Archive for the ‘Nutrition’ Category

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!

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!

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.

11 Jul

Food Stamps: Did You Know?

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

One of my personal favorite food policy advocates, Michele Simon, recently released an in-depth report on food stamps. (There’s also an infographic.)  As someone who admittedly isn’t as well-versed as I should be in this part of the farm bill, I was eager to learn more. I was surprised by much of what I read.

Did you know that…food stamps represent the largest chunk of the farm bill?

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which cost $78 billion in 2011, represented 68% of the 2008 farm bill and currently makes up 80% of the $1 trillion farm bill that has been passed by the Senate. One in seven Americans are on food stamps, and nearly half of those are children. 

…food stamps are currently in danger?

The version of the farm bill that was passed in the Senate included a $4.5 billion reduction over ten years. The House of Representatives, meanwhile, wants a $16 billion cut. Many groups, including the Environmental Working Group, are outraged that the subsidies given to large farmers are remaining while these low-income benefits are decreasing.

…there are few restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps? (Though some states have tried.)

People on food stamps cannot use them to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or non-food items. But beyond that, there are no restrictions. The program was founded in 1964 to help those in need while also taking care of agricultural surpluses, which were at the time fruits and vegetables. I suppose that now the purpose of the program unintentionally remains the same, though our agricultural surpluses are now mainly corn, soy, and wheat—which are the backbones of unhealthy processed foods and sugary beverages.

Compare this program to WIC, which services low-income women who are pregnant and/or have children under five. According to their website, “WIC foods include infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish. Soy-based beverages, tofu, fruits and vegetables, baby foods, whole-wheat bread, and other whole-grain options were recently added to better meet the nutritional needs of WIC participants.” Why do we care about the health of these populations but not the general population?

At least nine states, most publicly New York, have attempted to place restrictions on these purchases. In 2010, they asked for a waiver from the UDSA to try restrictions for two years. Simon argues (and I agree) that states should be given the freedom to experiment with what foods are included.

…there is very little transparency?

There is no public data available on how SNAP dollars are spent. The data is out there since retailers can easily track what people buy with food stamps, but it’s not available. Farm subsidy information is public, so why isn’t this information? There’s even a specific SNAP education program, but how can they effective education people if we don’t know what they’re purchasing? And as Simon says (completely unintentional pun),  “Why should only private entities with financial interest in SNAP have access to information that significantly impacts public health?”

…powerful industries benefit from SNAP?

The biggest industries that benefit from SNAP are major grocery stores (10% of all grocery store purchases are made with SNAP dollars), big food manufacturers (who undoubtedly profit from what is being bought), and most surprisingly, banks. Yes, banks. States set up contracts with banks in order to administer food stamps through EBT (electronic benefit transfer), in which people have their benefits transferred to a card that can be easily used at places that accept food stamps. According to the USDA, administrative costs of EBT for SNAP totaled $314 million in 2010. Those costs are split between USDA and the states.

J.P. Morgan, which is the bank of choice for these contracts in half of the states, has a five-year, $83 million contract in Florida and a seven-year, $126 million contract in New York. Both contracts are expected to far exceed the initial predicted amounts.

…there’s a bill in Congress to address these issues?

Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, introduced the Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health Act in 2011. The FRESH Act would “authorize pilot programs that will assist SNAP beneficiaries in meeting federal nutrition guidelines and promote innovative local projects” and “require retail stores with gross annual SNAP sales in excess of $1 million to report food purchased by program recipients to the Department of Agriculture.” The bill has been introduced but has not yet made it to the committee stage.

I highly recommend reading the original report (you can read Simon’s recommendations on p. 23) or the articles from some of the various news agencies that have picked up this story (including Reuters, Time, and the San Francisco Chronicle).

9 Jul

Should the Food Industry be Regulated?

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

As part of the PLOS Medicine series on Big Food, Kelly Brownell from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity recently wrote a piece on the regulation that’s necessary within the food industry.

Brownell says that “when the history of the world’s attempt to address obesity is written, the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry.” Up until now, the public health sector and the big food industries have been “working together,” and the food manufacturers consistently throw out measures that are intended to appease, including big donations to health care facilities and the production of healthier processed foods.

