Food Politics

Federal Money Available to Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:19:00 +0000

The USDA awarded grants to three New York organizations to provide training and assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers to help run successful and sustainable farms.

“Beginning farmers and ranchers face unique challenges, and these efforts will help provide the training needed to ensure these producers become profitable and sustainable,” said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. The average age of farmers today is 57 and is trending upward.

USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) awarded grants of $18 million through its Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP). The grants are for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. BFRDP is an education, training, technical assistance and outreach program designed to help U.S. farmers and ranchers, specifically those who have been farming or ranching for 10 years or fewer.

Entities receiving the awards are:

Groundswell Center for Food and Farming, Ithaca, N.Y., ($349,873)
Just Food, Inc., New York, N.Y., ($426,921)
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Inc., Rochester, N.Y., ($143,973)

Contact these organizations for more information and opportunities to participate.

Texas Farm Bureau Stands With Chicken Factory Operators

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:22:00 +0000

Texas Farm Bureau defends Chicken “Factory Farming”

Texas Farm Bureau Publications Director Mike Barnett believes that proponents of more humane farming methods make outrageous claims because they are pushing a vegan-based agenda to free the world of meat.

He cites statistics from the National Chicken Council that say that modern factory farms produce larger birds more quickly than smaller farms were able to do so 50 years ago – and they can do it while feeding the birds less food during their short 47 day lives.

"Mistreated chickens don't gain weight," explains Barnett. And, according to Barnett, factory farmers are family-men, so stories about confinement in unsanitary, disease-ridden chicken factory farms in Texas where birds succumb to heat prostration, infectious disease and cancer are just that – stories. Chicken growers, especially those who grow chickens under contract to Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms don’t take shortcuts – they are “family farmers” who produce birds humanely and who care, according to Barnett.

Mr. Barnett perhaps doesn’t recall how Pilgrim’s Pride’s bankruptcy in 2008-2009 left many of its contract growers in dire straits with worthless chicken houses and massive debt. Or how litigation continues against Pilgrim’s Pride by 107 contract poultry farmers who took on personal debt to grow chickens under long-term contracts to grow chickens for the company.

Barnett doesn't mention how complaints against Sanderson Farms with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality increased 15-fold in the three years since Sanderson growers built 400 "barns" in the area just east of Waco (each barn holds about 27,000 birds). And, we would guess he would disagree with the Texas Observer's characterization of Sanderson growers as modern-day sharecroppers in "Getting Plucked."

To see Barnett’s defense of contract farmers, click here.

State Farm Bureaus, along with the national Farm Bureau, continue to support big agriculture and oppose any changes geared toward factory farm reform. They oppose bans on battery cages, veal crates and pig gestation cages. They oppose mandated limits on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and antimicrobials despite evidence of growing bacterial resistance. The Farm Bureaus claim to be the voice of agriculture, yet it seems to have stopped listening to consumers who have begun to shun the products of factory farms. It is time for the Farm Bureau to step aside and for real family farmers to speak with a different voice.

Godfather's Pizza Continues Using Bromated Flour At Many Locations

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Godfather’s Pizza continues to use potassium bromate as a dough conditioner in many of its full service locations.

Bromate is considered a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning that it may be harmful when consumed. In theory, the substance is supposed to bake out of bread dough as it cooks, but if too much is added, or if the bread is not cooked long enough or not at a high enough temperature, then a residual amount will remain.

Potassium bromate has been banned from use in food products in Europe, as well as the United Kingdom in 1990, and Canada in 1994, and most other countries. It was banned in Sri Lanka in 2001 and China in 2005. It is also banned in Nigeria, Brazil and Peru.

Godfather’s Original and Golden Crust pizza dough lists potassium bromate as an ingredient (the listing is required by federal law). Its frozen Golden Crust does not list potassium bromate, and those outlets (like Hess gas stations) that sell Godfather’s “manufactured” products may or may not be buying a product containing potassium bromate. According to Tricia Hamilton, Godfather's Director of Research & Development, two Hess locations in New York bought and sold a "manufactured" product that did not contain potassium bromate. Its gluten free pizzas do not list potassium bromate.

In the United States, potassium bromate is not banned. A warning label is required when bromated flour is used in California. California declared bromate a carcinogen in 1991. Some organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest have lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to ban potassium bromate as a food additive in the United States. Instead, since 1991 the FDA has urged bakers to voluntarily stop using it. The FDA currently permits the addition of potassium bromate in flour provided that its inclusion does not exceed .0075 parts for each 100 parts of weight of the flour (or 750 parts per million). These regulations are found at 21CFR136.110(14)(i).

Potassium bromate is added to bread and other flours as maturing agent. It promotes gluten development in doughs, making the bread stronger and more elastic. Commercial bakers use bromated flour because it yields dependable results and can stand up to bread hooks and other commercial baking tools. It is also used to render inferior flour with low protein levels more useable since these flours do not develop enough gluten on their own.

There has been a multi-year effort to get the FDA to ban potassium bromate. Until that happens, consumers should self-inform themselves and decide for themselves if they want to ingest potentially harmful ingredients banned in other parts of the world.

When asked if Godfather's Pizza sold its pizza in school lunchrooms around the country, Tricia Hamilton did not respond.

