Kristin Wartman 2013-05-23T00:40:26-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=kristin-wartman Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kristin Wartman Good old fashioned elbow grease. Connecting the Dots: GMOs and Our Food Future tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2957393 2013-03-26T15:03:37-04:00 2013-03-26T16:16:05-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ New York Times editorial, which argues against labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs), is shocking in its shortsightedness. The thrust of the argument is that GMOs pose no risk to consumers; the editorial reads, "there is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers."

But the previous day, the Times published an article noting a startling decline in monarch butterflies -- the most in recent decades -- which the article attributes to changing weather patterns and changed farming practices. More specifically, the article quotes experts who say that the decline is a result of "the explosive increase in American farmland planted in soybean and corn genetically modified to tolerate herbicides." The article goes on to say:

"The American Midwest's corn belt is a critical feeding ground for monarchs, which once found a ready source of milkweed growing between the rows of millions of acres of soybean and corn. But the ubiquitous use of herbicide-tolerant crops has enabled farmers to wipe out the milkweed, and with it much of the butterflies' food supply."


Much like bees, the monarch butterfly provides essential pollination for many of our food crops -- this pollination is the foundation of our food supply. According to a study by researchers at UC Berkeley, one third of the world's food supply is dependent on pollinators. Chip Taylor, director of the conservation group Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas said that, "If we pull the monarchs out of the system, we're really pulling the rug out from under a whole lot of other species."

To say that GMO crops pose no threat to consumers when their use is clearly debilitating this vital butterfly species, is a careless misrepresentation of the long-term effects these novel crops are having on our food systems and perhaps the very foundation of a secure food future. With greater foresight we must more thoughtfully connect the dots between harm to our environment and harm to ourselves.]]> New Report: Big Food Co-Opts Nutrition Group's Message tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2550294 2013-01-28T12:30:25-05:00 2013-03-30T05:12:01-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/
2013-01-25-CocaColaPromotingtheRD251512472499636568050f9d41339936.jpg



If there is one topic that Americans are generally confused about it's nutrition. Although the word simply means the materials necessary in the form of food to support life, our cultural understanding of it has shifted dramatically -- with various industries co-opting the word and changing its meaning. Michael Pollan calls this "nutritionism" in his book In Defense of Food. "No idea could be more sympathetic to manufacturers of processed foods," he writes. "Nutritionism supplies the ultimate justification for processing food by implying that with a judicious application of food science, fake foods can be made even more nutritious than the real thing."

Convincing people of the healthfulness of these new foods -- processed foods that have been refined, stripped and altered, with synthetic vitamins, added whole grains, or antioxidants put back in -- requires experts to help convey this message. In addition to the billions of dollars spent on advertising directly for food products, Big Food companies also recruit America's nutrition professionals to spread their gospel. This is the topic of public health lawyer, Michele Simon's new report, which details "the food industry's deep infiltration of the nation's top nutrition organization." Simon is referring to The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. All Registered Dietitians (RDs) must follow a curriculum designed by AND, they are then credentialed by AND, and all continuing education for RDs must be approved by AND.

According to AND's website, its current corporate sponsors include: Abbot Nutrition, Aramark, Coca-Cola, The Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition, National Dairy Council, General Mills, Kellogg's, PepsiCo and Unilever. In response to Simon's report, Ryan O'Malley, media relations manager for AND wrote in an email, "In its relations with corporate organizations, the Academy is mindful of the need to avoid a perception of conflict of interest and to act at all times in ways that will only enhance the credibility and professional recognition of the Academy and its members."

In Simon's report (the New York Times broke the story Tuesday) she describes a first person account of her attendance at AND's Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo (FNCE). "Junk food expo is really the best descriptor. As you walk in, all you can see are the massive booths of companies like Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo," she writes. She describes booth after booth of industry created nutrition information, without even a hint of impartiality.

"The food companies are being very strategic," Simon told me in an interview. "They know that RDs are the vehicles through which information is carried to the consumers, so they want to make sure that their message gets out loud and clear to these professionals."

Simon writes of her visit to the McDonald's booth where smoothies and oatmeal were on offer during the morning hours of the conference. "To visit the McDonald's booth, you'd think the fast food giant only sold oatmeal and smoothies," she writes. "I asked a few RDs why they were there and they said they were hungry. Fair enough, but it was clear that McDonald's had succeeded in positioning itself as a purveyor of healthy food while feeding RDs breakfast."

Simon points out that food companies are normalizing their products at these conferences. "The message is: It's perfectly fine to promote processed food as your everyday diet, as long as it has whole grains sprinkled on it or has fewer calories."

It's no surprise then that Americans are confused about nutrition and have trouble discerning which foods are actually healthful. "If you look at what comes out of that trade group for generalized nutrition messages, it is not: Don't eat junk food, don't eat soda," Simon said. "It's these namby-pamby messages that are not getting us anywhere, like 'everything in moderation,' 'no such thing as a good food, or a bad food' all these clichés come from the spokespeople and the official positions of that trade group--it absolutely keeps America confused."

Andy Bellatti, RD, agrees and says that he is appalled by the choice of industry sponsorships that AND has chosen to align itself with. "I think it does a huge disservice to the field and the credential," he said in a phone interview. "I think these kinds of partnerships drag the credential through the mud because they make the entire profession seem like it's at the mercy of these food companies."

One typically encounters RDs in a hospital or doctor's office and are therefore considered the most legitimate and qualified bearers of nutrition information. "It's very troublesome when you have the food industry co-opting health professionals and that's exactly what's happening," Bellatti said. "Who creates the curriculum for RDs? AND does, and no matter what college you go to, if you want to be an RD, it's an AND curriculum."

Bellatti went on to describe his experiences at FNCE, where he says, the industry is presenting biased studies about their products as the hard, indisputable science. "It's extremely problematic because you have industry presenting science," he told me. "And many RDs are a very captive audience -- not everybody is going into it with a critical mind. If a doctor or another RD is presenting, obviously on industry payroll, a lot of RDs go back to their practice and they just repeat what they've heard."

Bellatti said he saw this happen at a session given by Coca-Cola at FNCE. "RDs will attend a session by Coca-Cola and come away saying that, actually, the research shows that artificial sweeteners are completely safe," he said. "And the RDs were completely satisfied with that presentation -- that is very troubling."

Aaron Flores, an RD who works in Los Angeles remembers a similar experience. "One specific education program that I went to a few years ago was a talk on artificial sweeteners sponsored by Diet Coke," he wrote to me in an email. "The message was that artificial sweeteners are safe -- but there is a lot of conflicting research out there. I would have preferred to hear a more balanced presentation, but of course that would not happen at a presentation paid for by Diet Coke."

Various RDs told me what's often perceived to be conventional wisdom regarding healthy foods is actually the industry speaking through nutrition professionals, which makes its way into the popular culture. For example, despite the fact that studies show consuming diet soda leads to increased waist circumference in humans and that aspartame raises the fasting levels of blood sugar in mice, potentially leading to weight gain and diabetes, the conventional wisdom claims that diet sodas are a good weight loss strategy.

RDs range in their position on the corporate sponsorship of AND. Indeed, Simon reports mixed responses at the conference but she did find it troubling that the majority of RDs surveyed supported corporate sponsors. "An overwhelming majority [of RDs] found the National Dairy Council, Kellogg, General Mills, and the maker of Splenda acceptable... it's a sign of how well these companies have succeeded in becoming a normal part of the American food experience."

Digna Cassens, MHA, RD, a practicing dietitian for 50 years, said AND's corporate sponsors present a "huge conflict." "But unfortunately no on really wants to speak out," she said in an interview. "It's sounds disloyal -- so speaking badly about my professional organization, which has given me the opportunity to practice professionally for 50 years, I find it disloyal."

Bellatti completely disagreed with this sentiment. He said he always voices his concerns at the end of sessions at FNCE conferences. "In every single case, I had RDs approach me and say they support me but were afraid to speak up," he said. "But voicing a concern is not violating anything. I have heard people say they are afraid of having their credential taken away, but I don't see that actually happening."

Further complicating the matter is the fact that many RDs are actually employed by large food service companies like Sodexo or Aramark, which often have contracts with hospitals and typically employ all the RDs on staff. According to Sodexo's website, it is the nation's largest corporate employer of registered dietitians.

One RD employed by Sodexo as the clinical manager of a major academic hospital refused to speak on the record. I asked her if it was difficult to convey the nutrition information she wanted to given that her employer makes many unhealthful foods, which comprise the fare in the hospital. She was hesitant to answer but seemed to acknowledge the conflict by saying, "All of our nutrition materials and guidelines come from the Academy [AND]."

Bellatti said in addition to hiring RDs, Sodexo also has a dietetic internship. "That is a major conflict because it's very hard for an RD to improve food offerings if they are employed by the very company that is putting out unhealthy food choices."

Some RDs have chosen not to renew their membership to AND based on its corporate sponsors. "As a former member of AND, I feel that by accepting money from corporate sponsors like Coke, PepsiCo, Hershey's, General Mills, etc., we compromise our credibility as a professional organization," Flores, the RD in Los Angeles said. "So I decided that I would vote with my wallet and I did not renew my membership."

Americans are bombarded with claims about nutrition and healthy eating for food and beverage products, but many of these messages are exactly what Pollan describes as nutritionism. "The food industry does a great job of keeping consumers confused about nutrition," Simon told me. "Most Americans don't realize the extent to which the nutrition advice they hear is influenced by these powerful economic interests. If people can't even trust the advice coming from nutrition professionals, who can they trust?"

