate. It has a broader time reference period covering the entire year. The Pulse survey also has some advantages, including more frequent survey administration and a shorter reference period, which could be useful for understanding short-term changes in hardship.</p><p>Currently, along with Irma Arteaga at the University of Missouri, I am helping to oversee a small grants program for USDA, looking at innovations in household food security measurement on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of USDA's official measure. You can imagine that the new 2020 annual food security report will be a big topic of discussion as this <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodsec25/">Food Sec 25</a> project proceeds.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iY_-PrNon22tX2rAzZf78S7G4H5L5gTiYplCoav5oAfVjfMVxaryXqffHAa5gHgTBFbcYUmhjnlceBdvTjwVK9md_iEU-TsUWVG849Y68rfsMr105148dN-fNHwxK5yUzN-GBA/s642/foodsec2020.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="642" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iY_-PrNon22tX2rAzZf78S7G4H5L5gTiYplCoav5oAfVjfMVxaryXqffHAa5gHgTBFbcYUmhjnlceBdvTjwVK9md_iEU-TsUWVG849Y68rfsMr105148dN-fNHwxK5yUzN-GBA/w400-h266/foodsec2020.PNG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-60781658700884977302020-12-16T15:38:00.006-05:002020-12-16T15:39:20.560-05:0025 years of food security measurement<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">To mark the 25th anniversary of U.S. household food security measurement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) will fund a suite of competitive grants on food security measurement methods, data, and future research needs. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">The selection and coordination of the projects will be managed by an external cooperator, a collaboration between Tufts University (Dr. Parke Wilde) and the University of Missouri (Dr. Irma Arteaga). This Request for Proposals (RFP) invites proposals for research projects funded up to $50,000 (primarily small projects using secondary data or reviews of the existing research literature) and up to $100,000 (larger projects including primary data collection and new analysis). </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">We are open to new ideas, innovative approaches, and critical feedback to aid ERS in advancing food security measurement. The selected proposals may cover a variety of topics, but all selected proposals will demonstrate actionable items that ERS can pursue to improve or extend the food security measurement program. Each grantee will produce a written conference paper, present the paper at the conference in April 2022, and produce a manuscript for inclusion in a journal special issue with a draft manuscript due in August and final manuscript due in November 2022.</span></p><p style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">IMPORTANT DATES</strong></p><p style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Request for proposals release (Nov 16, 2020)</li><li>Informational webinar for applicants (Dec 17, 2020)</li><li>Proposals due (Feb 19, 2021)</li><li>Award notification (Apr 7, 2021)</li><li>Funding period 19 months begins (May 1, 2021)</li><li>Conference manuscript due (Mar 28, 2022)</li><li>Food security measurement conference (Apr 4, 2022)</li><li>Manuscripts for journal special issue (Aug 22, 2022)</li><li>Final manuscripts for journal special issue (Nov 11, 2022)</li></ul><p></p><p style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">WEBINAR: DECEMBER 17, 2020, 1PM EASTERN</strong></p><p style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Join us for an informational webinar and Q&A about this project and the application process (<a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodsec25/">details</a>).</p><p style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">LINKS</strong></p><ul style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style: square; margin: 0px 0px 30px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 35px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.3; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Project website (<a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodsec25/">link</a>)</li><li style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.3; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Request for proposals (<a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodsec25/files/2020/11/FoodSec_RFP_final.pdf" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #289dcc; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">link</a>) (.pdf); and</li><li style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.3; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Budget template (<a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodsec25/files/2020/11/FoodSec25Template.xls" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #289dcc; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">link</a>) (.xls).</li></ul><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMnpN0GPHgwDDhorxliYZramAbSmflST7c_kBMZCYFVF-g8T1bx-63L9kw8cJkDDrBpSP6hPtANeQ7aKl0P0c1RaDP3LSw9jvxZIn-8t25p46pCUdEgtz7d57ANqbiR04s1VNOwQ/s2048/FoodSec25-logo-colorcircle.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="2048" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMnpN0GPHgwDDhorxliYZramAbSmflST7c_kBMZCYFVF-g8T1bx-63L9kw8cJkDDrBpSP6hPtANeQ7aKl0P0c1RaDP3LSw9jvxZIn-8t25p46pCUdEgtz7d57ANqbiR04s1VNOwQ/s320/FoodSec25-logo-colorcircle.png" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Open Sans, serif;"><br /></span></div>usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-45425023538143347572020-09-30T15:34:00.004-04:002020-09-30T15:37:07.086-04:00RIDGE conference on nutrition assistance research October 14The 2020 Tufts/UConn Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Conference, held virtually on October 14, will feature new economic research aimed at enhancing food security and dietary quality for low-income Americans. <br /><br />New and established investigators who were <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">2019 RIDGE grantees</a> will present on topics ranging from evaluating the impact of nutrition-driven changes in school meals to influences of labor policy on SNAP to nutrition assistance participation amongst populations of interests, including college students and multigenerational households. <br /><br />The conference is free but requires <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">advanced registration</a>. <br /><br />RIDGE is a USDA-supported collaboration between the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut and my research team at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Completed studies from an earlier round of grants have addressed many important research questions in nutrition assistance research, including these:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Dr. Erica Kenney (.pdf)</a> on changes to nutrition standards in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), </li><li><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Drs. Rebecca Franckle and Eric Rimm (.pdf)</a> on the frequency of benefit delivery in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and </li><li><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Drs. Michah W. Rothbart and Amy Ellen Schwartz (.pdf)</a> on universal eligibility for federal school meals programs.</li></ul><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1382" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3RpeK8fTyghpEcBhQS3zyPqeGSaSHPyicB0ossX3KLq_P3HgrWEkHd8ws9kZgYuldeDlu_4RvxVAZe2PU1HL0k0cKckBo9xiKHJyDk18PNbjaR8cAOzXFlX9Z1ZZ-KPjGdC4I2g/s320/RidgeLogo-v2-01.png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p>usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-79765235221153555372020-03-15T17:12:00.001-04:002020-03-15T17:14:57.023-04:00A consumer food data system for 2030 and beyondGovernment policy influences all parts of the food marketing chain, including farms, food manufacturers, retailers, restaurants, and diverse nutrition assistance programs. At every stage, sound policy-making depends on high-quality data.<br />
<br />
The National Academies Press this month published a new consensus report from the Center for National Statistics (CNSTAT), entitled <i><a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25657/a-consumer-food-data-system-for-2030-and-beyond">A Consumer Food Data System for 2030 and Beyond</a>, </i>with recommendations to help guide the federal government in consumer food data collection and dissemination. The report panel was chaired by UC Davis professor Marianne Bitler (I was a panel member).<br />
<br />
As the report summary explains, trade-offs are essential, because it is challenging for any consumer food data system (CFDS) to achieve all of the characteristics that we would wish:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Comprehensiveness.</b> To monitor levels and trends in food behaviors and related outcomes, and to identify the effects of public programs and policies on those behaviors, a comprehensive data system requires a variety of sources spanning multiple topics.</li>
<li><b>Representativeness.</b> Data on food behaviors and outcomes is most useful if it is representative of the U.S. population, both nationally and sub-nationally.</li>
<li><b>Timeliness. </b>To have maximum program and policy impact, the system collects data at regular intervals, repeats over time at an appropriate frequency, and releases data without undue delay.</li>
<li><b>Openness.</b> Because data programs are maintained with taxpayer funds, data should be accessible to the public and to the research community. Security and privacy concerns must be addressed before making de-identified data available.</li>
<li><b>Flexibility.</b> A flexible data system recognizes that food and consumer data will be used for some research applications that were planned in advance, as well as for applications generated by a broad, entrepreneurial, and inventive community of research users studying unanticipated changes in policy, food retail markets, or consumer preferences.</li>
