This is one of Food Navigator-USA’s special editions in which this industry-focused newsletter collects several of its posts on particular topics—in this case, organics.
But first, take a look at the USDA’s summary of trends in organic food sales:
Special Edition: Where next for organics?
According to the Organic Trade Association, organic sales increased from $3.6 billion in 1997 to over $39 billion in 2014. But can the meteoric growth continue? And will organic ultimately replace the more nebulous ‘all-natural’ as consumers increasingly look for claims that are underpinned by consistent standards?
I kept hearing rumors this week that Michelle Obama would announce the revised Nutrition Facts panel at today’s summit meeting of the Partnership for a Healthier America, the public-private partnership organization that supports Let’s Move!
And here is the graphic from the White House press release:
Congratulations on the long-awaited changes:
Expect to see this on food packages in two years (small food producers get an additional year to comply).
Here are the relevant FDA documents:
Here are the early comments (I will be adding more as they arrive):
The new food label is an extraordinary accomplishment, especially in the light of a political climate in which the food industry and its friends in Congress fight public health nutrition measures tooth and nail.
For background, see some of my posts on food labels since 2008:
Wouldn’t it be useful if stores that accept SNAP benefits stocked some other real—as opposed to packaged—foods in addition to the apples, oranges, and bananas most of them now seem to carry (witness Walgreens)?
Congress thought so when it passed the 2014 farm bill. This intended
to expand or preserve the availability of staple foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low income populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those areas.
In response, USDA proposed new regulations to improve what SNAP retailers had in stock.
The 2014 Farm Bill required USDA to develop regulations to ensure that stores that accept SNAP offer a broader variety of healthy food choices. The stocking provisions in the proposed rule would require SNAP-authorized retail establishments to offer a larger inventory and variety of healthy food options so that recipients have access to more healthy food choices. SNAP retailers would be required to offer seven varieties of qualifying foods in four staple food groups for sale on a continuous basis, along with perishable foods in at least three of the four staple food groups. The staple foods groups are dairy products; breads and cereals; meats, poultry and fish; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, the proposal calls for retailers to stock at least six units within each variety, leading to a total of at least 168 required food items per store.
Guess what? Some retailers don’t like this idea.
What to do when you don’t like food regulations? Go straight to Congress.
Now the House agriculture committee is complaining to USDA about the rule. It says that USDA’s estimate of the cost per store ($140) is wrong. Retailers say it will cost them $5000 per month to implement.
Who’s right? Hence: politics.
The Congressional Black Caucus also wants the USDA to back off on this rule. It says communities need these retailers (the quality of the foods they sell is not an issue, apparently). Here is its letter.
Civil Eats has a good summary of the issues.
It troubles me greatly that SNAP divides advocates for the poor and advocates for health. Don’t all of us want the recipients of federal food assistance to have access to healthful food choices?
The National Academies of Science has just released its long-awaited report “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.”
I was a reviewer on this report months ago and as far as I can tell it hasn’t changed much from when I sent in my comments. Here’s what I said:
In light of public polarization of opinion of GE foods, this report tries to do something quite difficult—to come to evidence-based opinions about the risks and benefits of these foods now and in the future. The report makes it clear that the committee listened carefully to a wide variety of opinions about risks and benefits and tried to make sense of the varying viewpoints based on available evidence. This was not easy, given the inadequacy of much of the evidence.
I give the report high marks for its neutral tone and cautious interpretations. The report clearly reveals how little is known about the effects of GE foods, how much GE is about crops fed to animals and how little is about food for people (except indirectly), and how minimally the promises of food biotechnology have been realized, except as they benefit large agricultural producers.
In trying to be fair, the committee will please nobody. Proponents will be distressed that the benefits are not more strongly celebrated. Critics will be upset that the report treats many of their concerns pejoratively (“activism”). Both sides will find plenty in the report to buttress their views. The overall conclusion, “more research needed,” makes sense but is not helpful in bringing the two sides together.
The Environmental Working Group, for example, likes:
But Food & Water Watch issued a statement and a position paper claiming that the Academies and committee members have ties to the biotechnology industry and agricultural corporations. The group says that Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical Company each donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Academies in 2014, citing a treasurer’s report, and that the report is conflicted from the get go.
Today’s New York Times has a good summary of diverse reactions to the report, and points out:
Perhaps because of the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, many of the document’s conclusions are hedged by caveats.
“We received impassioned requests to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about G.E. crops,” Fred Gould, a professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and chairman of the committee that compiled the report, wrote in the preface. “Given the complexity of G.E. issues, we did not see that as appropriate.”
First the good news
The USDA is applying its school-food rules to child and adult care programs. It has just released its final rule for these programs. These go into effect in October 2017.
Previously, the USDA released standards for the Women, Infants and Children program and for the National School Lunch Program.
