27 Jul

The Meatless Monday Debacle

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy, Nutrition. Tagged: , .

Meatless Monday(which I’ve spoken about before) has gotten quite a bit of unexpected press this week. On page three of an internal newsletter,  the USDA stated that “one simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ‘Meatless Monday’ initiative.” The paragraph went on to discuss several of the environmental benefits of eating less meat.

One would expect nothing to come from this 214-word “endorsement” of Meatless Monday, right?

Nope. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association released a strongly-worded statement titled “NCBA Question’s USDA’s Commitment to US Cattlemen.” (The incorrect apostrophe in there is theirs, not mine.) They refer to Meatless Monday as “an animal rights extremist campaign to ultimately end meat consumption” and say that the “USDA does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population.” The statement continues to say that this move “should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet” and “simply spout[ed] statistics and rhetoric generated by anti-animal agriculture organizations.” Lastly, NCBA President J.D. Alexander said that the “NCBA will not remain silent as USDA turns its back on cattlemen and consumers.” And according to AgWired, “This is animal activism in a government agency that should be supporting all of agriculture and it is unacceptable.”

First of all, I think we can all agree that the USDA mentioning Meatless Monday (intended to reduce consumption of meat on one day) does not mean that they’re “turning their back on cattlemen.” It was not widely publicized. There was no press release. The USDA did not drastically change their position of vigorously supporting the beef industry. They simply mentioned that their employees could consider taking a Meatless Monday and enjoy some of the non-meat items in their cafeteria. Meatless Monday is a campaign that’s active in 23 countries. Big companies like Toyota, dozens of hospitals and restaurants and schools, and a whole lot of other famous people use Meatless Monday.

So what did the USDA do? Hold strong to its original message against the force of the powerful beef lobby. No, of course not.

The USDA responded by tweeting: “USDA does not endorse Meatless Monday. Statement on USDA site posted w/o proper clearance. It has been removed.” (They tagged the American Farm Bureau in the tweet, which responded with “Thank you. Will share the info with concerned members.”) To quote Philip Bump on Grist, “Proper clearance presumably involves presenting internal newsletters to all major lobbying groups for sign-off before being issued internally.”

This whole debacle highlights a terrible problem with our food and food policy system. How is the USDA supposed to fulfill its often-contradicting goals of supporting all agriculture in this country and providing health information? I’d venture a guess that nearly all nutrition and environmental advocates would whole-heartedly agree that as a whole, we need to reduce our meat consumption. But the USDA can’t say the same thing.

When the 2010 Dietary Guidelines were in the works, many people hoped that “eat less meat” would be one of the key recommendations. But the Guidelines (published by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services) made no such mention. The best they could do was recommend that we “consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids,” “consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol,” and “reduce the intake of calories from solid fats.”

Since the UDSA cannot even “encourage” Meatless Monday in an internal newsletter without violent backlash from the industry, how can we expect them to recommend eating less meat in an official and very public document? And to extrapolate, how can we therefore expect them to provide unbiased scientific information about our health? There needs to be a division between the promotion of agriculture and the distribution of health information.

But there’s a silver lining: I’m glad Meatless Monday is getting so much press!

26 Jul

Thursday Topics

Posted by Meghan in Thursday Topics.

(Each Thursday I like to link to some of my favorite online pieces from the previous week.)

25 Jul

Recipe: Sautéed Tofu, Kale, and Mushrooms with Sweet Potato Fries

Posted by Meghan in Uncategorized.

Here’s another easy recipe idea I used last week. As I’ve said before, I try to structure my meals with vegetables (kale, mushrooms, sweet potato), protein (tofu), grains/carbohydrates (sweet potato), and a little fat (tofu and olive oil).

First, preheat your oven to 425*.

I used half a block of tofu for this recipe, which serves two. (You can press the tofu—wrapped in towels with something heavy on top—for about 30 minutes if you’d like.) I coated the pan with a little cooking spray and olive oil and heated it on medium-high. I cut the tofu into fairly small chunks and placed them in the pan in a single layer when the pan was fairly hot.

IMG_0741

While those are cooking (about 7-10 minutes), I got my sweet potato fries ready. I washed the medium-sized potato and cut away any really ugly parts but didn’t peel it. Sweet potatoes can be really strange shapes, so just hack away at it (safely!) until you get fry shapes. Once your oven’s preheated, put these in on the middle rack and give them a stir after 10-15 minutes, then they should be done 10-15 minutes after that. Be sure they don’t burn!