<li><b>Accuracy. </b>Accurate measurement and reporting are the foundation of effective evidence-based policy making, so a desirable data system is one that seeks continuous quality improvement. Given increased reliance on data produced by state and local governments and commercial entities for purposes other than scientific study, continual assessment and improvement of the quality of these sources will be a central part of the CFDS.</li>
<li><b>Suitability for causal analysis.</b> While some policy questions can be answered with descriptive information, others require cause-and-effect inference. With this in mind, data design efforts should include (i) the collection and sharing of policy variables for use in implementing quasi-experimental designs, (ii) the use of administrative data for potential program evaluations with random-assignment research designs, and (iii) the creation of longitudinal survey and administrative data (either repeated cross-sections or panel data) for use in statistical analyses that offer causal insight.</li>
<li><b>Fiscal responsibility.</b> The CFDS should maximize the research value of federal dollars invested in the data system (including staff time) through its combined impact in descriptive information, monitoring functions, and estimation of causal effects. </li>
</ul>
Looming behind the report is the panel's awareness of the increasing difficulties of collecting traditional survey data, due to rising costs and greater difficulty maintaining a high response rate. The data systems of the future will combine survey data with administrative data and proprietary data (such as retailer scanner data) in new ways.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25657/a-consumer-food-data-system-for-2030-and-beyond" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="1229" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnv4DtqamyOA_cWNaJCu7I4qDcdrTu2yJMKrl3uE_ZLTnOqezxUjZMPUbPxKQWQTgEteTAo7Mq43Q8gU7x9UuplLh47nnf5L0xT76s7F-kKoaFW7adhIbgKvWRqBz8uaw6tNGbiA/s400/CNSTATFigure1.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-46733287045614910182020-02-28T13:02:00.002-05:002020-03-16T17:22:24.806-04:00For the food industry, it is essential to have coherent federal leadership on dietary and environmental issues togetherFor the food industry -- and also for meeting important public interest goals -- it would be beneficial for the U.S. federal government to consider environmental sustainability along with nutrition science in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA).<br />
<br />
In 2013, the Food Forum of the National Academies organized a workshop on sustainable dietary guidelines (<a href="https://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/09/should-federal-dietary-guidelines.html">covered previously</a>). At the time, we had little hope the topic would be included in the actual guidelines. Then, in 2015, hopes were raised when the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) included scientific literature on sustainability in its report, which serves as an important input to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which then jointly produce the official dietary guidelines once every five years. That year, former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan, several other colleagues, and I argued in an opinion column for <i><a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6257/165.summary">Science</a> </i>that the federal agencies should use this material on sustainability in the official report. However, the agencies excluded all mention of sustainability in the end. Since then, the National Academies has continued to organize fascinating workshops on this topic (see <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Nutrition/FoodForum/2018-AUG-01/Videos/Session-1-Videos/1-Drewnowski-Video.aspx">video presentations</a> and <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2018/sustainable-diets-food-and-nutrition-proceedings-in-brief.aspx">proceedings</a>), but we have little indication of progress in the federal guidelines.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.menusofchange.org/">Menus of Change</a> initiative, a collaboration between the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the Culinary Institute of America encourages the restaurant industry in particular to explore new ways of providing healthy and sustainable food in a profitable way. I have served on the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for several years. The experience clearly shows that major food industry sectors see the need to address complex consumer expectations for environmental and nutrition issues together. From a practical standpoint, it would be impossible for business executives to separate the issues.<br />
<br />
For the new 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, an advisory committee report is expected later this spring, and then the official report will come out a few months later. This week, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/in-support-of-sustainable-eating_0.pdf">policy brief (.pdf)</a> encouraging the federal government once again to favorably consider including sustainability in the official report.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A growing body of research shows that shifting what we eat could improve the health of the population and the planet. However, the US government has declined to incorporate this evidence into federal food policies. As government agencies develop the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a review of recent studies on dietary patterns and sustainability by the Union of Concerned Scientists and colleagues shows that current US dietary advice may not support the long-term environmental sustainability of the food system. This policy brief outlines key actions and recommendations for federal agencies and policymakers to help protect public health and food security for generations to come.</blockquote>
The policy brief draws on a literature review published this week [updated March 16] in <i><a href="https://academic.oup.com/advances/advance-article/doi/10.1093/advances/nmaa026/5804823">Advances in Nutrition</a></i>, by UCS researchers and several Friedman School community members, including Rebecca Boehm (alum), Nicole Tichenor Blackstone (faculty), and Naglaa El-Abbadi and Salima Taylor (students).<br />
<br />
I hope the government does include sustainability. Just as the dietary guidelines help consumers and government agencies understand the connections between diet and health, by providing a steady and sober summary of the balance of evidence in a complex literature, it would be valuable to do likewise for environmental sustainability. This is not a mere digression into a side topic. In the 2020-2030 decade, the climate emergency will be central to almost all policy debate on major social and economic decisions, including decisions about the food system. If political pressure from selected agricultural industries causes these issues to be excluded from the dietary guidelines, federal food and nutrition policy will be hampered for years to come.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/in-support-of-sustainable-eating_0.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="805" data-original-width="622" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUknN_vgOVivAW9SlRFtVW2UUUNA5Rzh462fkskXJgC37v8kSc-cgM_qX9MtLZgOM2Cx87lU85XCnlokSlmOSZUQnWh04apnH6TocORtJXY_O1Thmgj3oVIhyphenhyphensLuoY0m3uPV5c5w/s400/SustainableGuidelines.PNG" width="308" /></a></div>
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-78214272221703115912020-02-17T17:08:00.000-05:002020-02-17T17:08:01.461-05:00The Labor of Lunch, by Jennifer GaddisIn her new book, "<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520300033/the-labor-of-lunch">The Labor of Lunch</a>" (University of California Press, 2019), Jennifer Gaddis of University of Wisconsin-Madison covers the history and politics of federal school meals programs from every angle.<br />
<br />
The book contrasts with contemporary behavioral economics research, which treats lunchrooms as a "laboratory" for small random-assignment trials of minor changes in product presentation. Gaddis instead pays attention to the big social issues that always have complicated school meals programs: women's work, the labor movement, racism, federal budgets, and class differences in food tastes for nutrition experts and broader populations.<br />
<br />
To illustrate the scope, ambition, and topic coverage of the book, here are some homework questions one could ask students after they read this book:<br />
<ol>
<li>What makes the lives of lunch-workers precarious?</li>
<li>What organizational sponsor of a free school meals program was labeled the "greatest threat to the internal security of the country” by Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover?</li>
<li>In training programs focused on sanitation and cost reduction, what important topic was left out?</li>
</ol>
<div>
(Answers: 1. Neoliberal capitalism. 2. The Black Panther Party. 3. Scratch cooking.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The concluding chapter aims for expansive changes rather than short-term victories:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are high-road alternatives to both the cheap food economy and to real food lite that offer a pathway toward a new economy of care in American public schools. Accessing this high road depends foremost on revaluing the labor of lunch. We must invest in professionalizing school cafeteria workers and recognize them for the multiple forms of care they already provide to the nation’s children. I want to move beyond this foundational argument, however, to propose a more expansive vision of what food systems could look like if we focus our collective efforts on transforming the NSLP into a hub for food justice—real food and real jobs—in every community across the rural-urban divide.</blockquote>