This post first appeared on Civil Eats]]> Jane Brody Gets It (Really) Wrong 'Debunking' Health Myths tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2421197 2013-01-09T12:52:33-05:00 2013-03-11T05:12:01-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ The New York Times, has undoubtedly written great columns over the years, but her most recent one, published on Dec. 31, 2012, was not one of them. In fact, this column, which claims to debunk health myths, is one of the most misinformed columns on health, nutrition and the environment to be published recently in the Times, filled with factual errors as well as outdated nutrition information. The piece warrants a detailed rebuttal, because so many people turn to the Times and to Brody for health advice and this time she was way off the mark. The impetus for the piece, Brody says, is that we should, "start the new year on scientifically sound footing by addressing some nutritional falsehoods that circulate widely in cyberspace, locker rooms, supermarkets and health food stores." This made it all more the disturbing to read a list of health myths she's allegedly debunking. Instead, Brody reinforces some old myths and creates some new ones along the way.

A few sentences into the piece she writes, "When did 'chemical' become a dirty word?" quoting Joe Schwarcz, director of the Office for Science and Society at McGill University in Montreal. This should immediately raise a red flag to anyone familiar with this common refrain touted by spokespeople for Big Ag and Big Food. Sure, chemicals are everywhere, and are the basis of even the most pure and natural food, but when most people refer to chemicals in their food it usually means they are concerned with synthetic chemicals in the form of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, or as highly-processed ingredients that end up in food products. Brody goes on to say that Schwarcz is "one of Canada's brightest scientific minds."

It turns out, Schwarcz heads the research office at McGill that is officially listed as a resource institution affiliated with The Council for Biotechnology. This group, according to its website, "communicates science-based information about the benefits and safety of agricultural biotechnology and its contributions to a sustainable food chain. Its members are the leading agricultural biotechnology companies." Which biotech companies? Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, and Syngenta, among others, all of which are responsible for the development and sale of the aforementioned synthetic chemicals that many Americans are trying to avoid in their diets. Despite this fact, Brody urges her readers to use Schwarcz's tips and "make wiser choices about what does, and does not, pass your lips in 2013."

So what are Schwarcz's and Brody's tips? She begins her "debunking" with cured meats, claiming that organic or not, cured meats should be avoided. But cured meats, sourced sustainably and preferably locally, can certainly be part of healthy diet -- they are a traditional food that humans have been eating for thousands of years. Prior to refrigeration, we cured meats to keep them from spoiling. Modern cured meats have been vilified for containing nitrosamines, which have produced mutations in cells cultured in the laboratory and cancer in animals treated with very high doses.

While I agree that the nitrosamines present may cause problems when consumed in very high amounts, Brody writes them off for another reason: Their high saturated fat and salt content. But, as I've written before, fatty meats from pastured, organically-raised animals are not a health hazard. In fact, it appears that fat from these animals has beneficial and health-promoting effects. Further, the scientific data does not support the claim that all saturated fat is harmful to our health. (For more on fat, see this article I wrote, or read this article by Gary Taubes.)

As for the issue of salt: There is no doubt that a diet high in processed foods throws our sodium and potassium balance out of whack, but eating salty foods is not necessarily bad, especially if you also eat plenty of vegetables and other foods high in potassium. The research on eating a low-salt diet, which has also become dietary dogma much like the low-fat campaign, also appears to be based on little real science. (For more on salt, see my article, or read this article from Gary Taubes.)

Brody then moves on to meat glue. You may remember this scandal last year; there was concern that lesser cuts of meat were being glued together with this substance and unsuspecting consumers were eating it. Aside from the questionable practice of misrepresenting the quality of the meat being sold, this presents a food safety issue, since various cuts of meat glued together affects how the meat cooks and whether or not bacteria on the glued surfaces of the meat is killed during cooking.

Meat glue is an enzyme called transglutaminase. The company that produces transglutaminase, Ajinomoto, also produces aspartame and MSG. In spite of its being sold for human consumption, there isn't much research on tranglutaminase so we don't really know its effects. However, Brody implies its safety since the famous chef Wylie Dufresne uses it in his cooking. She then goes on to say that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies it as generally recognized as safe (GRAS), "and there is no reason to think otherwise."

But getting something listed as GRAS is hardly a rigorous scientific process. For another piece, I interviewed Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at the Consumers Union, who told me that he had little faith in the GRAS designation since makers of products can voluntarily register their own product as GRAS and the FDA will often approve them without any real oversight or safety testing.

Next up, trans fats. I thought most health practitioners, writers, and scientists all agreed that trans fats are bad for us and should not be used for cooking or added to processed foods. But not so for Schwarcz and Brody. Brody mentions conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is a naturally occurring trans fat that is present in grass-fed milk and meat in relatively high amounts. It is in fact, very healthful and has been shown to help in burning fat and building muscle. Brody gets this right, but then says that certain trans fats can be "legally, and healthfully, added to dairy products, meal-replacement bars, soy milk and fruit juice."

To be clear: You cannot eat an extracted or synthetic element of a whole food and expect to get the same health benefit as you would from eating the food itself. Vitamins, minerals, fats, and all nutrients exist within the matrix of a food; there are synergistic factors involved when eating a whole food that cannot be replicated in a lab. This is always true, which is why "functional foods" are nothing more than a marketing scheme (see Pepsi with added fiber or orange juice with omega-3 fatty acids).

And then, perhaps the worst offense of all, Brody defends genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the basis of their potential health benefits, while also minimizing the importance of growing foods organically. She writes, "Organic producers disavow genetic modification, which can be used to improve a crop's nutritional content, enhance resistance to pests and diminish its need for water." This reads like a press release written by Monsanto and ignores all the evidence that shows GMO crops are actually causing super pests, super weeds, and increasing the need for pesticides -- hardly a recipe for better nutrition and health. Brody in a reference to the infamous Stanford study (Stanford, it turns out, has funding ties to the agricultural giant Cargill) says that while organic foods are not likely to be more nutritious, they are kinder to the environment. This begs the question: When will we stop separating human health from the health of our environment?

Finally, Brody jumps on another topic that I thought most health advocates also agreed upon: the problems with farmed salmon. It's hard to tell exactly what Brody thinks about it, she seems to defend it while also pointing out some of its flaws. She writes, "There may be legitimate concerns about possible pollutants in farmed salmon." May be? Possible pollutants? The Environmental Working Group found that farmed salmon is contaminated with five times the amount of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) than its wild counterpart, and contains more than 100 other pollutants and pesticides. The report by EWG states that "frequent farmed salmon eaters may exceed government health limits for these pollutants, which are linked to immune system damage, fetal brain damage, and cancer."

The National Academy of Sciences recommends that the government focus on reducing exposures of PCBs for girls and young women in the years well before pregnancy, since some PCBs are linked to brain damage and immune deficiencies for exposures in utero and in early childhood. I'd say these are some "legitimate concerns." Farmed salmon is also highly problematic for the health of our oceans. Farmed salmon are raised in highly concentrated pens, much like a factory feedlot for beef, pork, or poultry. Feed waste in these pens contains pesticides and antibiotics as well as fish excrement which amass on the ocean floor. It is then swept out into the ocean by currents and creates destructive plankton blooms and destroys shellfish and other sea life.

Brody goes on to say that the dye used to color farmed salmon pink is a "nonissue." I wouldn't call it that -- some fish farmers use astaxanthin, a pigment and antioxidant that is found naturally in algae, as Brody points out -- but others use an artificial, petrochemical-based dye. The dye fed to farmed salmon is only a nonissue since there is simply no good reason to eat farmed salmon in the first place. Plus, farmed salmon would be a dull grey color if it weren't for the dye -- any time you have to dye a food to make it look appetizing, you shouldn't be eating it.

Brody ends on a strong note, however, with her advice to eat nuts since they are "heart-healthy." This is correct, but it's not because the fat in them is unsaturated, which she says --it's because they are an unadulterated, whole food. It's a shame that she didn't apply this common-sense knowledge to the rest of her column.

With all the nutrition misinformation out there, one would expect Jane Brody and The New York Times to be more careful about relying on an "expert source" with ties to the biggest agricultural and food companies in the world to debunk health myths. These corporations have a vested interest in keeping the public confused about what constitutes a healthy diet because their products do not meet any kind of criteria for human health or the health of our environment. Only a misinformed and confused public will continue to buy and consume foods that are sabotaging their health and the health of the planet -- unfortunately, Brody's latest column only adds to this disturbing trend.

A version of this post originally appeared on Civil Eats

For more by Kristin Wartman, click here.

For more on diet and nutrition, click here.]]> Beyoncé & PepsiCo: The $50 Million Deal with the Devil tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2295123 2012-12-13T16:05:28-05:00 2013-02-12T05:12:01-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ 2012-12-13-adco21355001051195articleLarge.jpg



There was good news this week with several cities reporting declining rates of childhood obesity. While modest, any decline in this alarming trend is promising: New York City reports a five and a half percent decrease; Philadelphia, five percent; and Los Angeles, a three percent decline in the number of obese schoolchildren from 2007 to 2011.

But this came on the heels of some other rather disturbing news -- mega pop star Beyoncé signed a $50 million deal with Pepsi. While advertising deals for celebrities endorsing junk foods are nothing new, this one marks a shift in its insidious nature. In a recent New York Times article the president of PepsiCo's global beverage group said, "Consumers are seeking a much greater authenticity in marketing from the brands they love. It's caused a shift in the way we think about deals with artists, from a transactional deal to a mutually beneficial collaboration."

Not only will Beyoncé be featured in ads that will premiere after her performance at the Super Bowl half-time show (sponsored by Pepsi, naturally), but her face will be featured on limited edition Pepsi cans, and she will be given money for her own "creative projects." The Times reports: "The less conventional aspects of the deal are meant as collaborative projects that indulge Beyoncé's creative whims, and might well have no explicit connection to Pepsi products."

This is a marked change for advertisers who seek to completely merge their product's image with that of a big name celebrity -- and it doesn't get much bigger than Beyoncé, who pulled in $40 million last year alone and has vast international fame.

