In all, she’s pushed health and nutrition to the forefront of our nation’s conscious since she stepped into the Oval Office. Uh-hem, since her husband stepped in the Oval Office.  In any case, she’s certainly creating hope that the rise in childhood obesity will not continue and making tangible change to that effect on her own.

Let’s Move has an ambitious goal, but also an equally impressive amount of support from governmental bodies, businesses, and local  non-profits all across the nation:

The Let’s Move campaign will combat the epidemic of childhood obesity through a comprehensive approach that builds on effective strategies, and mobilizes public and private sector resources. Let’s Move will engage every sector impacting the health of children to achieve the national goal, and will provide schools, families and communities simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy.

To support Let’s Move and facilitate and coordinate partnerships with States, communities, and the non-profit and for-profit private sectors, the nation’s leading children’s health foundations have come together to create a new independent foundation – the Partnership for a Healthier America – which will accelerate existing efforts addressing childhood obesity and facilitate new commitments towards the national goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation.

This task force is combating childhood obesity in four key areas simultaneously: helping parents make healthy family decisions,  improving the nutritiousness of food available in schools (where children routinely consume half of their calories), promoting physical activity, and ensuring access to healthy and affordable foods.  This blog has detailed how difficult it is for some poorer families in poorer neighborhoods to access fresh fruits and vegetables.

I’d say this task force has a lot on its plate. But, Let’s Move has a powerhouse of leaders who support and believe in the importance of its mission.  In a world that seems to be at a standstill when it comes to any progressive policy, we could certainly use some superheros.  Could these be the  new Fantastic 4?

"First lady Michelle Obama walks through the White House east colonnade with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, left, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, second from right, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as they meet regarding the childhood obesity initiative." By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

]]> http://www.foodbubbles.com/blog/2010/02/27/lets-move-michelle-obamas-campaign-against-childhood-obesity/feed/ 5 http://www.foodbubbles.com/blog/2009/11/25/al-gore-denounces-factory-farming/ http://www.foodbubbles.com/blog/2009/11/25/al-gore-denounces-factory-farming/#comments Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:01:27 +0000 foodbubbles http://www.foodbubbles.com/blog/?p=1931 Al Gore says he’s going to get crazy in order to get politicians to take note of the urgency of climate change.  And, well, if those ideas sound a little too crazy, he does have other ideas.   Along with increased energy efficiency, relying on sustainable agricultural practices is the way forward.  The funny is up until about 3:15, then comes the serious talk about what we need to do to stem climate change:

This follows on the heels of a controversy over Al Gore eating meat despite it’s well-documented damage to the environment.  Some environmental activists have called him a hypocrite for continuing to eat meat while campaigning for climate change measures.

I say, if Al Gore is eating grass-fed, non-factory farmed meat, it’s not as terrible as all that.  He’s showing that you can keep eating meat (something a lot of people fear giving up) and still help the environment.  It’s true that cutting meat out of your diet would help reduce your carbon footprint a lot more than even switching to a Prius.  But, we all know that as sad and as bad as it is for the environment and the animals (especially when factory-farmed) some people are just never going to stop eating meat.  For those people, I say eating sustainably raised products is the best and least they can do.

Happy (free-range, organic, vegetarian, antibiotic-free) Turkey Day!

A quick word about the annual Presidential turkey pardon.  This year, the turkey is named Courage:

The Turkey Pardon tradition was officially established in 1989, by President George H.W. Bush, and has gone on each year since. There are actually two turkeys each year; an “alternate” is always chosen, just in case the first bird is unable to “perform its duties.”

It’s safe to say that the staff in the press office at the White House is getting very creative. Check this pre-event video out:

And I didn’t think about my argument much beyond the fact that usually got the Pro-Migra people to think twice before demanding blanket immigration policies. However, that was until I went looking for evidence to help prove my point. In the age of refrigerated trucks, the free market, and a little help from NAFTA, ejecting migrant workers from the United States would not mean the end of our cheap food supply. Instead, it would be the American farmers that rely on the cheap labor to hand pick fragile fruits and veggies that would become barren. We mass consumers would still enjoy our strawberries and avocados from Mexico, our cucumbers from Canada, and bananas from Costa Rica. We mostly rely on them for our off-season needs now, but swift upward trends do not forecast bounty in our farmers futures.