The food industry “has been in high gear, making promises to behave better, but their minor progress creates an impression of change while larger attempts to subvert the agenda carry on.” These food manufacturers are failing marketing initiatives, continuing to increase serving sizes, and creating an endless stream of sugary beverages (vitamin waters, really?).

Brownell says it best: “The obesity problem has industry’s attention, and they are doing things. The question is whether these things are meaningful or are the predictable behavior of an industry under threat and are designed to stop rather than support public health efforts.” He argues that big food has no incentive to do what it needs to do (sell less processed food) and instead of making small concessions and hoping that the food industry will come around, we should be regulating them just like we regulate other industries. I tend to agree with him and would love to hear his ideas for how specifically we should start regulating.

However, there are other groups approaching this issue from the other side. The American Medical Association voted recently to promote taxation of sugary beverages. According to the AMA, sugary beverages account for half of our intake of added sugars, and “a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks would lower obesity rates by 5 percent and would save $17 billion in medical costs over 10 years.” (I’ve also previously posted about soda taxes.) Some countries even have fat taxes.

Which approach do you agree with? Perhaps some of both? I would love to hear what you think!

29 Jan

School Lunch Progress?

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

The food policy world was abuzz this week over the sweeping school lunch changes ushered in by the USDA. First Lady Michelle Obama did the announcing herself, along with celebrity chef Rachael Ray and others, at a Virginia school. These guidelines, which represent the most significant changes in 15 years, are a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Here’s a quick recap:

  • Fruits and vegetables will be offered every day.
  • All milk must be fat-free or low-fat (and all flavored milk must be fat-free).
  • Sodium, saturated fats, and trans fats will be reduced according to specific guidelines.
  • Upon the implementation of these guidelines, July 1 of this year, half of the grains must be whole-grain rich. By July 1, 2014, all grains must be whole-grain rich.
  • There is a set caloric minimum and maximum depending on the age of the child.

Overall, I think these changes are a fantastic step forward and have been a long time coming. Considering that 17% of American children are obese, healthier options are a necessity. Here are some more specific thoughts:

  • These changes are science-based. They come from 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, and it’s quite encouraging to see school meals actually represent nutritional science. Thumbs up
  • However, there are still some visible impacts of food manufacturers and their lobbying strength. The frozen food manufacturers successfully fought to maintain the quantity of tomato sauce need to qualify a product as a vegetable (which set off the “pizza is a vegetable” debate). The IOM recommendations also initially set a limit on the amount of starchy vegetables that should be offered. Thanks to the potato industry (and congressmen who represent potato-heavy districts), this was outvoted. Thumbs down
  • The required offerings of fruit and vegetables has nearly doubled, from 1/2 to 3/4 cup of fruit and vegetables per day to 3/4 – 1 cup of vegetables plus 1/2 – 1 cup of fruit per day. There are also specific quotas for vegetable subgroups (i.e. dark green, red/orange, starchy). This is fantastic considering that only 1% of American adolescents eat the recommended amount of produce servings (insert the Occupy Wall Street joke of your choice here). Thumbs up
  • Previously, the nutrition standards said simply to reduce the amount of sodium. Now there are specific targets with implementation dates. Thumbs up
  • Trans fat can be tricky. Due to nutritional labeling laws, it doesn’t have to be listed on the nutritional facts panel unless there are at least 0.5 grams per serving. The truth lies in the ingredients list, where it is listed as partially hydrogenated oil. Previously, there was no limit on trans fat. The new standard requires zero grams per serving on the nutritional label. Wish it could have said “no partially hydrogenated oil.” Progress
  • Flavored milk is now required to be fat-free, but it’s still allowed. Expect a future blog post to come about my thoughts on this one. Progress
  • Bettina of The Lunch Tray made a fantastic point, and I’d like to repeat it. Schools used to have the choice of following a system based on foods or on nutrients. For example, schools could serve inferior food (such as super-sugary cereal) if it contributed to nutrient standards because of the vitamins with which the cereal was fortified. (This is a perfect example of the “nutritionism” that Michael Pollan explains and denounces so well in In Defense of Food.) Now the nutrient system is no longer an option. Thumbs up
  • The standards for whole grains are a little ambiguous. Perhaps I need to look harder, but I have not yet found a definition for “whole-grain rich.” To me that sounds just different enough from “100% whole grain” to question it. If I find a clearer definition I’ll mention it, but at least whole grains are being addressed. Progress

For more information, check out this comparison of sample old and new menus, the implementation timeline, and a comparison of old and new guidelines.