The multi-year contract with Pepsi -- with substantial funds for Beyoncé to work on her own creative projects with "no explicit connection to Pepsi" -- shows Pepsi is confident that branding its products with her image will continue to invoke a desired response in consumers. In a method reminiscent of Pavlov's dog, Pepsi expects to see this outcome without the Pepsi logo even being present.

Pepsi will so thoroughly attach itself to her and blur the lines between product and spokesperson that everything she does, including her "creative whims" will be linked to Pepsi. Even if these creative whims have nothing to do with Pepsi, she will conjure the brand. This brings to mind the patronage of wealthy families for artists in the middle ages -- a kind of artist-indentured servitude.

Beyoncé doesn't see it that way, at least according to her statement in The Times: "Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve. As a businesswoman, this allows me to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity."

This sounds shockingly naive; especially from a woman who has mastered the art of her brand and become one of the biggest pop stars in the world. And let's not forget, that one year ago, a video of Beyoncé dancing in a high school cafeteria on behalf of the First Lady's 'Let's Move!' campaign went viral, indicating what seemed to be her commitment to fighting childhood obesity. Now that she is a new mother, Beyoncé signs on with the one of the biggest soda vendors in the world?

But then again, there are other aspects of this new ad campaign to make one question her logic. The ad that has been revealed features her dressed in tights, high-heels, a suit jacket, and what appears to be matching underwear, while making a pout with her lips -- all the while pushing a large grocery cart overflowing with cases of Pepsi. These images will be made into life size cut outs for grocery stores.

This means millions of shoppers across the country will see a hyper-sexualized woman of color, literally pushing a product that is known to contribute to obesity and its related health problems like diabetes and heart disease.

It is especially significant that the populations most affected by these health issues are people of color, and particularly women of color. According to the Centers for Disease Control, one in two African-Americans born in the year 2000 is expected to develop type II diabetes; four out of every ten African-American men and women have high blood pressure; and blacks are 30 percent more likely to die young from heart disease than whites.

Part of Beyoncé's deal includes the limited edition Pepsi can, which has a picture of her face, open-mouthed and seductive. There's no doubt that these Pepsi ad executives know what they're doing, they've taken one of the biggest pop stars and sex symbols in the world, and conflated her talent and success with their product -- it is marketing genius. But who suffers as a result?

Unfortunately, we know the answer to that question: It's the people that always suffer from predatory ad campaigns. Youth and minority groups are routinely targeted with more ads and for less healthy products, according to the Yale Rudd Center. Researchers found that African American youth saw at least 50 percent more fast food ads on TV in 2009 than their white peers. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of obesity for African Americans is 51 percent higher than for white Americans, and the prevalence of obesity amongst the nation's Hispanic American population is 21 percent higher than their white peers.

While there are certainly many factors that contribute to these shocking statistics, there's no doubt that carefully targeted marketing on the part of Big Food corporations play a large role. Beyoncé should think twice before playing right into the hands of Pepsi's insidious branding -- but even more importantly, Americans should start demanding that our government regulate Big Food. In many European countries celebrities are forbidden from advertising for junk foods; not coincidentally, these countries have lower rates of obesity and diabetes, especially among children. If we hope to see more good news in the form of declining childhood obesity rates in this country, we need to work to make sure this Pepsi and Beyoncé "mutually beneficial collaboration" doesn't portend a new trend.]]> Prop 37 Fails: Why We Can't Rely on Policy to Change Our Food System tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2093912 2012-11-08T14:25:37-05:00 2013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ On Tuesday, Californians voted on Proposition 37, which if passed, would have required the mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods (GMOs). Ultimately, the proposition failed by a relatively narrow margin: 46.9 percent to 53.1 percent. This indicates that close to half of all California voters (or more than four million people) would like GMOs labeled and greater transparency on the part of the food industry. As for those who voted no, many were likely swayed by the aggressive marketing (read: propaganda) efforts of the Big Food companies that poured more than $45 million dollars into the "No on 37" campaign.



According to public health lawyer Michele Simon, Big Food companies like Monsanto, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Nestle, and Kraft, which donated funds to "No on 37" engaged in lying, scare tactics, misrepresentation, and various dirty tricks to protect their profits and keep California voters uninformed about their food choices.



None of this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention to the power that Big Food corporations wield and the deception they employ to encourage consumers to buy products that are causing harm to their health, the environment and their communities.



The problem with the tactic employed by proponents of Prop 37 is that the food movement attempted to directly confront Big Food in a legislative, policy-based battle. Prop 37 proponents worked in the arena that Big Food controls. Our governmental food agencies are strongly influenced by Big Ag and Big Food through lobbying and PAC donations. As Americans, we function under a state of corporate socialism and in no situation is this more apparent than when it comes to our food.



Engaging a government with deep ties to Big Food was a valiant and courageous effort, but the proposition's failure shows that the food movement should rely more on itself and less on the government. This is the same government that appointed former head of public policy at Monsanto, Michael Taylor, as deputy commissioner of foods at the FDA. This is also the same government that continually hands out subsidies to the producers of the largest commodity crops like corn and soy, which are predominately (upwards of 90 percent) GMO. The federal government also determines the content of school lunches across the country and exhibited its allegiance to Big Food corporations when Congress voted to keep the designation of pizza as a vegetable in school meals -- much to the pleasure of Big Food companies like ConAgra and Schwan's, which manufacture and sell these products to schools.



Tom Philpot pointed out recently that if that food movement wants to make this bold of a move, it had better be ready for a fight. Or put more pithily, Philpot quotes Omar of The Wire, "'Come at the king, you best not miss.'"



The real answer to usurping power from corporations like Monsanto, Kraft and Coca-cola lies in navigating terrain these corporations aren't already deeply entrenched in. The "Yes on Prop 37" campaign raised nine million dollars to get its message out but was outspent fivefold by Big Food. The food movement learned a valuable lesson in the failure of Prop 37: We can't outspend Big Food and we can't out campaign them -- but we can outsmart them.



This is precisely why the food movement should be operating with more stealth, savvy and direct-action style engagement. One example of this and an immediate solution to the lack of labeling on GMO foods is for consumers to label foods themselves (visit labelityourself.com). This site provides ready-made warning labels for GMO foods and advocates for guerrilla-style tactics. "Label It Yourself is a decentralized, autonomous grassroots campaign born out of our broken food system," according to the site. "We have been asking our government to label food products so we can make educated decisions about what we eat. The government has ignored our requests and so we are taking matters into our own hands."



Mandating the labeling of GMOs in California would have been an enormous victory for the food movement but the fact that Prop 37 failed indicates that we need to speak louder and with more ferocity. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, it has become abundantly clear that time is of the essence. Big Ag is the second largest contributor to climate change and it accounts for roughly a third of emissions globally. We can't wait to be saved from the devastation that climate change is bringing to our communities.



Localizing our food supply and minimizing the use of harmful chemicals and pesticides presents a viable alternative to Big Ag's devastating forms of food production and has the potential to create truly sustainable and resilient communities. But let's not wait for legislation or for the government to cut ties with Big Food -- let's cut those ties ourselves as we develop, build, and connect the localized food communities that are forming all over the country. We can create an alternative food infrastructure. It's time for the "food movement" in its myriad and infinite permutations, to coalesce into a force to be reckoned with. This didn't happen with Prop 37 or a legislative battle but it can be done. What are we waiting for?



Kristin Wartman and Erika Lade are the co-founders of Occupy Big Food.]]> The One-Two Punch: Big Food Gets Kids Hooked Early and Often tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1980517 2012-10-18T13:06:42-04:00 2012-12-18T05:12:02-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/
In fact, we do have an epidemic and it's largely driven by our reliance on highly processed, cheap convenience foods. The United States is hardly alone on this front, but our food culture is distinct from most other industrialized nations in a crucially important way -- we have virtually no regulation for advertising food and drink and we require very little in the way of labeling.

In a few weeks, Californians will decide if genetically modified foods (GMOs) should be labeled. Labeling GMOs will force greater transparency on the part of food producers and it represents a potential shift for consumers to regain a measure of control over their own food. But the US will still lag far behind many European countries, which not only have been labeling GMO foods for years but in some cases, also require warning labels for junk foods and have strict regulations on the types of foods and beverages advertised, particularly to children.

There is good reason for this. Studies show that Big Food corporations aggressively market unhealthy foods to children and in some cases children exhibit "brand recognition" and brand loyalty before they can even speak. A forthcoming study in the journal Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, found that toddlers identify the golden arches for McDonald's before they even know the letter M. After looking at more than 100 brands, researchers at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and University of Kansas Medical Center study found that children are more likely to choose foods with familiar logos and that the majority of these foods are high in sugars, fat and sodium. Even more alarming, researchers found that seeing an advertised logo trips the pleasure and reward regions of children's brains -- areas of the brain that are also implicated in obesity and various types of addiction, including drug abuse, researcher Dr. Amanda Bruce said.

Another recent study suggests that highly processed foods are addictive. Researchers in the journal Current Biology report that when they fed M&M candies to hungry rats, their levels of enkephalin (an opiod with similar effects to other drugs in this class) increased. The more the rats' enkephalin went up, the faster they ate the M&Ms. The researchers reported that the rats would not stop eating the M&Ms until the candies were taken away.

But that's not all -- the food industry is actively shaping the palates of our children. While the food industry insists that it only advertises to children "to influence brand preference," a study published in the journal Appetite found that the industry works to "fundamentally change children's taste palates to increase their liking of highly processed and less nutritious foods." This study dovetails with Dr. Bruce's findings since researchers found that the awareness of fast food brands was a significant predictor of what they call the "Sugar-Fat-Salty" palate preference in children.

