My blog on food reform and physical activity advocacy has moved to my new consulting website:

Please join me there!

Nancy Huehnergarth
Nancy F. Huehnergarth Consulting
nancy@nfhconsulting.com
@nyshepa

Has Mayor Bloomberg Outsmarted the Beverage Industry?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a gutsy guy. Thwarted twice in his efforts to cut sugary drink consumption (the Mayor supported, unsuccessfully, a New York state tax on sugary drinks and a New York City proposal to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sugary beverages), Bloomberg has come up with a new, controversial plan. And this time, the deep-pocketed, politically powerful soda industry may not be able to derail the measure.

Bloomberg proposes to amend New York City Health Code to establish a maximum size of 16 ounces for sugary drinks offered or sold in restaurants, theaters, stadiums, delis and food carts. The proposal would apply to fountain drinks (including self-service cups) as well as to those sold in bottles or cans. Sugary drinks are defined in the proposal as beverages that have added sugar, contain less than 51% milk or milk substitute by volume and have more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces.

The Mayor's proposal to limit the size of sugary drinks is right on target. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the average size of a fast-food soda is six times larger than a soda 60 years ago. Studies have confirmed that sugary drinks are a big driver of the obesity epidemic because of the way our bodies process them. They are non-nutritious, fail to create a sensation of fullness and therefore can stealthily add hundreds of additional calories each day. Americans consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks according to a 2005 study in the Annual Review of Public Health. Numerous studies have linked sugary drink consumption with long-term weight gain as well as an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. In New York City, thousands of deaths each year and close to $4 billion in direct medical costs are due to obesity.

The soft drink industry is in a full-blown panic over this proposal because the measure requires only the approval of the New York City Board of Health. And whatayaknow, the board's chairman is New York City's health commissioner Thomas Farley, who strongly supports the measure, while all other board members are Bloomberg appointees. Unlike elected legislators dependent on campaign contributions and public opinion, the beverage industry's threats, manipulations and deep pockets will hold little sway over the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health.

Of course, history tells us that Big Beverage will fight tooth and nail to try to kill the portion cap. Already, some New York state politicians, who no doubt receive generous donations from the soft drink industry, are promising to introduce legislation that will prohibit Bloomberg's measure. You can be sure that there will be lawsuits and that industry will take to the airwaves to enlist the public in protesting the measure. In 2010, the American Beverage Association spent close to $13 million dollars in New York in a six-month period, lobbying against a proposed penny-per-ounce statewide soda tax. No expense was spared, from the brilliant anti-soda tax TV campaign (created by the agency that spawned the notorious Harry and Louise anti-healthcare reform ads in 1993), to soft-drink industry worker protests (while workers were on the clock and provided with lunch), to an industry-sponsored 'grass roots' coalition called 'New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes,' to PepsiCo's threat to move its Purchase, New York headquarters to Texas, if the measure passed. The no-holds barred campaign did the trick. State legislators caved and the measure died.

But this time around, Mayor Bloomberg has ensured that his sugary drink portion cap won't be so easy to kill. And it already has the country talking, initiating a national discussion about sugary drink portion sizes, obesity and how far government should go to protect the health of its citizens and the health of our fragile economy.

Cutting portion sizes to reduce food or drink consumption makes sense because research has consistently shown it works - far better than education or depending on "personal responsibility." As noted by Sarah Kiff in the Washington Post, a 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior found that movie patrons who were given a large, rather than a medium-sized container of two-week old popcorn, ate 34 percent more popcorn, even though it was stale. A recent study in Belgium, published in the May 2012 Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, found that children offered cookies split in half consumed 25 percent less than children offered the exact same amount of cookies served whole. Noted Cornell University researcher, Brian Wansink, PhD has suggested that not only do oversized portions create our consumption norms but that even people trained in nutrition underestimate the calories in large portion sizes.

Let's be realistic. Education alone has been a miserable failure, neither halting nor reversing the nation's deadly rate of obesity. Industry holds the upper hand, manipulating the amount of food and drink people consume through portion sizes and marketing, as well as setting consumption norms that are not compatible with healthy living. Anyone who believes they are capable of exercising personal responsibility for what they eat in the face of supersizing, industry marketing and hard-to-resist combinations of flavors and sensations that make certain less than nutritious foods/drinks irresistible, is fooling him/herself. Does anyone really think the soft drink industry spends billions yearly on marketing because it doesn't strongly influence consumer choice?

It takes a bold leader to introduce a controversial proposal like a soft drink portion cap - a measure that Mayor Bloomberg knew would not be popular with the public and would incite the wrath of fellow politicians and the powerful beverage industry. Consumers need more help than nutrition education and being told to take "personal responsibility" for making the right choices. Bloomberg has come up with a worthy plan that deserves to be implemented.

The Perfect Storm: How the Pink Slime Debacle Created Food System Change

Something remarkable happened recently in the world of food reform.

The pink slime debacle created the perfect storm of food system change, thanks to a combination of evocative language, consumer activism, arrogant industry behavior, viral social media, relentless mainstream media reporting and scientists willing to go on the record. In less than a month, the pink slime story - in essence, that the meat industry had been surreptitiously mixing a cheap filler into America's ground beef supply - managed to incite a massive grass roots uprising of angry, repulsed American consumers, who voted with their voices and their wallets, forcing major changes in both meat industry practices and USDA school lunch policy.

The people most responsible for this successful uprising - reporters David Knowles of The Daily and Jim Avila of ABC News, whistleblower Kit Foshee, former USDA microbiologists Gerald Zirnstein and Carl Custer, and blogger Bettina Elias Siegel whose change.org petition to ban pink slime in school food went viral, deserve our deepest gratitude. Collectively, they managed to accomplish in a few short weeks what the food reform movement has been hoping to do for years -- highlight a food system problem, incite consumer activism and create rapid, sustainable change in both policy and practice.

Inciting grass roots involvement in food system issues is critical - yet, until the pink slime debacle, consumer uprisings have mostly eluded the movement. Why did this issue and confluence of events create such a powerful consumer reaction? How can we incite more grass roots activism to support policies that will make our food system healthier and safer?

