New York Times: Test every cow for mad cow disease

On the theme of our earlier post, here is today's editorial in the New York Times:

The U.S.D.A. should test every cow that goes to slaughter. The cost is not prohibitive. Fear is the problem. The current testing program for mad cow disease is intended to produce, at best, a snapshot of the likelihood of the disease. The program rests on assumptions that reflect, as assumptions tend to do, only what we know already, and we do not know nearly enough about mad cow disease.

The fear is that broad testing may reveal a higher rate of infection and destroy consumer confidence, with a devastating impact on the cattle market. Which leaves us where we are now: relying on what we don't know to make us feel safe.

New York Red Bulls -- using claims of performance enhancement to market stimulant beverage to athletes and fans

Beverage sellers often use implied claims of performance - enhancing powers to market stimulants to athletes and sports fans.

For example, the makers of the stimulant beverage Red Bull recently purchased the major league soccer team for New York and New Jersey, formerly called the MetroStars, and renamed the team the New York Red Bulls.

See the Google Answers service for an interesting report on health questions that were raised following the death of an Irish athlete who had consumed three cans of Red Bull and 3 similar deaths in Sweden. A Food Safety Protection Board in the United Kingdom recommended (bold added):

a) stimulant drinks should be labelled with an indication that they are unsuitable for children (under 16 years of age), pregnant women and individuals sensitive to caffeine

b) they should be classified with other beverages of high caffeine content

c) the consumption of stimulant drinks by children under 16 years should be discouraged

d) caution should be exercised in the consumption of stimulant drinks with alcohol

e) they should not be consumed in association with sport and exercise as a thirst quencher

f) they are unsuitable rehydration agents for use in sport and during exercise

When stimulant beverage makers use implied claims about athletic performance, the key adjective is usually "implied." More explicit claims would raise a number of legal and public relations hazards: in addition to liability concerns if somebody dies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might inquire whether the product should be regulated as a drug, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) might ask if the advertising messages are false and misleading, and the marketing partners in the sports world might decide the performance enhancing claims just stink.

But somebody at Red Bull didn't get the memo.

Jack from Fork & Bottle sent us an interesting report by email. He read the following question and answer in the print version of the New York Times, from an interview with Dietrich Mateschitz, founder of Red Bull (bold added).

Q. Is Red Bull, which has high sugar and caffeine content, appropriate for athletes?

A. If people would spend some time looking at our numerous clinical studies, research and test results, they would probably have to change their mind. Red Bull is unquestionably appropriate for athletes due to the benefits it provides, like increased concentration, improved performance and reaction speed.

Jack reports that this question and answer are now missing from the "version" of the same article that appears in New York Times online. He has written the "newspaper of record" to ask the reason for this deletion from the record. We will let you know if he hears back.

[Update 4/7/2006: Jack heard back from the office of the public editor: "Thanks for writing. The New York Edition of the paper did not have those paragraphs, and that is generally the version that makes it onto the Web site. There was less space provided for the story in the New York Edition than in the National Edition, so the change seems to have merely been the result of some minor trimming by editors." It is suprising that they would "trim" the most interesting paragraph of the interview -- space certainly must have been tight that day.]

See the Meatrix II

Here:

Oh, those clever wits ...

... at the Center for Consumer Freedom. Follow the link for a clearer image and more hilarity.

Health and nutrition policies of the world's 25 top food companies

Here is the Guardian's story, based on a report (.pdf) from Tim Lang, Geof Rayner, and Elizabeth Kaelin of the Centre for Food Policy at City University in London.

Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent
Tuesday April 4, 2006
The Guardian

The world's top 25 food companies have not taken significant action to improve diets despite their claims, according to a report published today.

City University, London, has done an audit of the top 10 food manufacturers, top 10 food retailers and top five food service companies, comparing what they have done against the strategy agreed by the World Health Organisation to tackle obesity and other diet-related diseases. It finds that only a handful are acting on excess fat and sugar in the diet and only 10 are tackling salt levels.

Researchers at City University reviewed the companies' policies on nutrition, research and development, marketing, labelling and other criteria relating to health, as reported in the firms' annual accounts or on their websites last year.