Now all three food assistance programs are more or less aligned with the Dietary Guidelines.
The child and adult feeding programs will specify more fruits and vegetables, less sugar and fat, but have reduce the standards for whole grain-rich products and sodium. Presumably, this will make the rules more acceptable to people who don’t like them, of which there are many (see below).
And now the bad news
The House has released its child nutrition reauthorization bill, with the Orwellian title: “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act.” Like all such titles, this one means the opposite of what it says.
The House bill increases reimbursements for school breakfasts (good), but then lowers the nutrition standards for school meals and makes it harder for schools to qualify for universal free meals. Here’s the committee’s bill summary. And here is what the House Education and Workforce Committee says in its fact sheet.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says this bill will increase food insecurity among children.
Fortunately, not everyone in the House loves this bill. A letter signed by 111 House members details objections.
The House will be working on this bill tomorrow. What will the Senate do?
School food advocates: it’s time to get busy. Here’s the list of House members. Write to yours today!
The latest Salmonella outbreak comes courtesy of Pacific Coast Fruit Company, which produces Taylor Farms Organic Power Greens Kale Medley.
Alas, Salmonella do not care whether or not vegetables are USDA Certified Organic—even kale.
Coral Beach discusses the details of the investigation into this outbreak at Food Safety News this morning.
And food safety lawyer Bill Marler has some pointed questions about this outbreak.
He also has plenty to say about what another recent outbreak (this one due to frozen vegetables contaminated with Listeria) tells us about what is and what is not working in our current food safety system.
His essay makes the point that foodborne illness outbreaks due to contaminated meat are becoming increasingly rare. Most current outbreaks are due to contaminated vegetables.
How come? For meat, the system is working.
In sum, “recall costs, slumping sales, along with civil and criminal liability, are powerful market incentives. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) should help once companies start following its regulations.
He ought to know. When Congress was foot-dragging on passing FSMA, Marler sent every member of Congress a tee shirt with this image:
He better be careful. If he’s right about market forces cleaning up food safety problems, he may get his wish.
But we still have a long way to go on vegetable safety, apparently.
Perrine and Charles Hervé-Gruyer. Miraculous Abundance: One quarter acre, two French farmers, and enough food to feed the world. Foreword by Eliot Coleman. Chelsea Green, 2016.
This book, more about philosophy than a how-to, describes how two inexperienced beginners succeeded in creating a gorgeous, productive, self-sustaining farm on 1000 square meters of land in Normandy—La Ferme du Bec Hellouin.
They did this by using the techniques of permaculture. This they define as “a box of smart tools that allows the creation of a lifestyle that respects the earth and its inhabitants—a practical method inspired by nature.” Later, they explain that it is based on an ethic: “Take care of the earth. Take care of the people. Equitably share resources.” As I said, philosophy, not how-to.
You have to read the book to figure out what all this means in practice. It seems to come down to what I thought of as French Intensive methods. These use raised beds, rich soil, composting, and thoughtful planting of coordinated crops that support each other’s growth and nutritional needs. Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya—nine seeds—approach works the same way. The authors drew on the work of John Jeavons, Eliot Coleman, and many other small-scale sustainable farmers from all over the world to develop their version of these methods.
If the color photographs are any indication, the results are magnificent. The place is so highly productive that it easily supports the two of them. The mandala garden alone made we want to get on the next plane just to see how it works in controlling weeds.
The moral: you could do this at home.
Food Safety News continues to be incredulous at Chipotle’s apparent denial of responsibility for the safety of food served in its outlets.
For sure, what has happened at Chipotle restaurants is unusual—illnesses caused by multiple toxic microbes at multiple locations:
Chipotle did the obvious right thing. It brought on board the most experienced and highly regarded food safety experts: Mansour Samadpour (he has a food safety consulting company), James Marsden (to head up its food safety initiatives), Dave Theno (formerly of Jack in the Box) and David Acheson (former FDA food safety official).
Perhaps before they had time to weigh in, Chipotle’s counsel wrote a letter to the CDC complaining about the way the agency was conducting its investigation.
Food safety lawyer Bill Marler says:
My thought: “In 23 years being involved with every major food illness outbreak in the US, I have never seen a company take on the CDC or public health in this manner. Frankly, it is bizarre given that Chipotle was involved in multiple Salmonella, Norovirus and E. coli cases in 2015. As the CDC states in its responsive letter, it has to protect the public health and that is what it did.”
His view of the score: CDC 1, Chipotle Lawyer 0.
Chipotle’s food safety consultants have their work cut out for them. Let’s hope they figure out the problem and find ways to solve it—soon.
The terms “healthy” and “natural” help to sell food products. They are about marketing, not health.