Some of the answers may lie in what we've learned from the perfect storm surrounding the pink slime issue. Here's my take on the lessons learned:

1. We need to engage consumers on the issues they care about if we want their attention. Many food reformers were quick to dismiss the Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) debacle because they felt it was the least of our worries when it comes to our broken food system. But pink slime clearly struck a nerve with consumers and that's reason enough to sit up and take notice. If we want grass roots support for improving our food system, we must be in tune with the issues that resonate with consumers. Whether you think pink slime was a critical food reform issue - or not - it's clear that consumers now have a new level of awareness of unsavory food industry practices and how industry doesn't hesitate to include unappetizing ingredients in America's food supply without informing the public. It was a powerful lesson for many consumers and one that will make them more open to new information about food industry misdeeds.
2. Language counts. The moniker "pink slime" clearly caught the public's attention and helped fuel the grass roots uprising. The food industry has known for decades how important language is in marketing their products. That's why they spend billions yearly naming and marketing food and drink, and wording dubious health claims. Food reformers need to use language to our advantage as well, crafting more carefully worded, evocative descriptions of unsavory ingredients and unhealthy industry practices.
3. Big Meat's arrogance helped turn public opinion against them. The meat industry's response to the pink slime debacle can be best summed up, as public health attorney Michele Simon put it, as "Shut up and eat your hamburger." Their damage-control campaign "Beef is beef," somehow manages to both insult consumers' intelligence and highlight industry arrogance by conjuring up images of workers tossing any part of the cow into the grinder. The meat industry has, inexplicably, never managed to grasp the obvious: consumers feel duped by industry and find LFTB unappetizing. Yet, rather than apologize, Big Meat seems to think they can bully the public into eating LFTB by insisting that the consumer is "misinformed" and ensuring us that LFTB is safe. Let's make sure that the American public remembers the arrogance.
4. Instead of preaching to the choir let's get our food reform messages out to a larger audience. The mainstream media, particularly television network news, brings food reform messages to a much broader audience. Jim Avila's excellent pink slime reports on ABC World News were key to inciting consumer outrage and activism. Food reformers should develop stronger relationships with mainstream network reporters and news shows.
5. Highlight how government, more often than not, seems to protect industry rather than the consumer. Many consumers were astonished that the government allowed LFTB to be added to ground beef without mention on the label. Why is it that the economic well-being of big industry often seems more important to the USDA than the consumer's right to know and make informed choices? This is a good question and one we should keep asking loudly and publicly.
6. We need a national grass roots network of concerned consumers willing to take frequent action on food reform and food safety issues. Nothing changes policy and practice faster than an outpouring of anger and disgust from consumers who also vote with their wallets. Bettina Elias Siegel's change.org petition proved that point on LFTB in school food. And consumer rejection of pink slime at the nation's grocery stores proved the point in the marketplace. Why haven't we yet developed a national grass roots network of consumer activists who can be counted on to speak out on a variety of food reform and food safety issues?
7. Social media can help level the playing field for food reformers. Food reformers will never be able to compete with Big Food or Big Ag's deep pockets, massive marketing campaigns, lobbying prowess, campaign donations or their ability to hire the best PR, messaging and marketing firms money can buy. But we can effectively use inexpensive social media techniques to reach a much broader and deeper audience.
8. Consumers despise being deceived, yet a deliberate lack of transparency appears to be a standard food industry business model. The beef industry clearly worked hard to hide the fact that inexpensive pink slime had been added to 70 percent of America's ground beef, no doubt fearing that consumers would be turned off. We all know that industry works overtime to ensure that other information is hidden from the consumer. From ag-gag bills to misleading/impossible to decipher ingredient names; to fraudulent or shaky health claims; to industry's attempt to derail front of package labeling; to food poisoning cases where the restaurant name is withheld indefinitely; we can do a better job of highlighting to a wide audience how Americans are being misled, duped, bamboozled and just plain lied to by the food industry, often with the help of government agencies.

My final "radical" takeaway is this. If food reformers ever hope to improve America's food system through policy change, we're going to have to become much more active in demanding and supporting campaign finance reform at the local, state and national level. Big Food and Big Ag's ability to use campaign donations and aggressive lobbying to influence legislators' votes and opinions has stalled important food policy all across the nation. It has also influenced government agency rulemaking and the regulatory process - as BPI's campaign contributions over the past decade have demonstrated.

The pink slime perfect storm was one of those rare and wonderful events where consumers were able to hear the truth before the big money industry spin machine could control the message. We won't see a food reform perfect storm again, any time soon, unless we learn to create our own.

Americans Have a Beef with Food System Transparency

The best summation I've heard of the pink slime debacle comes from blogger and petitioner Bettina Elias Siegel. The use of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) in ground beef," said Ms. Siegel, is "one of those practices that can thrive only in obscurity."

And therein lies the crux of the issue. At almost every turn, it seems, we find the food industry working to thwart food system transparency. From lobbying to exempt LFTB from labeling, to industry's fight against the labeling of genetically engineered foods; from gamesmanship designed to forestall or weaken FDA's long awaited front-of-package nutritional labeling system, to ag gag laws; from relentless lobbying to weaken the 2010 federal menu labeling law, to industry's refusal to label meat and dairy products that contain antibiotics and hormones, the food industry appears to be working overtime to hide information from the consumer. Public health attorney and author, Michele Simon likens the pink slime catastrophe to the Wizard of Oz - the curtain has been pulled back for all the world to see the reality behind this process. "A true free market assumes equal access to information," says Simon. "We are far from it when it comes to our food."

Not long ago, a certain level of transparency in our food system was expected, even demanded by the consumer. Older Americans can recall when beef was freshly ground at the butcher shop, in front of the customer, to ensure that the butcher didn't pull a fast one by grinding an inferior cut of meat or slipping in offal. But today, virtually all ground beef comes pre-packaged, produced by a handful of mega-corporations that have all but put the local butcher out of business. And Americans are discovering that transparency is not high on their list of priorities.

Now that the veil has been lifted on BPI's product and beef industry practices, consumers are getting over the shock that the 100 percent ground beef they thought they had been purchasing is actually 85 percent ground beef and 15 percent low-grade beef scraps prone to pathogens, simmered at a low heat, spun in a centrifuge and sprayed with ammonia gas. BPI's explanation so far, to the bamboozled American public, has been the curiously inflammatory statement, "Beef is beef," even though it conjures up images of workers tossing any part of the cow into the grinder -- behind the closed gates of beef processing plants, who will ever know?

If the beef industry wants to undo the damage it has inflicted upon itself, and restore trust and confidence in its products and practices, it must alter its business model that seems to flourish on an imbalance of information. To date, the beef industry, in collaboration with the USDA, have made all the decisions about what is acceptable in our beef supply, leaving consumers entirely in the dark. Since it's now clear that consumers don't agree, the industry can begin to restore its reputation with full disclosure of all ingredients, additives and processing agents, in understandable English, on product labels. Then, the media, concerned parents, Congress and savvy consumers can turn their focus to why our USDA regulations and laws seem to protect the beef industry's profits rather than champion the consumer's right to know what's in our meat.