Data is also surfacing that obese children are less sensitive to taste. Researchers in Germany found that on the intensity scale, obese children rated all flavor concentrations lower than did those in the normal-weight group. They believe this may be due to the fact that leptin, the hormone that regulates appetite and makes us feel full, might also affect the sensitivity of taste buds. It is suspected that people who are obese or overweight are resistant to leptin, making them feel hungrier and driving them to eat more.

Not only does obesity or overweight affect taste, but it also affects memory and learning. A study in Pediatrics found that teenagers with metabolic syndrome (a precursor to diabetes, which includes having high blood levels of glucose, low levels of "good" cholesterol, high triglycerides, abdominal obesity and high blood pressure) had lower scores on tests of mental ability and significantly lower academic performance in reading and arithmetic. MRI scans of these children also showed reduced volume in the hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in forming and storing memories.

The picture emerging from these recent findings is that children are becoming hooked on highly processed foods at a very young age. This changes their palate preferences for salty, fatty, sweet foods, leads to weight gain and metabolic syndrome, affects brain processes -- and ultimately, perpetuates a vicious cycle.

So what is to be done? European countries, which have lower rates of obesity and diet-related disease, provide some answers. In 2007, the French government ordered all food advertisements to carry warning labels urging consumers to stop snacking, exercise, and eat more fruits and vegetables. The warning label also reads, "Consuming these foods may be harmful to your health." In Sweden and Norway, all food and beverage advertising to children is forbidden. In Ireland, there is a ban on TV ads for candy and fast food and the ban prohibits using celebrities to promote junk food to kids.

It's time for American politicians to address the lack of regulation for Big Food and the advertising industry. We now have the science to prove that the content of highly processed foods coupled with the marketing of them to children and toddlers is amounting to a national health crisis.

Over the past 15 years, the percentage of new cases of Type 2 diabetes, formerly known as adult-onset, has skyrocketed among children -- from three to 50 percent. Approximately 12.5 million of children and adolescents aged two to 9 years are obese and since 1980, obesity prevalence among children and adolescents has almost tripled.

Diabetes, along with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and heart disease are becoming shockingly common in children and adolescents. We know these conditions arise primarily from poor diets and are driven by our consumption of ultra-processed foods.

A startling USDA report from 2006 states that since the percentage of children who are overweight has doubled and the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has more than tripled, "If we do not stem this tide, many children in this generation of children will not outlive their parents." To put that another way: If trends don't change, the surge in diet related disease among children means that many parents will watch their children die. That was the prediction from experts six years ago and we have yet to see any substantive action from Washington.

Our leaders must get tough on these corporations and stop insisting that it comes down to choice and personal responsibility. This is a myth perpetuated by the food and advertising industries so they can continue to harm our children and threaten the health of our nation with impunity. In what other circumstance would we allow an epidemic of such grave proportions debilitate our children unchecked? We've long been looking for the smoking gun -- it seems we've found it.]]> Organic Agriculture: Fifty (Plus) Shades of Gray tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1894660 2012-09-19T16:30:37-04:00 2012-11-19T05:12:02-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ labeling of genetically modified foods illustrates just how much labels do indeed matter -- to consumers as well as to corporations. The recent paper by Stanford researchers claims that organically grown foods are no better for our health than conventionally grown foods, further complicating the debate over which labels can and cannot be trusted.

Headlines about the report seek to simplify: A New York Times headline read, "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce;" CBS News claimed, "Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests."

Others have already pointed out that organic food is about more than just nutrition, but it's worth mentioning that there are many compelling reasons to buy organic that go beyond one's personal health, including:

• minimizing pollution,
• reducing harm to farm workers and
• reducing the public health risk posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Further, the study did note one major personal health reason for supporting organic: limiting one's ingestion of pesticides. But the paper's key finding -- at least, as reported by the mainstream media -- is that organic foods do not contain significantly higher levels of nutrients than conventional foods, and that's what made the headlines.

While the analysis by the Stanford researchers seems fairly conclusive, the implications of its findings are actually extremely narrow given the infinite variety in agricultural practices. The range of products produced under an organic label range from those produced on an "industrial-organic" scale to those produced by small and mid-scale farmers who go well beyond the USDA's standards with their methods.

At one end of this scale are companies like Horizon Organic, which sells USDA-certified organic milk. Horizon is owned by Dean Foods, the sixth largest food company in North America. Large food corporations of this scale wield immense power to influence organic standards. Walmart, which sells the Horizon brand and is the largest retailer of organic milk in the country, has been involved in multiple lawsuits over the use of the word organic on various product labels and in the case of Horizon's organic milk, whistleblowers found it was actually being produced in large-scale factory farms without adhering to organic standards, like access to pasture. Instead, the Cornucopia Institute found that Dean Foods was confining as many as 10,000 cows to large buildings and feedlots and operating "phony 'organic' feedlot operations."

On the other end of the scale are small-scale, grass-based farms -- some certified organic and some not. In a recent report put out by Compassion in World Farming vast differences in nutrient value were found in animals raised in "higher-welfare" settings (on pasture, with space to graze and forage for their natural grass diets) versus those raised in intensive confined, "lower-welfare" settings (in confined feedlots, eating diets designed to pack on weight as fast as possible, including grain and daily doses of non-therapeutic antibiotics). One key finding was that the proportion of omega-3 fatty acids in milk from pasture-based systems was between 53 and 184 percent higher than the milk from animals raised in confined, intensive settings. The report also found higher amounts of vitamin E and beta-carotene in milk from pasture-based systems versus conventional ones.

In terms of organic versus non-organic meat, the Stanford paper says that there is no difference in nutrition between the two. Again, research has shown that there are significant differences when it comes to pasture-raised meats. A report put out by Animal Welfare Approved states that ruminants raised on pasture alone have milk and meat that contains three to five times the amount of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Various studies have shown that CLA is protective against cancer, can lower levels of LDL cholesterol, prevents atherosclerosis and reduces blood pressure. The Compassion in World Farming report found that pasture-raised beef has a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids and a more favorable (lower) ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids compared with intensively-raised beef. The report also states that pasture-raised beef contains more vitamin E and beta-carotene than conventionally produced beef.

Just as the quality of animal products depends largely on what the animals were fed, the nutrition content of vegetables is dependent on the quality of the soil in which they were grown. Vegetables grown in mineral-rich, healthy soil (that hasn't been depleted by chemical fertilizers, lack of biodiversity and little to no crop rotation) have been found to be far more nutritious than vegetables grown on monocropped, intensive farms. Various studies have shown that the nutrient density of vegetables, including many crucial vitamins and antioxidants, have dramatically decreased over the years with soil depletion due to industrial farming methods. Again, the Stanford paper does not discern between vegetables grown on an industrial-organic scale versus those grown on biodiverse, multi-crop farms.

Eric Herm, an author and cotton farmer in Ackerly, Tex. explained how significant he believes the difference is between produce grown on the industrial organic scale versus produce grown on biodiverse farms. "What I've seen over the years, is that crop rotation is not only the key to healthy soil, it is vital in the long term health of all living creatures. There is far more microbial activity, plants are healthier and more resistant to disease, drought and insect damage," he wrote in an email. "The soil feeds the plants that feeds us. Sick or weak soil will grow weaker plants with less fruit and vitality. The healthier the soil, the more vitality within the plant and the fruit it produces, therefore giving us more vitality. It's common sense really. Organic monocropping will not have the long-term benefits of a diverse farming operation."

Farmer Kira Kinney of Evolutionary Organics farm, a multi-crop farm in New Paltz, N.Y. agrees. "I definitely think there is a difference in what I grow compared with industrial organic. To me these two things are nothing alike. There is no holistic approach to industrial organic -- it is all about yield, yield, yield," she wrote in an email. "They do whatever it takes to get the most out of any given crop. Large scale organic is much the same as conventional agriculture in that it is all numbers -- get the most yield in the fewest days."

Given the wide-range in practices that can be lumped under the term "organic" and the fact that the bulk of organic foods bought and sold in America come from systems that are more accurately described as "industrial organic" the true impact of the Stanford findings becomes less apparent.

Recent events in California's fight over the labeling of genetically modified foods would indicate that the companies that sell industrially-produced organics do not necessarily support the ideals their customers do: the largest organic food brands in the country, including Kashi, Cascadian Farm and Horizon Organic have joined the anti-labeling effort, contributing millions of dollars to defeat the ballot initiative, Proposition 37. The parent companies to these organic brands are Kellogg Company, General Mills and Dean Foods, respectively.

"It's ironic this [Stanford] study is coming out of California, where food companies have spent more than $25 million this year trying to battle Prop 37 and prevent the labeling of GMOs in the state of California," Herm wrote.

Labels do matter -- and what the Stanford analysis brings to the fore is the need for deeper, more comprehensive studies on the infinite shades of gray when it comes to agricultural practices. Are we satisfied to continue lumping foods under two simplistic categories -- organic or conventional? With Big Food corporations now heavily invested in organic foods, what does the organic label actually mean? As producers, consumers and advocates this paper should push us to have conversations that are not so black and white.

A version of this post was originally published at Ecocentric ]]> BPA-Free Baby Bottles Now Law, But We're Not in the Clear tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1727752 2012-08-14T09:24:29-04:00 2012-10-14T05:12:02-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/
Questions of safety remain when it comes to the use of any plastic products that come in contact with our foods. The FDA ban is raising concern and creating headlines about what manufacturers will substitute in place of the BPA. A 2011 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that all plastics contain estrogenic activity (EA) and in some cases, those labeled "BPA free" leached more chemicals with EA than did BPA-containing products. The study's authors write, "Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled -- independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source -- leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free."