In a related <i><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/opinion/universal-free-school-lunch.html">New York Times</a></i> column last week, Gaddis asks why parents still are sending kids to school with bag lunches rather than supporting the school meals programs. It reminds me of a conversation with my children a couple years ago. The kids knew their parents had always placed them in the school meals program as a matter of principle, rather than complete confidence in the product. When they mentioned having brand-name restaurant chain pizza in high school for lunch, they could tell from my face I was disdainful. They reassured me it was just twice weekly. Twice a week for pizza is not so awful, I conceded. But they meant only twice weekly was there brand-name restaurant chain pizza; on the rest of the days, there was reheated frozen generic pizza.<br />
<br />
In some respects, the radical critical tradition of Gaddis' narrative may differ from that of most of my colleagues in agricultural economics, or myself. But any reader of this book will see these important nutrition programs should be dramatically better on grounds of taste, nutrition, and fairness to workers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyWYvApZXZ9OJ3VueX28rV3XUkTWZjmIHJdZfaqC4MKI52UWRRCKaTi2yrbohU8fquVJvnt_5tjk6az1rpf-B3q8Bm14RI-qTfgsFlrBlZF4cOchiW2mpvpOFSLk1fLUmZil1pXA/s1600/Gaddis.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="671" data-original-width="926" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyWYvApZXZ9OJ3VueX28rV3XUkTWZjmIHJdZfaqC4MKI52UWRRCKaTi2yrbohU8fquVJvnt_5tjk6az1rpf-B3q8Bm14RI-qTfgsFlrBlZF4cOchiW2mpvpOFSLk1fLUmZil1pXA/s320/Gaddis.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-34056489210740415572020-02-06T09:03:00.000-05:002020-02-06T09:07:41.972-05:00Funding announcement from Tufts and USDA for WIC telehealth innovationsMy colleagues at Tufts University and I are happy to announce that we are now <a href="https://thiswic.nutrition.tufts.edu/funding/request-for-proposals/">requesting proposals from WIC State Agencies or a consortium of WIC State Agencies (SAs)</a>, through April 10th for the USDA/Tufts Telehealth Intervention Strategies for WIC (THIS-WIC) grant opportunity.<br />
<br />
The opportunity is made possible through funding from the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service and will help WIC State Agencies (SAs) develop and implement telehealth innovations to enhance nutrition education and breastfeeding support for WIC participants, particularly those who have a hard time getting to WIC clinics (e.g., rural areas).<br />
<br />
In addition to supporting participants, telehealth innovations offer many potential benefits to SAs, like improving retention.<br />
<br />
THIS-WIC will assist and support SAs throughout the application process and during project implementation. The THIS-WIC team will: <br />
<ul>
<li>provide technical support to WIC SAs throughout the application process and project implementation period; </li>
<li>lead evaluations in collaboration with WIC SAs to assess the impact of the innovations; and, </li>
<li>share promising initiatives as well as potential solutions to commonly encountered challenges. </li>
</ul>
The application process has two phases: <br />
<ul>
<li>Phase I – interested applicants should submit a Brief Proposal (no more than 3 pages) by April 10th, 2020 (11:59p ET) </li>
<li>Phase II – selected applicants from Phase I will be invited to submit a Full Proposal by August 7th, 2020 (11:59p ET) </li>
</ul>
THIS-WIC anticipates supporting 5-8 WIC SAs for 30 months, with funding up to $1 million (includes direct and indirect costs), depending on the scale and scope of the proposed intervention.<br />
<br />
The THIS-WIC team will hold three, one-hour webinars to provide additional details about the application process, to provide deeper insight into telehealth innovations, and to further layout expectations for the evaluation of proposed projects.<br />
<br />
All the webinars will include time for potential applicants to ask questions of the THIS-WIC team.<br />
<ul>
<li>RFP Overview: 3-4 pm (EST) on February 13th, 2020, hosted by the THIS-WIC team to provide an overview of the RFP and application process. <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/92272171549">Register here</a>. </li>
<li>Designing a Telehealth Solution: 3-4 pm (EST) on February 19th, 2020, will be jointly hosted by THIS-WIC and the TRCs to provide a deep dive into telehealth innovations related to each priority area and an overview of best practices when designing telehealth solutions. <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/92590357251">Register here</a>. </li>
<li>Unpacking the Evaluation: 4-5 pm (EST) on February 24th, 2020, will be led by the THIS-WIC team to clarify further roles and expectations related to the evaluation of the telehealth solutions. <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/92590461563">Register here</a>. </li>
</ul>
For more information about this opportunity and the application process, please visit the <a href="https://thiswic.nutrition.tufts.edu/">THIS-WIC website</a>.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://thiswic.nutrition.tufts.edu/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="638" data-original-width="1298" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9HjkfgVNq4BzlSc2Hx8j6doHUZyz5LMxdYmIKD32Hb_9-Uv20cxALGDhYxVc3PdFivG4gDIWDpHeYA4858egIrr-fGpHN5ZV-lZD_VJsF7nR_NZL7bv5GD2N48RKc6VfrDXUK1w/s320/WICTelehealth.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-23275252112107330072019-12-04T09:22:00.002-05:002019-12-06T16:34:43.494-05:00What are the First Amendment obstacles to mandatory front-of-pack labeling?Suppose the government wanted to require front-of-pack nutrition labels for packaged food and beverages, making it easier for consumers to see at a glance some key nutritional qualities.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the United States, could the manufacturers claim that such a rule violates their First Amendment rights?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the journal <i><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217307789">Food Policy</a></i> this past summer, Jennifer Pomeranz, Dariush Mozaffarian, Renata Micha, and I study the precedents. Much depends on whether a particular labeling policy could satisfy a legal principle called the <i>Zauderer</i> test. This test stipulates, for example, that the mandatory labeling information must be factual and uncontroversial. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Looking at the wide array of front-of-pack labeling schemes around the world, we find that some varieties are more likely than others to pass this test. Certain proposals for simple mandatory symbols indicating "healthy" or "unhealthy" broadly, without communicating much nutrition information, could be ruled unconstitutional.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The article is titled, "Mandating front-of-package food labels in the U.S. – What are the First Amendment obstacles?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw-2fm0sME95xPsZIq_KM6XTy6EILra1T7HrBQPsyUZ1fFCB3NLCIEIU5or4wVBdJVSlnKinFcZJJ0bOXNEwreavn_0npBVYOpwmebqnTA2ruljhgRxTu28x9gQQiLCBfdPg9WJA/s1600/PomeranzTable1Excerpt.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="637" data-original-width="923" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw-2fm0sME95xPsZIq_KM6XTy6EILra1T7HrBQPsyUZ1fFCB3NLCIEIU5or4wVBdJVSlnKinFcZJJ0bOXNEwreavn_0npBVYOpwmebqnTA2ruljhgRxTu28x9gQQiLCBfdPg9WJA/s400/PomeranzTable1Excerpt.PNG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pomeranz et al. (2019). Table 1 (small excerpt).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-58975726546014093382019-10-02T15:01:00.002-04:002019-10-02T15:55:57.610-04:00What the new studies REALLY say about red and processed meatNew studies this week in the <i><a href="https://annals.org/aim/latest">Annals of Internal Medicine</a></i> have generated much fiery news coverage.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For example, <a href="https://time.com/5686429/should-you-stop-eating-red-meat/">Time</a>'s headline says: "Should You Stop Eating Red Meat? A New Paper Has a Controversial Answer." As always, the nutrition reporter portrays nutrition science as fickle, endlessly reversing itself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's not true. The actual scientific content in the new studies confirms what we already knew.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>The best available evidence suggests that reducing red and processed meat consumption will reduce risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It always is the case that nutrition scientists and communicators must accomplish two tasks: </div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>understand the available evidence; and </li>
<li>reflect on what burden of proof should be used for nutrition policy decision making.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
The new studies made atypical decisions about Task #2. For reasons that are not clear to me -- perhaps out of a scientific sense of caution or perhaps out of a bias in favor of red and processed meat -- they ramped up the burden of proof that they apply to recommendations that advise less red and processed meat. Citing research guidelines that give highest scores for pharmaceutical trials [edited slightly 4pm], they rate most of the available evidence in any direction as weak. This is not how I would have communicated the evidence. In my view, it is understandable that randomized control trials cannot be widely used on this topic, because one would have to wait too long for a sufficient number of cancers or heart attacks attributable to a meat intake intervention in a well-powered study. So, I have long accepted cohort and observational studies as the best available evidence on this topic. The new studies do pretty much the same, but they label each piece of evidence as "weak." They are free to apply these labels, and I feel free to ignore these labels.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Turning to Task #1, the studies confirm what I already knew. For example, here are my statistical interpretation sentences for several main results from the new studies.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On average, reducing weekly unprocessed red meat intake by 3 servings is associated with:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>7% lower risk of death, </li>
