Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) this week said they wanted lawmakers to approve a bill reauthorizing child nutrition programs before the August recess.
U.S. Food Policy's coverage this Spring noted that the Lincoln bill is less ambitious than legislation the White House had proposed earlier. For example, the Senate bill includes just six cents per meal increase in the federal reimbursement to local programs for providing a school lunch. Yet, even this weaker and politically more palatable child nutrition reauthorization failed to make the list of three bills highlighted as priorities by leading Democratic legislators, which probably made advocates wonder if any child nutrition legislation would pass at all.
Legislation to reauthorize child nutrition programs for five more years has passed out of committee in both the House (.pdf) and Senate (.pdf). The Food Research and Action Center is encouraging support for the House bill. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest wrote that the House bill "hopefully give a nudge to the Senate to pass its child nutrition bill." The next few days will show if this hoped-for nudge actually comes to pass.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
A fine line: nutrient content claims and health claims
Kellogg can no longer use this marketing strategy (see Time Magazine in June).
In federal government lingo, the image above is a "health claim" or "function claim" with insufficient evidence.
But the company will still use this strategy (see Marion Nestle and Food Navigator this week).
In federal government lingo, this is a "nutrient content claim." For official purposes, everybody agrees to pretend that the word "antioxidants!" has no more health implications or evidence requirements than does the word "crunchy!" The only legal issue is whether the manufacturer actually has added in the claimed antioxidants.
If you are convinced that this distinction between health claims and content claims succeeds in protecting consumers from misleading marketing, you will be reassured that somebody out there is watching that line like a tennis referee. Everybody else may want to continue to be skeptical of health-related packaged food marketing claims across the board.
But the company will still use this strategy (see Marion Nestle and Food Navigator this week).
If you are convinced that this distinction between health claims and content claims succeeds in protecting consumers from misleading marketing, you will be reassured that somebody out there is watching that line like a tennis referee. Everybody else may want to continue to be skeptical of health-related packaged food marketing claims across the board.
Massachusetts passes bill to improve school nutrition
The Massachusetts House and Senate yesterday passed legislation to improve school nutrition. The bill now goes to Governor Deval Patrick, who is likely to approve it. Though some details of the rules are delegated to state agencies, the law will strengthen wellness planning and reduce or in some cases end the sale of sugary drinks and junk food in school.
The legislative history and the text of the bill (.pdf) are online.
The Boston Globe reports:
Advocates for the new policy, such as the Massachusetts Public Health Association, have long cultivated patience as an essential virtue for their line of work. It seems likely that the association's website will soon have a very happy news item.
The legislative history and the text of the bill (.pdf) are online.
The Boston Globe reports:
“There is no specific list of foods that would be banned, but most up-to-date recommendations would prohibit sugary drinks, such as soda, and typical ‘junk food’ such as regular chips and processed packaged snacks,’’ David Falcone, Senate President Therese Murray’s spokesman, said in an e-mail.How long has the U.S. Food Policy been blogging this particular issue? In October 2005 (!), we described the efforts of State Rep. Peter Koutoujian.
The measure, which the House passed in January and the Senate passed in March, now heads to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick for signing.
“The governor supports efforts that promote healthy eating for our children, and we look forward to reviewing the final language,’’ Patrick’s spokesman, Kyle Sullivan, said in an e-mail.
At the press event before today's hearing about junk food in Massachusetts schools at the State Capitol in Boston, State Rep. Peter Koutoujian challenged the notion that policy-makers should allow children to choose junk food. "Who's in charge here?," Koutoujian asked. "The adults or the children?"The law will in no way restrict foods or beverages that parents can offer their children. Instead, it will reduce the unseemly and widespread practice of other adults making money selling high-sugar beverages and high-salt snacks to children in school in the midst of an epidemic of childhood obesity and nutrition-related chronic disease.
Advocates for the new policy, such as the Massachusetts Public Health Association, have long cultivated patience as an essential virtue for their line of work. It seems likely that the association's website will soon have a very happy news item.
Cook outside your comfort zone for National Farmers Market Week
Bonnie Powell at Grist offers a challenge:
It's the height of summer, and the tables of farmers markets around the country are overflowing with firm-fleshed, scarlet tomatoes; bunches of fragrant basil; and -- depending on where you live -- juicy stone fruits, avocados, and more. Such bounty makes it easy to celebrate National Farmers Market Week August 1-7 by visiting a market near you (you can find one via the Eat Well Guide, LocalHarvest, or USDA). And there almost definitely is one near you, as there are now more than 5,000 around the country, up an astonishing 13 percent from the previous year....
