Does obesity even matter?

Healthy food is about much more than obesity prevention. Yet, in its place, without obsession, obesity deserves a place on the list of nutrition concerns, not for cosmetic reasons, but because it is connected to diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic diseases.

The leading theory is that increasingly abundant and inexpensive and palatable food, combined with lower physical activity, has produced rising rates of overweight and obesity. If you just look at the changes in the food system, restaurant industry, sweeteners, sedentary lifestyles, and food advertising to children, it is entirely plausible that calorie balance explains the changes in obesity. In addition, there are a hundred theories about the one thing that obesity is "all about" -- maybe it's the insulin, or the HFCS, or the carbs, or the meat, or the fat, or the chemicals, or the lack of fiber, or the glycemic index, or the volumetrics. Proponents of each of these theories will admonish us to read "the science," by which they mean "just part of the science, please." My advice is to follow each of those theories as their evidence base develops, but don't throw your weight or authority to any of them yet.

Debating the organic rule

The most astonishing passage in the Washington Post's fascinating and detailed article about organic standards today comes from Joe Smillie, a member of the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB) and an executive at Quality Assurance International (QAI), a leading organics certifier.

Smillie explains why advocates for a strict interpretation of the organic rule are unrealistic:

"People are really hung up on regulations," said Smillie, who is also vice president of the certifying firm Quality Assurance International, which is involved in certifying 65 percent of organic products found on supermarket shelves. "I say, 'Let's find a way to bend that one, because it's not important.' . . . What are we selling? Are we selling health food? No. Consumers, they expect organic food to be growing in a greenhouse on Pluto. Hello? We live in a polluted world. It isn't pure. We are doing the best we can."

Will Allen

Will Allen, a 1998 MacArthur Fellow for his leadership in Milwaukee's Growing Power project, is the focus of a nice piece in the New York Times this week. Elizabeth Royte's article discusses the good food movement's reach into low-income communities. If there weren't a place for people from all backgrounds, Grist food editor Tom Philpott says in one quote, "we’ve got big problems, because the critics will be proven right — that this is a consumption club for people who’ve traveled to Europe and tasted fine food."

USDA releases surprising results on food deserts in the United States

Just 2.2% of U.S. households both lack a car and live more than a mile from a supermarket, USDA estimated in a much anticipated report to Congress released today.

An estimated 5.4% of households lack a car and live more than half a mile from a supermarket.

Household surveys give similar estimates. About 5.7% of respondent households in the nationally representative Current Population Survey reported not always having enough food or the right kind of food, in connection with lack of food retail access.

Low-income people are more likely than higher-income people to have close walking distance access to a supermarket. According to the Census Bureau data used by Michele Ver Ploeg and her colleagues at USDA's Economic Research Service, 29% of low-income people live within half a mile from a supermarket, while 22% of higher-income people live this close to a supermarket.

The debate over supermarket deserts has been much on my mind in recent months (see also many posts under the food retail tag). The USDA results will be seen as out of step with the advocacy literature on supermarket deserts. I hope advocates for low-income people read the report with an open mind. The ERS report readily acknowledges the clear fact that, in particular locations, such as some devastated urban cores and some poor rural areas, lack of retail access is significant. Yet, for a variety of reasons, I have been worrying that the way this issue had been framed as a national concern has been muddied by incorrect assumptions and generalizations. The data-heavy USDA report offers an important opportunity for clarifying the food retail agenda.

To understand how the estimates in the USDA report could differ from one's prior expectations, it helps to look closely at the maps. Take East Saint Louis (below) or Washington (see report), for example. One can find very poor neighborhoods without supermarket access, but they are not where most people -- even most poor people -- live. Most densely populated neighborhoods, including densely populated poor neighborhoods, can boast a supermarket.

The important policy issue at stake here is a choice over the proper remedy for supermarket deserts. I think that government incentives to attract supermarkets may be good policy in rare and limited retail situations. Efforts to improve fresh fruit and vegetable marketing make sense in a wider variety of low-income neighborhoods. In many cases, the best policy is to think of food retail improvement as one component of a longer-term neighborhood anti-poverty agenda, rather than something that can be typically achieved with tax breaks to supermarkets.