<li>10% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease,</li>
<li>6% lower risk of stroke,</li>
<li>10% lower risk of type 2 diabetes,</li>
<li>7% lower risk of death from cancer.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The list of results continues for processed meat.<br />
<br />
If you want to describe these effects as "small" and you want dietary changes that reduce your risk by twice as much, then knock yourself out. You may reduce your red meat intake by perhaps approximately [note: qualifying adjective added 4pm] 6 servings.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I recognize that these results are accompanied by blistering disparagement of recommendations to eat less red and processed meat, but I don't trust these authors enough to place credence on their rhetorical choices. Their scientific results are what matters. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reading these scientific results, even acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, I will continue to support existing recommendations to eat less red and processed meat. No better evidence exists.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-87959205509614029602019-09-27T11:15:00.001-04:002019-09-27T11:22:34.156-04:00Processed meat labels saying "uncured" and "no nitrites added" are misleadingA large body of evidence reviewed by the World Health Organization found that processed meat consumption increases the risk of cancer. Seeking to alleviate consumer concern, food companies label some of their products as "uncured" or "no nitrites added." However, these products may have essentially as much nitrites or nitrates as regular products.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In an August 29 report from <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/deli-meats/danger-at-the-deli-cold-cuts-increased-risk-cancer-heart-disease/">Consumer Reports (CR)</a>, policy analyst (and Friedman School Ph.D. student) Charlotte Vallaeys explained the issue.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Thanks to the topsy-turvy world of government <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/deli-meats/what-deli-meat-labels-really-mean/">food labeling</a> rules, ‘no nitrites’ doesn’t mean no nitrites,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, senior food and nutrition policy analyst at CR. Instead, it means that the nitrates and nitrites used to “cure”—or preserve and flavor—meat come from celery or other natural sources, not synthetic ones, such as sodium nitrate or nitrite.</blockquote>
<div>
The issue was picked up in August by <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/29/755115208/duped-in-the-deli-aisle-no-nitrates-added-labels-are-often-misleading">NPR</a> in a report by Allison Aubrey.<br />
<br />
This issue also is the subject of a new <a href="https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/deli-meat-petition-usda/">citizen petition</a> from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Consumer Reports, which in turn led USDA to open a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FSIS-2019-0022-0001">public comment period</a> until Nov. 12.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, I remain concerned that the federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) for 2020-2025 may overlook scientific evidence on processed meat and cancer risk. It is important for USDA and DHHS to review this evidence directly, as its own topic, not just tangentially when it arises as part of broader studies of dietary patterns. That scientific issue was covered in a <a href="http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2019/08/dietary-guidelines-processed-meat-and.html">blog post</a> in early August, noting our recent article in <a href="https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/legal-feasibility-of-us-government-policies-to-reduce-cancer-risk-by-reducing-intake-of-processed-meat/">Milbank Quarterly</a>.<br />
<br />
In related work, my colleague Dr. David Kim and several co-authors and I have a new article in the <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(19)30149-7/fulltext">American Journal of Preventive Medicine (AJPM)</a>, published today, with a modeling analysis of the health benefits that could arise if warning labels or a tax on processed meat effectively reduced intake and thereby reduced cancer risk. The abstract concludes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The model shows that implementing tax or warning labels on processed meats would be a cost-saving strategy with substantial health and economic benefits. The findings should encourage policy makers to consider nutrition-related policies to reduce cancer burden. </blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/29/755115208/duped-in-the-deli-aisle-no-nitrates-added-labels-are-often-misleading" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="787" data-original-width="924" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqL4tt0Zvv7ovuOAGXjO0kqp-lbYjao-V1T4hA4-36iSi78QCwZdsDT1m1s7QjI0FjozN2zoNqtD7Z2G3uClZR-gmGNDNFGJDTZrOvKdZQamJt2JcQqEv8YNTIwHPUmqdKZynCQA/s400/ProcMeatNPR.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-84495269791192224072019-09-07T13:33:00.001-04:002019-09-07T13:34:27.748-04:00Illinois specialty farmers talk about inequities in the trade war bailout<div class="tr_bq">
Tufts Friedman School alum Jeff Hake is featured in <a href="https://www.wglt.org/post/specialty-farmers-bailouts-help-rich-get-richer?fbclid=IwAR35OnTXdMy2B5_nxqI7TastInc5YTtceB7WeBfQVLJNJT9grazpvS7KN9Q#stream/0">yesterday's report from the Illinois State University NPR Station, WGLT</a>.</div>
<blockquote>
Jeff Hake and his immediate family <a href="https://www.wglt.org/post/funk-familys-new-farm-joins-local-food-movement#stream/0">run Funks Grove Heritage Fruits and Grains</a>, a nine-acre farm in rural McLean. McLean County <a href="https://www.wglt.org/post/33-million-and-counting-trade-payments-buy-patience-mclean-county-farmers#stream/0">has secured the largest payouts through the Market Facilitation Program</a> of any county in the country, but Hake's farm won't see any of that money.<br />
<br />
As a family farm that sells most of its products directly to consumers—things like black raspberries and Johnny cake mixes—Hake is not exactly on the front lines of the trade war, but he sees the bailouts as a symptom of a greater problem.<br />
<br />
“It’s just throwing money at the problem and hoping that things will work out later,” Hake said.</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP3SDQcGAfrgpMB9W0NjhXymWF0jdJmNaN9izfFnQknjl1sxJgS0EsB8gqG5_pdBL5HecaabXZnXyyRcmNHT-gbsQW8F35YK0MODZdLjEA3BETiRZyXcVEVchyphenhyphenR1cTPUy02em7yA/s1600/Hake.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="685" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP3SDQcGAfrgpMB9W0NjhXymWF0jdJmNaN9izfFnQknjl1sxJgS0EsB8gqG5_pdBL5HecaabXZnXyyRcmNHT-gbsQW8F35YK0MODZdLjEA3BETiRZyXcVEVchyphenhyphenR1cTPUy02em7yA/s320/Hake.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-38515891489279508752019-08-21T10:34:00.002-04:002019-08-21T10:41:56.449-04:00Mystery and discovery in the economics of fishing on the high seasFishing on the high seas may frequently be economically unsustainable, according to an analysis last year by Enric Sala and colleagues in <i><a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat2504">Science Advances</a></i>.<br />
<br />
This comparatively unregulated fishing industry beyond national exclusive economic zones presents grave environmental concerns, so the motivation for continued fishing under unprofitable conditions is somewhat of a mystery. Sala and colleagues mostly argue that the industry is propped up by government subsidies, but they also discuss two other factors. One is substandard wages and working conditions, even sometimes modern slavery. Another is the possibility that some countries cheat on their harvest reporting and are really more profitable than they appear. The study's data source already corrects for standard estimates of catch underreporting, so this last possibility might require especially brazen underreporting on a scale that has not yet been recognized.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ9tGk01AikzXeX3WqU-vfvCYknZF50Us_LhemgnSh4K7B9vGcjxxlYk58E42zRvEYwkJV-jU0vixG950Mph0IdN46FHR7_BIYfBqQc4p5db2MHemPHt9SjZ5bPC7Ma7IeSaCNCg/s1600/F3.large.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="1050" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ9tGk01AikzXeX3WqU-vfvCYknZF50Us_LhemgnSh4K7B9vGcjxxlYk58E42zRvEYwkJV-jU0vixG950Mph0IdN46FHR7_BIYfBqQc4p5db2MHemPHt9SjZ5bPC7Ma7IeSaCNCg/s400/F3.large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span class="fig-label" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding-right: 5px; text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span class="fig-label" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding-right: 5px; text-align: center;">Fig. 3</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;"> </span><span class="caption-title" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; text-align: center;">Net economic benefit of high-seas fishing (Sala et al., 2018). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px; text-align: center;">Range of estimates of fishing profits (US$ millions) before (π) and after (π*) subsidies for (</span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; text-align: center;">A</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">) major fishing countries and (</span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; text-align: center;">B</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">) gear types.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;"><br /></span>