Taking A Look At Howie Hawkins for New York Governor

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:12:00 +0000

I know. I know. The Green Party is just a fringe group with no real political muscle. But, have you had a look at Howie Hawkins' platform regarding organic farming? I took this from his web site:

ORGANIC FOOD AND AGRICULTURE:

Ban corporate-owned farms. Support family farms with price supports, credit, and tax relief. Financial and technical assistance incentives to convert farms to organic methods. Bypass corporate food middlemen by supporting farmer-owned processing and marketing cooperatives and consumer-owned food cooperatives. Full organizing rights and decent wages for farmworkers.

There was no link on this platform point, so I had to dig a little deeper.

I reviewed the questionnaire answers he offered to the Sierra Club in 2010. On it, he writes, "The Greens have also pushed for a ban on the planting of genetically modified crops in NYS. We were able to get legislation introduced in the state legislature in support of a five year moratorium on the planting of GMO crops."

On the Citizens Union for the City of New York questionnaire, he writes, "The public sector has to step up [to] make this happen, not with still more corporate welfare tax breaks and subsidies, but with public investment in a green industrial policy of investing in renewable energy, mass transit, green buildings, organic agriculture and clean manufacturing. These are the new means of production needed for a sustainable green economic recovery and future." (emphasis added) Hawkins made the same statement to Gannet on its questionnaire.

To the League of Conservation Voters, Hawkins said, "Make a major commitment to promoting sustainable organic agriculture in New York State to provide, without polluting our valuable water resources, quality food and the material feedstocks for industry to replace the nonrenewable, climate altering hydrocarbon economy with a renewable, clean carbohydrate economy where materials are recyclable or biodegradable." He also says he would, "Promote legislation and regulation to reduce pesticide and fertilizer runoff from farms, businesses, and residences into our waterways." Farm runoff is largely a factor related to factory farms and CAFOs, and not small, sustainable-run family farms.

Hawkins and the Green Party are after 50,000 votes in the upcoming election to secure the Green Party a guaranteed ballot line on state elections for the next four years. Andrew Cuomo's victory is almost a certainty. Consider using your vote to help Hawkins and the Green Party and to continue the important dialog on the organic agriculture, sustainable farming, and the environment.

Burb Appeal: The Collection (An Excerpt)

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:41:00 +0000

(An excerpt from Tina Traster's new Kindle Book, Burb Appeal: The Collection, available on Amazon.com)

Kitchen Stadium

By Tina Traster

My childhood home always smelled of freshly baked goods thanks to my stout Polish grandmother, who pulled trays of mandel brot (almond bread), cream cheese cookies and challah out of the oven daily.

She was also a decent cook.

That gene skipped a generation (Mom shunned the kitchen), but over the years, I became an adequate self-taught chef. Living in New York City apartments for two decades, however, dampened my enthusiasm for cooking. Why bother when there is no counter space, crummy appliances, a drawer full of takeout menus and a thousand restaurants at your doorstep?

But when I got my dream kitchen during an old farmhouse renovation, my inner Julia Child resurfaced.

The 225-square-foot space is a sea of green tile and emerald granite. Light pours in through a wall of tree-filled windows and skylights in the soaring, vaulted ceilings. Stainless-steel appliances, a double sink, a quiet dishwasher and a garbage disposal are arranged at spacious intervals in the U-shaped custom maple cabinets.

In my new domain, I toyed and innovated and found pleasures my grandmother must have known. Happy faces at dinner told me I should scribble the ad hoc recipes into a book. These days, we rarely bother eating out.

One day, my husband tore a peasant bread recipe from a magazine. Read on . . .

U.S. Hazelnut Forecast (2010) Looks Bleak

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:43:00 +0000

The 2010 hazelnut harvest forecast is for 27,000 tons, a 43% decline from last year's harvest of 47,000 tons. It would also be the lowest harvest level since the 19,500 tons in 2002. This season's crop has a high-defective nut count, resulting in a lower yield. The good-nut percentage was 78%, a 20-year low. This is an off-year for US hazelnuts.

Hong Kong was the largest importer of US inshell hazelnuts from July 2009 to June 2010, buying 39 million pounds, or 54% of the 72 million pounds US hazelnut exports. Vietnam followed at 12 million pounds. Canada was the largest importer or US shelled hazelnuts with 926,000 pounds, followed by Vietnam with 549,000 pounds and then Germany, with 394,000 pounds.

Domestic hazelnut production is largely limited to Oregon, but other parts of the country are actively investigating cultivars for their regions that are both frost tolerant and disease resistant, for food products and biofuels.

For more information, see Hazelnut Breeding and Reseasch at Rutgers University.

Subsidized New York Dairy CAFO serves up adulterated meat

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:41:00 +0000

New York farmer Kenneth Corscadden from Corscadden Family Farm received a warning letter last month from the US Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA investigation of Corscadden's dairy farm in Richville, NY revealed that Corscadden offered up animlas for slaughter that were adulterated under federal law. It seems Corscadden sold bob veal (male calves from dairy farms, usually less than one month old) over a period of weeks and that those calves had Tetracycline residues in excess of federal tolerances in their liver, kidney and muscle tissues, sometimes as high as five times the legal limit.

The investigation also revealed that Corscadden also sold a dairy cow and that an analysis of the kidney tissue showed Penicillin residue almost forty times the legal limit.

Corscadden was also accused of holding animals under conditions where medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were likely to enter the food supply. Corscadden failed to maintain complete treatment records and used controlled drugs for improper extra-label purposes without proper veterinary supervision.