Now that BPI has shuttered three plants for 60 days and several governors are rushing to the beleaguered company's defense, numerous dire warnings are being issued: 1.5 million head of cattle, that don't exist, are needed to replace the LFTB that consumers have rejected; ground beef prices are sure to rise; shortages of ground beef could occur during the summer grilling season.

A temporary ground beef shortage is hardly an unreasonable price to pay for transparency. Michael Moss reported in the New York Times in 2009 that, "School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the (LFTB) treated meat because it shaved about three cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef." An increase of three cents per pound certainly sounds like a fair trade off for those wanting a more pure product. And I fully suspect that if BPI changes its strategy and agrees to label LFTB, a significant number of Americans will choose to buy ground beef that contains the filler.

If the beef industry wants to think outside the box during a shortage, there are other healthy, more palatable fillers that can be added to ground beef (labeled, of course) that could help bring down the price according to Andrew Gunther, Program Director of Animal Welfare Approved, an organization that audits and certifies family farms raising pastured animals for food. "Why don't we add oats or barley filler like the Europeans do," said Gunther. " That way, Americans could produce less beef of a higher quality, add a healthy filler that provides fiber and sell it to the consumer at a lower price."

Food safety attorney, Bill Marler, while praising BPI for its commitment to extensive pathogen testing of LFTB, was forthright on the issue of transparency in the beef industry. "BPI made a huge mistake by withholding information from the consumer. Nothing should trump the consumers' right to know."

No doubt the entire food industry has been paying close attention to the pink slime/LFTB fiasco, as well as emerging grassroots consumer activism demanding a more transparent food system. While the industry continues to hold most of the cards, no food company is immune to consumer outrage when the curtain is drawn back and people feel duped.

I have one final piece of advice for the beef industry. Stop blaming the media, anti-meat activists, elitist foodies, stupid city-slickers who know nothing about agriculture and pesky liberals for your industry's predicament. The reality is, American consumers have had a peek behind the barriers to transparency that you erected, and they don't at all like what they saw.

USDA to Americans: You'll Eat Pink Slime Whether You Want It or Not

Have Americans been slimed, again? The USDA's announcement on Thursday that school districts will be able to opt out of an ammonium-hydroxide treated ground beef filler known as both Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and "pink slime," is not exactly inspiring confidence.

According to the USDA news release:

...due to customer demand, the department will be adjusting procurement specifications for the next school year so schools can have additional options in procuring ground beef products. USDA will provide schools with a choice to order product either with or without Lean Finely Textured Beef.

The USDA release doesn't elaborate on the type of choices schools will have. However, numerous news outlets have reported that schools ordering commodity ground beef will now get to choose either pre-made patties that contain LFTB or bulk ground beef, which does not. No information was provided about whether there is a price differential between the two options and the USDA did not respond to my query.

It should be noted that USDA commodities are only about 20 percent of the food purchased by the nation's schools. The other 80 percent are purchased through USDA-approved vendors. Today's news release did not specify that these vendors will have to carry LFTB-free ground beef. Apparently, pink slime isn't leaving our school system so quickly.

Longtime school food advocate Ann Cooper, the Director of School Food Services for the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado, believes pink slime will continue to be rampant in school ground beef next fall, in spite of the USDA's announcement. She notes that there are numerous obstacles to overcome.

First, almost every school in the nation has already ordered their USDA commodity foods for next year (ground beef included) and Cooper wonders if the USDA will actually allow schools to change their orders.

Second, Cooper believes that market limitations and peculiarities in how the USDA commodity food system works practically ensure LFTB beef in schools for the foreseeable future. "If a school district wants to purchase ground beef from an approved vendor, without LFTB, it's practically impossible because it's just not available - most of the beef contains the low-grade filler," Cooper says. "Plus, if the school purchases bulk ground beef without pink slime, they still have to send it out to a third party processor like Tyson to be made into hamburgers, meatballs, etc. Currently, the third party vendors do not have to use the actual beef ordered by the school - they could use any beef. So a school could order LFTB-free beef sent to the processor, and it could get back hamburgers and meatballs with the ammonium-hydroxide processed filler."

Even if the USDA can fix the third party processor problem, Cooper doesn't think that every school will be able to afford the processing cost of the filler-free bulk ground beef. This raises the specter of less affluent districts having to opt for the LFTB pre-made patties while the more affluent can afford to send the bulk ground beef for processing.

While the National School Lunch Program serves over 5 billion meals yearly, there's a much larger problem that the USDA failed to address in their announcement. After learning last week from an ABC News report that 70 percent of supermarket ground beef contains pink slime, consumers have been trying to learn if their grocery stores sell ground beef with LFTB filler. While the USDA has been mum on the issue, Congress has taken an interest. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez today reiterated that he wants to work toward a labeling requirement for LFTB so that consumers can avoid it if they wish, according to The Lunch Tray blogger and pink slime petitioner, Bettina Elias Siegel.

The past week's pink slime blow-up was likely a wake up call for many Americans unfamiliar with Big Food's sway over the contents of our food supply. It's mind-boggling that the USDA, lobbied heavily by the beef industry, never mandated a labeling requirement for LFTB. We now know why industry fought so hard. Americans are repulsed by pink slime and would avoid it in droves if it were labeled. It's pretty clear that in the U.S., the economic well-being of the food industry trumps the consumer's right to know and the wholesomeness of our food.

John Turenne, the president and founder of Sustainable Food Systems LLC, which works with schools to create healthier, sustainable food programs, nicely summed up this past week's collective anger: "Agribusiness is corrupting society with processed garbage," said Turenne. "The fact that chemicals like ammonia are being used on so much of our food, without our knowledge, is infuriating. Let's stick to real food."

Why Americans are Angry About Pink Slime

The meat industry and the USDA just don't get it.

Americans are repulsed to learn that "pink slime," an unappetizing industrial slurry of cow connective tissue and low-grade beef scraps, is being added, surreptitiously, to supermarket ground beef as well as meat served in the National School Lunch Program. These ground-up tissues and scraps, formerly used for dog food, have been quietly included in our nation's ground beef supply since the 1990's thanks to a process invented by Beef Products Inc. (BPI). Since beef tissues used in pink slime are predisposed to E. coli and salmonella contamination, the filler is treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill the pathogens, before being mixed into ground beef as an additive.

After chef Jamie Oliver went on a televised tirade about the substance, also known as "finely textured lean beef," McDonald's, Taco Bell and Burger King announced in January, 2012 that they would no longer use pink slime as filler in their ground beef.