The 2018 study is part of a blossoming research literature that takes advantage of modern tracking data to estimate the "fishing effort" of thousands of individual vessels. To get a sense of this remarkable type of data, see the online mapping capability at <a href="https://globalfishingwatch.org/map-and-data/">Global Fishing Watch</a>. It lets you track individual vessels as they criss-cross the ocean in both the national exclusive economic zones and the high seas.<br />
<br />
I came across this study after watching a <a href="https://youtu.be/74_0jqQ2brc">video </a>from <i>Greenpeace</i> featuring one of the authors, Daniel Pauly, a professor of fisheries at the University of British Columbia. He explains that the decline of fisheries has been going on so long that even adults in fishing communities may not fully understand the long-term baseline bounty that could be possible without overfishing. The environmental sustainability of human consumption of smaller fish is less fraught, but, in the video, Pauly argues that "we are chasing the last of the big fish."usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-61057510381813860402019-08-14T12:46:00.002-04:002019-08-14T12:46:31.661-04:00Federal government's beef checkoff program buys advertising to discourage grocers from stocking plant-based alternativesThe federal government's beef checkoff program this week is running advertisements in <a href="https://www.grocerydive.com/spons/plant-based-meat-substitutes-drive-headlines-beef-drives-sales/560542/">GroceryDive</a>, a trade news site, targeting grocery retailers with claims that disparage new plant-based alternatives. <br /><br /> "Despite the placement of beef substitutes in the meat case," the ad says, "these products aren’t generating sales like the authentic beef products they share the case with." <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet, a savvy reader may think the ad itself indicates a high level of concern among beef checkoff program leaders.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The beef checkoff program is a public-private partnership, managed by a board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and funded by a mandatory assessment on beef producers, using the federal government's power of taxation. Checkoff marketing campaigns must be approved in writing by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Checkoff advertisements to promote beef have legal status as "government speech," just like government public interest messages to promote public health.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Earlier this year, Republican Sen. Mike Lee (UT) and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) re-introduced their legislation, the <a href="https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/sens-lee-booker-introduce-commodity-check-off-reform-bill">Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act of 2019 (OFF Act)</a>, which would make several reforms in federal checkoff programs:</div>
<ul>
<li>Prevent checkoff programs from contracting with organizations that lobby. The current practice has an unseemly circularity, as the federal government enforces the collection of checkoff money, which then goes to industry organizations that lobby (mostly but not entirely with non-checkoff dollars) to influence federal regulatory and marketing policies;</li>
<li>Require transparency through publication of checkoff program budgets and expenditures; and</li>
<li>Establish standards that prohibit anti-competitive behavior, such as using federal checkoff money to disparage other legitimate American food businesses in the marketplace, as the GroceryDive advertisement did this week.</li>
</ul>
<div>
These reforms seem reasonable to me.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBxTB4_TiEyugQ89Cq01SLjrC4jviyverGcyc88s4VekzBsKTVXnLyInJ0H-KWK1lpeHkhxMEIgFQ4t0-yX8qFb1xyySDW9KylQ34YHLmWAYYOEfW2dRg4oYGFt0ZyOTAjC6arPA/s1600/CheckoffGrocery.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="890" data-original-width="918" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBxTB4_TiEyugQ89Cq01SLjrC4jviyverGcyc88s4VekzBsKTVXnLyInJ0H-KWK1lpeHkhxMEIgFQ4t0-yX8qFb1xyySDW9KylQ34YHLmWAYYOEfW2dRg4oYGFt0ZyOTAjC6arPA/s320/CheckoffGrocery.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-84265614421705460272019-08-13T09:26:00.000-04:002019-08-13T09:39:21.029-04:00Are SSB taxes good or bad for the poor?In an economic sense, the optimal soda tax is surprisingly high, even if one values economic redistribution and opposes "regressivity" in the tax system, according to a recent NBER <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w25841">working paper</a> from Hunt Allcott, Benjamin Lockwood, and Dmitry Taubinsky.<br />
<br />
The three economists recognize that sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption may have a larger budget share for poor consumers than for rich consumers, but, somewhat offsetting this pattern, they consider the possibility that low-income consumers are more responsive to price -- that they have a larger "own-price elasticity" -- enabling them to avoid a larger share of the tax burden, compared to middle- and high-income people. In the end, the authors find that an optimal national tax might be about one or two cents per ounce, equal to or slightly higher than current municipal taxes in Berkeley, Philadelphia, and elsewhere.<br />
<br />
This paper relates to an interesting debate over several years in the progressive media, which arises because of the possible tension between public interest goals, including public health nutrition goals on the one hand and anti-poverty goals on the other. For example, Bernie Sanders in 2016 opposed soda taxes, but Anna Lappé wrote in <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/author/anna-lappe/">Mother Jones</a> encouraging him to reconsider and support these taxes. Similarly, in 2017, Max Sawicky wrote in <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/article/20747/Up-for-Debate-Soda-Tax">In These Times</a> opposing such taxes, while Tom Philpott favored support.<br />
<br />
In research in the American Journal of Public Health in January, my colleagues and I estimated the <a href="http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2019/01/previous-studies-found-sugar-sweetened.html">costs and effects of a national penny-per-ounce SSB tax separately for multiple stakeholders</a>: including both richer and poorer groups of consumers, employers (who save money in health care costs with the tax), SSB producers (who lose out especially if they must absorb part of the tax and cannot pass the full value onto consumers), and the government (which wins twice, once from the tax revenue and once from the healthcare cost savings in public insurance programs such as Medicaid).<br />
<br />
Clearly, it is not enough to compute effects for an "average person" when studying SSB taxes. Yet, even when we consider the interests of multiple income groups in society, the merits of such taxes may be surprisingly strong.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://inthesetimes.com/article/20747/Up-for-Debate-Soda-Tax" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="823" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFkrwUUK8re7-4ZWfHVrzvao3ZfVraNX0tHHA8oCOBansgM-rfeKJbjBSHhGVbrhJux42tn_Q_YTgTjOXYJKqCPO4SA-pF3dIKjNyxAwDzGoNeeNo8eHtAupdp6bipGQslBslz8Q/s320/PhillyTax.JPG" width="318" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In These Times.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-49657381154360358012019-08-02T17:52:00.001-04:002019-08-02T18:10:02.765-04:00Dietary guidelines, processed meat, and risk of cancerIn a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FNS-2019-0001-7108">public comment</a> submitted today, my colleagues Fang Fang Zhang, Jennifer Pomeranz, and I encourage the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) to evaluate the entire scientific literature on processed meat and colon cancer risk.<br />
<br />
The DGAC is the external committee that summarizes the scientific evidence on nutrition and health, which two federal departments, USDA and DHHS, then use in writing the actual <i>Dietary Guidelines for Americans</i>, an influential document in U.S. nutrition policy.<br />
<br />
USDA and DHHS have determined that the 2020-2025 DGAC may only address topics that were explicitly given in a list of questions by the departments.<br />
<br />
One of the questions is: "What is the relationship between dietary patterns consumed and risk of certain types of cancer?"<br />
<br />
Our public comment today recommends that the DGAC include the entire scientific literature on processed meat and cancer risk, as part of its systematic review of evidence on dietary patterns and cancer.<br />
<br />
<b> Why is this even in doubt?</b><br />
<br />
As our recent article in the <a href="https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/legal-feasibility-of-us-government-policies-to-reduce-cancer-risk-by-reducing-intake-of-processed-meat/"><i>Milbank Quarterly</i></a> recounts, in the previous <i>2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans</i>, the federal government muddled its message on processed meat and cancer. <br />
<br />
On the one hand, it included lower intake of processed meat in a list of characteristics of healthy eating patterns: "Lower intakes of meats, including processed meats; processed poultry; sugar-sweetened foods, particularly beverages; and refined grains have often been identified as characteristics of healthy eating patterns." <br />
<br />
On the other hand, it said that processed meats can be recommended as long as sodium, saturated fats, added sugars, and total calories are within limits. This latter favorable comment in the official policy document from USDA and DHHS had no basis in the earlier independent scientific report from the 2015-2020 DGAC.<br />
<br />