[T]his year, I'm going to celebrate National Farmers Market Week by forcing myself out of my vegetable comfort zone. I'll be picking up whatever looks weirdest or most unfamiliar to me -- kohlrabi, say, or Romanesco broccoli -- and figuring out how to cook it. I'll share the results right here with you guys. They probably won't be fancy, but when food is this fresh -- as Grist's Jennifer Prediger keeps marveling -- you don't need no stinkin' fancy.
Care to join me?
 |
| It might look like an alien, but I ain't afraid of no kohlrabi. (Grist) |
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
USDA/ERS study estimates obesity-reducing effects of a soda tax
A 20% soda tax would reduce daily food energy intake for adults by 37 calories, enough to reduce the prevalence of obesity by almost 10%, according to a new report this week from USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS). The prevalence of obesity for adults could fall from 33.4% to 30.4%, the report estimates. The report corroborates other recent research suggesting that the obesity prevention impact of taxes on sugar sweetened beverages could be substantial.
There are a couple reasons why the estimated impact is higher than one might have expected based on previous research. First, the report, by ERS researchers Travis Smith, Biing-Hwan Lin, and Jong-Yin Lee, estimated a somewhat stronger consumer response to beverage price changes than previous research used. The new estimated own-price elasticity of -1.26 means that a 10% increase in price leads to about a 12.6% reduction in consumption. Second, even a fairly small change in average daily soda consumption accumulates over time, leading to a notable estimated change in weight for a year's time.
Purely paternalistic taxes motivated by public health tend to generate political push-back, especially from more conservative policy-makers, but also from consumers who resist having their choices directed by public policy. I think such taxes may be easier to explain to people when the tax revenues are needed in any case, to provide essential government services. The idea is: "Paying for teachers and police requires some revenue source. A tax on soda makes as much sense as a tax on other more meritorious goods, especially if people don't want their income or property taxes raised either." The health benefits could be mentioned in passing as an additional advantage. In this spirit, the Rudd Center at Yale has recently posted an online revenue calculator for beverage tax proposals.
The growing interest in beverage taxes during tough fiscal times is putting stress on beverage manufacturers. The American Beverage Association in June pointed to earlier estimates, contradicted by the new USDA report, showing "a 20 percent tax on a soft drink would decrease Body Mass Index (BMI) for an obese person by just 0.02, an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale." The association's press release is headlined, "Reducing soda consumption is a simplistic and ineffective solution to public health challenges."
There are a couple reasons why the estimated impact is higher than one might have expected based on previous research. First, the report, by ERS researchers Travis Smith, Biing-Hwan Lin, and Jong-Yin Lee, estimated a somewhat stronger consumer response to beverage price changes than previous research used. The new estimated own-price elasticity of -1.26 means that a 10% increase in price leads to about a 12.6% reduction in consumption. Second, even a fairly small change in average daily soda consumption accumulates over time, leading to a notable estimated change in weight for a year's time.
Purely paternalistic taxes motivated by public health tend to generate political push-back, especially from more conservative policy-makers, but also from consumers who resist having their choices directed by public policy. I think such taxes may be easier to explain to people when the tax revenues are needed in any case, to provide essential government services. The idea is: "Paying for teachers and police requires some revenue source. A tax on soda makes as much sense as a tax on other more meritorious goods, especially if people don't want their income or property taxes raised either." The health benefits could be mentioned in passing as an additional advantage. In this spirit, the Rudd Center at Yale has recently posted an online revenue calculator for beverage tax proposals.
The growing interest in beverage taxes during tough fiscal times is putting stress on beverage manufacturers. The American Beverage Association in June pointed to earlier estimates, contradicted by the new USDA report, showing "a 20 percent tax on a soft drink would decrease Body Mass Index (BMI) for an obese person by just 0.02, an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale." The association's press release is headlined, "Reducing soda consumption is a simplistic and ineffective solution to public health challenges."
Monday, June 21, 2010
Supreme Court rules on alfalfa GMO
The U.S. Supreme Court today overturned (.pdf) some aspects of a lower court's nationwide injunction against genetically modified (GM) alfalfa.
However, it appears that GM alfalfa planting will not restart right away. A USDA decision would be required for temporary approval. More importantly, the court left in place the lower court's ruling that a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required before the technology receives permanent approval.
I feel the result is not exactly a victory for those who oppose all GM technology, nor exactly a victory for the technology's sponsor, Monsanto. It seems to be a victory for the idea that GM technology deserves a strong federal environmental review, including careful attention to the right of conventional farmers to preserve non-GM production if they choose. Monsanto's opponents in this case were farmers who objected to having GM seeds blow into their conventional fields, limiting their ability to market a non-GM crop.