American producers have been cheating in the price wars. Importing cheap labor and keeping transportation distances low, our farmers have been able to undercut the competition from migrant workers’ own homelands. Plus “Made in America” sells. However, “for the last several years, crackdowns on illegal immigrants and the lack of comprehensive immigration reform have increased anxiety among [New York State] farmers, many of whom rely on a migrant labor force from Latin America to work their fields.” Many farmers have already scaled back harvest sizes or switched to less labor-intensive products. (Link.)

American Gothic (1930), oil on beaverboard, 74.3 x 62.4 cm. All rights reserved by The Art Institute of Chicago and VAGA, New York, NY.

So, the next time someone says they want to expel the migrant population from the US, I won’t tell them how doing so will destroy their pocketbooks, but rather something closer to the heart–the idyllic dream of the American farmer.

After creating quite a stir in the foodie blogosphere, the mainstream media, and even riling up the lethargic FDA, the industry led Smart Choices label is voluntarily suspending the promotion of its program.  They even had the Attorney General of Connecticut after them–Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced that he was investigating the program and some of the companies that participate in it to see if they had violated a consumer protection law that bars deceptive marketing claims.

The FDA had sent a letter to several major food companies saying that they would be looking into whether not certain food labels and logos mislead consumers about the health benefits of certain items, and cracking down on inaccurate food labeling.  The FDA did not name names or give a time line of enforcement.  However, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, the F.D.A. commissioner, has expressed the administration’s interest in standardizing and streamlining front-of-package labels.

”There’s a growing proliferation of forms and symbols, check marks, numerical ratings, stars, heart icons and the like,” said Hamburg. ”There’s truly a cacophony of approaches, not unlike the tower of Babel.”

The New York Times

She says Americans need a label they can trust to inform them about building better diets.  The FDA’s letter may not have named specific the offending, trust-crushing products, but Dr. Hamburg wasn’t afraid to comment on the loose standards of a certain egregious labeling campaign, noting that ‘there are products that have gotten the Smart Choices check mark that are almost 50 percent sugar”.  In a phone interview with reporters, she repeatedly reference the UK traffic light system as a guide for present label guideline efforts.

In making their own labels, the industry was obviously trying avoid regulation that would make them use a structure so bluntly honest as the UK’s traffic light system: These things are bad for you; This is how much of the bad stuff this item has in it. Smart Choices attempted to avert this by only touting only the good in a food–mostly in the form of added vitamins, minerals, and fiber.     Thanks to its very lax standards on other nutritional information, like calorie and fat content, nobody trusted the Smart choices campaign.

Putting “Smart Choices” on things like Froot Loops and mayonnaise (yes, mayonnaise) may have immediately corrupted its image of doing good for the consumer, but it did help intensify the FDA’s efforts to rework its own guidelines.  Because “helping consumers make better, healthier choices for themselves is a critical part of the FDA’s public health mission,” the agency said in a statement Friday. “Consumers want and have a right to clear, accessible nutrition information that they can trust to help guide their food choices.”  Officials said that by early next year, the FDA will issue proposed standards that companies must follow in creating nutrition labels that go on the front of food packaging.  New, exciting “science- and nutrition-based” food labels could be seen on packages at the end of next year!

Still, Mike Hughes, the program’s chairman, said in a statement that they continue to “believe in the science behind the Smart Choices program”.  Adding that the “impetus for the Smart Choices program was that there were and are too many systems,” he said. “We applaud the concept of having one system nationwide.”

Yes, the reason the industry added another labeling system was because there were too many systems.  Of course.  It makes perfect sense.  You know what actually makes sense?  Ending the stupid, Smart “Froot Loops are better than a donut” Choices program.

In 2001 Barbara Kowalcyk’s 2-year old son, Kevin, died after contracting E. coli O157:H7 from a hamburger. Her son’s death thrust her into a life of food-safety activism.  She started the non-profit Center for Foodborne Illness and continues to lobby Congress for an improved food safety system.  She has tried in vain for many years to get “Kevin’s Law” passed, which would give the FDA the authority to shut down plants that repeatedly produce pathogen contaminated foods. She recently talked with Evan Kleiman, host of KCRW’s Good Food, about her struggles with food safety advocacy.

