Child Nutrition Reauthorization

You have probably already been enjoying the Fed Up With Lunch blog, a photographic journal of a year of school meals. If you think school lunch should be better, a lot depends on Child Nutrition Reauthorization in Congress this Spring. Here is a sampling of blog and new media coverage.

Tom Philpott at Grist:

Obama's proposed increase would boost the current daily per-lunch outlay by less than 20 cents -- not enough to buy an extra apple a day for every kid.

Now Blanche Lincoln (D.-Ark), the agribiz-friendly chair of the Senate Ag committee, has come out with her draft of the School Lunch Reauthorization Act. She may be calling it the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act," but what she proposes doing is slashing Obama's proposed increase by more than half, to $4.5 billion over ten years.

If Obama can't spare an extra two dimes per day per kid to spend on ingredients, Lincoln won't even fork over a single extra dime. If Obama's proposal wouldn't even net an extra apple a day, Lincoln's would have trouble procuring a single stick of gum -- not that school kids need any more sugar.

And it gets worse. Because of Congress' "pay-as-you-go" rules, Lincoln has to balance her modest increase with cuts in other agricultural spending. Naturally, she has chosen to target conservation, hunger, and even other school-lunch programs -- leaving commodity payments, beloved of her state's large-scale cotton farmers, intact.

Nutritionist Julie Negrin, M.S., writes at the daily table:

It’s bewildering to me why the government is hemming and hawing over how much money they should invest in CNR. It could be as low as a half a billion (which sounds like a lot but divide that by five years and millions of schools) and as much as $4 billion (which would be a miracle). When they give so little for each child’s school lunch, how can the school staff be expected to produce healthy, balanced meals for growing children? Even the most talented chefs I know would have a hard time coming up with a well-rounded meal appropriate for children if they only had a couple of bucks to spend per person. And had little to no kitchen equipment. And were given low-quality ingredients.

In the new online magazine Agriculture from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Craig Cox takes the Lincoln bill to task for pitting child nutrition against conservation programs.

In a critical miscalculation, she would cap the amount of money spent on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to pay for the nutrition increase. EQIP, a program chronically underfunded and repeatedly targeted for cuts, helps ensure cleaner water, soil and air for the children in rural communities.

The senator would be much smarter to look to the bloated farm subsidy program.

Sam Fromartz on small-scale slaughterhouses

Sam Fromartz, keeper of the blog Chews Wise and author of the book Organic Inc., has a fascinating piece in today's Washington Post about small-scale slaughterhouses.

Meat processing is one of the most concentrated sectors of the entire food system. Fromartz describes the efforts of one Joe Cloud in Harrisonburg, VA, to break into the business.

Cloud is riding a wave of consumer demand for meat from local farms, which has burgeoned along with the rash of deadly E. coli food poisoning incidents, hamburger recalls and undercover videos about grossly inhumane practices at a few large plants. Prominent chefs, who work with farmers and processors like T&E to get high-quality meat, have also championed the products.

For farmers, the sales are alluring; they make more money per animal when they sell direct, even if these channels represent less than 2 percent of all meat sales. It's also a way to escape the conventional system of meat production, since Virginia cattle typically are raised in-state for a year before being shipped to feedlots in Nebraska, Kansas and Texas to be fattened up and slaughtered -- and then shipped back as meat.

"Every step of the journey, someone has their hand in your pocket," said Jeff Lawson, who raises cattle and sheep at Green Hill Farm in Churchville, Va., a few miles outside Staunton. "If I could sell every animal I raised through Joe Cloud to get to your dinner table, I would. Any farmer would."

GMA science forum 2010

This afternoon, I will participate with Jane Black and Sam Fromartz in a panel at the Grocery Manufacturers Assocation (GMA) annual science forum. The panel is about consumer interests in alternative food movements. The (perhaps slightly dismissive?) session title is "New Foodism."