"Their performance is by and large pathetic," said Tim Lang, one of the authors of the report, The Food Industry: Diet, Physical Activity and Health. "The companies that appear to be doing the most are the ones under intense pressure because their product ranges are the unhealthiest, but there is a whiff of desperation about what they are doing rather than long-term commitment to better food."

Retailers performed particularly poorly, although of the top global retailers operating in the UK, Tesco scored more highly than Wal-mart.

Unilever was the exception among manufacturers, singled out by researchers for anticipating trends in health rather than reacting defensively to criticism.

Researchers also found variation within categories, saying that campaigners had succeeded in demonising certain leading companies but not changing behaviour in categories as a whole.

Thanks to a Friedman School student for sending the link.

Sustainability conference at Tufts Friedman School, April 11

The intrepid graduate student group Food has organized what promises to be a fascinating conference on sustainability here at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Tufts University.

Sustainability in the Balance:
Juggling Environmental Health, Economic Profitability, and Social Equity in the Global Food System

April 11, 2006 2:30 – 7:00 pm
Reception to follow

Presented by FOOD: A Student Initiative of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Tufts University, 150 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA Behrakis Auditorium. 2: 30 pm

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Ecologically Sound Agriculture: Principles, Practices, Constraints Dr. Fred Magdoff, Professor of Soils, Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont and Northeast Region USDA SARE Coordinator. Professor Magdoff will discuss the agro-ecological principles necessary for ‘sustainable’ agriculture. He will contrast the inputs and practices needed for ecologically-based agriculture with those used in conventional agricultural systems. He will also address some of the political, social, and economic stumbling blocks to promoting sustainable agriculture in the U.S. and in developing countries.

4:00 pm PANEL I: Changing Trends in the Global Food System: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture Sustainable agriculture rests on the principle that present-day food needs can be met without compromising the food security of future generations. As the global demand for food mounts and the fragility of the natural environment becomes ever more apparent, farmers, communities, and governments must identify ways to ensure agricultural sustainability without sacrificing productivity. In light of the challenges facing world agriculture, each panelist will sketch their vision for an agricultural system that can balance the three pillars of sustainability: environmental health, economic profitability, and social equity. Panelists: Dr. Richard Levins, John Rock Professor of Population Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health; Dr. Robert Paarlberg, Betty Freyhof Johnson Class of 1944 Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and Associate Professor at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University; Dr. Molly Anderson, Consultant on Science and Public Policy.

5:45 pm PANEL II: Biofuels: Friend or Foe of the Food System? Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are often portrayed as the next great wave in green energy and a potential savior of the U.S. farm sector. Opponents argue, however, that biofuels should not be viewed as a sustainable solution because at least for the most industrial crops, like corn and soy, more energy is used in the production of the biomass than is generated by the fuel. Also to be considered are the environmental, livelihood, and food security issues involved in a large scale transformation of the industrial agricultural sector from a food industry to an energy industry. This panel will explore the science underpinning the debate and the implications of using increased crop-based energy sources in the context of decreasing fossil fuel availability. Panelists: Jim Kleinshmit, Senior Associate, Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy; Dr. William Moomaw, Director, Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University; Dr. Daniel De La Torre Ugarte, Associate Director, Agricultural Policy and Analysis Center, The University of Tennessee.

Symposium Sponsors: Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts Institute of the Environment, Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, Tufts University College of Citizenship and Public Service Tufts, Food and Awareness Project.

Feds approve Quiznos Prime Rib promotion; nutrition facts guarded as secret

The federal government is advertising a new food product. No, it's not fruits or vegetables. Not whole grains. Not lowfat milk.

The federal government in December approved a massive campaign of television advertisements and other marketing to promote ...

... the Quiznos Prime Rib Sub.

See the luscious television advertisements, and notice the "beef check logo" indicating endorsement of the message by the Beef Board and the federal government.

The advertising campaign, which runs from February through May this year, is a partnership between Quiznos and the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board, a semi-governmental program to promote beef demand. The Beef Board is established by Congress, overseen by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, and funded through $46 million per year in mandatory assessments -- taxes -- collected from beef producers under federal government authority. The Beef Board is one of several meat and dairy commodity "checkoff" programs, which dwarf federal support promoting fruits, vegetables, or the Dietary Guidelines.