Within the last month, The New York Times and The Washington Post showcased two more cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome caused by E. coli contaminated foodstuff – Stephanie Smith suffered after eating hamburger, and the other has been hospitalized since May after eating contaminated  Nestle cookie dough.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Stephanie Smith, 22, had been a children’s dance instructor, but will never walk again, let alone dance.   US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has heard the emotional pleas for better food safety regulation and efficient enforcement and has pledged to enhance food safety.  But, food safety experts think he’s not doing enough, fast enough.  Even some from Congress are frustrated with the lack of accountability;  After reading the NY Times article, Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn), a longtime champion of food safety, wrote an open letter to Vilsack demanding an investigation into tainted beef and asking larger slaughterhouses to demonstrate responsibility and accountability.  During the House campaign to pass HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, she noted in her debates that when over 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11, America went to war immediately.  Yet, 5,000 Americans die annually from food poisoning and still we do nothing to enhance the safety of our food system.

Apparently,we can only leap to action when culpability lies elsewhere…

Or do they all have to die at the same time to get Congress to notice?

This, of course, is asinine and unacceptable.  Concerned Americans want action, and they want it before Thanksgiving:

A bipartisan collection of Senators got visits from food poisoning victims–or their surviving family members–[October 7th] , as part of preeminent food poisoning attorney Bill Marler’s campaign to get meaningful food safety legislation passed in the Senate before Thanksgiving. During their visits, the food safety advocates passed out the packages in the photo, above, which contained a T-shirt with Marler’s Put a Trial Lawyer Out of Business logo, as well as an info sheet about what meaningful legislation actually means. Currently, there are four different food safety Bills under consideration by the Senate, in various stages of hearing and mark up. Any meaningful legislation that gets enacted should include mandatory recall powers for FDA, mandated inspections and testing on a regular basis for food producers, and major changes in what USDA considers acceptable pathogens in meat that’s allowed in the food chain.

Obama Foodorama

Think we should wait until Thanksgiving to have safe food?  After the article in the New York Times, a ton of people wrote in expressing their concerns for food safety.  Now, it’s your turn to write.  Find your representatives online on the House site and the Senate website.  Tell them you want to give thanks for not having to worry about whether you’ll end up spending the holiday season in the hospital.

If you are further interested in what a crackpot Richard Berman is, you can find out about him and his expertise at bermanexposed.com.  Essentially, there are a lot of high paid lobbyists fronting as non-profits.

With consumer skepticism over the Smart Choices program, mandatory calorie labels on menus, the FDA developing nutrition label revisions (pdf), and the words ‘soda taxes‘ on the tip of every tongue, it is no wonder that industries are bringing out all their guns, pulling no stops when it comes to, well, their freedom to confuse consumers and obfuscate facts.  The moral here?  Always read the small print.  Sometimes, though, they make so easy for us:

Not a chance, says the group Americans Against Food Taxes.  Americans Against Food Taxes is a “coalition of concerned citizens” that is strictly opposed to the sweetened beverage taxes.  However, on more than cursory view, you find that it is actually a front for the American Beverage Association.  (The media contact page leads you directly to their representatives.)  They took out a whole page ad in The Washington Post which urged congress not to “tax our groceries”.

Of course, soda taxes would seriously damage the industry’s profits, so it’s not surprising that the American Beverage Association is defending itself more actively.  Researchers like Dr. Brownell at Yale report that just like with cigarette purchases, consumer spending on sugary beverages would decline as prices rise.  Plus, the sweetened beverage industry has seemingly been under constant attack in myriad other ways as of late:

Across the country, many schools have removed soda vending machines saying they should not be plying children with sugary drinks.

Last month, the American Heart Association urged people to reduce their intake of sugary foods and beverages to lower the risk of conditions like obesity and high blood pressure — singling out soft drinks as a prime culprit.

Even President Obama has voiced a cautious openness to the tax.

”I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring,” he said, in a recent interview in Men’s Health magazine. ”There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else.”

But Mr. Obama acknowledged that there would be significant resistance to such a tax.

Kelly D. Brownell, the lead author of the study and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, said in an interview that a penny-an-ounce tax would have an immediate and powerful impact on the nation’s elevated obesity rate.