EA interferes with our endocrine system, a complex signaling network that is made up of glands (the thyroid) as well as glandular tissue and cells within organs (testes, ovaries, pancreas, etc). Our endocrine systems use hormones that send signals to our various organs and tissues that work over minutes, hours, weeks and years. The processes these hormones regulate include metabolism, growth and development, and sexual reproduction. As hormones travel in the blood to reach each body part, the specific molecular shape of each hormone fits like a key-in-a-lock into receptors on target tissues. Endocrine disrupting chemicals may interfere with, block or mimic the action of our hormones. As a result, EA and endocrine disruptors have been linked in hundreds of studies to brain development problems, breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, learning and behavioral problems in children, early onset of puberty, and obesity.

Manufacturers are now flaunting their "BPA-free" versions of products as though they are safe and free of toxins -- but it turns out BPA is possibly just the tip of the iceberg. Bisphenol S, or BPS, is another chemical that manufacturers are using to replace BPA and it may be just as harmful. In a study this year in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers wrote,

"As the evidence of the toxic effects of bisphenol A (BPA) grows, its application in commercial products is gradually being replaced with other related compounds, such as bisphenol S (BPS). Nevertheless, very little is known about the occurrence of BPS in the environment."


In this study, the authors found BPS present in 16 types of paper products, including thermal receipts, paper currencies, flyers, magazines, newspapers, food contact papers, airplane luggage tags, printing paper, paper towels and toilet paper. The thermal receipt paper samples contained concentrations of BPS that were similar to the concentrations of BPA reported earlier and raised alarm for some scientists. BPS was also detected in 87 percent of currency bill samples. The authors write that several other related compounds are also used to replace BPA: bisphenol B, bisphenol F and bisphenol AF. BPA and BPS are found in high concentrations in canned foods, BPF has been found in surface water, sewage sludge, and sediments, and BPB was found in human serum in Italy. "Limited studies have shown that BPS, BPB and BPF possess acute toxicity, genotoxicity, and estrogenic activity, similar to BPA," the authors write, adding, "The environmental biodegradation rates of BPS and BPB were similar to or less than those of BPA. Although considerable controversy still surrounds the safety of BPA, the potential for human exposure to alternatives to BPA cannot be ignored." The researchers also note that people may be absorbing BPS in much larger doses -- 19 times more than the BPA they absorbed when it was more widely used.

Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in an email,

"There are emerging data to show that BPS is an estrogen but relatively less on the other chemicals. Therefore, it is hard to say with certainty at the moment whether the BPA replacements lack estrogenic activity. BPA free means simply that -- that the product is stated to be BPA free."


I asked Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families if she was concerned about the substitutes being used in place of BPA:

"We are very concerned that BPA could be replaced with products that are just as risky, or even more risky. The federal government is not doing what is needed to protect the American public, either in their regulation of BPA or any of these potential substitutes."


But the FDA continues to insist that BPA is still safe. In a recent New York Times article, Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods, said that the agency "has been looking hard at BPA for a long time, and based on all the evidence, we continue to support its safe use."

Zuckerman added that part of the problem lies in the heavy influence that industry has on members of Congress and the FDA.

"Whenever the FDA does something to improve patient safeguards, Members of Congress get lobbied by the industry involved and some of those Members pressure [the] FDA to back off," she wrote in an email. "This has happened for years but the last few years have been even worse than usual."


At Mother Jones, Tom Philpott points out that the heavily monied interests behind BPA are none other than the chemical giants Dow and Bayer, which produce the bulk of BPA. Frederick S. vom Saal, curators' professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and BPA researcher, told me that BPA represents a $10 billion a year industry. It's important to note that the recent FDA ban comes at the behest of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that denies any negative health effects from BPA. Why would they have done this?

"[The American Chemistry Council's] petition to the FDA puts it plainly: 'All Major Product Manufacturers Have Abandoned the Use of Polycarbonate' (BPA). In other words: Go ahead and ban it -- it's already been phased out and a ban gives the appearance of strict oversight," Philpott writes.


By creating the ban, the FDA at least acknowledges that babies and children should lessen their exposure to BPA. But what about the rest of the population?

"BPA remains in millions of food and beverage containers that affect the BPA levels of pregnant women, children of all ages, and all adults," Zuckerman wrote to me in an email. "The impact on the developing fetus and young children, and on breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, are of particular concern to our Center. One study indicates that BPA may interfere with the effectiveness of chemo for breast cancer patients."


The FDA should concede that if BPA is a risk for babies and children, it is most likely a risk to all of us. And what about the various substitutes that will be used for BPA and the numerous other toxins lurking in the plastics and other containers that package our foods and drinks? "FDA's decision is a step in the right direction, but it is a baby step," Zuckerman said. "They have done the minimum."

Blumberg added that the answers to all of these questions are complex. "We do not know nearly as much as we need to know," he said. "I think that it is prudent to reduce our consumption of packaged foods of all sorts for a variety of reasons, including reducing exposure to contaminants from the containers."

A version of this post appeared on Civil Eats]]> A Calorie, Is a Calorie, Is a Calorie -- Or Is It? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1638216 2012-07-02T11:00:07-04:00 2012-09-01T05:12:12-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ wrote that it may not be long before the food industry will be proven wrong about their two favorite messages: All calories are created equal, and it's all about personal responsibility. Well, it appears that science may be one step closer to proving at least half of that equation wrong and that in fact; all calories are not created equal. The latest study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) this week, found that when it came to weight loss and maintaining weight loss, those who ate a low carbohydrate, high fat diet kept more weight off than those who were on either a low glycemic diet or a low fat, high carbohydrate diet.

While all participants in the study ate the same number of calories, the types consumed varied. The low fat diet contained 60 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent protein, and 20 percent fat. The low glycemic diet contained 40 percent carbs, 40 percent fat, and 20 percent protein (with a focus on minimally processed foods). The low carb diet had 10 percent of calories from carbs, 60 percent from fat, and 30 percent from protein.

Compared to those on the low fat diet, those following the low carb diet burned 350 calories more per day and those on the low glycemic diet burned 150 calories more per day.

The most compelling part of this study is that it calls into question the long-held belief in the scientific and medical communities that all calories are created equal. This is a message the food industry has also seized on since it means they can continue to pump out ultra processed nutritionally void foods and tell Americans to "eat them in moderation." If all calories are created equal, the food industry says, then there are no bad foods.

But this message doesn't just come from the food industry -- Marion Nestle, a long-time critic of Big Food, has spoken about calories in a similar way. She wrote on her blog that the JAMA study was too small (it had 21 participants) and that more research was needed outside of a controlled setting. She's quoted in USA Today saying:

Longer studies conducted among people in their own environments, not with such controlled meals, have shown "little difference in weight loss and maintenance between one kind of diet and another." More research is needed to show that interesting results like these are applicable in real life, she says. "In the meantime, if you want to lose weight, eat less."


I disagree. As a nutrition educator, I think that telling people to "eat less" is largely ineffective and continues to place the burden on the consumer as part of the personal responsibility credo. On the other hand, telling people to eliminate processed, refined carbohydrates and sugars, while eating plenty of high quality fats, proteins, and vegetables seems to be a more workable solution to stimulating weight loss. Part of the reason this may be so effective is because simple carbohydrates and sugars actually stimulate appetite and cravings, while fats, proteins, and complex carbohydrates like vegetables, beans, and legumes satiate and stabilize blood sugar.

A recent report put out by the World Public Health Nutrition Association found that processing does matter, noting that ultra processed foods are "habit-forming and some would say often at least quasi-addictive. They do displace healthy meals, dishes and foods and thus are liable to cause obesity or else at least mild malnutrition."

The addictive factor of these foods is highly problematic and there's evidence to suggest that eating sugar makes you crave and consume more sugar starting with our experiences as babies and even in utero (see a recent article on Gilt Taste for more on this).

And according to Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at UC San Francisco, a low carb diet or a low glycemic diet is what helps keep our insulin levels low, he believes that elevated insulin levels are at the root of obesity. "To borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton: It's the insulin, stupid. The reason any diet will work is because it lowers insulin. And a diet that doesn't, like the traditional low-fat diet, won't work," he said in a recent Los Angeles Times article.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that once my clients cut sugar and simple carbohydrates from their diets their cravings for these kinds of foods quickly dissipate. It's only observational, but I see it repeatedly and so do other nutritionists and doctors I know.

Over online at The New York Times, Mark Bittman wrote about the JAMA study with a conclusive evaluation, "The message is pretty simple: unprocessed foods give you a better chance of idealizing your weight -- and your health. Because all calories are not created equal."

But there's still no consensus among doctors, nutritionists, researchers, or writers.

The implications for coming to a scientific consensus about whether or not types of calories do matter cannot be understated since it could effect regulation for Big Food as well as the dietary recommendations from the government which translates to (among other things) what children eat in school every day. Right now, MyPlate recommends that Americans eat an average of 6.3 servings of grains a day. Even the American Diabetes Association recommends a high carbohydrate and low fat diet. But if the results from this latest study are accurate, all of these recommendations may ultimately prove harmful. Acknowledging that all calories are not created equal and that ultra processed foods are detrimental to everyone would go a long way in changing our crash course with diet related disease and death.

A version of this post appeared on Civil Eats]]> The Obesity Paradox: Overfed But Undernourished tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1632862 2012-06-28T14:37:51-04:00 2012-08-28T05:12:04-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ Journal of Urban Health.

And it's not just the U.S. that is reporting these kinds of findings. A New Zealand study of preschoolers found that 82 percent did not get enough dietary fiber and 68 percent did not have enough long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are found in fish and nuts. Despite these nutritional deficiencies, the researchers also found that fully one-third of preschoolers are overweight or obese.