But this past week, to the horror of consumers, ABC News reported that the pink slime is even more ubiquitous than we think. 70 percent of supermarket ground beef contains the gelatinous additive, even though no mention of this filler is required on the label.

All of this begs the question, is it ethical for the meat industry and USDA to force consumers to ingest pink slime? Why isn't inclusion of this ingredient revealed on ground beef labels? And why on earth would our National School Lunch Program purchase for the nation's schoolchildren, ground beef that contains this unsavory filler? Anger over pink slime has dominated the news all week. Last Tuesday, "The Lunch Tray" blogger, Bettina Elias Siegel, started a petition to remove pink slime from school food. As of today, nearly 150,000 people have signed.

The responses from both the meat industry and the USDA to this controversy have been telling. The American Meat Institute (AMI) issued a statement through Food Safety News in support of pink slime:

The fact is, BPI's Lean Beef Trimmings (BLBT) is beef. The beef trimmings that are used to make BLBT are absolutely edible. In fact, no process can somehow make inedible meat edible; it's impossible. In reality, the BLBT production process simply removes fat and makes the remaining beef more lean and suited to a variety of beef products that satisfy consumers' desire for leaner foods.

In fact, BLBT is a sustainable product because it recovers lean meat that would otherwise be wasted. The beef industry is proud to efficiently produce as much lean meat as possible from the cattle we raise. It's the right thing to do and it ensures that our products remain as affordable as we can make them while helping to feed America and the world.

I find that statement remarkable in that the AMI doesn't even address what I think is the major issue. How can the beef industry silently include an ammonia-treated slurry of cow connective tissues and beef scraps in our ground beef supply -- beef parts that few Americans would willingly choose to consume? And as far as AMI's contention that they are ensuring that ground beef is lean, sustainable and affordable, I suspect that the addition of this cheap filler actually helps the meat industry increase its profit margin.

The USDA's remarks on the pink slime debacle, as reported by many news outlets, are equally curious:

"All USDA ground beef purchases must meet the highest standards for food safety," the agency said in a statement. "USDA has strengthened ground beef food safety standards in recent years and only allows products into commerce that we have confidence are safe."

Safe? Let's assume, for argument's sake that pink slime is safe (although the New York Times reported some disturbing findings about the slurry in December, 2009).  Just because the USDA has deemed a food ingredient safe, doesn't give the agency the right to include it, secretly, in our nation's food supply.

Our industrial food system and the government agencies that police it, have been allowing questionable ingredients in our food supply for some time. These ingredients would turn consumers off in droves, if labels provided more detailed or clearer information. Just this week, Coca-Cola and Pepsi announced a change in the recipe of the caramel coloring used in their beverages, to avoid placing a cancer warning label on their products. The change was spurred not by the FDA but by a California law as well as lab tests performed by Center for Science in the Public Interest. Not surprisingly, the FDA maintains the chemical is safe.

In the case of pink slime, the additive isn't even required to be mentioned on ground beef labels. Normally, food ingredients -- many with long chemical names -- are required to be listed on food labels. However, most consumers would need a degree in chemistry to decipher the lists. That's why so many food reform advocates and medical professionals recommend that consumers stop purchasing processed food products that contain a long list of unidentifiable, unnatural substances.

The pink slime uproar shows that Americans are finally fed up with unsavory ingredients/additives in their food. Congress should mandate the labeling of ALL food ingredients, in simple and understandable English. Consumers should always have the information they need to make fully-informed decisions about which additives, if any, they feed their families.

32 Million Reasons to Cheer the USDA

There are 32 million reasons why the USDA's new school meal standards are good news. That's the number of children who participate in the National School Breakfast and Lunch programs in the U.S. and who will soon be served far more nutritious, and hopefully delicious school meals.

Announced by First Lady Michelle Obama, who was instrumental in getting the new rules written by ensuring that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passed in 2010, the updated meal standards are a huge improvement, in spite of last minute meddling by Congress. The standards are based on 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and they include:

• Doubling the amount of fruits and vegetables offered;
• Increasing the variety of vegetables served to include dark greens, red/orange and legumes;
• Increasing offerings of whole grain-rich foods - half the grains must be whole grain-rich by July and all must be whole grain-rich by start of the school year in 2014;
• Offering only fat-free or low-fat milk varieties (flavored must be fat free);
• Limiting calories based on the age of children being served, to ensure proper portion size; and
• Reducing the amounts of saturated fat, trans fats and sodium.

The total cost of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act will be $3.2 billion over five years (down from $6.8 billion in the USDA's proposed rule). Since it does cost more to serve healthier meals, the increased costs have been covered by program changes and funding provisions such as:

• Eliminating the meat/meat substitute requirement at breakfast;
• Lengthening the timeline for adding fruit to breakfast;
• Providing an additional 6 cent federal reimbursement per meal for lunches that meet the new standards;
• Ensuring that a la carte offerings are no longer subsidized by school meals (in some schools, this means that a la carte food prices will rise); and
• Allowing students to opt for smaller servings of fruits and vegetables to help eliminate "plate waste."

Margo Wootan, Director, Nutrition Policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who has led the fight to improve school food over the past decade, was happy with the final standards. "These are the first ever school meal standards for whole grains, trans fat and sodium," said Wootan. "The only disappointments I have are the ones Congress forced on the USDA -- continuing to count pizza as a vegetable and allowing French fries to be served every day."

So what does this all mean for America's children?

As a long time school food reformer who has watched countless children consume high calorie, low-nutrition school meals that I wouldn't serve to my dog, I believe that this is a giant step forward. Just the fact that every student who purchases a school lunch will soon have to take a fruit and/or vegetable as a component of their meal is revolutionary. And in one fell swoop, the USDA has eliminated full fat and 2% milk from school meals - high fat beverages that our increasingly overweight children don't need. The USDA has provided a sample before and after elementary school menu.

Next on the horizon, thanks to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, is the USDA proposed rule for school a la carte or competitive foods, scheduled to be released in the next few months. If Congress doesn't meddle again and the USDA proposes science-based standards for these foods sold outside the meal programs, our nation's schools could become places where mostly healthy choices reign. What a refreshing thought - that our schools could actually model the nutrition habits that our government recommends in the Dietary Guidelines - rather than continually contradicting them and undermining parents.

But a la carte/competitive foods like sugary drinks, chips, ice cream and candy are big business for Big Food and Beverage. So expect more deep-pocketed lobbying of Congress by their friends in the food industry in an attempt to maintain the status quo (e.g., their profits) at the expense of our children's health.