Even though it is not responsible for the final DGA report, we think the 2015-2020 DGAC report may have overlooked some of the important research on processed meat and colon cancer, by interpreting the words "dietary patterns" too strictly, screening out some research on processed meat merely because this one food category is not a "dietary pattern."<br />
<br />
<b> Why is the cancer risk from processed meat important?</b><br />
<br />
The issue is important because the best available systematic literature reviews concluded that consuming processed meat increases the risk of colon cancer. In particular, see authoritative reports from the <a href="https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono114.pdf">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> and the <a href="http://www.aicr.org/continuous-update-project/reports/colorectal-cancer-2017-report.pdf">World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute of Cancer Research</a>.<br />
<br />
Luxian Zeng, Fang Fang Zhang, other colleagues, and I recently reported in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234969"><i>Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (JAND)</i></a> on trends in processed meat intake based on data from the Nutrition and Health Examination Survey (NHANES). While red meat declined, processed meat held steady in recent years. This issue is big enough to matter for national nutrition policy.<br />
<br />
<b>What are the policy implications of ignoring this issue?</b><br />
<br />
Currently, far from encouraging reductions in processed meat intake, the federal government supports advertising and marketing programs to increase consumption. The semi-public <a href="https://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2018/05/should-federal-government-stop.html">checkoff programs</a> have been covered previously in this blog. Just to give one current illustration, here is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NationalPorkBoard/photos/a.136501215119/10157476754530120/?type=3">advertising </a>from the federal government's pork checkoff program for bacon and ice cream. If the Dietary Guidelines for Americans were based on a full evaluation of the scientific literature about processed meat and colon cancer, it might facilitate policies to encourage reductions, or at the very least a halt to these advertising programs encouraging yet more processed meat consumption.<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHig08NkXq5H47dfjvapLFQnx1bD9s1B-aiwNET928-VM83LIqnytSStpuCMJUbJBDnVPuC9glizLYX8KbJJSWZzvqABS1FoVPPe24RZYtnU65RlDpZClc6j6Ik_kKprQcEMQXhg/s1600/BaconIceCream.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="453" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHig08NkXq5H47dfjvapLFQnx1bD9s1B-aiwNET928-VM83LIqnytSStpuCMJUbJBDnVPuC9glizLYX8KbJJSWZzvqABS1FoVPPe24RZYtnU65RlDpZClc6j6Ik_kKprQcEMQXhg/s400/BaconIceCream.PNG" width="356" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">National Pork Board advertising endorsed by USDA.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-76998618932742782062019-07-25T11:26:00.002-04:002019-07-25T11:26:33.769-04:00U.S. China agricultural trade and the bailout boondoggleLate last fall, <a href="http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-china-trade-dispute-and-potential-impacts-to-agriculture">Choices Magazine</a> from the <a href="https://www.aaea.org/">Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA)</a> had a special issue on U.S. - China trade, highlighting the enormous value of China trade for U.S. farmers.<br />
<br />
Introducing the special issue, which received an award at this week's AAEA annual meeting in Atlanta, Mary Marchant and Holly Wang wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The United States and China, the world’s largest economic powers, have dueled in an escalating trade dispute since January 2018.... This trade dispute is important to U.S. agriculture, because China has been the United States’ top agricultural export market outside of North America since 2009 with an annual sale of nearly $20 billion in 2017 (USDA, 2018b).... Although the current trade dispute continues to evolve, it is valuable for us to understand the potential negative impact and to be informed of possible consequences. It is our sincere hope that U.S. and Chinese negotiators will reach an agreement, since both countries ultimately lose with a trade war, as seen from the 1930s Smoot–Hawley Tariff.</blockquote>
The Trump administration has sought to offset some of the harm to farmers with bailout funding to selected producers. Using data received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law, the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2019/06/foia-data-show-thousands-exceed-payment-limit-trump-s-farm-bailout">Environmental Working Group</a> last month reported that many payments exceeded a planned $125k limit. Some subsidy recipients received more than $900k.<br />
<br />
For Iowa farmers, the <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2019/07/24/donald-trump-trade-bailout-search-amount-paid-iowa-farms-china-canada-mexico-eu/1757022001/">Des Moines Register</a> today has a fascinating report with clever searchable web tools, allowing detailed breakdowns.<br />
<br />
How can U.S. agricultural policy remain so absurdly dysfunctional even while being exposed to this level of public transparency?<br />
<br />
<div class="infogram-embed" data-id="8538737a-96af-46b9-ab07-3f44d2cee691" data-type="interactive" data-title="Iowa Ag Bailout Payment Locations"></div><script>!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");</script>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-57138179724992704052019-05-06T10:52:00.000-04:002019-05-06T10:57:13.357-04:00USDA announces 3 finalists for ERS and NIFA locationThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on May 3 <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/05/03/perdue-announces-top-sites-ers-and-nifa-relocations">announced three finalists</a> for the potential new location of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA).<br />
<br />
USDA has said the move will save money but has offered little information to support this view. Employees of the agency are demoralized by what they see as an effort to exert political control over research.<br />
<br />
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Relocation will help ensure USDA is the most effective, most efficient, and most customer-focused agency in the federal government, allowing us to be closer to our stakeholders and move our resources closer to our customers. Our commitment to the public and our employees is to continue to be transparent as we proceed with our analysis.</blockquote>
<div>
The three finalist locations announced by USDA are:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Indiana. U.S. agricultural output ranked 10th (2.8% of national total). Leading products are corn, soybeans, and hogs. Won by President Trump in 2016 with 57% of the vote.</li>
<li>Kansas. U.S. agricultural output ranked 7th (4.2% of national total). Leading products are cattle, corn, and soybeans. Won by President Trump in 2016 with 57% of the vote.</li>
<li>North Carolina. U.S. agricultural output ranked 8th (3.1% of national total). Leading products are chicken, hogs, and turkey. Won by President Trump in 2016 with 50% of the vote.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Just for comparison, the biggest agricultural state is not on the list:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>California. U.S. agricultural output ranked 1st (13.5% of total). Leading products are dairy, produce, grapes, almonds, and strawberries. Lost by President Trump in 2016 with 33% of the vote.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The USDA definition of "closer to stakeholders" may have in mind a particular vision of U.S. agriculture, heavy on meat and animal feed production. Along with farmers, other important USDA stakeholders are food manufacturers, food retailers, and food consumers in all parts of the country. Approximately 80% of the department's budget is for U.S. nutrition assistance programs. Critical issues for the department in the next several years include supporting farm incomes, protecting the labor rights of farmworkers, supporting rural and urban food economies, promoting nutrition in a time of rising insurance costs, and mitigating and adapting to climate change.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am not persuaded that the proposed move will achieve its stated objectives of saving taxpayer funds and helping USDA better serve its most important stakeholders. I hope USDA can keep in mind all of its important public purposes.</div>
</div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-79330458542042555362019-04-27T10:07:00.002-04:002019-04-27T10:08:44.648-04:00Outbreak by Timothy LyttonThe new book <i>Outbreak</i> by legal scholar Timothy Lytton (<a href="https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo35855002.html">University of Chicago Press</a>; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Foodborne-Illness-Struggle-Safety/dp/022661168X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1555942244&sr=1-1-spell">Amazon</a>) is both well-written and insightful about how private markets and government institutions (including regulation and courts) jointly affect food safety successes and failures. It mixes lively narrative about particular outbreaks (including much detail that is new to me) with legal analysis about incentives and constraints for each stakeholder. I have added it to my syllabus.<br />
<br />
<i><a href="https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/04/lytton-analyzes-food-safety-from-moms-countertop-to-top-b2b-deals/#more-183193">Food Safety News</a></i> writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lytton discusses how inadequate budgets restrict the ability of government to develop and enforce meaningful regulations. Pressure from consumers to keep prices down constrains industry investments in safety. The limits of scientific knowledge leave experts unable to assess policies’ effectiveness and whether measures designed to reduce contamination have actually improved public health.<br />