The New York Times

Furthermore, the money from a soda tax could very well pay for at least some of the health care reform measures in the works.  The Baucus health care bill, which is estimated to cost $774 billion over ten years, called for “an array of taxes and fees on high-end group insurance plans, drug and medical device makers, and other sources” to pay for itself.  No soda taxes or the like were mentioned, but according to research of the sort that lead to the soda tax revenue calculator they could make a rather big dent in health care payments.

The American Beverage Association is huge in terms of dollars available, but does it have the same power and influence as the insurance companies or the farm lobby?  Do the benefits so outweigh the negative impact on the soda industry that their dollars won’t matter? (Ha!) Will actual citizens join the group Americans Against Food Taxes?  As usual when it comes to food and politics, we shall see…

How it used to be...

In an attempt to curb the spread of HINI influenza, commonly referred to as ’swine flu’, Egypt’s officials ordered the culling of every single pig in the nation.  Egyptian officials now claim that the measure was not related to the swine flu pandemic, but rather about cleaning up the filth in a local neighborhood that housed most of the pigs.  As much as it was misinformed about the actual cause of the ’swine flu’–it’s not actually transmitted via pigs, but it looks similar to a virus they do carry– it was also shortsighted in terms of how it would effect the local environment.

The ‘filth’ the officials alluded to is found in the neighborhood of the zabaleen, a community of Egyptian Christians who live on the cliffs on the eastern edge of Cairo.  For more than half a century, the zabaleen have collected the trash of Cairo, selling the recyclables and letting their pigs feed on the organic waste.  Now, without the pigs to help clean up, the community and its surroundings have actually become the dirty, trash-ridden place the official had earlier claimed it was.  The foul smelling consequences were not unexpected; the government was told repeatedly that this is exactly what would happen.

“They killed the pigs, let them clean the city,” said Moussa Rateb, a former garbage collector and pig owner who lives in the community of the zabaleen. “Everything used to go to the pigs, now there are no pigs, so it goes to the administration.”

The New York Times

Of course, the administration is corrupt and brainless, and is already having trouble with the actual municipality company that is supposed to clean the city streets.  But, wait, what does any of this have to do with food policy?

I am using this story to illustrate the importance of thinking further than one step ahead one it comes to policy decisions.  Although the United States isn’t so rash when it comes to wide sweeping legislation.  The reason may be that it’s just physically impossible to rush through policy in many cases…But that doesn’t matter, the point is that a lot of our policy is made because some official wants to be re-elected.  It doesn’t matter what the long-term outcome of a decision is if it means the representative gets back into office.  That combined with the pressure and money from lobbyists makes our system short-term and profit oriented.  Justice may be blind, but she can still smell the crisp dollars that get shoved under her nose.

The farm lobby, the coal lobby, etc. all have their environmentally detrimental say and sway officials to not think about the long-term global effects on human health and climate.  Let’s just say that a lot of politicians prefer the other kind of green…

What can the every day citizen do?  Well, they can join a grassroots campaign or become a lobbyist for the good, though lesser paying side.  Unfortunately, too many of us (myself included) are just too lazy or time crunched as it is to go full throttle and fight the big guys.

This is America where the power of the consumer rules.  We vote with our purchases just as much as we do with our petitions and town hall meetings.  I am pessimistic that change will happen any time soon, but there are stirrings in the air of massive movements.  The public outrage over the “Smart Choices” campaign is a sign that people do care and are willing to say something.  Will more things be said?  Will words turn into action?  We will have to see.

/rant

/rambling

According to the EPA, agricultural runoff is single largest polluter of the nation’s rivers and streams. However, thanks to years of paltry EPA authority and the lax legislation imposed during the Bush administration, their hands are pretty much tied when it comes to stopping it. There are laws in place that have big farms, over 700 cows, for example, paying fines for their pollution. This is all well and good, except that 1) these farms can simply sidestep the fee system by not filing the required paperwork. The EPA doesn’t have the money or manpower to find all the tax evaders. And, 2) even more asinine, in my humble opinion, was the (de)regulation that allows many of those farms to self-certify that they will not pollute.