The Top Six Food Politics Lessons Learned in 2011

This hasn’t been a banner year for improving America’s food system, food environment or food policies. A look back demonstrates that not only have we failed to make any new progress in food and nutrition policy, but we actually appear to be moving backwards in some instances. Here’s why:

1. Congress is in bed with Big Food and under five layers of blankets- One of the most remarkable things food reformers learned this year was just how much influence deep-pocketed Big Food corporations exert over the current Congress. The answer – when it comes to proposed nutrition policy, if Big Food talks, Congress listens and does what industry wants – America’s kids be damned. Big Food successfully derailed or has worked overtime to weaken National School Lunch Program (NSLP) nutrition standards (pizza is a vegetable!), voluntary guidelines for foods that can be marketed to kids (see Marion Nestle’s insightful post on this development), the 2012 Farm Bill (a scary version of which was drafted behind closed doors) and federal menu labeling requirements. And the food industry is already taking aim at the rules being written by the USDA as mandated by the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act – rules that would improve the nutritional content of competitive foods (foods that are not sold as a part of the NSLP). 2012 should bring more of the same thanks to our anti-nutrition policy Congress.

2. The First Lady is a Strong Advocate for Food Policy, Except When We Get Close to an Election Year- Michele Obama’s wonderful Let’s Move! campaign to end childhood obesity has veered sharply away from supporting policies to improve the food environment for children (the First Lady was instrumental in getting the Healthy, Hunger Free Kid’s Act passed in 2010) to brokering voluntary agreements with food corporations and focusing on physical activity. Now there’s nothing wrong with voluntary agreements to improve nutrition – unless they’re in lieu of policy, which is the only truly sustainable way to improve our food system and food environment. The First Lady has been conspicuously and painfully silent as Big Food spent millions to successfully weaken the Healthy, Hunger Free Kid’s Act, attacked the IWG voluntary guidelines for foods marketed to kids (Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest has done a wonderful job of leading the fight to get these voluntary guidelines passed) and the Farm Bill was negotiated in secret. The closer we get to election year, the more Mrs. Obama seems to shy away from supporting policies that may inflame Big Food. She recently announced a new focus on getting kids to move which Michele Simon brilliantly questioned in “Sorry Mrs. O, but Jumping Jacks Aren’t Enough.” Will the feisty, policy-supporting Mrs. Obama, please come back in 2012?

3. Big Food Will Go to Great (and Humorous) Lengths to Try to Reframe the Message on Food Reform- If the health problems in this country weren’t so serious and costly, we could actually have a good laugh at some of Big Food’s more memorable attempts to reframe themselves as champions of a healthy, sustainable food system. Big Ag formed a new alliance, the United States Farmer’s and Rancher’s Alliance (USFRA), which introduced a new marketing campaign to mend its tattered image. Funny thing is that while USFRA describes itself as representing the average farmer, it appears that the groups’ funding this heartwarming campaign are mostly Big Ag concerns including Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Dupont and dozens of Big Ag trade organizations, which are often at odds with the needs of the average farmer. In another wacky development, Andy Bellatti informed us of McDonald’s new “farmwashing” campaign, where America’s largest fast food corporation, in a fit of McChutzpah, tries to portray their menu as “farm to fork.” How about telling the truth, McDonalds? It’s Big Ag farm to factory to fork at the golden arches.

4. Big Food and Conservatives Have their Antenna Up for Any “Proof” that Food Policy Doesn’t Work- Food industry and conservative critics have jumped on a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) report about participation decline in their school lunch program since healthier food replaced junk. These critics claim that the LAUSD experience proves that kids won’t eat healthier food and in the case of one conservative blogger, Michele Malkin, that the LAUSD experience is indicative of government waste and the “nanny state” (see Bettina Elias Siegel’s fine rebuttal). Similarly, critics gleefully report that the Seattle public school system may bring back unhealthy foods into their vending machines due to a drop in vending revenue, which hurts after-school programs. Reality-check time. Does anyone really think that Los Angeles’ and Seattle’s children who have been raised, since birth, on a steady diet of unhealthy junk and processed foods and are shockingly unfamiliar with vegetables, fruit, whole grains and other healthy fare would change their palates easily and rejoice at the healthy changes in schools? It took decades to teach America’s kids to prefer unhealthy food. Yet we’re ready to throw in the towel and serve kids the same garbage that has made them the first generation in history that may see a drop in their life expectancy thanks to the epidemic of obesity and related chronic diseases? Conservatives have had no problem being patient for 8 years as the U.S. fought a deadly and costly war in Iraq to root out terrorism. I guess our kid’s health isn’t as important.

5. Big Food is Cleverly Using Philanthropy to Silence Potential Critics- If you’ve ever wondered why fine health organizations like the American Dietetic Association, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Save the Children, Susan G. Komen For the Cure or the American Academy of Family Physicians accept funding from Big Food behemoths such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Hershey’s, McDonald’s, or KFC, your hunch is probably right. Funding is always tight for non-profits and Big Food knows it. That’s why they dangle huge sums of money in front of public health and health organizations that many seem unable to refuse – even if the money is clearly tainted. And once a health organization accepts Big Food money, they rarely will criticize the food or beverage industry. There needs to be an aggressive campaign to convey how damaging it is to the food reform movement when health organizations accept Big Food philanthropy. And groups that take this tainted money should be publicly shamed. The “good” that they can do with that money is miniscule in comparison to the damage they do with their apparent public support of unhealthy food and drink.

6. Food Reformers Need to Get Tough and Use Different Tactics if We Want to Win - Earlier this year, I wrote about how food reformers’ focus on science and evidence is easily trumped by Big Food’s money and messaging. If ever a year demonstrated how food reformer’s need to “up their game” it was 2011. The food industry’s clever advocacy, marketing, lobbying and messaging tactics torpedoed or weakened several important food policies (see Lesson #1, above) that would have made a huge difference in the lives of both kids and adults. We can’t win policy fights with industry if we don’t use similar tactics. It’s also critical that food reform funders start funding counter-marketing, advocacy and messaging campaigns. Yes, Big Food and Big Ag will always have more lobbying/advocacy money than public health advocates. But as the tobacco wars demonstrated, advocacy funding and a strong counter-marketing campaign (the Truth Campaign) can make a huge difference and change public perceptions of industry. Michele Simon’s recent post 2012: The Year to Stop Playing Nice, should be a wake-up call to the world of public health.

This was first published in the Huffington Post on December 27, 2011.

Paula Deen at the Crossroads: Punch Line or Role Model?