A review of the USDA farm subsidy database shows that Corscadden received $86,375 last year in federal farm subsidies and $511,833 in subsidies from 1995 through 2009. Coscadden also operates a New York State Registered CAFO with 647 mature dairy cattle and about 100 dairy heifers.

Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation - Brand Marketing In Public Schools

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:52:00 +0000

The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF) has partnered with the Discovery Education to launch a new on-line school curriculum to promote ways to help young people achieve healthy weights. Available at www.energybalance101.com, the curriculum uses a calories in, calories out approach to weight management.

This certainly sounds great. A draft of the federal government's 2010 Dietary Guidelines (to be formally released in December 2010) identified obesity as the nation's greatest public health threat.

So who is the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, and what role does Discovery Education play in the creation and dissemination of lesson plans geared toward healthy eating habits?

The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation bills itself as an “Unprecedented CEO-led Partnership to Reduce Obesity.” According to its web site, its members provide funding and support for programs and activities designed to help people achieve a healthy weight. Members include ConAgra Foods, the Food Marketing Institute, General Mills and the Grocery Manufacturer's Association. Kellogg's, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, along with large supermarket companies and restaurant chains, also are members. Are these the folks we want ot learn weight management from?

Discovery Education is a subsidiary of Discovery Communications, those nice people who run the Discovery Channel and Discovery Kids on cable television. Discovery Education is basically a brand marketer. According to its web site, it claims to be a leader in digital video-based learning and it wants to bring its client's “brand and message to life in thousands of school districts nationwide.” It works with, in this case the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, to create a customized curriculum intended to bring its members' brands (Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, General Mills, industry trade groups, and some of the largest food companies and grocery chains in the world) in front of school kids everywhere – your kids, my kids, etc.

Again according to its web site, its program will disseminate brand information to tens of thousand of schools nationwide to enable these brands to “gain entry to the entire education universe.” It also leads pep rallies, PR campaigns, sweepstakes and other “excitement builders.”

Childhood obesity is a serious issue in this country. One cannot help but wonder if we want weight management taught by companies that load their foods with empty calories, high fructose corn sweeteners, excessive amounts of salts, and that serve portion sizes to children meant for Olympic athletes in training.

Should Discovery Communications be leveraging its respected name to push what are sometimes less than healthful brands in our public schools?

Something seems wrong here. What do you think?

The "Good Egg" PR Project

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:26:00 +0000

In an ever-continuous effort to mesmerize the public, the American Egg Board and egg farmers are partnering for the "Good Egg Project," which is an initiative to convince Americans that modern egg farming is a good thing.

The program touts Hickman's Egg Ranch in Arizona and Herbruck's Poultry in Michigan as good stewards our food system. Hickman's houses about 4,000,000 hens and Herbruck's houses about 5,000,000 eggs, primarily in battery cages, raised indoors, on complex industrial diets.

On board seem to be Rachael Ray (whose name is obviously for sale for almost any project) and Sesame Street (so that children can be fooled early on), who have "lent" their names to the project. No mention is made of confinement systems, de-beaking, and hens unable to spread their wings, turn around, bathe themselves, or engage in any natural behaviors. Oh, wait, there is a section on "Animal Well-Being" where mention is made of a "comfortable environment" and "happy" hens.

The web site for the "project" is www.goodeggproject.org.

Maine's Restaurants Hide Behind Costs to Avoid Calorie Disclosure

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:41:00 +0000

Source: From Maine Public Broadcasting Network

Representatives of Maine's restaurant industry say a proposal to require restaurants to post the number of calories in their offerings on their menus and menu boards will cost the state's eateries thousands of dollars apiece.

At an Augusta news conference today, the Maine Restaurant Association came out in oppostion to LD1259, which was up for a hearing on May 5, 2009 before lawmakers.

Dan Gore of Amatos says now is not the time to require expensive new mandates for restaurants. "The timing of this is poor in our view, as far as the additional cost that would be associated with us having to change all of our menu boards and lables and menus to comply," Gore told MPBN's Susan Sharon. He was unable to provide an estimate of how much it would cost the chain, but he said the expense would be borne by individual franchisees.

Dick Grotton of the Maine Restaurant Association says he's concerned about a "patchwork quilt of rules and regulations across the country." Grotton said he would prefer a federal measure now pending called the LEAN -- or Label Education and Nutrition -- Act. "We think a better way to go is to have federal legislation that wpuld make it the same for restaurants that have 15 or more in the country under the same name to follow the same rules everywhere they go," he said.

The federal proposal requires restaurants to make nutrition information available, but not necessarily on their menus and menu boards. The measure being considered in Maine is sponsored by House Speaker Hannah Pingree.

[Editor's Note: This is typical restaurant industry nonsense -- but they do have the presentation down quite well.]

Rockland County, NY Takes Another Stab at Calorie Counts on Menu Boards

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Rockland County Legislator Joseph L. Meyers has reintroduced a local law called the "National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law. " Similar to legislation he introduced last year, the law, if passed, will largely mirror a similar and successful law in nearby Westchester County and New York City.

There is an abundance of speculation based on recent comments by Governor Patterson that New York may attempt again a state-wide version of a calorie posting law. If a state or federal law is passed, the Rockland law recognizes that it may be preempted, and permits a recognition of preemption by a mere resolution of the legislature. Such a resolution would render the local law void.

Efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul to pass calorie posting laws have slowed as opponents to the law have cited the slumping economy and the added burdens to restaurants as reasons to delay passage.