These findings highlight an interesting contradiction -- obesity correlates with malnourishment. Research indicates that lack of proper nutrition -- even when people over-consume calories -- is at the root of obesity. Part of the reason this seems contradictory is because nutrition science has long held that all calories are created equal and that with the right amount of caloric intake, it would be difficult to also be malnourished. Coincidentally, this is also what the food industry would have us believe. In a recent interview in USAToday, Katie Bayne, president and general manager at Coca-Cola, said in response to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on large size sugary drinks:

"A calorie is a calorie. What our drinks offer is hydration. That's essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits whether it's an uplift or carbohydrates or energy. We don't believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration."


I asked senior research scientist at MIT and author of several papers on the subject, Stephanie Seneff, for a response to Bayne's comments. "I hate this calorie is a calorie message," Seneff said in a telephone interview. "It's completely wrong. When you eat a high carbohydrate diet, especially a processed foods diet, you're getting way too much fuel compared to all those other things you need. And this imbalance is what leads to the obesity profile."

For comparison's sake, eight ounces of milk provides about 150 calories, along with calcium, magnesium, vitamins A and D, protein, fatty acids, and many other nutrients (largely dependent on what the cows ate and the quality of the milk with organic and grass-fed being the most nutritious). An eight-ounce can of Coke with 100 calories provides virtually no nutrients (the label reads: Not a significant source of fat calories, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron), but it does contain 27 grams of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Seneff said that she blames the soda industry in particular because this is where children are consuming large amounts of sugar. "If we did just one simple thing and had school children switch from drinking Coke to drinking whole milk this would have a huge difference," she said.

Unfortunately, this will never be simple in part because the American Beverage Association lobbies hard to prevent any type of regulation for soda or for marketing it to children. In addition, the USDA's MyPlate recommends low-fat and fat-free milks, which is what's served in school cafeterias across the country. Seneff emphasized the importance of whole milk versus low-fat and fat-free milk because she believes the emphasis on low-fat foods in the American diet is largely responsible for our obesity epidemic, among other illnesses. "Children in particular need the fat desperately to develop their brains," she said. "And this is why we have ADHD and autism. I think these problems are very much a consequence of our obsession with a low-fat diet."

But it's not just brains that suffer as a result of our low-fat diet, Seneff says, and she is not the first to attribute our low-fat diet to our increasing obesity rates. The science writer Gary Taubes has been saying so for more than a decade. The stigma against fats, particularly saturated fats, appears to be waning (I wrote about this last year here).

Seneff believes the major factors contributing to obesity are a deficiency in consuming fats, particularly animal fats and all of the nutrients that come with those fats; our overly-processed food diet (and specifically our consumption of HFCS); and our lack of exposure to sunlight. What's more, according to her research, all three of these components amount to the perfect storm of metabolic dysfunction.

Carbohydrates and sugars in our diets compound the problem of our cell's inability to digest and regulate the amount of sugar in our blood. "The key problem is the highly processed foods Americans eat, which have enormous amounts of carbohydrates, and carbohydrates that are already partially digested so that they move into the blood very quickly as sugar," Seneff said.

Seneff is working on a new theory that isolates one nutrient deficiency in particular that manifests as a result of the Standard American Diet. "In my studies, sulfate deficiency is everywhere," she said. She believes this is at the root of many modern diseases as well as obesity. Where is sulfur found? In foods that are also high in cholesterol, like animal proteins and fish. Certain vegetables, like broccoli, cauliflower, garlic, and onions, are also high in sulfate but as Seneff points out, these are often deficient in sulfate and other nutrients as a result of poor soil management and degradation of soil quality.

Finally, Seneff is concerned with our lack of exposure to sunlight, which coincidentally also produces cholesterol sulfate in our bodies. "It's specifically a deficiency in sunlight exposure to the skin, which is much more than just taking a vitamin D supplement," she said. "Cholesterol sulfate and vitamin D sulfate are both synthesized in the skin in exposure to sunlight, which is a wonderful way to deliver sulfate and cholesterol to all the tissues. Really, most Americans suffer from a cholesterol deficiency problem rather than a cholesterol excess problem but it's demonized everywhere and it's the exact wrong message."

Another widely disseminated message from the food industry -- it's all about personal responsibility -- appears rather faulty when we look at the findings from the study of obese preschoolers. Taylor, the lead researcher in the study, said that regulation had to be part of the answer. "There hasn't been a massive decrease in the willpower of 2-year-olds," she said in a recent article. Instead, as the studies have found, it is about the poor quality of highly processed foods.

The study of the homeless in Boston confirms the fact that one can be food insecure while consuming an abundance of calories that lead to obesity. In fact, the term food insecure was coined to indicate that many people now experience access to plenty of calories but a dearth in real nutrition.

If these two studies and Seneff's new research are any indication, it may not be long before the food industry will be proven wrong: All calories are not created equal, nor is it all about personal responsibility. Until then, pressuring Big Food to properly regulate and label foods might be the only way to curb our nation's addiction to cheap, nutritionally void products. But time is of the essence -- by current estimates one in three Americans will be diabetic by 2050 if things don't drastically change.

A version of this post appeared on Civil Eats]]> Downsizing Soda: A Drop in the Bucket tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1570424 2012-06-05T12:52:31-04:00 2012-08-05T05:12:28-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ plan to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces ranges from praise for taking on "America's expanding waistline" to deriding him as a "nanny" for infringing on our personal choices and freedoms. But what's largely missing from the debate is a real critique of the true villain in this battle -- Big Food.

Those who favored the decision heralded Bloomberg: The Washington Post, in an editorial, writes, "The country need [sic] innovative leaders with a similar determination to take on America's expanding waistline." Frank Bruni writes in The New York Times, "Cry all you want about a nanny state, but as a city and a nation we've gorged and guzzled past the point where a gentle nudge toward roughage suffices. We need a weight watcher willing to mete out some stricter discipline."

Those who feel our ability to buy a 32-ounce container of Coca-Cola has become the stand-in for civil liberties, such as the Center for Consumer Freedom, placed an ad in New York City newspapers, featuring Bloomberg as a "nanny" with a tagline that reads: "You only thought you lived in the land of the free." Jon Stewart did a bit last Thursday lamenting the fact that he agreed with Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who said Bloomberg was taking away our personal freedoms. And a New York Times editorial claimed the mayor was overreaching, writing: "[T]oo much nannying with a ban might well cause people to tune out."

In the meantime, Big Food still has free reign to produce and market harmful products with virtually no regulation or oversight. So far, the government has been incredibly weak on regulating food producers and advertisements. Last year, the Obama administration proposed voluntary guidelines for the types of food advertised to children. The guidelines were extremely modest, allowing for two-thirds of processed foods to remain unchanged and placing mostly insignificant caps on the allowance of sugar, fat, and sodium in products marketed to kids. Even these voluntary guidelines were called "unworkable and unrealistic" by one prominent industry group.

This is not the case in Europe. In 2007, the French government ordered all food advertisements to carry warning labels telling consumers to stop snacking, exercise, and eat more fruits and vegetables. These warning labels are found in advertisements on television, radio, billboards, and the Internet for all processed, sweetened or salted food and drinks. Other European countries have taken similar measures. In Sweden and Norway, all food and beverage advertising to children is forbidden. In Ireland, there is a ban on TV ads for candy and fast food and the ban prohibits using celebrities and sports stars to promote junk food to kids. According to Pamela Druckerman, author of Bringing Up Bebe, snacking is generally discouraged in France and children eat three meals a day with one small snack around 4:00 in the afternoon.

Regulations like those in Europe are the kind that could help to encourage new cultural norms around food in this country -- and they don't target the consumer by banning or taxing particular food; rather, they force corporations to label their unhealthy products and abide by advertising regulation.

Professor and author of Weighing In, Julie Guthman, had this to say about the ban in an email: "Ultimately, I would prefer to see regulation at the point of production. If we as a polity think that sugary drinks are detrimental to public health, we shouldn't allow them to be produced." This would surely be a more radical solution since it would place the burden on the corporations rather than the consumer. Guthman said the ban is a better idea than a soda tax because, "A regressive soda tax punishes those who have the least ability to pay." But she's weary of the ban since it still targets consumers and "focuses on the size of the drink which would seem to suggest that individual consumers can't make good decisions. That is terribly paternalistic."

The idea of a super-size soda ban is a broader variation of Bloomberg's proposed plan last year to disallow the purchase of soda with food stamps. Critics of this initiative felt it was also paternalistic and stigmatized the poor who would not be able shop like other consumers. The difference with the current soda ban is that all New Yorkers would be affected and it is here that the ban may potentially bring benefit by creating new cultural norms around food and beverage choice.

A 2010 study completed by the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that the barrage of fast food advertising makes kids think processed, junk foods are "normal and expected." The same can surely be said for the increase in portion sizes. As long it is "normal" and culturally accepted to drink a 20-, 32- or 64-ounce soda along with that burger and fries, people will continue to do so.

As Ronald Bayer, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia put it in The New York Times, "The behaviors that harm our collective health are not, by and large, the result of bad or foolish individual choices. These 'bad habits' are shaped by our culture, social arrangements and commercial interests."

Ultimately, this ban may prove ineffectual since consumers will still be able to buy the equivalent of the larger size sodas in other ways, like buying two bottles or going to restaurants where refills are free. And of course, sodas are not the only problem when it comes to our unhealthful diets.

Mayor Bloomberg is brave to go head-to-head with Big Food by limiting portion size and trying to create a new norm, but this tactic might further distract from the underlying problem of our virtually unregulated toxic and super-sized food supply. If nothing else, the proposed ban highlights the deeply complex and troubling conundrum that our current food system presents. Something clearly must be done -- it just seems that regulating and curtailing the powers of Big Food would be a better place to focus our attention rather than merely capping the portion size for one of many sugary, addictive, non-nutritious substances at our never-ending disposal.