IMG_0742

After about 7-10 minutes the tofu should be done on one side and ready to flip. You certainly don’t want it to burn, but the cubes should be nice and brown.

IMG_0743

While the second side of the tofu is cooking, prep your mushrooms and kale. I used a handful of small mushrooms and a head of kale. Wash and chop into fairly small pieces—be sure to discard the stems of both the mushrooms and kale.

When the tofu is done, remove it from the pan and set it aside. Add the mushrooms (and a little more oil if the pan is looking really dry) and let them cook for 2-3 minutes, stirring frequently.

IMG_0744

Then add your kale and cook the mixture for another 3-4 minutes, stirring frequently.

IMG_0745

When the kale and mushrooms are done, add the tofu back in the pan and turn off the heat to let everything warm together. Season this mixture however you’d like: soy sauce, salt and pepper, sriracha, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

IMG_0746

Your sweet potato fries should be done by this point. These are great seasoned with any combination of salt, cinnamon, and cayenne. Or try any spice that you like!

IMG_0747

If you’d like more bulk to this, you could certainly serve the tofu-kale-mushroom mixture over a grain such as quinoa or brown rice.

20 Jul

Gimme Some Sugar, Part II

Posted by Meghan in Food Policy, Nutrition. Tagged: .

I wrote on Wednesday about the Rudd Center’s  report on kid’s cereal and advertising. Well, at least after 2015 we won’t be seeing any Froot Loops commercials on the Disney Channel.

Disney announced last month that anything advertised on its (child-focused) television channels, radio stations, and web sites will be held to new nutrition standards. You can see the (pleasingly specific) nutrition standards here. In addition to requirements for calories, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium, there are more wide-ranging standards such as breads must be whole-grain and no juices (except cranberry) can have added sugar.

Disney also introduced several other initiatives: they’re reducing sodium in the children’s meals sold at their theme parks, continuing to improve the food served there, creating new public service announcements intended to encourage healthy lifestyles, and debuting the “Mickey Check.” All products that meet Disney’s guidelines can display the Mickey Check.

Michelle Obama, who was present and spoke at the announcement, said that “with this new initiative, Disney is doing what no major media company has ever done before in the United States. And what I hope every company will do going forward when it comes to the ads they show and the food they sell they’re asking themselves one simple question: Is this good for our kids?” (You can view the full transcript of her remarks.)

Of course there are places where we could nitpick—the nutrition guidelines aren’t strict enough, the Mickey Check will cause more consumer confusion—but overall it’s wonderful to see such a huge company impose these relatively strict guidelines.

I also think it’s a great example for how regulation will have to be enacted. In 2009 Congress created the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, composed of members from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Federal Trade Commission. The group released voluntary guidelines (short version and long version) that required all foods marketed to children to have at least one nutritious food group (e.g. fruit, vegetable, legume) and meet guidelines for saturated fat, trans fat, added sugar, and sodium.

But these guidelines (that were, once again, voluntary) were protested vigorously by the advertising and food manufacturing industries. (Some even claimed that such guidelines would restrict free speech. Perhaps they missed the “voluntary” part.) The proposals have been postponed/rejected by Congress due to a required cost-benefit analysis, that actually shouldn’t be required because the guidelines are voluntary.

So perhaps our only chance for change is for companies like Disney to propose their own regulations. C’mon Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network!

19 Jul

Thursday Topics

Posted by Meghan in Uncategorized.

(Each Thursday I like to link to some of my favorite online pieces from the previous week.)

18 Jul

Gimme Some Sugar, Part I

Posted by Meghan in Nutrition. Tagged: .

Today I wanted to share the fantastic Cereal FACTS report by the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale. Researchers there recently published this thorough report on children’s cereal and the advertising that accompanies them. Here are some of the findings that I found interesting.

Nutrition

The researchers used a nutrition profiling system to develop a score for each cereal from 1-100, and the average score for children’s cereal was 43. (In comparison, the United Kingdom requires that a cereal have a score of 64 or above if it’s to be marketed to children.) The average children’s cereal has 33% sugar, 5% fiber, and 525 mg sodium.