The FDA Should Ban Bromated Flour

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:11:00 +0000

Potassium Bromate is typically added to bread and other flours as maturing agent which promotes gluten development in doughs, making the bread stronger and more elastic. Commercial bakers use bromated flour because it yields dependable results and can stand up to bread hooks and other commercial baking tools. It is also used to render inferior flour with low protein levels more useable since these flours do not develop enough gluten on their own.

Bromate is also considered a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning that it may be harmful when consumed. In theory, the substance is supposed to bake out of bread dough as it cooks, but if too much is added, or if the bread is not cooked long enough or not at a high enough temperature, then a residual amount will remain.

Potassium Bromate has been banned from use in food products in Europe, as well as the United Kingdom in 1990, and Canada in 1994, and most other countries. It was banned in Sri Lanka in 2001 and China in 2005. It is also banned in Nigeria, Brazil and Peru.

In the United States, it is not banned. In California a warning label is required when bromated flour is used. Some organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest have lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to ban Potassium Bromate as a food additive in the United States. Instead, since 1991 the FDA has urged bakers to voluntarily stop using it.

The FDA currently permits the addition of Potassium Bromate in flour provided that its inclusion does not exceed .0075 parts for each 100 parts of weight of the flour (or 750 parts per million). These regulations are found at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/FCF136.html.

To avoid packaged foods that contain bromate, look for “potassium bromate” or “bromated flour” in the ingredient list. Bromated flour is likely to be found in your local pizza shop, but not in Dominos Pizza or Pizza Hut (though it uses bleached flour). You will also find bromated flour in Arby’s French Toastix and Burger King’s hamburger buns. It is also found in the hoagie rolls at your local Johnny Rocket Restaurant (http://www.johnnyrockets.com/themenu/ingredients.php). You may also find in your supermarket flour brands, especially Gold Medal flours by General Mills.

Whole Foods Markets lists both bromated flour and potassium bromate as unacceptable ingredients for food on its web site: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingredients.php.

Consumers should be ever-aware of the ingredients they ingest from corporate bakers and fast food chains, and push for local legislation banning bromated flour until the FDA (and the federal government) gets its act together.

USDA Revolving Door Swings Again

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:35:00 +0000

The USDA’s Revolving Door Turns Again

Chuck Conner has been named President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the interests of U.S. agricultural cooperatives.

He will begin work on or about February 1, 2009.

Conner has served as Deputy Secretary for the US Department of Agriculture since May 2005. From August 2007 to January 2008, Conner served as both USDA Secretary and Deputy Secretary. He also served as Special Assistant to the President from October 2001 to May 2005.
Before being brought in by the Bush administration, Conner served as President of the Corn Refiners Association from May 1997 through October 2001.

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Accepting Nominations to National Advisory Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:41:00 +0000

I'm taking a few days off from blogging, but I wanted to get this post up:

The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is accepting nominations for membership on the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection. The deadline to submit a nomination is Jan. 23.

The N.A.C.M.P.I. consists of 16 to 18 members and each is expected to serve a two-year term. The committee provides advice and makes recommendations regarding federal meat and poultry inspection programs and includes representatives from industry, academia, state and local government agencies, public health officials and consumer groups.

Nominations must include the nominee’s resume or curriculum vitae and should be submitted by e-mail to NACMPI@fsis.usda.gov or by mail to Mr. Alfred Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, in care of Faye Smith, Room 1175-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, D.C. 20250, or by fax to (202) 720-5704.

Kenya's Parliament Opens Door to American Genetically Engineered Products

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:43:00 +0000

According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Kenya's parliament voted overwhlemingly to embrace agricultural biotechnology. The vote established the Bio-Safety Bill which is the first step in the creation of regulations for the implementation of widespread use of genetically engineered seeds and plants. Kenya's president is expected to sign the bill before January 1, 2009.

The real bonus for American agribusiness is the bill will permit Kenya to import genetically modified products from US growers.

Once opened, this door can never be closed.

Mixed Feelings About Food For Progress Program Grants, Genetically Engineered Foods Featured

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:46:00 +0000

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer recently announced plans for $212 million in international assistance under Food for Progress (FFP) Program for the current fiscal year.

Under the enabling legislation, agricultural commodities may be sent to countries that are “emerging democracies” and “have made commitments to introduce or expand free enterprise elements into their agricultural economies.”

Related food aid programs state that (1) the policy of the United States is to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities” and, (2) that priority for food aid should be given to countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities.”

Genetically Engineered Foods the Focus of This Year’s Food Aid

This year’s allocations announced by the secretary include more than 280,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat and wheat flour, soybean and vegetable oil, soybean meal and yellow corn that will be purchased on the U.S. market and donated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These commodities are eligible because they have been acquired by the US government through its price support operations.

92% of planted soybean acres in the US are genetically engineered. 63% of corn acreage in the US is genetically engineered. Many recipients of food aid from the US still prohibit the import and planting of genetically modified seed, but they accept genetically modified food from the United States.

One may not want to dwell on the politics of hunger and food aid, but one has to note that the opening and maintaining of markets is a key objective of the Food For Progress program.

CARE opts out of monetized food sales and most Food For Progress Programs

In CARE USA’s White Paper on Food Aid Policy, recognition is given that “under some circumstances food aid can harm local production and markets, undermining long-term food security.” Based on this and other reasoning CARE has decided to transition out of monetization under the Food For Progress Program. Monetization is the sale of US donated food to generate cash for humanitarian programs. CARE has taken the position that food aid should not be used to enable a donor country to establish an unfair commercial advantage and must not create disincentives to local production and markets. By September of 2009, CARE will no longer accept Food For Progress resources that come from subsidized sales or surplus disposal, nor will CARE monetize resources from the FFP Program.