Sources:

24 Jan

3 Things Paula Deen Could Have Done

Posted by Meghan in Food Policy, Nutrition.

Most people have heard the news about Paula Deen, the TV food queen infamous for her fattening recipes. Last week she revealed that she has Type II diabetes. Considering the type of food that she promotes and teaches her viewers how to cook, many have connected the link between her diet and this recent diagnosis. It’s impossible to truly know how the foods she ate  compared to her genetic disposition for the disease, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that her affinity for sweet tea and butter wasn’t helping her out.

At the same time Paula revealed her diagnosis, she announced her new partnership with Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical company that sells diabetes drugs. While I’m sure this deal is lucrative for her, here are a few other ideas she could have explored to promote the prevention of the disease rather than the treatment of it.

  1. School lunches. Type II diabetes used to be called “adult-onset” diabetes because it only showed up in older adults. Now, however, even children are being diagnosed with type II diabetes because of the increasing childhood obesity problem. Paula could have put her efforts behind an organization dedicated to helping children. The Farm to School program connects schools to local farms in order to provide healthy food for kids in schools, and the FoodCorps provide nutrition education and build gardens in schools. Both of these groups provide children with the resources necessary to create a healthy relationship with food, make good choices, and have the ability to stave off conditions such as diabetes later in life.
  2. New recipes. Paula waited three years after her diagnosis to announce it to the public. I’m sure her marketing and PR team needed the time to formulate their plan and secure her pharmaceutical sponsorship, but she could have used that time to create some new healthier recipes. Announcing her diabetes diagnosis with the promise of a new diabetes-friendly cookbook would have been a good suggestion. Her son Bobby recently premiered a new show on the Cooking Channel called Not My Mama’s Meals, in which he tries to make his mother’s meals a little healthier. It’s a creative idea, but it would have been great had he done the show along with his mother and premiered it on the more widely available Food Network.
  3. Exercise. Paula could have lent her fame to an organization that promotes physical activity, such as the YMCA or Let’s Move (Michelle Obama’s initiative). There is also a need to promote the benefits of exercise among the elderly and since a lack of exercise is a major risk factor for type II diabetes, that would have been an equally worthy cause to support.

Bottom line: Paula Deen is a celebrity figure with a loyal fan base. I wish she could have used her influence to focus on the prevention of diabetes through healthy habits instead of the treatment of it.

17 Jan

Is “All-Natural” All BS?

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

Frito-Lay is being sued for “misleading customers” with “all-natural” claims on some of its Tostitos and SunChips products. The class-action lawsuit says that customers would not ordinarily perceive genetically modified oils to be classified as all-natural. Setting aside the entire idea of GMOs (which will be another topic for another day), I think this case is another piece of evidence that the government needs to make some decisions about what the all-natural term means.

As anyone who has ever walked the interior aisles of the grocery store knows, splashed everywhere is the claim “all-natural,” often paired with serene images, rustic typefaces, earthy colors, and/or the term “artisan.”And when such a product is sitting on the shelf next to a generic-looking store brand package, it’s only natural (pun intended) to reach for the one that appears to be minimally processed.

So what’s the problem?

In the U.S., the term “natural” has no true regulated meaning.* According to the FDA, natural “means the product does not contain synthetic or artificial ingredients.” But there are definitely gray areas. Case in point: GMOs, which many people believe to be artificial and unnatural. The FDA apparently does not share that belief. So why not expand the USDA’s definition of natural (currently constrained to meat and poultry)? Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d say: I agree with the Sugar Association. They sent a request to the FDA in 2007 advocating for that very idea.

The precedent is certainly there. In the UK, the term natural is regulated by the Food Standards Agency: “‘Natural’ means essentially that the product is comprised of natural ingredients, e.g. ingredients produced by nature, not the work of man or interfered with by man. It is misleading to use the term to describe foods or ingredients that employ chemicals to change their composition or comprise the products of new technologies, including additives and flavourings that are the product of the chemical industry or extracted by chemical processes.” And here in the U.S., the USDA places strict regulations on the term “organic.”