American’s foremost peddler of excessive butter, cream, salt and sugar, chef Paula Deen, has finally confirmed rumors that she was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes three years ago. Her timing for this announcement was clearly no accident as she also revealed that she is now a paid spokesperson for the Novo-Nordisk diabetes drug, Victoza.

Ms. Deen, whose high-calorie recipes and super-sized portions have made her both a Food Network favorite and a public health nightmare, appears appallingly opportunistic for simultaneously revealing both her diagnosis and a deal with a pharmaceutical company. But could this announcement by one of America’s most high-profile chefs actually be a blessing in disguise, particularly for her devoted fan base? Could her diagnosis act as a wake up call to those in denial about the relationship between what you eat and your health? It certainly could, if Ms. Deen chooses the right path.

In a rocky start, Ms. Deen demonstrated a healthy dose of both denial and damage control on the Today Show when she refused to acknowledge that her weight and/or eating habits contributed to her illness. “On my show I share all these yummy, fattening recipes but I tell people (to eat) in moderation,” Ms. Deen said. She claimed she’s always eaten in moderation and reminded Americans that, “I’m your cook, not your doctor.”

No one I know would go to Ms. Deen for medical advice. However, on the cooking front, this charming and up-from-the-bootstraps southern chef is an inspiration to many. And that’s why her diagnosis with a serious, chronic disease that is heavily related to unhealthy food choices may actually resonate with Americans.

For those unfamiliar with why diabetes is such a devastating ailment, here’s a brief primer. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), Type 2 diabetes is a major cause of heart disease, kidney disease, stroke, amputation, and blindness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention points out that diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death listed on U.S. death certificates in 2007. And if current trends continue, 1 of 3 U.S. adults will have diabetes by 2050. The good news? More than 85 percent of people with Type 2 diabetes are overweight and weight reduction can prevent onset.

No question that there’s been a collective haze of denial hovering over America for decades as waistlines increased dramatically along with hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol counts. With Big Food refusing to play a meaningful role in the overhaul of our disease-producing food system, and federal legislators unable to pass important policies that would help reshape the nation’s food environment, Americans have been lulled into a sense of complacency about what we eat. Enter Ms. Deen, America’s most visible cheerleader for unhealthy eating habits, who even after her diagnosis said diabetes won’t change how she cooks. Imagine the impact she could have if she renounced her old lifestyle and began publicly modeling a healthier one.

As it stands, Ms. Deen is at a crossroads. Her fame and diagnosis have presented her with a unique opportunity, which can create a legacy as either a role model or a punch line. So far she’s hurtling down the punch line path – encouraging Americans to pop a pill for their diabetes while continuing to hawk fare like deep-fried cheesecake, deep-fried lasagna, deep-fried stuffing on a stick (are you sensing a pattern here?) and her notorious Lady’s Brunch Burger which consists of a burger topped with bacon and fried egg on a sliced glazed donut.

But it’s not too late for her to toss out the deep fryer, modify her recipes and admit she was wrong. A reinvented Paula Deen, cooking wholesome, tasty, healthier food and modeling a physically active lifestyle would be an inspiration to her legion of trusting fans. Everyone loves a celebrity resurrection, and Ms. Deen sure could use one right now.

So if Ms. Deen is reading this, let me sum up my advice. Ditch the Novo-Nordisk gig, admit you’ve seen the light and become America’s dietary savior. You’ll save lives. You’ll earn new respect. You won’t even miss those Twinkie Pies or Fried Butter Balls as you bask in your newfound role of Dietary Role Model in Chief. And as an added bonus, you’ll increase the likelihood that you’ll live to see your grandchildren grow up.

Could this be the true meaning behind the expression, “the South will rise again?”

Yes Virginia, Food Reformers Love Food (Decadent Recipe Included)

As a longtime, food reformer (I got my start trying to improve the food in our school district), people expect strange things from me. And often their comments about food are really weird.

I've had numerous folks in my town stare in my grocery shopping cart to see what I've purchased. One time I had some cookies in my cart and one woman admonished me for advocating for the removal of trans-fat laden, high calorie, giant Otis Spunkemeyer cookies from our schools while purchasing Newman's Fig Newtons for my family. Another time, a friend saw me at our local A&P and expressed shock that I would shop there at all. She assumed that food reformers only bought food from CSA's, Whole Foods and other natural food stores.

I had another friend approach me as our family shared two desserts at a local restaurant and remark on the fact that he didn't think we ate dessert! Anytime I have a dinner party or other gathering at my home, there are always one or two folks who express astonishment that I served something they think is "unhealthy." For the misguided, unhealthy apparently includes: anything with olive oil, any dessert other than fresh fruit, spinach quiche, homemade hummus (I kid you not), chicken cacciatore, baked sweet potato "fries," macaroni and cheese and avocado in (horrors!) an olive oil vinaigrette.

While I've patiently explained to those who've asked that just because I'm a food reformer doesn't mean I live on a steady diet of tree bark and tofu (although tofu is a family favorite in a stir fry and added to soups), that concept is tough for many to grasp. They believe that if you are advocating for a healthier food environment, you must be: a lover of deprivation; a full-blown nut job who would love to ban cupcakes from schools and donuts from office meetings; and, a Birkenstock-wearing, hair-dye eschewing ex-hippie socialist dedicated to putting an end to Halloween trick or treating, candy canes, the Easter Bunny and Dairy Queen.

When a group of us formed a nutrition committee in our town to discuss improvements to school food, our superintendent, who had not yet met with us or spoken with us, derided our committee as a bunch of loonies who were "trying to take away his Twinkies." When I met with our school district's assistant superintendent to discuss our thoughtful suggestions for improving school food, her eyes widened when I walked in her office wearing a stylish pants suit, high heels and make-up. I was later told she expected me to be the female equivalent of Jerry Garcia.

So, a word to the wise. Food reformers love food. Really, we do! We cook it. We eat it. We talk about it. We even obsess over it and sometimes overdo it. We eat dessert, periodically (even things that have no nutritional value and just taste good), but not after every meal or in-between. We eat plenty of healthy fats like olive oil and avocado in appropriate serving sizes. We believe kids should be given small treats periodically and on holidays, like we were given as kids, but not a steady diet of junk 24/7 like most kids get today. We love Halloween, but we usually offer less damaging treats like small chocolate bars and small toys to our ghost and goblin visitors. We bake and bring appropriately sized cupcakes to our children's classroom on their birthdays, but we don't also serve chips, candy, and sugary drinks at the party. We shop at all the same stores you shop at, only we try to purchase mostly fresh produce, lower-fat meats, whole grains and low-fat dairy products that are the staples of our family's diet. We visit fast-food restaurants a couple of times a year (like when we're on a long drive to the beach). And, we have treasured, decadent family recipes for special occasion treats, like my mother-in-law's Pineapple Bread Pudding recipe I've included at the end of this post, that we make a few times a year.