CARE’s primary objection to participation is that these programs have as their stated objectives the support of US farmers, and the promotion of free enterprise and competition in agricultural economies in recipient countries.

Eliminate Objectives that Link Food Aid to Expansion of Export Markets

Policies and programs for U.S. food aid should be established and operated based on the food security needs of recipient countries and vulnerable populations rather than donor country objectives to expand its export markets.

While US food aid programs do not overtly include objectives to expand US markets (and to promote GE crops and seeds) and their success is not measured on this basis, there are provisions in current law that state market expansion as an objective. Changes are needed to correct this problem. Congress should eliminate the statement in the preamble to PL 480 that it is the policy of the United States to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities.”

And, in PL 480 Title I, Congress should eliminate the priority for countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities” and other references to using Title I for market development purposes.

Using food aid to compel recipient countries to accept genetically engineered crops or to open their fragile markets to US subsidized crop competition is an exploitation of our comparative advantages in food production to the detriment of the recipient countries. We should not benefit economically by the destruction of recipient countries’ ability to feed themselves or to provide for their own food security.

The Food For Progress and other food aid programs should be continued, but the purposes of the program should exclude development of export markets and the fortunes of agribusiness conglomerates.

Philadelphia Mayor Signs New Calorie Posting Law

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:04:00 +0000

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed a bill that orders most chain restaurants to display calorie, fat and other information. The bill was signed at the Center for Obesity Research Education at Temple University.

In November, the bill passed the City Council by a vote of 12-5. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2010.

The Philadelphia ordinance applies to restaurant chains — including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere. It will require their outlets in the city to tell customers about calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium.

Because it covers more items and has fewer exemptions, it is broader than laws passed in other places including New York City and California.

Philadelphia was once labeled the fattest city in the land by Men's Fitness magazine.

This is a follow-up to an earlier post on November 14, 2008 applauding Philadelphia's City Council for its passage of what may be the nation's toughest calorie and nutrition posting law.

G&J Gourmet Market Cocoa Products Recalled for Melamine Taint

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:49:00 +0000

Dorsey Marketing Inc. (DMI) of Ville St. Laurent, Quebec, Canada, has recalled the following three G&J Gourmet Market cocoa products because these products may contain melamine:

G&J Hot Cocoa Stuffer Item 120144 (UPC 061361201444). This hot cocoa product was sold in small green and blue boxes with a backer card, candy cane and marshmallows.

G&J His and Hers Hot Cocoa Set Item 120129 (UPC 489702201296). This cocoa product was sold with 2 ceramic mugs in a brown box.

G&J Cocoa item 120126, sold in 2 flavors: French Vanilla Cocoa and Double Chocolate Cocoa. G&J French Vanilla Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small green bag with a whisk attached. G&J Double Chocolate Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small pink bag with a whisk attached.

The above recalled products were imported into the United States by DMI and distributed nationwide to retailer Big Lots during the weeks of September 22, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and to retailer Shopko during the week of October 10, 2008.

New York's Soft Drink Tax; Calorie Posting; and Economic Externalities of Super-Size Sodas

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:41:00 +0000

After eight years of neglecting public policy at the federal level, states and counties have taken it upon themselves to fill the void left by Bush appointees.

Counties, cities and states have banned trans fats, mandated calories be posted on menu boards, used zoning to control the rampant growth in fast food outlets, and now Governor Paterson's (D-NY) newest policy move is a tax on sugared soft drinks. With this move, Paterson accomplishes several goals. One, he adds tax revenue to New York's desperate financial problems. Two, he tackles obesity where it flourishes -- with calorie laden non-nutritious liquid candy, aka soda. And three, he fires a salvo at powerful industry groups like convenience store associations, restaurant associations, beverage lobbies, etc. who oppose any action designed to point out the evils of their products.

In economics, there is a concept called externalities. What an externality basically is is a cost not reflected in the product itself, but one that is paid for and absorbed by society at large. For example, the price of a gallon of gasoline does not cover the costs of the pollution it creates. The price of a car does not include the price of public highway construction needed for cars to drive on.

In the foodsphere, the price of a sugared soft drink does not include the medical costs of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and all of the medical ailments stemming from obesity. Now I'm not naive enough to think that the soft drink tax will go anywhere other than to the general revenue of New York State, but somewhere, somehow, I'd like to think that the extra revenue to the state paid by those who drink themselves obese would be used to cover some of the health care costs borne by the state in caring for its citizens.

Is it really necessary to have 64 ounce sodas sold at gas stations and convenience stores? Have you ever seen the size of the large sodas sold at the movie chains? Taxing them is sound public policy. It is also sound public policy to require the convenience stores and movie theater to post the calories contained in those giant sodas so that consumers can see number of empty calories they would ingest and make informed decisions to reject those products.

Also, I've really been enjoying Marion Nestle's coverage of Governor Paterson's proposed soda tax.

All valuable food for thought.

Obama Blows It; Vilsack Wrong For Secretary Of Agriculture (Agribusiness)

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Tom Vilsack is the wrong man for leading the USDA. Progressive thinkers know that the role and mandate of the USDA should change and that food and food safety should be its primary focus. It disserves the country have the USDA's focus be on the continued expansion and development of big agriculture at the expense of smaller farms, organic farms, and the food safety needs of our country and the world at large. He will be the "Secretary of Agribusiness" and subordinate the role of food to the production of commodities and monocultures.