I focus on three themes: nutrition, environment, and small farms and food businesses. Here is a section of what I will say:

The “New Foodists” favor fresh whole foods that frequently are not required to carry a Nutrition Facts panel. They generally believe that good health will follow automatically from choosing the right food pattern. From a nutrition science perspective, it frequently happens to me that I doubt a specific claim I hear from this movement, and yet I end up believing the broad thrust of its perspective on nutrition. For example, organic food advocates sometimes emphasize comparatively small differences in micronutrient content between organic and conventional food, whereas a more mainstream nutrition scientist would instead emphasize the comparatively low average sodium content of the typical organic food diet. As another example, “New Foodists” favor grass-fed beef and local pork and cheese, seldom expressing much concern about saturated fat, whereas a more mainstream nutrition scientist may think it is probably just as well that these products are priced comparatively high, so that the overall saturated fat content of the New Foodist diet remains reasonable.

But, these distinctions make little difference in evaluating the overall nutritional wisdom of the focus on healthy eating patterns. The big important contribution of the Good Food Movement is not its diagnosis of micronutrient content. Rather, the big contribution is that this movement makes eating healthy more tasty, fun, and inspiring.

You probably won’t believe me if I quote Michael Pollan on this topic, so let me instead quote my colleagues Alice Lichtenstein and Robert Russell, who are, respectively, a renowned nutrition scientist and the former director of the Jean Meyer Human Nutrition Research Center at Tufts University. Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, they recommend focusing not on the specific nutrients in nutrition supplements, but instead on healthy eating patterns in foods. They advise, “other factors in food or the relative presence of some foods and the absence of other foods are more important than the level of individual nutrients consumed.” That, in a nutshell, is the same nutrition perspective I hear from the Good Food Movement.

The conference has more excitement in the air than I would have expected in advance. It's not because of my panel! Michelle Obama is the keynote speaker this morning.

Scientific American on SNAP (food stamp) improvements

From Lynne Peeples at Scientific American Online:

A growing number of local programs from Boston to San Diego are trying to make healthier foods more appealing and affordable for low-income families—the population of Americans who are most reliant on food stamps, and most likely to be obese. Meanwhile, public health researchers are looking hard at the federal food stamp program itself, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They're questioning why the long-standing strategy for helping the hungry may, in some cases, actually be hurting their health by packing on extra pounds. But could a few simple changes transform SNAP into a powerful vehicle for curbing obesity?

One of the possible changes -- worth study in a pilot, I should say, not necessarily full rollout -- is twice monthly benefit delivery through the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card:

Participants themselves have suggested that the change could help them spread out their grocery shopping and keep adequate food around through the month, notes Parke Wilde, an agricultural economist at Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston and lead author of the shopping cycle paper. "It's just a little change in the environment that still gives people freedom [to shop as often as they want], yet gives them a slightly different sense of the default behavior," he says. "I'm always surprised that there's not more interest in the idea."

ACCI's Scholar-Activist Connect Program

The American Council on Consumer Interests (ACCI) is requesting proposals as part of its second annual Scholar-Activist Connect Program. The focus this year is on U.S. food policy issues.

Here is the announcement from ACCI:

The American Council on Consumer Interests (ACCI) invites Members to submit a letter proposal for the second annual Scholar-Activist Connect Program at Consumers Union (CU). ACCI is co-sponsoring a funded Scholar-Activist Connect program in cooperation with CU as means of strengthening collaborations between members of the consumer policy research community and consumer advocacy organizations.

This year, the Scholar-Activist Connect Program will focus on the important issue of Food and Food Safety. The program will offer an ACCI scholar the opportunity to visit Consumer’s Union for informal meetings with CU technical and advocacy staff as well as writers/editors of Consumer Reports to (1) explore and exchange ideas about research and public policy issues pertaining to food and food safety and (2) to present a brown bag research and policy seminar for CU staffers with varying amounts of background on this issue.

Interested Members are invited to select a seminar topic and to make a proposal dealing with one of the following issues:

1. Third Party Food Certification
In conjunction with the FDA’s Docket on Third Party Food Certification Programs (.pdf), Consumers Union is interested in identifying and learning about research pertaining to the reliability of third party certifiers. (See for example, Jahn et. al. “The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool” JCP 2005; Albersmeier, “The Reliability of Third Party Certification in the Food Chain”, Food Control 2009).