The post originally appeared on Civil Eats]]> Limbaugh: Liberals Want to Control Your Food! tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1328427 2012-03-08T17:34:56-05:00 2012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ lashing out at yet another "overeducated and single" woman, but this time it's Tracie McMillan, an author (he calls her an "authorette") who recently published, The American Way of Eating. In her book, McMillan goes undercover for a year at Walmart, Applebee's, and works in the fields harvesting garlic, grapes, and peaches to look at our food systems from the bottom up. She ends up advocating for a more equitable food system that allows everyone equal access to good, fresh, healthy food. Limbaugh read the review of her book in the New York Times on his show Tuesday and declared that he's just discovered the liberal elites' next target: food justice. Limbaugh said:

Google 'food justice.' You think it's a new term? Google it! You get 1,810,000 hits. This is happening right in front of us for years, this kind of thing. Food is the next front in the left-wing war on the private sector. 'Food justice,' mark my words, will soon be joining the term 'social justice.' It will be appearing in news stories.


Limbaugh's a little late to the game on this one, the term food justice is hardly news and he joins an already long line of conservatives who criticize any attempt to reign in Big Food. Most famously, there's Sarah Palin, calling out "nanny state" as Michelle Obama attempts to bring healthier foods into our schools and greater attention to the health and nutrition of American children.

Limbaugh's latest rant against McMillan fits right in with the way many other conservatives are intent on defending the American right to eat corporate, processed, and unhealthy food. I wrote about this last year on Grist and called this line of reasoning the American Fast Food Syndrome:

There's some perverse logic at work here, and it strikes me as vaguely similar to 'Stockholm syndrome' -- a paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express adulation and positive feelings towards their captors. While Americans are not experiencing a physical captivity, they are deeply mired in a psychological condition in which they're captive to industrial food products and the corresponding ideologies that are ultimately harming them. Call it the American Fast Food Syndrome.


I would argue that the advertising agencies that work hand-in-hand with the big players of industrial food should take much of the blame for this change. Within the span of three short generations, Americans have come to accept industrial food as their mainstay -- not only have they accepted it, they defend it like they'd defend the American flag as a symbol of their patriotism and allegiance to the 'real' America.


The amazing thing about what Limbaugh purports is that he'd have his listeners believe that liberals are trying to control our food systems -- that liberals are trying to take away Americans' freedom to eat what they want. He says:

Everything about it is deceit. Everything about it is a trick designed to get you to give up your freedom because you get angry when you hear that Walmart's screwing you or Applebee's or the Big Oil companies or whoever. And who gets to ride in and save the day? Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, whoever, on a white horse.


It's not hard to see what Limbaugh stands to gain by defending these corporations, but what about the average American who has nothing to gain financially and a lot to lose in terms of health and real options when it comes to food choice?

Maybe Limbaugh is so irritated by someone like McMillan because she's an affront to the natural order of things. Rather than be married (he remarks on her being single several times) and at home dutifully preparing dinner, she's out in the world reporting on the inequities in our food systems. The irony is that part of what McMillan shows in her book is that the nature of our food systems makes it increasingly difficult for anyone, man or woman, to prepare a healthy dinner at home.

In fact, the food issue is so emotionally charged because many people still view household duties -- like cooking -- as the domain of women. And to someone like Limbaugh, "overeducated single women" have no place criticizing the food industry. I suppose they should be at home tearing open a microwaveable dinner that they bought at Walmart or picking up dinner for their families at the local Applebee's?

But who really controls our food? It's certainly not the government as Limbaugh suggests is looming in our near future -- and it's definitely not the people. In 19th century America, 90 percent of the population was involved in food production -- either by farming or growing their own foods in home gardens -- now that number is near two percent. So who's doing all that work now? Large scale industrial farmers and the corporations behind them. Isn't this the real assault on our freedoms? Shouldn't we want more diversity in our food supply rather than less?

Freedom from the tyranny of the few is supposed to be the foundation of our democratic nation. As it stands now, just a handful of corporations control our food supply. Who is Limbaugh kidding? Why should we defend these corporations who do not have our best interests in mind? Limbaugh can continue to do so at his own peril but Americans need to wake up and see behind the real trickery at work -- and it's not coming from the liberal elite with some conspiracy in mind for Big Government to come in and socialize our food system. The real trickery and affront to our freedoms sits in the hands of the corporations that control our food supply and have duped people like Limbaugh into doing the dirty work of defending them. ]]> Paula Deen: From Big Food to Big Pharma tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1220459 2012-01-23T15:55:16-05:00 2012-03-24T05:12:01-04:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/ admission that she has Type 2 diabetes and her follow-up announcement that she is also a paid spokesperson for the pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, and its diabetes drug, Victoza, has sparked an interesting debate about the deeper issues surrounding our food system--especially the impact it has on the many people diagnosed with diabetes. And according to Deen's comments on the Today show, she implies to her millions of fans, that the primary ways to deal with this largely diet-related disease are through personal responsibility and pharmaceuticals.

Indeed, when Al Roker, asks her if she is going to change the way she eats and the foods she cooks, Deen says, "Honey, I'm your cook, I'm not your doctor. You are going to have to be responsible for yourself." Evading the question, Deen puts the onus back on the individual to decide what foods to eat or not, despite the fact that she promotes unhealthful and processed foods on TV. The one comment she does make about food choice is "moderation," one of the most meaningless and confusing bits of nutrition advice. In fact, this is what the industry giants often use as their defense for harmful, unhealthful foods.

Personal responsibility and consumer choice are solutions heralded by conservatives and liberals alike--the idea being that ultimately good health comes down to what we choose to buy and eat. But it's not that simple.

There are three main issues when it comes to the myth of personal responsibility about food choice and they get at the root of our nation's health crisis: The public's confusion about nutrition; the lack of time and knowledge when it comes to real home cooking; and the promotion of quick fixes like drugs, diet foods, and fads in lieu of addressing underlying causes. The Paula Deen diabetes story manages to hit on every single one of these issues.

Americans suffer from nutrition confusion, thanks to an array of conflicting and often inaccurate public health messages, misleading labels and claims on packaging, and a lack of nutrition knowledge by many doctors, dietitians, and other health care providers.

Deen's cooking, and now her public diabetes announcement, only adds to this confusion. During the Today show interview she repeatedly mentions the amount of fat in her recipes, as do many in the media reporting on the story. "For 10 years, wielding slabs of cream cheese and mounds of mayonnaise," a New York Times article begins, "Paula Deen has become television's self-crowned queen of Southern cuisine."

But real, unprocessed cream cheese and mayonnaise are not the problem. The issue that mainstream media has largely overlooked is that Deen uses the processed, packaged versions of these foods, which are full of chemicals, additives and trans-fats. Actual home cooking would require whipping these foods up herself in her kitchen using real ingredients. And that is the real story behind Deen's diabetes diagnosis: Her health problems are largely due to her reliance on packaged, processed foods that are the foundation for many of her recipes.

Even though her cooking show is called Paula's Home Cooking, there's a lot going on in her kitchen that is as far removed from home cooking as you can get. Many of her recipes include "ingredients" like Krispy Kreme doughnuts, biscuit mixes, cans of mushroom soup, and sour-cream-and-onion flavored potato chips. This is processed food cooking, not home cooking.

Heaping the blame on all the "fat" she cooks with only serves to confuse the public further. A New York Daily News article also cites fat as one of the main culprits in Deen's cooking and her diet. But the most recent research indicates that when it comes to diabetes, fat is not the problem. The problem foods are sugar, refined white flour, chemical additives, artificial sweeteners and flavors, trans-fats, and the various other chemicals and additives found in the processed foods that abound in Deen's recipes.

Now Deen is pushing the idea that taking medicine is the real solution to diabetes. On the Today show, she says, "Here's what I want to get across to people, I want them to first start by going to their doctor and asking to be tested for diabetes. Get on a program that works for you. I'm amazed at the people out there that are aware they're diabetic but they're not taking their medicine."

According to Deen, the reason she waited three years to go public with her diagnosis was because she didn't have anything to give her fans. "I could have walked out and said, 'Hey ya'll, I have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.' I had nothing to give to my fellow friends out there. I wanted to bring something to the table when I came forward." So what is she bringing to the table? A sales pitch for a diabetes drug that costs $500 per month and has some seriously troubling side effects, including thyroid cancer, as Tom Philpott reports in Mother Jones.

Just think of the kind of influence she could have wielded had she come out with a new cooking show that focused on using fresh, real food ingredients that cut way back on sugar and refined carbohydrates. In fact, if she had done so and eaten this way for the past three years she might have reversed her own diabetes diagnosis.

But instead, Deen is getting paid to leave that task to a drug company. This isn't her first corporate sponsorship (here she peddles Smithfield ham) and I doubt it will be her last. Diabetic and diet foods can't be far behind in products she'll attach to her name.

Alas, we can't fairly discuss personal responsibility without taking into account the under-regulated advertising industry that pushes cheap, convenient, and processed foods on an overworked and cash-strapped population. Add to this the diminishing knowledge on how to shop for, cook, and prepare foods from scratch and we have a serious problem.

As Deen now joins the 25.8 million other Americans suffering with diabetes, she "brings to the table" the ideas of moderation, personal responsibility, and the drug Victoza as the solutions. She could do so much more with all the power she wields.

Anthony Bourdain put it squarely when he said of Deen, "If I were on at seven at night and loved by millions of people at every age, I would think twice before telling an already obese nation that it's OK to eat food that is killing us." And this was before her diabetes announcement. Bourdain has also said that Deen is the "worst, most dangerous person to America." He might have a point.

This article first appeared on Civil Eats]]> Pizza Is a Vegetable? Congress Defies Logic, Betrays Our Children tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1101433 2011-11-18T12:37:50-05:00 2012-01-18T05:12:01-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/
For this we can thank large food companies -- in this case ConAgra and Schwan -- which pressured Congress to comply with their financial interests. It simply doesn't suit the makers of frozen pizza, chicken nuggets and tater tots for schools to offer real food in the form of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Many conservative lawmakers are also insisting that the federal government shouldn't tell people what to eat. This is the same argument Sarah Palin used against Michelle Obama's Let's Move! campaign to the rallying cry, "nanny-state."