So, the next time you see me in the A&P with a box of cookies in my shopping cart, or enjoying the molten chocolate cake at a local restaurant, please don't act surprised, confused or even miffed. We're eating the same way an earlier, much healthier generation ate - my grandmother's generation -- a steady of diet of mostly home-cooked, real, whole, healthy foods with periodic treats. That's probably a good part of the reason why my grandmother managed to live a spectacularly healthy life, with no hospital visits (except for childbirth) until she was 86 years old. Shouldn't we all have that chance?

Martha's Pineapple Bread Pudding

2 20oz. cans of crushed pineapple in their own juices (drained)
1 stick of melted butter
1 cup of sugar
4 eggs, beaten
8 slices of cubed bread (crusts included)

Combine drained pineapple, butter, sugar, eggs and cubed bread in a larger bowl until well-moistened. Pour into a baking pan or dish, sprinkle generously with cinnamon on top.

Bake, covered, at 325 for 1 hour. Uncover the pudding for the last 15 minutes to allow browning.

Occupy Big Food's First Rally in Zuccotti Park: The Start of a Grassroots Movement?

Food reformers took to the streets on Saturday as Occupy Big Food (OBF) the brainchild of Kristin Wartman, a food writer and nutrition educator and Erika Lade, a graduate student in NYU’s Food Studies Program, held its first rally in New York City. The group of approximately 60 people, myself included, held picket signs aloft and chanted “Whose Food? Our Food,” as we marched into Zuccotti Park (or Zucchini Park as it was renamed by one marcher’s sign). Police stationed at the park entrance asked OBF marchers to remove the sticks holding up our picket signs before we entered. Apparently there had been an incident in the park earlier in the day and the police were taking extra precautions -- although I would have bet my daughter’s college fund that no one in our group would ever do anything more violent than pare the skin off of an eggplant. Once inside and surrounded by throngs of supportive Occupy Wall Street protesters, several OBF speakers spoke of the group’s desire for a healthy, sustainable, affordable local food system.

On its website, Occupy Big Food describes itself as a movement to take our food back and out of the hands of just a few large corporations. This rally couldn’t have come at a better time as anger is high due to the recent Congressional decisions to declare “pizza is a vegetable" in our nation's school cafeterias and to give its blessing to french fries and tater tots as daily school fare at the behest of deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists for ConAgra, Schwan, McCain Foods and J.R. Simplot. Indeed, corporations have long been determining what types of food Americans can purchase in schools, supermarkets, restaurants and other public arenas, while slowly reshaping the American palate to prefer high fat, high sugar and high sodium fare, as former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler explained in his book, The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. These often irresistible, chemically concocted, processed foods reap the largest profits for Big Food at the expense of every American's health.

OBF speakers included the co-organizers; NYU Professor of Food Studies and Nutrition, Marion Nestle; Bill Granfield, president of UNITE HERE Local 100 which represents over 6,000 food service workers in the NY area; the host and creator of the Let’s Get Real cooking show on the Heritage Radio Network, Chef Erica Wides; and CUNY PhD candidate Ryan Ehrat, whose work focuses on the food sovereignty movement. Topics ranged from the dire health implications of the corporate takeover of our food system to food justice to fare wages for food system workers to farm animal welfare to educating Americans on the benefits and joys of cooking. OBF understands the need for Americans be made fully aware of how a few large corporations determine what each of us put into our mouths every day -- something that Big Food, to date, has skillfully manipulated into a misleading "personal responsibility" mantra.

Other rallies are planned for the future as organizers are promising "a series of events, activities, and direct actions to critically engage with our food system."

OBF is a ray of hope as what has been desperately lacking so far in the food movement is an energized, powerful grassroots voice demanding system and policy change. To grow, OBF will need to clearly define its mission and goals as well as advocate for a reasonable list of policies. Saturday's rally was a promising beginning. I hope that OBF can begin to unite our sometimes fractious food reform movement into a powerful citizen-fueled uprising, urging Americans to take back control of one of our most basic needs -- healthy, affordable food.

Vendor Rebates Limit Choices to Junk and More Junk

Like many food reformers, I started out as an aggravated mother in our local schools. Ten years ago, we had just moved to a new school district and I couldn't believe the array of junk food in school vending machines, nor could I understand the low quality of school food served in the cafeteria.

It didn't take long to discover part of the problem. Vendor rebates. Our school district contracted with Aramark. When concerned parents began to work with the Aramark food service director in an effort to make healthy changes, we ran into an obstacle. Even though Aramark is one of the largest food service companies in the nation and was sourcing its food supplies through a huge company called Sysco, our food service director had limited choices.

When parents asked to make suggestions for snacks sold, we were given a catalog from Sysco that listed everything the school district could purchase. The selection was appalling -- all junky, processed foods that were manufactured by the same companies. When we asked why Aramark couldn't purchase other healthier snack options -- and we provided a list of suggestions that were easily available in any grocery store -- we were told they just couldn't get them. The catalog was our only choice.

A little investigation revealed why our choices were so slim -- vendor rebates. Aramark was apparently limiting its purchases to certain brands to take advantage of volume discounts and vendor rebates. This practice was also in play when it came to ordering other food items and ingredients for the school district and we found that alarming. While we believed the rebates were being passed on to the local taxpayers, that hardly was comforting. The quest for vendor rebates limited the school district's choices to mostly unhealthy, processed foods.

Vendor rebates, whether the savings are passed on to the school district or not, are damaging. School food workers should be able to purchase the best foods and ingredients from any vendor and not be forced to compromise the health of our kids for what amounts to legalized kickbacks.

That was ten years ago. Perhaps things have changed within Aramark. I certainly hope so. But clearly, the practices of vendor rebates and volume discounts still plague our nation's schools. I am thrilled that NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating this practice and I hope that his findings help wake up complacent school administrators who have let this practice go on for far too long at the expense of our children's health.

Feeling the Heat: Chain Restaurants Reformulate Unhealthy Fare Due to Good Nutrition Policy

Policy change has been a shared goal of all food reformers. So why haven’t advocates seemed to notice or acknowledge that several recently implemented policies are stimulating healthy changes to restaurant fare?