A Brown Bag Seminar might cover such matters as the elements of reliable third party certification of food safety. What lessons can be learned from other experiences (e.g. medical devices, eco labels)? Have certification systems been sufficiently tested and validated in the field? (e.g. EU certification of organic products)? What are the costs and benefits of third party certification?

2. Food Labeling, Messaging and Obesity
In 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to promulgate new rules for simplified “front of the package” nutritional labeling (patterned after the system used in the UK and Sweden).

Consumers Union would be interested in a Brown Bag Seminar synthesizing research on the impact of labeling and messaging on obesity and the closely allied question of policies that succeed in encouraging people to adopt healthier diets. What works? What doesn’t?

3. Antibiotics in Livestock Feed
Last summer, the FDA testified in support of a ban on the low dose use of antibiotics in livestock feed. As far back as 1998 the Union of Concerned Scientists and CSPI petitioned the FDA to withdraw its approval for antibiotic uses which threaten human health.

Consumers Union is interested in research on the costs and benefits of a ban on low-dose antibiotics in livestock feed. The issue of costs and benefits continues to stir controversy. Hayes and Jensen estimated the incremental cost of banning antibiotics on disease treatment in pigs based on Danish data. (“Lessons from the Danish Ban on Feed Grade Antibiotics” Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Briefing Paper 03-BP 41). Offsetting that, however, are savings from reduced antibiotic resistance in humans.

The Project
The one day visit will be to the Consumers Union campus in Yonkers, New York. The visit must be completed no later than May 31, 2010. Within that parameter, scheduling is flexible and will be arranged in direct consultation with CU.

Travel and Honorarium Available
ACCI and Consumers Union will offer a travel stipend not to exceed $1,000 for this project. In addition, an honorarium of $1,000 will be offered.

Proposals and Eligibility
Interested members should respond by email to Larry Kirsch, Chair of the ACCI External Relations Committee. Larry@IMRHealth.com. Proposals are due on or before March 1, 2010.
Letter proposals should:
1. Indicate which of the brown bag seminar topic(s) you wish to present.
2. Certify that you are enrolled as a member of ACCI as of the date of submission.
3. Append a list of your relevant publications and related qualifications.
4. Demonstrate your awareness and any special contributions you have made concerning public policy in the food and food safety area.

The Friedman Sprout

I have been enjoying the Friedman School graduate student publication, The Friedman Sprout.

One recent article offers Caroline Carney's advice on eating local in New England in winter.

Historically, New Englanders have always been culinarily challenged in the winter months, forced to be creative with what the cold earth offers up. Cooks must know what local foods are at their peak, or at close. The foods that do survive are those hearty, rugged compatriots who have always been there for us: tubers, brawny leafy greens, sturdy root vegetables, members of the strongly-scented allium family, and those thick-skinned, nearly invincible gourds. Winter is also an opportune time to experiment with local seafood offerings. These same old winter foods can provide inspiration that will make for a happy and healthy winter season.

A companion piece by Kelly Dumke has suggested resources, including winter Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares.

Amy Scheuerman reviews the Redbones restaurant in Somerville. Sarah Olliges explains the new WIC package. And Marina Komarovsky and Ashley Colpaart discuss the raw milk controversy from, respectively, a scientific and policy perspective.

Economics of Food Safety and Nutrition

Call for Nominations

The Best Economics Paper: Food Safety and Nutrition

To recognize excellence in research endeavors that advance knowledge of the economics of food safety and human nutrition, the Food Safety and Nutrition Section of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) is pleased to invite nominations for the 5th Annual Award for the Best Economics Paper in the areas of food safety and human nutrition. Theoretical and applied research papers are equally acceptable. Reviewers will look for innovative original research with a high impact. Authors do not need to be members of AAEA or the Section to be considered.

In order to be eligible, a paper must have been published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal with a publication date of 2009. Nominations, including self nominations, should include a copy of the paper and a brief letter of nomination highlighting the contribution of the piece. Electronic nominations (with a pdf version of the paper) are preferred.

The award and plaque will be presented to the winning author(s) during the Food Safety and Nutrition Section meeting at the 2010 annual meeting of the AAEA in Denver, CO, July 25-27, 2010.

Please submit nominations by March 31st, 2010, to parke.wilde@tufts.edu.