Clinton and soda in schools

I'm feeling a little lonely on the topic of the beverage industry's announced plans to give up soda in schools. While pointing out some gaps and shortcomings, I said it looked like a significant concession, whereas previous such announcements had been window dressing. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) agreed.

But here's the case for the opposition. Michele Simon devotes a whole issue of Informed Eating and an article in Common Dreams to the proposition that the soda deal is a PR stunt. The Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of PR Watch, buys Simon's version. My old hallmate Will Saletan skewers the PR event in Slate with the sharpest wit:

Nothing's more important to Clinton than the importance of Clinton, so the deal's announcement put him front and center.... First comes the CEO of Cadbury Schweppes,.... Then comes the CEO of Pepsi,.... Finally comes the CEO of Coke, Donald Knauss. He says of the deal, "We think it's going to strengthen our industry's ability to counter the perception that some of our critics have that some of our products don't fit into a balanced lifestyle." I just about fell off my elliptical machine (all this talk of exercise is highly inspiring) when I saw this. Don, you need remedial PR training! Ask that big white-haired guy standing behind you. Of course you're doing this to counter a perception that could hurt your bottom line. But, for God's sake, don't say that. You're supposed to say something about helping kids or doing what's right. Blurting out the stage directions in your consultant's message memo is very un-Clintonian. It's more like Bob Dole or George H.W. ("Message: I care") Bush.

Still want to hear my view? If the deal is just one step forward, let's say so. Don't let folks pretend it's two steps forward. Don't let folks take that step back again quietly next week and pretend that the gesture counts for effort. And yet, if it's one step forward, what message does it send if the public interest folks howl like it was one step backwards?

Like stubbornness and intransigence, concessions may be habit forming. I'm just happy to see the soda industry start getting some practice at concessions. It won't be their only opportunity for this new sport.

Policy linkages between agriculture and health

From the International Food Policy Research Institute's new collection of briefs on the linkages between agriculture and health, edited by Corinna Hawkes and Marie Ruel:

Policymaking initiatives in agriculture and public health are often pursued in a parallel and unconnected fashion. Yet coherent, joint action in agriculture and health could have large potential benefits and substantially reduce risks for the poor. Among development professionals there is growing recognition that agriculture influences health, and health influences agriculture, and that both in turn have profound implications for poverty reduction. This recognition suggests that opportunities exist for agriculture to contribute to better health, and for health to contribute to agricultural productivity. To take advantage of these opportunities, however, it is crucial to understand the precise linkages between the two sectors. How do the linkages work? Where do opportunities for joint action lie, and what are the impediments? How can the agricultural and health sectors work together more closely and thereby contribute to addressing poverty?

June 6 is National Hunger Awareness Day

Many readers probably already subscribe to the weekly news digest on hunger policy issues from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), the leading advocacy organization for food assistance programs at the Federal level.

That's where you read about:

National Hunger Awareness Day, June 6

USDA's new food stamp radio public service announcements for the Food Stamp Program, in English and Spanish.

USDA's partnerships with the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts and other organizations, to promote awareness of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Parents' efforts to protect children's recess time.

A study of the fruits and vegetables that participants bought with innovative WIC vouchers.

And that's just a small part of just one week's edition.

More benzene in soda than you thought

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday posted to the internet the actual data behind its finding of benzene in certain sodas and beverages, which contain both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and benzoate salts (such as sodium benzoate). Benzene is a carcinogen.

Some of the highest benzene counts were for one lot of Crystal Light Sunrise Classic Orange, with more than 76 parts per billion (ppb), and a lot of Safeway Select Diet Orange, with 79 ppb.

Here's FDA's comment on the results:

Because of the limited survey data to date, we cannot yet understand the sources of variation in measured benzene levels, such as variability between different product lots and the effects of storage and handling. For example, although one sample from a production lot may contain elevated benzene levels, it does not mean that all the products from that lot will have elevated levels, or that all lots of a given product will contain elevated levels.

In other words, BE VERY REASSURED. It is possible that the orange soda your child is drinking has less benzene.

Leave it to the Environmental Working Group to point out that the benzene counts for the two worst lots are about 17 times the safe level limit for benzene in drinking water.

Over the Hedge: "For humans, enough is never enough."

From Peter Debruge's Miami Herald review of the new cartoon movie, "Over the Hedge":

"These guys live to eat," explains RJ [a raccoon].

"For humans, enough is never enough. And what do they do with the stuff they don't eat? They put it in gleaming silver cans just for us.''

Leave it to a raccoon to condense the lessons of Fast Food Nation into a monologue worth the price of admission.

School wellness policy in Arlington, MA

Parents, school officials, and community members around the country this Spring are working on "school wellness policies." As part of reauthorizing school lunch and school breakfast programs in 2004, Congress asked local districts to establish their own standards for snacks and beverages in schools, recess time, food at fundraisers, and so forth.

I have been serving here in Arlington, Massachusetts, on the Wellness Policy Committee that is drafting the policy. Then, the policy will be submitted to a subcommittee of the School Committee, and some time in June will be considered by the full committee.