A Monsanto press release claimed the Supreme Court decision as a win. So did a press release from the anti-GM Center for Food Safety. The story was covered by Reuters and AP. On related issues, I follow Grist Magazine's food channel. Matt Jenkins at High Country News in 2007 had a nice long feature on this controversy.
However, it appears that GM alfalfa planting will not restart right away. A USDA decision would be required for temporary approval. More importantly, the court left in place the lower court's ruling that a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required before the technology receives permanent approval.
I feel the result is not exactly a victory for those who oppose all GM technology, nor exactly a victory for the technology's sponsor, Monsanto. It seems to be a victory for the idea that GM technology deserves a strong federal environmental review, including careful attention to the right of conventional farmers to preserve non-GM production if they choose. Monsanto's opponents in this case were farmers who objected to having GM seeds blow into their conventional fields, limiting their ability to market a non-GM crop.
A Monsanto press release claimed the Supreme Court decision as a win. So did a press release from the anti-GM Center for Food Safety. The story was covered by Reuters and AP. On related issues, I follow Grist Magazine's food channel. Matt Jenkins at High Country News in 2007 had a nice long feature on this controversy.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report released
The obesity epidemic is the "single greatest threat to public health in this century," according to a report yesterday from the expert panel advising the federal government on dietary guidelines. Following an earlier report from the Institute of Medicine, the panel also recommended reductions in salt intake.
The report from the Advisory Committee will be considered by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services as they work on the 2010 revision of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Advisory Committee offers scientific advice. Then, the departments will consider politics, economics, and communication strategy in producing the guidelines themselves.
Media coverage seemed unsure what was the main news in the report's release yesterday. The Associated Press article emphasized the reduction in suggested salt limits.
Marion Nestle wrote that the main story is that there is no news -- the Dietary Guidelines are typically quite bland and industry-friendly. In somewhat the same spirit, Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore is running a contest to see if anybody can find in the report any advice to eat less of any food (advice to eat less of a more abstract nutrient does not count).
My own impression is that the new report does better than previous recent editions in emphasizing real food patterns rather than obscure nutrients, and that it writes more favorably about plant-based diets rather than high-meat diets. Previous recent editions seemed subtly different in promoting lean meats. The new report recommends:
Like previous versions, the report offers sound mainstream nutrition science assessments, but makes little headway on the admittedly challenging task of advising Americans on how to put dietary advice into practice in the current challenging environment. For example, it has only the gentlest implicit criticism for food manufacturers and restaurant chains. The USA Today coverage quotes Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
The report from the Advisory Committee will be considered by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services as they work on the 2010 revision of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Advisory Committee offers scientific advice. Then, the departments will consider politics, economics, and communication strategy in producing the guidelines themselves.
Media coverage seemed unsure what was the main news in the report's release yesterday. The Associated Press article emphasized the reduction in suggested salt limits.
Marion Nestle wrote that the main story is that there is no news -- the Dietary Guidelines are typically quite bland and industry-friendly. In somewhat the same spirit, Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore is running a contest to see if anybody can find in the report any advice to eat less of any food (advice to eat less of a more abstract nutrient does not count).
My own impression is that the new report does better than previous recent editions in emphasizing real food patterns rather than obscure nutrients, and that it writes more favorably about plant-based diets rather than high-meat diets. Previous recent editions seemed subtly different in promoting lean meats. The new report recommends:
Shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. In addition, increase the intake of seafood and fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products, and consume only moderate amounts of lean meats, poultry, and eggs.There is more detailed reference to healthy vegetarian and nearly-vegetarian diets in the new report, along with the Mediterranean and DASH diets, which have moderate amounts of meat. Because of economic and political impact, meat-related advice is likely to be some of the most closely-scrutinized material in the report.
Like previous versions, the report offers sound mainstream nutrition science assessments, but makes little headway on the admittedly challenging task of advising Americans on how to put dietary advice into practice in the current challenging environment. For example, it has only the gentlest implicit criticism for food manufacturers and restaurant chains. The USA Today coverage quotes Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
"Basic nutrition advice hasn't changed much over the 30 years that the dietary guidelines have been published, but what has changed is it is harder and harder to eat well," says Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group based in Washington, D.C. "For Americans today, healthy eating is like swimming upstream. It's not that you can't do it, it's just it's so hard," she says. "Without changing the food environment, people don't stand a chance of following the advice in the dietary guidelines."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)