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.

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:

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."

Livestock and ethanol subsidies

In a post from the Des Moines Register blog covering environmental issues, livestock producers recommend an end to ethanol subsidies:

“Although we support the need to advance renewable and alternative sources of energy, we strongly believe that it is time that the mature corn-based ethanol industry operates on a level playing field with other commodities that rely on corn as their major input,” the letter says.

“Favoring one segment of agriculture at the expense of another does not benefit agriculture as a whole or the consumers that ultimately purchase our products.”

But the ethanol industry disagrees:

Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association fires back in an email: “Once again, corporate livestock interests are seeking … a return to the days they bought corn under the price of production for the American farmer. Such practices resulted in farmers getting more income from the government than they could from the marketplace, while corporate livestock industries prospered.”

A classic intersection of supply, demand, principle, and politics.

Merrigan in the 2010 Time 100

From Time Magazine's brief on former Friedman School faculty member, and current Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan:

If you've ever wondered who in government shoulders the complexities of moving an agenda forward in a fractured time and pushes on without getting soaked, here is your answer.

How can salt be reduced?

Following the long-awaited new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on salt released this week, here's a quick summary of a debate that I would find awful tiresome.

Institute of Medicine: "FDA should regulate salt."

Critics: "Big brother should not tell me what to eat."

To me, the more interesting questions are: (1) Is it important for Americans to consume much less salt; and (2) if so, how can this reduction be achieved in an economically sensible way?

The IOM report explains clearly why sodium reduction is important for our health and even for the national economy. It is apparently a myth that salt reduction is only important for a small number of people predisposed to hypertension. If you still hold that view, we'll have to postpone arguing about it until another day. The rest of the post assumes the answer to question (1) is "yes, salt reduction is important." The food industry, which is pursuing some voluntary efforts to reduce sodium in the food supply, concedes this point.

The interesting question is how salt reduction can be achieved. In calling for FDA participation in salt reduction efforts, IOM explains the collective action problem that limits the effectiveness of voluntary measures:

Regulatory action is necessary because four decades of public education campaigns about the dangers of excess salt and voluntary sodium cutting efforts by the food industry have generally failed to make a dent in Americans' intakes, the committee said. The industry's voluntary efforts have fallen short because of lack of a level playing field for all products. Companies have feared losing customers who could switch to competing products or brands with higher salt content.

[Update Apr 26, 2010: This sentence has been toned down, because of the next update below.] Moreover, the food industry's imagination on salt reduction could be more ambitious. For example, the input of the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the federal government's revision of the Dietary Guidelines emphasizes the limited options for high-tech salt replacements and claims that consumers would not accept less salty foods:

[F]ood processors have no alternatives with which to replace the sodium, and must simply accept a less salty flavor in lowered sodium products. But the consumer will not accept such products.

[Update Apr 26, 2010: Although the link above is to the GMA site and seems to have today's date, a reader tells me that the letter is actually GMA's comments on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. I regret my error in reading. To be more current, here is the corresponding passage from the GMA comments to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

There is no perfect "salt substitute " currently available. Sodium reduction in foods is often a complex, highly technical, expensive and labor intensive task that must frequently be undertaken "silently" without consumer's knowledge.]

Contrast this assessment of the consumer's tolerance with the fascinating and quite well-written Chapter Three of the IOM report, which marshals the evidence for a more optimistic conclusion:

The food supply contains a vast array of commercially successful products and ingredients – fresh, prepared, and manufactured – whose sodium levels range from very high to moderate to very low. The fact that the same individual for example, might be fully satisfied with two snacks of widely varying sodium levels – one a fresh apple and the other a handful of salted pretzels – reminds us how dependent the sodium taste issue is on wider flavor contexts.... [T]he salt taste challenge might be as much a matter of reconsidering flavor options in recipe selection and menu development ... as needing to overcome technical challenges with salt substitutions.

[Update Apr 26: This sentence has been edited to remove an implication that the food industry didn't know these insights. The good food scientists probably recognize these points.] Here are some marketing insights that I draw from the IOM report (my paraphrase):

• Consumers can become happily acclimated to a lower sodium environment over time, just as it took time for them to become accustomed to the current strangely high-sodium environment.
• We could give consumers greater freedom of choice by reducing salt in processed foods and letting everybody use salt shakers; it turns out that people add only 20% as much sodium when they are free to make their own choices.
• There is a difference between "taste" and "flavor." Salt is a "taste." Real "flavors" can be used to make less salty foods delightful.
• Many foods can have less sodium without tasting less salty, by modifying the size of salt particles and their placement on the surface of a food.

Although consumers might eat less processed foods, and more real whole foods, we might enjoy life just fine with less sodium.

Agricultural economics of strawberries

This year, cold weather in Florida delayed the strawberry harvest, so the berries came to market at the same time as California berries. With both sources of strawberries on the market at the same time, the price dropped to levels so low that some Florida farmers tore up their strawberry fields.

Steve Osunsami and colleagues at ABC News described this news in outraged tones (sorry about the ad in the clip below). Neighbors complain about the misuse of environmental resources. Soup kitchen participants rail against the crime of wasting food in a hungry world. The farmer in the interview is on the defensive.



Bobbie O'Brien at NPR takes a different perspective. The NPR story notes more prominently that Florida farmers tore up worthless unusable strawberries to get an early start on planting melons. The plain-spoken farmer in the interview astutely summarizes the relevant agricultural economics.

The two versions of the story offer a lot to think about for readers who care about local and national food sourcing, fresh and processed/preserved food, and the tension between farmer incentives and the public good.

One very small and partial solution, which is also fun and yummy, is to buy some strawberries this week and make some jam. It makes great gifts. In my house, in past years, my daughter has been my partner in this project.

Many public health associations speak up about antibiotics

Many leading medical and public health associations have taken a strong stand in favor of sensible limitations on non-therapeutic antibiotic use in farm animals.

The leading bill, known as the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), would continue to permit veterinarians to use antibiotics to treat disease, but it would prevent farmers from using some classes of antibiotics on healthy animals in advance of illness simply to increase production.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a nice summary of the concerns about non-therapeutic antibiotic use in farm production. Mainly, overuse of antibiotics may increase resistance, causing the medicines to work less well in the future when they are needed to treat diseases in people.

The list of medical and professional associations that support PAMTA includes the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Family Physicians. This legislation is not a marginal environmental cause, but a very mainstream policy measure supported by sensible skeptical scientists and medical experts who have given it detailed scrutiny for reasonableness.

A notable omission from the list is the American Dietetic Association. According to information and correspondence provided by Ashley Colpaart, a long-time contributor to this blog, the Association's policy group considered a recommendation from the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (HEN) practice group, but ultimately decided neither to endorse nor oppose PAMTA.

One issue in question is whether PAMTA is food safety legislation, since food safety issues are within ADA's purview but other environmental issues might be considered further afield. The CDC explains why it believes "antibiotic resistance is a food safety problem."

Another issue is that ADA reviewers may have thought mistakenly that the list of endorsers included only state affiliates of major public health associations, rather than the national offices. But, in fact, the most important national associations are on the list (it is an understandable mistake -- the state identification in parentheses is just the state where the national office is located).

For a long time, PAMTA has been opposed by the meat production industries and by the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has financial interests at stake. Among more independent public health and medical associations, the ADA's reluctance to take a position on this important and moderate legislation stands out like a sore thumb. Some years from now, if the serious concerns about antibiotic resistance are shown correct and these powerful medicines are weakened, ADA may be embarrassed about its lonely silence.