Tom Vilsack is a firm believer in genetically engineered plants and seeds and has staked out numerous positions favoring Monsanto-led economics. He endorses the thinking of the BIGMAP herd and believes in a limited government role as related to GE crops. He has been inconsistent on the regulation of CAFOs and would likely continue the subsidies of our corn-based economy.

On November 17, 2008, I wrote:

Tom Vilsack may not be the right person for head of the USDA.

He is a probably good man who has been on the right side of many issues. He served as the governor of Iowa from 1998 to 2006 and currently is of counsel in the Dorsey Trial group in Des Moines. As part of his bio at the firm, he boasts being a Distinguished Fellow of the Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (aka BIGMAP) at Iowa State University. BIGMAP generally opposes laws and regulations what would trigger regulatory oversight for acts of genetic engineering, and believes that government regulation in and of itself may "close the door" on future innovations that might benefit society and the environment. In other words, BIGMAP prefers that the biotech and genetic engineering industries self-regulate. Vilsack is also widely thought of as a friend of Monsanto.

He showed courage several years back when as governor or Iowa he vetoed a law passed by Iowa’s legislature that would have prohibited Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from establishing air quality standards for CAFOs stricter than the federal government’s standard. That law would have also precluded the Iowa DNR from establishing standards for airborne substances for which the federal government had left a legal void.

Vilsack did the right thing. He vetoed the law, but then he recommended a weak 30 part per billion (ppb) one-hour standard for hydrogen sulfide as a compromise; a standard weaker than states surrounding Iowa. Although Minnesota also had a 30 part per billion standard, it was for a 30-minute exposure time, not an hour.

Also, in 2001,when the EPA proposed changing the definition of a CAFO by decreasing the number of animal units that triggers an NPDES permit, Vilsack (writing for the National Governor’s Association) opposed that re-definition because of the burden on states in issuing, monitoring and enforcing NPDES permits. He gave no concern for health or environmental issues.

Vilsack also challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate CAFOs in areas that “might not” discharge into waters of the United States, in effect permitting CAFOs in arid parts of the country to avoid EPA regulations.

Vilsack also opposed other common sense changes proposed by the EPA. See Vilsack’s CAFO defense letter (National Governors Association).

He also has a history of supporting other CAFO-related laws, and has not always been on the right side of the issue. As a corn-state governor, he may have a pre-disposition toward continuing corn state subsidies, and may be less than zealous in slowing the growth of the corn-based food economy.

Finally, Vilsack needs to disclose where he stands on GMO foods and genetically engineered plants and seeds. Does he support mandatory labeling of GM foods? Will he support pending legislation to ban Terminator Seed (GURT) technology where plants yield sterile seed so that they can not be replanted for future harvests? Will he support legislation that voids retrictions on seed saving by farmers? Will his relationship with Monsanto color his judgment on these issues?

David Axelrod helped run Vilsack’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998, and was Vilsack’s long-time media consultant. Perhaps he is not the right person to screen the candidate? Perhaps food activists can play more of a role in Vilsack’s vetting? Perhaps Obama can avoid making his first big blunder?

That was November 17th. Today, I cannot help but feel disappointment.

FDA Watching "Smart Choices" Front-Of-Package Nutrition Label Program For False Or Misleading Claims

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:51:00 +0000

The Food and Drug Administration issued a "Dear Manufacturer" letter regarding front-of-package symbols in response to recent industry efforts to create its own front-of-package marketing program.

In the letter, the FDA reminded food manufacturers and distributors that there is an existing regulatory scheme with specific requirements regarding nutrition claims.

Readers of this blog will recall that a little more than a month ago, several food companies agreed to use a front-of-pack nutrition labeling system called the Smart Choices Program on products beginning next year.

The FDA intimated its intent to monitor the Smart Choice Program and notify manufacturers when front-of-package symbols explicitly or impliedly violate legal requirements for nutrient content claims. Such use would render the labeling false or misleading.

The Smart Choices Program has received a lot of positive publicity, and there is a huge PR effort to make Smart Choices into a consumer standard for identifying good food choices.

I think the effort is misguided. It is “just-another” industry effort to self-regulate and to limit the actual dissemination of information on good versus bad food choices. From its outset, the program would have a funding stream conflict of interest, as its source of revenue to sustain itself would be conditioned on the participation of food manufacturers. That funding stream would likely dry up if standards were too rigorous, or if foods that failed to meet standards were required to state their shortcomings on their front package labels. Even in Keystone’s Request for Proposal seeking an administrator for the program, it repeatedly highlights the need to control costs to participants and to minimize the burdens on manufacturers in the provision of nutritional information.

Michael F. Jacobsen, executive director of nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest recently wrote: “A disinterested funder and committee of experts free of conflicts of interest likely would have rated the healthfulness of foods differently from the ‘better for you’ Smart Choices Program adopted by the roundtable.”

A system that is not mandatory for all foods and beverages is inherently flawed and is no different from current laws that permit manufacturers to make product claims related to good health. Smart Choices will be just another of the 25 icon systems currently in the US marketplace that permit manufacturers to puff up their food's desirability with health claims.