<br />
“Outbreak” offers practical reforms that will strengthen the food safety system’s capacity to learn from its mistakes and identify cost-effective food safety efforts capable of producing measurable public health benefits, according Lytton’s publisher.<br />
<br />
The book has earned praise from big business officials, academic researchers, and lawyers who specialize in food safety cases.</blockquote>
Lytton is an associate dean and distinguished university professor at Georgia State University College of Law.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo35855002.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="249" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPFvJV3roNHktx6QLKDeReeADUfiPAoTUOxieaXBb3LsqE4uCGqyECoktKpl_ORiZvQlzosGANfiqxOjBoT7ALqLIGQR698ulTYMSfRuN75dNyNXfwsqogNq3LusJuCRgLxbwkbg/s320/LyttonOutbreak.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-61498077160319147832019-03-21T14:29:00.001-04:002019-03-21T14:29:05.400-04:00Preventing chronic disease (evidence versus Google's featured snippets)Scientifically dubious information may sometimes appear in Google's "featured snippets."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=google+featured+snippet&rlz=1C1RLNS_enUS699US699&oq=google+featured+sni&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i61j69i57j69i60l2j0.4343j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">online search</a> -- in Google of course -- turns up all sorts of scammy sites offering advice on how to optimize web content so that it appears in these featured snippets.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When we Google "preventing Parkinson's", we get advice to consume the co-enzyme CoQ10, but research in the journal <i><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27830343">Neurological Science</a></i> found no benefit.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxq7pvI5TOWemniEl4EicOiYU8GeIVWZgow9Iq0_YRx5uqqg6BEyWxPYLPjtK4UUEEsVWFf1VM-0vo5EO2jCHrsiTQdZJX0IY-0VCSzYt8F4Ii_n51LcoHSnuNcX4KkwzQEoyb1A/s1600/D1ujVyKX4AEbzrP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="871" data-original-width="1188" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxq7pvI5TOWemniEl4EicOiYU8GeIVWZgow9Iq0_YRx5uqqg6BEyWxPYLPjtK4UUEEsVWFf1VM-0vo5EO2jCHrsiTQdZJX0IY-0VCSzYt8F4Ii_n51LcoHSnuNcX4KkwzQEoyb1A/s320/D1ujVyKX4AEbzrP.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Similarly, when we Google "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=preventing+colon+cancer">preventing colon cancer</a>," we get a featured snippet with advice from <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/colon-cancer/symptoms-causes/syc-20353669">Mayo Clinic</a> (a reputable source):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Make lifestyle changes to reduce your risk</b><br />
You can take steps to reduce your risk of colon cancer by making changes in your everyday life. Take steps to:<br />
<ul>
<li>Eat a variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Fruits, vegetables and whole grains contain vitamins, minerals, fiber and antioxidants, which may play a role in cancer prevention. Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables so that you get an array of vitamins and nutrients.</li>
<li>Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all. If you choose to drink alcohol, limit the amount of alcohol you drink to no more than one drink a day for women and two for men.</li>
<li>Stop smoking. Talk to your doctor about ways to quit that may work for you.</li>
<li>Exercise most days of the week. Try to get at least 30 minutes of exercise on most days. If you've been inactive, start slowly and build up gradually to 30 minutes. Also, talk to your doctor before starting any exercise program.</li>
<li>Maintain a healthy weight. If you are at a healthy weight, work to maintain your weight by combining a healthy diet with daily exercise. If you need to lose weight, ask your doctor about healthy ways to achieve your goal. Aim to lose weight slowly by increasing the amount of exercise you get and reducing the number of calories you eat. </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
That is mostly good advice, with one big omission. Authoritative research summaries from the <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/colorectal-cancer">World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)</a> and <a href="https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/prevention.html">American Cancer Society (ACS)</a> recommend lowering risk of colorectal cancer by eating less processed meats (such as bacon and sausage).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/colorectal-cancer" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1484" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoS10xuQgrtYOka2b_BaxwVuQ56bcsOGOZOlA6R3-gEFN8jaz8wk788DpDpfzBvEkQyXviisSQAuFp1YmkEv6nn1vbX2rcfDcD8MgiSivxTX82X-Y2PchXeg6yhOuyNzAI6t8t-Q/s640/Colorectal-cancer-matrix.jpg" width="344" /></a></div>
<br />
These authoritative sources appear further down the list of Google results for "preventing colon cancer," overshadowed by the incomplete information in the featured snippet.</div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-9146958718212446522019-02-12T10:22:00.000-05:002019-02-12T10:41:07.668-05:00Should data on SNAP sales by retailer be available for analysis?The U.S. Supreme Court this week scheduled a hearing on April 22 about an important case for policies to address the adequacy of food retail access, especially for low-income communities.<br />
<br />
Knowing the amount of SNAP sales by retailer would help for (1) identifying "food deserts," (2) understanding how SNAP contributes to healthy food environments, and (3) determining whether policy innovations or changes in retail practices could further increase the beneficial impact of SNAP.<br />
<br />
In 2011, the South Dakota<i> <a href="https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2019/02/11/supreme-court-sets-date-argus-leader-case-food-marketing-instutute/2840684002/">Argus Leader</a></i> asked USDA to share such data. Retailers objected to the sharing, and USDA declined to approve the release under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules, so the case went to court. Eventually, appeals courts ruled for the <i>Argus Leader</i>. USDA would have released the data, but the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), the leading food retail trade association, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. See <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media/">SCOTUSblog</a> for more on this history and links to the legal documents.<br />
<br />
The <i>Argus Leader</i> yesterday noted that the implications go beyond food policy: "The outcome of <i>Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media</i> could have broad implications for what the federal government can keep secret under the Freedom of Information Act."<br />
<br />
An <a href="https://www.fmi.org/newsroom/news-archive/view/2019/01/11/fmi-statement-on-scotus-decision-to-hear-appeal-in-food-marketing-institute-v.-argus-leader-media">FMI statement</a> last month said, "It is a critically important case that will clarify the protections from disclosure applicable to confidential business information that private parties submit to the government." But is this really confidential information submitted by private parties? USDA spends public money for a public purpose, and the <i>Argus Leader </i>just is asking USDA to share its own spending data, much as USDA already must share information about who receives farm subsidies, or what big businesses receive federal contracts. Businesses receiving government money sometimes wish the amounts would be secret, but it makes sense in a democracy that these amounts should be public.<br />
<br />
Supporters of the FMI position say retailers will suffer competitive harm if the data are released. For example, in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyb7zmeTcKw&feature=youtu.be&t=4h31m30s">recorded Congressional debate</a> (time 4:31:00) last year, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) expresses concern about "food deserts" and says the data release would "poach customers and revenues." First, retailers already have plenty of commercial intelligence about each others' business. Second, more importantly, is Rep. Newhouse's argument internally inconsistent? The only way a competitor could poach customers and revenues is by <i>adding</i> retail locations in the vicinity, which improves food retail access. For a retailer in a particular location, if competitors see some data and decide to <i>stay away</i>, then the business result is a competitive benefit not a harm.<br />
<br />
If these data were public, we would all understand the role of SNAP in local food retail environments better. If FMI cares about the healthfulness and adequacy of the local food retail environment for low-income Americans, I would encourage the trade association to drop this appeal. This lawsuit does not serve the public interest.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="253.12499" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cyb7zmeTcKw" width="450"></iframe><br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-42267728280609712642019-02-08T16:41:00.000-05:002019-02-08T16:47:33.253-05:00The long road to the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and the long road afterward<a href="https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/How_a_Public_Health_Goal_Became_a_National_Law_Nutrition_Today.pdf">Nutrition Today (.pdf)</a> has published a nice history of the initial struggle to design and pass ... and the later struggle to implement ... the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.<br />
<br />