Neither Quiznos nor the Beef Board nor USDA would provide the nutrition facts information for the Prime Rib sub in response to requests from U.S. Food Policy. A press release from the Beef Board gives the flavor of the product: "The Quiznos Prime Rib Sub is a double portion of tender prime rib, piled high with melted mozzarella cheese and sauted onions, and then topped with a mild peppercorn sauce." The Impulsive Buy website described the product as "an orgy of meat" (and provided a grotesque photograph).

The beef checkoff program has been controversial with beef producers, some of whom objected to the tax and sued in federal court, arguing that the program violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to support advertising campaigns with which they disagree. I described much of this controversy in a working paper (.pdf). In a case that was decided by the Supreme Court in May, 2005, the federal government responded that these advertising campaigns represent the government's own "government speech." In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court (.pdf), Justin Antonin Scalia explained:

The message of the promotional campaigns is effectively controlled by the Federal Government itself. The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government.

In dissent (.pdf), Justice David Souter pointed out that many consumers may not even recognize that the government has endorsed the beef advertisements: "[A] compelled subsidy should not be justifiable by [government] speech unless the government must put that speech forward as its own."

All Beef Board promotions must be approved by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. The Quiznos Prime Rib promotion was approved in a December 27 letter (.pdf) from Barry Carpenter, Deputy Administrator of the Livestock and Feed Program within AMS. Carpenter wrote to the Beef Board: "We have reviewed and concur with your decision to approve this promotional partnership."

As a consumer, you can recognize which advertisements were approved and endorsed by the federal government by the appearance of the "beef check logo."

The federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans are supposed to be the government's "one voice" on nutrition communication. The guidelines promote increased consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and lowfat milk, within a balanced diet whose overall calories have been reduced. By subtraction, one might expect the federal government to go easy on promoting caloric sodas, sugary desserts, and high-fat meat and dairy products. It might seem difficult to reconcile the Dietary Guidelines with the Quiznos promotion.

In response to an email query about whether the Quiznos promotion was reviewed for consistency with the Dietary Guidelines, Kenneth Payne of AMS responded, "We are not required to do this by law."

Payne's email stated,

Again, as part of USDA's oversight, we are required to review such promotions to ensure that they comply with the Beef Promotion and Research Act and the Beef Promotion and Research Order. The program's goal is designed to strengthen the position of beef in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for beef and beef products. Ultimately, it is the consumers' choice to make a commodity part of a healthy and well-balanced diet. The Board promotes beef to give the consumer options to include beef as part of a healthy and well balanced diet.

The goal of the Beef Board's Quiznos promotion is to increase beef sales and support the purchase of 2.0 million "incremental pounds of Prime Rib/Beef." The Beef Board sought and received USDA approval to spend $100,000 of its own money in order to leverage a much larger sum (redacted in the copy of the letter U.S. Food Policy received from USDA) of advertising money from Quiznos. According to Payne, "In fiscal year 2005, the Beef Checkoff Program invested $475,000 in national partnerships [with restaurants], while the partners invested $27 million, or a leveraged ratio of 56:1 for Checkoff dollars invested. The total incremental pounds of beef sold during these promotions were 3,254,000."

The Beef Board's press release reported that the Prime Rib promotion was inspired by the success of the Steakhouse Beef Dip promotion discussed earlier in this weblog:

A successful cooperative promotion between Quiznos and the Beef Checkoff Program in 2004 encouraged Quiznos and beef checkoff leaders to conduct the current promotion, according to Laurie Bryant, chairman of the Joint Foodservice Committee. That promotion, for the Steakhouse Beef Dip Sub, shattered projections for sales. As a result of its success, the company added the sandwich as a permanent menu item. “

"We a’re thrilled to be working with Quiznos again," according to Bryant, a member of the Cattlemen'’s Beef Board. "Our relationship with the Quiznos marketing team is excellent, and our track record with this company and others we have partnered with has proven the value of these types of cooperative promotions."

U.S. Food Policy sought comment from the public relations staff at the Beef Board by telephone and email, and requested nutrition facts from Quiznos, to no avail.