Lastly, it’s important to mention that “all-natural” does not necessarily mean “all-healthy.” Sugar is natural, animal fat is natural, and even recreational drugs are natural. But more strictly regulating the word would at least restrict the usage of the term to cases in which it is appropriate.

 

*The exception is with meat and poultry. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service states that a product can be labeled as natural if it is “a product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).”

31 Dec

Would a Soda Tax Work in the U.S.?

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

On Wednesday, France passed a measure to tax sodas one euro cent per container. The tax was enacted in order to raise money for the government and hopes to garner $156 million in revenue.

Would such a tax ever work in the United States? Many states have some kind of tax on soft drinks, but those taxes cover solely sugar-sweetened sodas and the revenue isn’t usually directed toward health measures.

Many eschew this idea because enacting such a measure probably would not deter too many people from purchasing and consuming sugary drinks (some research suggests that this type of tax would result in an average weight loss of 1.3 pounds or 3.8 pounds). But because the revenue created from the tax could be used for health-related purposes like nutrition education in schools, farmers’ markets, marketing for healthier foods, and subsidies for farmers that grow produce, there could be enormous benefits to these taxes.

Soda is the obvious target for this type of tax because it has been directly linked to obesity and diabetes. However, the impact of these taxes could be increased by increasing their application to all sugar-sweetened beverages, including fruit drinks, Gatorade, vitamin waters, etc. This infographic from Discovery offers a great comparison between soda and fruit drinks.

It would also be worthy to include diet sodas in such a tax because they are so prevalent, though it would be more difficult for those beverages to fall under the tax umbrella due to their lack of calories and sugar.

31 Dec

Food System Problem #1: Local Food

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

Our diets used to reflect the seasons: fresh asparagus in the spring, abundant zucchini in the summer, tart apples in the fall, and long-lasting root vegetables in the winter. But now with the practice of transporting produce, you can find mushy, flavorless tomatoes (along with any other fruit or vegetable) on the grocery store shelves all year long. In fact, the United States is a net importer of fruits and vegetables.

What are the benefits of eating locally?

  1. Buying produce with fewer “food miles” (the distance food is transported from producer to consumer) helps the environment by reducing pollution levels. Taking a look around the produce section of your grocery store is good geography practice for kids, but it also represents an alarming total of carbon emissions.
  2. Local food tends to be healthier. Certain nutrients degrade over time, so getting fresher food ensures you’re getting all the bang for your buck. A study from UC Davis found that levels of vitamin C and some B vitamins begin to decrease immediately after harvest.
  3. Local food boosts the economy (by creating jobs and keeping more money within the community) and supports local farmers. According to Kathleen Merrigan of the USDA, "Studies show that farmers who sell locally and regionally employ 13 full-time workers per $1 million revenue earned. Farmers who don’t sell locally or regionally employ three workers for every $1 million in revenue earned." And by taking out a portion of the costs for transportation, packaging, and processing, more money goes to local farmers so they can supply more markets and more people with fresh food.

There are positive signs regarding the investment into local food on a national level. First of all, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as food stamps, can now be used at farmers’ markets, and that practice is growing in popularity. This is a great step forward, since those who are economically disadvantaged can have a tough time meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations due to accessibility and cost. There’s also the Farm to School program, which links farms to local schools in an effort to increase the quality of school lunches.

But what else can be done? CSA (community supported agriculture) groups and farmers’ markets would benefit from more promotion. Communities need to recognize the benefits of these groups and devote more resources to them. And according to the USDA, the U.S. would have to double the acreage currently devoted to fruits and vegetables in order for everyone to meet the recommended daily requirements. Perhaps some of the land devoted to corn (the U.S. is the world’s largest producer, and most of it is either used as feed for livestock or highly processed into unhealthy food) would be better used grow fruits and vegetables.

To read more, check out Barbara Kingslover’s  Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, which chronicles her family’s efforts to grow all of their own food for one year. It’s a fantastic book that’s worth the purchase if just for the passages on the mating patterns of turkeys.

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.