Colin Schwartz and Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) summarize considerable familiar material, but also provide insight into less widely understood details. For example, while this legislation usually is described purely as an Obama administration victory, the authors highlight much of the preparation that already took place during the W. Bush administration. The continuing policy arguments after passage also are notable. It is true with any legislation, and especially true for this law, that the road to administrative rule-making and implementation may be as important as the initial passage of the bill.<br />
<br />
I will add this article to the syllabus for my U.S. food policy class (for a week on child nutrition programs).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2Y_jS5H8Bw6GE9r0mtEyl31ObWxRR6YvUzKy8ph1_7W3iKyW4JBG_ULWRQiD2zPZCIFbShenbdkpM5YCip_LDGDidGiMqJG8Zjiz9Fey4ptARWhyTijwWeLDa10Pv9u4EzJ19A/s1600/CSPITimeline.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="1526" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2Y_jS5H8Bw6GE9r0mtEyl31ObWxRR6YvUzKy8ph1_7W3iKyW4JBG_ULWRQiD2zPZCIFbShenbdkpM5YCip_LDGDidGiMqJG8Zjiz9Fey4ptARWhyTijwWeLDa10Pv9u4EzJ19A/s400/CSPITimeline.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Schwartz and Wootan (2019). [Click for larger image].</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-63491888968304806422019-01-02T15:46:00.000-05:002019-01-02T15:47:02.786-05:00SSB taxes from the distinct perspectives of diverse stakeholder groupsPrevious studies found sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are cost-effective from the societal perspective. Our new article in the <i><a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304803">American Journal of Public Health</a></i> argues that policy-making in a democracy depends on costs and benefits for particular stakeholders.<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://now.tufts.edu/articles/benefits-and-costs-taxing-sugary-drinks" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="871" data-original-width="673" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-8-tPPMS1im-pdThMUdMrLW9xOF7npXp8DEMrlH2Rq3OQZstzX5ZAeGuyfYxz2Jw6cFq9t-kXmx2VOTFDCe8UqdGDE3JLKf4XBDB9mTNxj6VcEoL3PQ6am16OF2hCXyQwvXhCpg/s400/SSB.PNG" width="308" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-37934243085037935232018-12-07T09:57:00.002-05:002018-12-07T15:53:07.238-05:00Let's see the research before reversing school lunch standardsAfter years of effort to strengthen nutrition standards, based on scientific reports from the <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-dietary-assessment-study-iv">National Academies</a> and others, leading to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy,_Hunger-Free_Kids_Act_of_2010">Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010</a>, USDA yesterday published <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-publishes-school-meals-final-rule">a final rule</a> that <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-finalizes-rollback-school-lunch-regulations-championed/story?id=59661517">rolled back</a> the proposed standards in three ways: (1) delaying implementation of interim standards for sodium, and giving up on the eventual more ambitious standards; (2) allowing sweetened flavored low-fat milk, and (3) relaxing rules to encourage whole grain content.<br />
<br />
It is good to base major child nutrition policy decisions on the best and most recent research. Every few years, USDA publishes a major School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) and a school meals cost study. The last<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-dietary-assessment-study-iv"> SNDA</a>, in 2012, found that many school meals fell short of targets for whole grains and sodium, for example.<br />
<br />
For the most recent such research, USDA funded a major study by Mathematica Policy Research that for the first time would combine the previously separate studies into a single more coherent <a href="https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/projects/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNMCS)</a>. The Mathematica <a href="https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/projects/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">website</a> lists the study as running from 2013-2017. The study has long been awaiting clearance at USDA.<br />
<br />
For sound science-based policy-making, an appealing option for USDA could have been to first publish this important study and then afterwards publish the final rule on school meals standards. However, this week the order was reversed, with policy decision first. We will read the scientific report with great interest when it is published.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-dietary-assessment-study-iv" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="946" data-original-width="730" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlAV1cXK4Wep7q0dD6fGITmY-5oSVJW7ntOgSij7cLUcfwP7Hqzjis5H66HLZna8npEKoYp10565QNoP5dub5FR-EQUzWQ3hJteK9CiVeYLgiadh6rcoN7Ht0uFc9RK56b82i4tA/s320/SNDA.PNG" width="246" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-15407528935034428782018-12-05T11:18:00.001-05:002018-12-05T11:23:10.378-05:00Seeking grant proposals for research on USDA nutrition assistance programs<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/&source=gmail&ust=1544111739240000&usg=AFQjCNFe_HWevNglIcR9VYCeY_FIEJuKbg" href="https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Tufts/UConn RIDGE Program</a> seeks to support innovative economic research on domestic nutrition assistance programs and to broaden a network of researchers applying their expertise to USDA topics. The RIDGE Program seeks applications from a diverse community of experienced nutrition assistance researchers, graduate students, early career scholars, and established researchers who bring expertise in another research area.<br />
<br />
Full details are available in the <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/ridge-2019-round-2.pdf&source=gmail&ust=1544111739240000&usg=AFQjCNHLGsUGvc2dZfx9Mp9Us_D7Ierf1g" href="https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/ridge-2019-round-2.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">2019 Request for Proposals (RFP)</a>. Additional information will be provided during the <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://goo.gl/forms/FeGiuvrDwp35Dmx43&source=gmail&ust=1544111739240000&usg=AFQjCNFkuuy-XK5rO9eDCZ93U9NinpUg7Q" href="https://goo.gl/forms/FeGiuvrDwp35Dmx43" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">RIDGE Informational Webinar for Applicants</a>, <b>Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12PM EST</b>. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<u>Important Dates for the 2019 Submission Cycle</u><br />
<br />
Request for proposals release: November 28, 2018<br />
Informational webinar for applicants: December 17, 2018 12PM EST<br />
Concept paper due: January 25, 2019<br />
Full proposal (by invitation) due: March 29, 2019<br />
Funding period (up to 18 months): June 1, 2019 – November 30, 2020<br />
<br />
For additional questions, contact <a href="mailto:ridge@tufts.edu" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">ridge@tufts.edu</a>.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://ridge.nutrition.tufts.edu/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1600" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix8bUIez80f5u3zlSqfMj_G3b7jAG9ZMjIO5fj2hSwX6Xw0JnN7yg04IfPO5VY0WPFLAdqkakLx4-xcqAuDY9Tl3FbBUqQui8msGDPAwx_BJRstFHSMHCu808sFDBl5spt6NCDWg/s320/RidgeLogo-v2-01.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-47715705883146517052018-07-21T09:29:00.001-04:002018-07-21T09:45:37.643-04:00How old is the term "coconut milk"?In the <i><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/150006/war-soy-milk">New Republic</a></i> this week, Emily Atkin reviews the renewed Trump administration interest in restricting the word "milk" on labels for products such as "soy milk" and "coconut milk."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“As the [FDA] Commissioner noted, the dictionary definition of the word ‘milk’ does include coming from nuts, and this is not a new concept,” the Plant Based Food Association said in an emailed statement. Indeed, Gottlieb on Tuesday acknowledged that “if you open up a dictionary, it talks about milk coming from a lactating animal or a nut.” This is one of several reasons why non-dairy milk companies reject the idea that they’re misleading consumers.</blockquote>
<div>
The argument made me wonder how old is the use of "milk" for products other than cow's milk? Here are a couple entries from Merriam-Webster (which seemed to require sign-in after the first few lookups):</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/almond%20milk">Almond milk</a> (14th century).</li>
<li><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk">Coconut milk</a> (1698).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
I also looked up <a href="https://www.openbible.info/topics/milk">100 Bible verses with the word "milk"</a> in English translation (Hebrew and Greek may be another matter). For the dairy industry, the good news is that most verses did refer to excretions from a lactating mammal. Isaiah provided the most metaphorical use I could find: "You shall suck the milk of nations; you shall nurse at the breast of kings." And the dairy industry may hope that Isaiah was just being aspirational in some of his comments: "He who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."<br />
<br />
Others have recently pointed out the many names of food products that could get caught up in an overly literal FDA rulebook, if it were applied consistently.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Hamburgers (contain no ham ... and aren't from Hamburg either).</li>
<li>Hot dogs (contain no dog).</li>
</ul>
<div>
The comment period for the FDA proposal will soon open, and I suspect there will be plenty of submissions on this topic.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
usfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.com0