There’s a very dim silver lining. Since the Rudd Center did this research previously in 2009, 45% of the cereals have reduced sodium, 32% reduced sugar, and 23% increased fiber. The average nutrition score also increased by three points. Maybe I’m too harsh, but I don’t really think that’s good enough. As the report says: “Despite improvements, the cereals advertised to children contain 57% more sugar, 52% less fiber, and 50% more sodium compared with adult-targeted cereals.”

I talked about health claims yesterday (cereals are among the worst offenders of slapping on health claims), and some of the research in this report shows why they can be so problematic. A survey found that parents misinterpret claims such as those regarding whole grains, fiber, vitamin D, and calcium. They believed that those products were more nutritious and as a result were more likely to buy them for their kids.

Advertising

From 2008 to 2011, total media spending for all children’s cereals increased from $197 million to $264 million, and spending on Spanish-language TV went from $26 million to $65 million. According to the report, “General Mills, Kellogg, and Post ran campaigns to promote the nutritional quality of children’s cereals—their least nutritious products—to parents.” Nine of the 10 cereals that appear on the “worst” list also show up on the top-ten list of those that are most frequently advertised.

Last year, kids ages 6 to 11 saw more than 700 TV ads for cereal, nearly half of which were only five brands: Honey Nut Cheerios, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Froot Loops, Reese’s Puffs, and Lucky Charms. Children see more advertising for cereal than for any other food product.

So why is this type of marketing specifically a problem?

  • The most obvious reason: these cereals are highly-processed and nutritiously-poor breakfast options for kids. We need to be providing (and advertising!) much healthier options that have less sugar and sodium and more fiber. Besides the negative health effects of all the added sugar, it’s training children’s taste buds to expect sugary food.
  • Children cannot resist advertising as readily as adults can. (And many adults cannot even resist advertising.) They’re much more susceptible to all of the tactics used by advertising companies: fun colors, games, and cartoon characters. Apple Jacks even has an app for smartphones.
  • By advertising these cereals so heavily to children, these companies are creating life-long customers—which is precisely their goal.

Coming Friday: part II about what’s being done to control this.

17 Jul

To-Do Tuesday: Food Label Claims

Posted by Meghan in To-Do Tuesday. Tagged: .

(Each Tuesday, I write about an actionable item that we can all use in order to live and eat green.)

We’re all familiar with the claims on food labels: “good source of fiber,” “low sodium,” “cholesterol-free.” First of all, I don’t really think that these “health” claims accurately indicate the healthfulness of a product. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

So what do they mean?

  • Nutrient content claims. These describe the particular nutrients that are in a food and are strictly regulated. If something is sugar-free, sodium-free, trans fat-free, etc. then it must have less than 0.5 grams of that particular nutrient. If it’s “reduced,” then it means that there is at least 25% less of that nutrient than in the reference food. (You can see a full list of definitions here.)
  • Health claims. A health claim describes some kind of relationship between the food—or a nutrient in the food—and a disease. They have to include may or might: “A diet low in sodium may reduce the risk of hypertension.” However, the food must provide at least 10% of the Daily Value for fiber, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C calcium, and/or iron. Also, a single serving of the food cannot contain more than 13 g of fat, 4 g of saturated fat, 60 mg of cholesterol, or 480 mg of sodium.

  • Structure-function claims. Last, these claims simply describe how a nutrient affects the body (“iron builds strong blood”) but they don’t many any implications about risk reduction.

But we really shouldn’t put too much thought into these health claims. Contrary to what’s logical, I’d be willing to bet that most of these products with health claims aren’t healthy at all. They tend to get slapped onto processed foods in order to give them the aura of health. Just because Fruit Loops are “made with whole grains” or “a good source of fiber” does not mean that they’re a quality food product. Companies will do whatever it takes to manipulate their food in order to add more flashy “health” marketing to the front of their packages. Many of them do so by reducing the serving size. As stated above, something can be declared “trans fat-free” if it has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat. Companies can easily skirt that rule by shrinking the serving size, which is why you sometimes see ludicrous serving sizes like “1/3 of a muffin.”

So next time you’re checking out the middle aisles of the grocery store—where all the processed food is located—look at how every single product has some kind of health claim on it. And then ignore those foods and head toward the fruits and vegetables, fish, grains in bulk, and legumes—none of which tend to carry health claims. Time to eat fewer nutrients and eat more food.

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.