This makes life difficult for the FDA, which has the unenviable job of defining what the terms mean on food labels.
In a victory for the maker of KIND bars, the FDA has just said that the bars can be advertised as healthy—and that the agency will be revisiting its long-standing definition of the term. This is what that definition says now:
You may use the term “healthy” or related terms as an implied nutrient content claim on the label or in labeling of a food that is useful in creating a diet that is consistent with dietary recommendations if the food meets the conditions for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and other nutrients…In addition, the food must comply with definitions and declaration requirements for any specific NCCs [Nutrient Content Claims].
The chronology :
As reported by Food-Navigator-USA (in a remarkably thorough account of these events),
Dr. Susan Mayne, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA, said: We do not object to the specific statement that you would like to place on your bar wrappers, on the condition that there will be no other nutrition-related statement, such as express or implied nutrient content claims, on the same panel of the label…We agree with you that our regulations concerning nutrient content claims are due for a reevaluation in light of evolving nutrition research.”
What this sounds like is that FDA will be soliciting comments on the meaning of “healthy.” It also sounds like the FDA agrees that fat is not an appropriate criterion. But will the FDA set a limit on sugars? KIND bars are sweetened.
This looks like the FDA will request comments as the start of its interminable rulemaking process.
In the meantime, here’s the Wall Street Journal’s video explanation of the absurdity of the current rules.
The FDA is further along in that process for “Natural.“ The comment period closed and Politico Pro Morning Agriculture reports that more than 5000 came in. These have not yet been posted, but Morning Ag has some. It says opinions vary. Widely.
I’ve commented many times in the past on the ongoing debates about “natural.”
I repeat: When it comes to food labels, “healthy” and “natural” are marketing terms. Their purpose is to sell food products.
Congress in its infinite wisdom is now doing Big Ag a big favor. It wants to exempt checkoff programs from having to deal with pesky Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The House Appropriations Committee just approved its version of the 2017 Agriculture Appropriations bill along with committee report language getting checkoffs off the hook.
Checkoff programs, you will recall are commodity research and promotion programs run by boards and overseen by USDA. The Milk Board, for example, does the milk mustache campaign.
Checkoffs mainly do generic marketing. They are not supposed to lobby. The USDA is supposed to manage the boards—but not with federal money.
So are checkoffs government programs or not?
The checkoffs like to say they are government when convenient, but not government when inconvenient. This is one of those times.
The report language says because checkoffs are “not agencies of the federal government,” they should not be subject to FOIA laws.
I learned about this latest example of congressional protection of industry from a tweet on May 2 from Associated Press reporter Candice Choi.
Food commodity trade groups, she shows, wrote a letter to Congress to exempt checkoff programs from being subject to FOIA requests.
Congress happily incorporated that language right into the Appropriations Act.
In their article about this latest act of hypocrisy, Candice Choi and Mary Clare Jalonick write:
On April 11, a group of 14 trade associations sent a letter to Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., chairman of the House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee, and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., the subcommittee’s top Democrat, asking them to urge USDA to recognize that the promotional programs are not subject to public records requests. The rationale was that the programs are funded by producers, according to a copy of a letter obtained by the AP.
Irony alert: A Supreme Court decision in 2005 upheld the checkoffs’ collection of fees from producers as being protected as “government speech.”
Hypocrisy alert: Trade associations wrote the letter, not the checkoff boards. This is because the boards are not allowed to lobby, but their closely related trade associations can.
Choi and Jalonick also point out that:
The checkoff programs were established by the government at the industry’s urging as a way to collect mandatory fees from producers for promotional efforts. That has resulted in considerable marketing muscle for agricultural products. Last year, the egg board had revenue of more than $22 million; the pork board’s revenue topped $98 million in 2014.
have always been subject to freedom of information laws. It stands to reason: Farmers and the public deserve to know what’s really going on with these well-funded USDA-sponsored programs….
Wilde obtained documents
about the 2006 decision by the Pork Board to pay $60 million to the National Pork Producers Council for the rights to the advertising slogan of pork as “the other white meat.” Wilde wrote in 2013, “It looks to me like the sale price was drastically inflated as a way of funneling money from the semi-public checkoff program to the private-sector trade association.”
Lobbying or not? You decide.
The National Farmers Union says it
strongly opposes the blurred lines between the commodity trade associations and the checkoff boards. Our policy states that mandatory producer assessments should not go to organizations that engage in lobbying, and no contracts should be awarded to organizations that carry out political or lobbying activities.
FOIA is a central pillar of transparency in our democracy. It provides for an open government where citizens can request records from federal agencies – with some exemptions for national security, law enforcement and personal privacy…Take a look at the letter NFU sent today, and let your members of Congress know that this language is not in the best interest of family farmers, ranchers or consumers.
Thanks to The Hagstrom Report for this list of references