But, they do pollute and it is the environment and local communities that pay the cost. A recent article from the New York Times demonstrates just how shitty life can be thanks to the massive amounts of cow excrement produced by big farms. Some waste can be used fertilizer. However, the excessive amounts produced by the average industrialized dairy or meat farmer is too much for local farms to use.  Following the “true cost” of beef flowchart I made a while ago, you can see how water contamination is the inevitable conclusion of the conventional system.

The resulting illnesses are, sadly, also inevitable consequences of water table contamination. In Wisconsin, known as the dairy state, high numbers of residents in several towns have been experiencing chronic diarrhea, stomach illnesses, and severe ear infections. One woman from Brown county, whose five-year-old son had to have an operation due to his severe ear infections, had her water tested after her doctor suggested her son’s problems may have stemmed from his contaminated bath water. Her water contained E. coli, coliform bacteria, and other contaminants found in manure.

Another family’s water was contaminated for months, until they dumped enough bleach into their well to kill the contaminants.

But dairy owners said it was unfair to blame them for the county’s water problems. They noted that state regulators, in their reports, were unable to definitively establish the source of the 2006 contamination.

One of those farmers, Dan Natzke, owns Wayside Dairy, one of the largest farms around here. Just a few decades ago, it had just 60 cows. Today, its 1,400 animals live in enormous barns and are milked by suction pumps…

His farm abides by dozens of state laws, Mr. Natzke said.

“All of our waste management is reviewed by our agronomist and by the state’s regulators,” he added. “We follow all the rules.”

But records show that his farm was fined $56,000 last October for spreading excessive waste. Mr. Natzke declined to comment.

The EPA wants to work with the new Congress to help establish firm regulations and safeguards against agricultural runoff.

Lisa P. Jackson, the new EPA administrator, has recently increased the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, has said that clean water is a priority. While campaigning, President Obama promised to regulate water pollution from livestock.

Unfortunately, the farm lobby is still an unstoppable force (of evil?) when it comes to protecting the environment. Tougher statues are fought again and again, and most often they succumb or are altered in favor of the farmer:

After Brown County’s wells became polluted, for instance, Wisconsin created new rules prohibiting farmers in many areas from spraying manure during winter, and creating additional requirements for large dairies.

But agriculture is among the state’s most powerful industries. After intense lobbying, the farmers’ association won a provision requiring the state often to finance up to 70 percent of the cost of following the new regulations. Unless regulators pay, some farmers do not have to comply.

Of course, that state finance would come from people’s taxes.

So, no matter what, we the consumers end up paying one way or another.

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.

Abbott: No you don’t, you throw the ball to Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That’s different.

Costello: That’s what I said.

The confusion and nonsensical back and forth found in the classic Abbot and Costello Who’s On First sketch is exactly what it feels like when trying to figure out just what exactly the natural label means on your package from the deli.  Actually following the USDA debate over definitions for things like “natural” or “naturally raised” can lead to perturbation, too.  Up until recently there actually hadn’t been very much debate.  The Food Safety and Inspection Service has one definition, while the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has another.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service says meat and poultry can be labeled “natural” if they are only minimally processed and don’t have any artificial flavorings, colorings, preservatives, or other chemical additives.  Who knows what minimally processed means.  On the other hand, the Agricultural Marketing Service says that “naturally raised” means the meat must come from animals raised with no hormone growth promoters, no antibiotics, and no animal by-products.

A commenter on Marion Nestle’s post on the same subject explains that the term “natural” is referring to the meat, while “naturally raised” refers to the livestock.  Somehow, knowing this doesn’t absolve the USDA from the confusion its perpetrated on consumers.  However, according to a federal register notice, this discombobulated terminology will soon be tackled (or see the actual docket).  Well, at least the term “natural” will be.  They are collecting commentary and seeking assistance for defining the conditions under which it will permit the voluntary claim “natural” to be used in the labeling of meat and poultry products.

I am not too hopeful; The USDA said the same thing two years ago.

Why not combine both definitions into one super meaningful label?  It would only make too much sense for the term natural to encompass both the life and post-living treatment of animals.

Furthermore, what does it mean when the word natural is found on non-meat products?  Is this also voluntary?  Who regulates that label, if anyone?  It’s doubtlessly confusing to consumers.

The definitions of terms commonly found on packaging should be clear, well-known to consumers, and definitely well-regulated.  One thing is for certain, this concerned consumer will be watching and waiting for the (much needed) developments on label legislation.