In our town, key contributors to the draft policy have included: (a) the chair of the Wellness Policy Committee, Cathryn Cremens-Basbas, who is also the physical education director for the school district and leader of a great community wellness program called "Activate Arlington," (b) other school officials including the head of the nutrition and home economics program, the school food service director, and many others, (c) School Committee members who contributed much time and service to the Wellness Policy Committee, (d) senior school administrators, including the superintendent and influential principals, who have not been heavily involved in the Wellness Policy Committee meetings, but who will greatly influence the final outcome, and (e) parents, many of whom have organized themselves into an active local chapter of a children's advocacy organization called Stand for Children.

Here are the current Arlington action steps on school wellness policy, from the Stand for Children website:

Review the draft Wellness Policy and send any feedback to Judy Neufeld by May 23rd!

Meet with a stakeholder group to gather feedback and gain support for the Wellness Policy. If you are interested, email Judy Neufeld. See toolkit below for resources.

Attend the Open Forum on the Wellness Policy to provide feedback on May 22nd at 7pm, Robbins Library Community Room.

Attend the School Committee meetings on June 13th and 27th to show your support of the Wellness Policy. Stay tuned for more information.

To get involved, contact Judy Neufeld, Organizer, (781) 698-9448 or send email.

Join Stand for Children, or renew your membership as a Sustaining Member!

Some things give me hope for a strong wellness policy in Arlington. The draft policy seems quite good, and fairly well meets the three key priorities that the Stand for Children chapter identified -- a strong implementation component, a policy about adequate time for children's lunch, and an effort to rein in "competitive foods," which compete with the federal school lunch program. The draft also has good policies on nutrition education and health education, which are less controversial.

At the same time, I have many causes for concern. The school district is under great financial stress, because it relies on local taxes for funding and, as part of a deal about a tax override a year earlier, there can be no tax increases in the next few years. Furthermore, in making budget cuts, the superintendent and School Committee have perhaps wisely (sigh) placed priority on protecting classroom teaching staff and "consolidating" -- partly a euphemism for cutting or reducing -- some administrative positions that will be important for wellness. These cuts have severely affected the positions of several of the key school officials on the Wellness Policy Committee, which means that their continued service and energy on that project really represents a remarkably selfless gift to the community.

Another concern is that many people I have spoken with agree with most of the policy, but dislike one plank -- and it is never the same plank. For example, one parent likes the effort to get rid of competitive foods, but doesn't like the possible limitation that only healthy food would be sold at intermission for school plays, because the bake sale at that time is a cherished activity for her. Another person, with experience in school counseling, likes most of the policy but opposes the plank that prohibits denying recess as a punishment, which removes a discipline option that some counselors and teachers value. I fear that in the next rounds of revision, the policy may get stripped plank by plank, even if most planks of the policy have support from most people in the community.

The school district leaders on the Wellness Policy Committee and the Stand for Children chapter collaborated in April on a training for people doing community outreach about this policy. For example, parents who were trained may be meeting with sports booster groups that have traditionally had food and beverage fundraisers, to see if the booster groups might generously support the policy on principle, even though it requires a sacrifice on their part. The training included great presentations by two graduate students from the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts, Sonya Irish and Erin Hennessy.

I hope these community discussions will build support for a true big step forward for the nutrition and wellness of the next generation of children here in our town!

Please offer comments. If you are from Arlington, say so in the comments, so I can include your comments in a summary of public input that I am preparing next week for the Wellness Policy Committee.

Changing the monthly food stamp cycle

Retailers in Michigan are asking the state food stamp agency to consider distributing food stamp benefits differently, according to an AP article today by Sarah Karush (via Boston Globe).

In Michigan, each of the 512,000 households -- 1.1 million individuals -- on food stamps receives them within the first nine days of the month. The funds are transferred electronically onto a debit card.

Most states stagger distribution, though eight states issue everyone's benefits on the first of the month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Of those that stagger, the number of days varies from three in Connecticut to 22 in Missouri.

Tom Wenning, general counsel of the National Grocers Association, said staggered issuance took hold as a way "to provide some relief both for the consumer and the retailer."

But many Detroit retailers say the nine-day spread is not enough. The Associated Food and Petroleum Dealers of Michigan wants the state to divide each recipient's food stamps into two payments per month -- which federal law allows for, but no states currently do.

The monthly food stamp cycle is an issue that colleagues and I have been working on for several years (see here, here, and here, and email me if you would like me to send an electronic copy of the full articles).

In addition to staggered benefits, Karush's article today also discusses benefit delivery more than once monthly. It says advocates for participants in Michigan opposed distributing the benefits twice monthly. However, there is a strong pro-participant case to be made for at least investigating such a policy. Now that benefits are distributed electronically, through debit cards, there is little administrative cost to delivering benefits twice monthly. It might help participants avoid "boom-and-bust" food cycles that harm food security and nutrition at the same time. Indeed, one may speculate that such cycles could be related to both hunger and risk of overweight and obesity.

In focus groups, some food stamp participants have recommended benefit delivery twice monthly (and I presume they weren't just hoping this meant double benefits!). Participant reception of such a policy is an open empirical question -- it seems quite possible that such a policy would solve a problem for retailers and participants at the same time.