Also, unless there is a “Dumb Choice” standard, similar to the “Traffic Lights” program in the UK, the system is neither meaningful nor comprehensive. Self-regulation is preferred by industry as manufacturers would not be required to disclose which food products in their portfolios are “not” smart choices. The FDA mandated Nutrition Facts Panel currently in use requires uniform disclosure for all products, favorable or unfavorable.

Pending in the Senate (and likely to die there in the 110th Congress), and part of Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) HELP America Act (S.1342, Section 421, Front-Label Food Guidance Systems), is a mandate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to solicit public comments regarding whether American consumers would be better served by establishing a single, standardized, retail front-label food guidance system regulated by the FDA.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has also petitioned the FDA to develop a standardized system of symbols for front-label claims. The better route is establishment by the FDA of a directed, standardized, and comprehensive front-of-package food labeling program and icon system with unified criteria based on the best available science, and geared toward the public’s interest in health. It should apply to all foods and beverages, and not be compromised by dependence on industry funding or industry science.

Dioxin Tainted Irish Pork Products Recalled In United States, USDA Sees Low Risk Of Harm and Will Not Disclose Retail Recipients

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:30:00 +0000

According to the USDA, three importers of Irish pork products received pork products that have either tested positive for the presence of dioxins or may contain dioxins.

Rupari Food Services, of Deerfield Beach, FL establishment has recalled approximately 41,020 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork that was sent to restaurants in California. The pork was sold as 44-pound approximate weight boxes of "ROSDERRA MEATS, ROSCREA, Pork Loin Back Ribs, KEEP FROZEN." The shipping label bears the Irish establishment number "EST NO. 355."

Dawn International of Acton, MA has recalled approximately 33,880 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork that were sent to distribution centers in Florida. The pork was sold as 30-pound cartons of "DAWN PORK & BACON, PORK LOIN BACK RIBS, PRODUCT OF REPUBLIC OF IRELAND." The shipping label bears the Irish mark of inspection "IRELAND 332 EC."

And, Tommy Moloney's Inc. of Long Island City, NY has recalled approximately 4,041 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork The pork was sold as 8-ounce packages of "Tommy Moloney's Traditional Irish Breakfast Bacon, Made from imported Irish Pork." The label bears the establishment number "EST. 33789" inside the U.S. mark of inspection as well as a "sell by" date between "Dec. 15, 2008" and "Jan. 31, 2009." These products were sent to retail stores in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia.

The pork products were produced in Ireland between Sept. 1 and Dec. 7, 2008, and were then exported to the United States.

The USDA/FSIS was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) that routine surveillance tests indicated the presence of dioxin in pork products that were sent to importers in the United States.

Here’s the thing. The USDA/FSIS has described this as a Class II recall. That means, that our government is not going to tell us what restaurants, distributors, or retail stores received the tainted products. Class II recalls have recently been exempted from the requirement that the final recipients of the recalled meat be revealed to the public. Yes, you read that correctly. We posted a similar situation earlier this month regarding recalled Polish Kielbasa.

It also means that our government considers there to be a low risk of harm to persons who eat the dioxin tainted pork. Yes, you read that correctly, too. So go ahead, enjoy the bacon in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia. Also, enjoy your pork ribs in restaurants in California and wherever the Florida distributors resold them.

Our government does not believe we have the right to know where these recalled items may be being sold or served.

USDA's Revolving Door In Full Swing

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:17:00 +0000

USDA’s Revolving Door In Full Swing

Elizabeth Johnson, M.S. R.D., Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the National Restaurant Association (NRA) as Executive Vice President for Public Affairs. In her new position, Johnson will oversee government affairs, public policy and communications for the NRA.

Before joining the USDA (along with a wave of other industry lobbyists) in 2002, she worked at Fleishman-Hillard, Inc., an international PR firm, where she was a vice president with clients in the food and agribusiness practice group.

Before that, she was the Associate Director for Food Policy for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the nation’s largest beef lobbyist.

I trust Ms. Johnson will feel at home once again in industry. Please try not to let the door hit you on the way out.

Industry Successes In Menu Board/Calorie Posting Wars, Ohio And Georgia Lost to Industry Tactics, A Call To Action

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:54:00 +0000

Industry Successes in Menu Board/Calorie Posting Wars

Ohio Prempts Local Action

In 2005, Ohio proposed HB423. The bill would have required restaurants that are part of a chain having 10 or more locations nationally and 5 or more locations in Ohio, to list calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on the menu or menu board for standard menu items as usually prepared and offered for sale. The proposed law was progressive and in-line with other jurisdictions trying to tackle obesity and related diseases. The bill never passed.

In a complete turnaround of principles, Ohio recently passed HB 217 (now Chapter 43). That law gives exclusive authority to Ohio’s Director of Agriculture to regulate the provision of food nutrition information in food service establishments. Under the law, "Food nutrition information" includes the caloric, fat, carbohydrate, cholesterol, fiber, sugar, potassium, protein, vitamin, mineral and sodium content of food.

The Ohio law quite clearly prevents any political subdivision in Ohio from enacting or adopting local legislation relating to the provision of food nutrition information at food service operations. The law takes away local options in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo (and everywhere else in Ohio) from even considering calorie posting laws in their jurisdictions. It preempts all local initiatives, and quashes the disclosure movement as it existed in Ohio before its passage.