But the government clearly does not control the food Americans eat. Corporations do. In this case ConAgra and Schwan are quite literally determining what the vast majority of our school children will be fed in school cafeterias: A veritable chemical concoction made to look like pizza. These are the ingredients for the "traditional 4x6 school pizza" made by ConAgra:

CRUST: (Enriched wheat flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, soybean oil, dextrose, baking powder (sodium bicarbonate, sodium aluminum sulfate, cornstarch, monocalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate), yeasts (yeast, starch, sorbitan monostearate, ascorbic acid), salt, dough conditioners (wheat flour, salt, soy oil, L-cysteine, ascorbic acid, fungal enzyme), wheat gluten, soy flour).

SAUCE: (water, tomato paste (31 percent NTSS), pizza seasoning (salt, sugar, spices, dehydrated onion, guar and xanthan gum, garlic powder, potassium sorbate, citric acid, tricalcium phophate and soybean oil (prevent caking)), modified food starch). SHREDDED MOZZARELLA

CHEESE: (Pasteurized part skim milk, cheese cultures, salt, enzymes). SHREDDED MOZZARELLA

CHEESE SUBSTITUTE: (Water, oil (soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil with citric acid), casein, milk protein concentrate, modified food starch, contains 2 percent or less of the following: sodium aluminum phosphate, salt, lactic acid, mozzarella cheese type flavor (cheese (milk, culture, rennet, salt), milk solids, disodium phosphate), disodium phosphate, sorbic acid, nutrient blend (magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin and vitamin B-12), vitamin A palmitate).


It's not even pizza, much less a vegetable. (And if you think that's bad take a look at the ingredients for the "Pepperoni, Reduced Fat Pizza").

This vote by Congress makes it abundantly clear who calls the shots when it comes to feeding our nation's children. According to The New York Times food companies have spent $5.6 million lobbying against these new rules.

Meanwhile, writer Ed Bruske brings up an important, related point on The Slow Cook. He writes:

[This] also provides a vivid illustration of what happens when you go after the foods kids most love in the lunch line. Pizza is the all-time favorite school lunch food, followed by potatoes in all their guises. Essentially, the proposed new guidelines would sharply cut back on foods kids really like, and replace them with things they hate: vegetables, beans and whole grains. Turns out there are huge amounts of money at stake behind the foods beloved by the 32 million children who participate in the national school lunch program. Frozen food companies are protecting their share the best way they know how: using their clout with their local congressman.


He goes on:

Other efforts to mess with pizza also have failed. In Berkeley, for instance, elementary school children get a rectangular pizza made with a locally-produced whole wheat crust. Middle schoolers, however, insist on a round pizza, which has to be sourced through a wholesale food distributor ... As I've learned sitting in on meals at my daughter's school the past two years here in the District of Columbia, children will go to great lengths to avoid the foods adults consider "healthy." Vegetables, beans and whole grains -- they typically get dumped in the trash. Kids will spend inordinate time picking the spinach out of fresh-cooked lasagna, for instance, before wolfing down the pasta.


So, the real question is, why do children want pizza, potatoes and pasta while vehemently eschewing green vegetables, beans and whole grains? This hasn't always been the case. Keep in mind that industrial food as it exists today has only been around for roughly 60 years. Much of what we take as the truth about what kinds of food kids love and hate is largely dictated by the food industry itself. The idea that kids won't eat vegetables is a construct invented by the food industry and reinforced by well-meaning parents, school lunch programs and government officials.

Herein lies the brilliance of the food industry -- not only has it created a myriad of products but it also created the idea that children want industrial food products above all else. While most Americans have bought into this notion, it's simply not true. Children 100 years ago couldn't have possibly eaten the industrial foods they are eating today. But listening to parents and children now, you'd be convinced that they will only eat industrial foods. Bruske writes that the middle schoolers in Berkeley "insist" on round industrial pizza.

How was this notion started? The food industry literally shapes and changes the palates of our children. Constantly eating sugary, salty and fatty food products adjusts taste preference to the point that simple, real foods taste bland and unappealing. While the food industry insists that it only advertises to children "to influence brand preference," a study published in the journal Appetite found that the food industry works to, "fundamentally change children's taste palates to increase their liking of highly processed and less nutritious foods."

This makes it all the more outrageous that Congress won't stand up to Big Food to say it will not allow financial interests to trump the health and well-being of America's children. With one out of five four-year-olds now obese, the health of our nation's children is in such a sorry state that the food movement may have some unlikely allies on this front. According to the Associated Press, a group of retired generals criticized the move by Congress, calling the decision a national security issue since obesity has become the leading medical disqualifier for military service. Amy Dawson Taggart, the director of the group called Mission: Readiness said in a letter to members of Congress before the final plan was released, "We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program."

But this is what Congress has done. It has let the American people down and failed to protect our children. As Michele Simon astutely points out, "Congress has hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry's bidding." How much longer will we allow Big Food and our government to propagate lies about food and compromise the health of our nation's children for their financial and political gain?

Please join the movement and attend Occupy Big Food's rally this Saturday from 1 to 3 in Zuccotti Park.]]> The Truth About Turkey tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1088059 2011-11-15T11:59:53-05:00 2012-01-15T05:12:01-05:00 Kristin Wartman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/
But if Thanksgiving is truly about offering gratitude for what we have, it seems fitting to also be grateful to the turkey that many of us will eat for dinner. We ought to think about how that turkey lived before ending up on our tables. With that in mind, let's first take a look at the life of a turkey in an industrial farm.

Turkeys on factory farms are hatched in incubators mostly on large farms in the midwest or the south. A few days after hatching, turkeys have their upper beaks snipped off. Once the beak is removed, the turkey can no longer pick and choose what it wants to eat. In their natural environment, turkeys are omnivores. But in a factory farm, turkeys are fed a steady diet of corn-based grain feed laced with antibiotics.

Industrially produced turkeys spend their first three weeks of life crammed into a brooder with hundreds of other birds. In the fourth week, turkey chicks are moved from the brooder to a giant window-less room with 10,000 other turkeys where bright lights shine 24 hours a day. With the lights constantly blaring, natural sleeping, eating, and fertility patterns are completely disrupted and the turkeys are, for the most part, kept awake and eating non-stop. Turkeys have an instinct to roost, or to clutch something when they sleep, but on the floor of a crowded room there is no such opportunity. If this is starting to sound like torture to you, you're on the mark.

As a result of these unhealthy and crowded living conditions, farmers must feed the turkeys a constant supply of antibiotics. Pesticides are also widely used to inhibit the spread of disease. Antibiotics are also known to promote weight gain in farm animals and this connection is being made in humans now as well. In an effort to maximize the more profitable white breast meat, farmers have genetically selected and bred the white broad breasted turkey, which become so top heavy that they can no longer stand or reproduce and as a result, all industrial turkeys are created by artificial insemination. Turkeys are then brought to slaughter, often in a brutal way.

If that wasn't enough to make you reconsider your Butterball, there's more. Thanksgiving is also a time when we honor the abundance of the harvest represented by the bounty on our tables. But supporting a Big Turkey farm (or any factory farm) contributes to the devastation of our natural environment and imperils the safety of our food supply.

According to the USDA, factory-farmed animals in the U.S. produce 61 million tons of waste each year -- 130 times the volume of human waste. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that hog, chicken, and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. Polluted runoff from factory farms and other industrial farms is the biggest water pollution problem in the U.S., according to the EPA.

Human health is impacted in other ways by factory farming. Just this past August, Cargill announced a recall of 185,000 pounds of ground turkey due to Salmonella contamination. With recalls and food-borne illnesses on the rise as a result of conditions in factory farms, it seems wise to avoid these foods for that reason alone.

Factory farmed meat is also implicated in long-term health consequences. Resistance to antibiotics is now a growing concern among many in the medical field and it is largely due to the 29 million pounds administered to factory-raised animals every year. As it stands today, one out of six cases of Campylobacter infection, the most common cause of bacterial food poisoning, is resistant to the antibiotic most used to treat it. And nearly all strains of Staphylococcal infections have become resistant to penicillin, while many are developing resistance to newer drugs as well. Indeed, 80 percent of all antibiotics used in this country are used on factory-farmed animals according to an FDA report.

And finally, there is the nitty-gritty of nutritional value in these factory-farmed foods. Studies show that pastured-based meat and dairy are far more nutritious than their conventional counterparts. They are richer in antioxidants; including vitamins E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C and contain far more Omega-3 fatty acids. Turkeys that are raised on grass and allowed to roam around and practice normal turkey behavior are healthier, safer to eat, good for the environment, and get to live a happy life. Our best option is to eat high quality meat and a lot less of it.

So in the spirit of Thanksgiving, let's be grateful to the turkey that we're eating and opt out of supporting a system of abuse and environmental destruction. Eat a pasture-raised turkey or make a vegetarian alternative for this year's Thanksgiving feast.

Eat Wild is a valuable resource for pasture-raised meat and animal products. Brooklyn Based also lists pasture-raised turkeys available for sale in New York City. Slow Food USA has information and resources for heritage breed turkeys. Meatless Monday offers 10 tips for cooking a meatless Thanksgiving.

A petition has been created by Occupy Big Food to tell Butterball -- the number one producer of turkeys in America -- that Americans are no longer going to purchase turkeys that are inhumanely treated, or support a factory-farm system that creates dire environmental and health consequences. Please go to Occupy Big Food for more information and sign the petition here.

Originally posted on Civil Eats.]]>