I imagine this report may generate some discussion, so I'll save more thoughts for the comments.



Update: Ezra Klein discusses this report.

Court rules GE alfalfa can result in irreversible harm to crops

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the planting of GE alfalfa can cause potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional crops. Monsanto’s petition to rehear was denied in full.

From the Center for Food Safety:

“This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organicfarmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the court rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America’s farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.”

Today’s decision again upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. The Ninth Circuit decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement.

You can read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals publication here (.pdf).

Cross posted from Epicurean Ideal.

Reviews of Food, Inc.

Responding to Marc Gunther's review, "Food Inc: tasty but unsatisfying":

Enjoyed your review, but took Food, Inc. more favorably on several key points. It’s not surprising that you have trouble distinguishing the real merits behind the save-the-world green marketing of Coke, Pepsi, Cheerios, and Post. The movie did well to raise questions about even the most green brands like Stonyfield. The real contrast it draws is between conventional and local and organic food.

I understand the question about whether the world can produce enough food, but I have a pair of standards for those who raise this concern: (a) Did they acknowledge that advanced non-GMO technologies are immensely productive and that GMOs make only a modest further improvement?, and (b) did they discuss the inefficiency of historically unprecedented per capita grain-fed meat and dairy in the same paragraph as their concern about non-GMO technology? Without these points, the repeated mantra “But how can we feed the world” risks misdirection.

Food, Inc.

Robert Kenner's new documentary, Food, Inc., hits hard by picking its fights carefully.

It could have criticized biotechnology broadly, winning a mix of agreement and disagreement from scientists, activists, and farmers in the audience. Instead, the movie nails its indictment of Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers and local seed processors. It skewers the patent laws that give a chemical company control of 90% of the U.S. soybean crop. "Monsanto did not agree to be interviewed." Whether scientist, activist, or farmer, pretty much everybody in the audience has to be outraged.

It could have promoted a vegetarian or animal rights case against modern meat production, again winning a mix of agreement and disagreement from a diverse audience. Instead, the movie tears into the economic abuse of contract farmers and slaughterhouse workers, while letting the powerful visuals of a high-tech poultry factory, a beef slaughterhouse, and industrial chicken farming operations deliver any additional lessons that the viewer wants to entertain and receive. "Smithfield did not agree to be interviewed." Whether low-wage worker or high-income gourmet, farmer or city person, anybody in the audience is compelled to at least acknowledge the filmmaker's viewpoint.

It could have sounded the alarm about any number of food safety concerns, some of which divide public health officials from the good food movement believers. Instead, it chose microbial contamination in meat, an issue that is entirely mainstream. The story of two-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, who died from eating a hamburger, leaves the audience with little room for computations of nontrivial risk levels that we should just accept without complaint in the name of economic efficiency and low meat prices.

A running theme discussed how different sectors of the food industry try to keep information from consumers. "Tyson refused to be interviewed." The third or fourth such refusal finally generated a chuckle from the audience. A clip of an industry official trying lamely to explain why cloned meat could not be labeled, because consumers cannot be trusted to interpret this information favorably, is infuriating.

In a Twitter conversation yesterday, before I saw the film last night, Kenner suggested the politics of information as a key focus for a viewer.

@usfoodpolicy: Looking forward to #foodinc tonight in MA. What scene will be most surprising to a farmer in the audience? nutrition prof? ag economist?

@RobertKenner: that we are not allowed to know what is in our food, we r denied info to know what we are eating, laws make it hard

That would be my recommendation to you also, as you see the film. Is it true, as some of the ag folks in the Twitter conversation claimed, that consumers are willfully or foolishly ignorant of the facts of food production? Or, are the consumers sovereign, here, while the food industry is trying to keep them in the dark about what is really going on in the kingdom?

The film is highly indebted to participants Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, Joel Salatin and a number of people who have written about the biotechnology industry. If you have already read those writers, don't expect new information, but you may enjoy the film anyway.


Update: I enjoyed Nicholas Kristof's review and blog post.