Georgia Takes Away Local Options

Georgia passed HB 1303 and enacted, Act No. 504 in 2008. It prohibits any county board of health or political subdivision of the state including municipalities, county and local government authorities, boards, and commissions from regulating the display of food nutrition information at food service establishments. So Atlanta will not be joining Philadelphia, New York City and other progressive communities in their efforts to post calorie counts in fast food and chain restaurants. Georgia preempted any government entity in the state from even considering the passage of menu board laws within the state of Georgia.

Regressive politics at its worst.

These two states took affirmative action to preempt any local jurisdiction in their states from passing menu board laws. When industry took New York City to court to challenge its menu board law, it argued that federal law preempted states and local entities from passing such laws, and that menu board laws were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Well, industry lost that argument. In fact, the federal government specifically excluded calorie postings on menu boards from its federal legislation and intentionally left the states to pass such laws.

Having lost the federal preemption argument, and left with the likelihood that many municipalities in the country would pass calorie posting laws, industry changed its strategy.

It engaged its favorite legislators to sponsor laws in the House and Senate called the LEAN Act. The primary purposes of the LEAN Act are to create a federal preemption of calorie posting and menu board laws (and to preclude state and local governments from being able to pass such laws), and to enable restaurants to post calories in places other than on menus and menu boards (where customers are likely to see them). The LEAN Act permit postings in menu supplements or on signs other than where prices are posted.

Industry’s other strategy was to get to state legislatures and have their favorite state assemblymen and senators introduce laws that preempt local jurisdictions in their states from passing calorie posting and menu board laws. Georgia and Ohio are two of industry’s successes.

Voters in Georgia and Ohio should recognize that they’ve been had and ask for a statewide mandate requiring calorie posting and menu board laws similar to those in California and New York City. Alternatively, they should ask for repeal of their state’s preemption law. Repeal would enable local counties and cities to consider their own protective legislation, and allow local initiatives to combat obesity.

As another alternative, voters in Georgia and Ohio (and everywhere else) should support the federal MEAL Act. It largely mirrors New York City’s successful menu board law and would apply it nationally. Although both the LEAN Act and the MEAL Act will likely die in Congress this year, both are certain to be reintroduced in the new 111th Congress next year.

Flawed Study on Effects of Calorie Labeling On Fast Food Meal Choices

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Tannenbaum, JD) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:52:00 +0000

Effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices: Results from an experimental trial.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Behavioral, Nutrition and Physical Activity concludes that additional research is needed to better evaluate the effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices.

It reaches this conclusion based on its published results which finds no significant differences between the average energy content (calories) of meals ordered from a menu that included calorie information (without value-size pricing) as compared to those meals ordered from a menu that did not include calorie information (but had value-size pricing). In other words, it found no meaningful difference in food choices when calories were posted on the menu. The study reports similar results across age, race and education levels.

This is a deeply flawed study.

The study should not have tried to tackle both calorie information and value-size pricing, particularly where it acknowledges that most participants did not understand the value-size pricing component. It only served to confuse the results.

There was no context given to participants regarding the calorie information. The study says, “[T]o put the calorie information in context the average daily calorie needs of adult men and women were provided in a ‘Calories Count’ information box in the right hand bottom corner of the menu.” Women were told that “most need less than 2000 calories in a day.” Men were told that “most need less than 2400 calories in a day.” The mypyramid.gov web site posts those calorie amounts for males and females between 19 and 30. But, for women and men between 31 and 50, calories would be 1800 and 2200, respectively, and for 51-plus, 1600 and 2000 calories, respectively. Age participants in the study ranged from 16 through 61+, and many were given incorrect information about their calorie needs.

There was also no information given as to what intake of calories beyond 2000 and 2400 would mean to participants. There was no mention of weight gain, high blood pressure, obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes, increases likelihood of stroke, or any of the other effects of over intake of calories. No health organization or municipality trying to affect change by posting calories is doing so in a vacuum. Public education campaigns accompany calorie posting laws in every jurisdiction that has enacted menu board laws.

Also, although the study was just published, the data collected was from October 2005 and April of 2006, a time before a single jurisdiction in the country passed a calorie posting law.

The study should have considered the methodologies used by Mary Bassett, MD, MPH and others, and collected its data from actual register receipts from purchasers at fast food restaurants, as reported in the peer reviewed American Journal Of Public Health, August 2008. Having participants order fast food from conference rooms in suburban hotels or church basements does not reveal real-time live food choices.

The study should have chosen participants from a jurisdiction that has already passed a calorie posting law, so there would at least be some likelihood that participants received some education as to the dangers of excessive calorie intake.

The study included the results as between males and females; between those that reported the importance of nutrition in fast food purchases; and, between those that reported the importance of price in fast food purchases -- three distinct groups. The authors gathered demographic information on body mass index (BMI), but did not report differences in behavior among those with normal BMIs, those considered overweight, and those considered obese.

The data does shows that significantly lower calorie intake among those reporting that nutrition was important when buying fast food. This would indicate that those persons educated as to the effects of nutrition availed themselves of the calorie information to make meaningful choices.

Also, the study has a methodological weakness. Participants were exposed to the calorie information on only one occasion, a critical shortcoming especially if repeated exposure to calorie information is required before awareness or behavior change can be expected.

Lack of context of the calorie information was perhaps its greatest fault. Participants were only told that they need less than a certain number of calories per day, but were not told what they need them for. Also the wording of the calorie information was awkward. A second group of participants should have been told that eating more than a specified number of calories could have a detrimental health affect.

The research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The study abstract can be found here, and a PDF file of the actual study can be found here. This flawed study will likely become a darling of the restaurant industry.