For example, take the recent menu reformulation pledge from the Darden Restaurant Group, parent company of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster, which serves over 400 million meals a year. With the First Lady, Michelle Obama, in attendance, Darden announced that it will reduce its calorie and sodium footprints by 10 percent in five years and 20 percent in ten years through menu reformulation, portion resizing and removing/introducing menu items.  It also pledged to provide more healthy choices on its children's menus and make low-fat milk, and fruits and vegetables, the default for every kid’s meal, rather than soda and French fries.

While the media focused exclusively on Michelle Obama’s role in this announcement (and indeed the First Lady deserves high praise for issuing hard challenges to the food industry and for creating an extraordinary level of awareness about childhood obesity), it’s clear that Darden and other chains are really feeling the heat due to the impending implementation of federal menu labeling policy in 2012.

The menu labeling law, which was passed as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, requires that food establishments with 20 or more locations provide calorie information on menus and menu boards. Additional nutrition information such as sodium, total fat, sugars, and carbs must be provided in written form, upon request. Similar laws have been passed and implemented around the nation and our organization, the New York State Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Alliance (NYSHEPA), spearheaded successful campaigns to get these laws enacted in a number of New York State locales including Albany, Westchester and Ulster counties.

While the main purpose of menu labeling is to provide consumers with calorie counts at point of purchase to help them make informed choices, many health advocates have long believed that the true value of the law will lie in the reformulation it spurs. That belief is panning out.

Ever since the first menu labeling law was implemented in New York City in 2008, revealing astronomical calorie counts for single serve items, chain restaurants have been on the defensive and reformulating menu items to make them healthier. Significant reformulation has been noted at Starbucks, Applebee’s, Quiznos, Taco Bell, Denny’s, Uno Chicago Grill, Le Pain Quotidien, Dunkin’ Donuts, KFC, McDonalds, Cosi and Romano’s Macaroni Grill, which managed to squeeze an eye-opening 880 calories out of just one salad. Nutrition Information Services, an Orlando-based consulting firm that analyzes and reformulates restaurant recipes, reported an 80 percent jump in its business in 2008 and 100 percent in 2009, which can be directly traced to local menu labeling laws enacted in New York City and Seattle.

The impending federal menu labeling law and the passage of several local ordinances that set nutrition standards for kid’s meals sold with toys, have also spurred additional restaurant pledges and reformulations. This past July, as part of a National Restaurant Association initiative, 19 large restaurant chains — including Burger King, Chili's, IHOP and Friendly's — pledged to promote and include healthier options on their children’s menus like fruits and vegetables, lean proteins, whole grains and low-fat dairy. And in August, McDonald’s introduced, with great fanfare, its new Happy Meal, which boasts apple slices, a smaller portion of fries and a lower calorie count.

In light of these developments, it’s safe to say smart food and nutrition policies, or even the threat of such policies, can force healthy changes in industry. Looking back, it’s hard not to recall that the restaurant industry has fought almost every nutrition policy tooth and nail over the past decade, arguing that self-regulation is far preferable to legislation. Now that policy has backed them into a corner, chain restaurants are doing what large, deep pocketed corporations do best – they are in a self-congratulatory PR frenzy and hopeful that consumers view their brands favorably for their so-called voluntary changes.

Now I know what some food reformers have been saying about these chain restaurant pledges. Why does Darden need 10 years to make these changes and can we trust them to keep their promise? These changes aren’t nearly enough -- a 20 percent calorie reduction in the Red Lobster’s Crispy Calamari and Vegetable Appetizer (1520 calories) isn’t going to make a big enough dent. A McDonald’s Happy Meal with a handful of apple slices and fewer fries still isn’t a healthy meal. My answer to those criticisms is you’re right. But when you are working to change the practices of multi-billion dollar public corporations that answer to shareholders, you have to be satisfied with incremental change. No chain restaurant in its right mind is going to slash calories and sodium 50 percent in a short period of time and risk losing customers. As far as trusting Darden and others, I think the old saying is trust but verify. With menu labeling about to be implemented it’s going to be a lot harder for Darden to ignore its pledge.

It’s very rewarding to see healthy menu reformulation motivated by policy. And I think these positive changes are only the beginning. Food reformers must continue to work for the passage of additional food and nutrition policies like nutrition standards for foods marketed to children, reallocation of farm subsidies, sugary drink taxes, and federal nutrition standards for kids’ meals sold with toys. No doubt these laws will drive more far more change than industry self-regulation ever will.

Let the Big Ag Reframing Begin

I've been issuing periodic warnings via Twitter that food and agriculture reformers better pay extremely close attention to the new, deep pocketed industry coalition, the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), which asserts on its home page: "For too long the voice of farmers and ranchers has often been missing in the conversation about where food in America comes from." Personally, I haven't noticed their voices missing but perhaps some have been unable to speak out because they've been so busy hiding deplorable conditions, unnecessary subsidies and unsafe/unhealthy practices that have, sadly, become mainstream in our food and agricultural system. However, any alliance that starts out with a $30 million budget means business and will be a force to be reckoned with. The USFRA's goal, obviously, is to begin to reframe the debate about food production and agriculture in this country -- a debate that up until now has been dominated by food and agricultural reformers.

If you want to get a sense of how a professional advocacy marketing campaign works, take a look at the email below that I received today from Kyle Trompeter of the Zocalo Group in Chicago, on behalf of the USFRA. A quick visit to the agency's website reveals that it specializes in tapping the power of word of mouth strategies that are sustainable to achieve three objectives:

1. Fuel positive recommendations
2. Combat negative recommendations (they do have their work cut out for them there)
3. Ensure that the net sum of your entire marketing mix leads to powerful recommendations by your industry's most influential consumers and experts.

"Do you know how you're being talked about and recommended?" asks Zocalo on their home page. Big Ag does and they don't like what they've been hearing. That's why they've hired this agency and likely other agencies that specialize in print, TV and radio advocacy marketing to begin to sway public and thought leader opinion towards views more to the liking of Big Ag. Unfortunately for us, these types of campaigns work, as I witnessed first hand as a soda tax advocate in New York. When Big Beverage came to town with their slick, emotionally manipulative, deep pocketed advocacy marketing campaign to derail the proposed penny per ounce soda tax, we wound up losing.

I won't be reaching out to Kyle and "participating in the conversation" since I've been doing that for years and it's been going pretty well from my vantage point. Rest assured, however, that Kyle will get plenty of takers willing to contribute "useful insights" and who will soon be preaching the gospel of USFRA, as the alliance moves to purchase allies and silence potential critics in the same way Big Tobacco and Big Food are doing. Food and agriculture reformers will need to vigorously counter the messages that come out of the USFRA campaign -- quite frankly, to compete they will need substantial funding and their own professionally created counter-marketing. But since just about every food and agriculture reform funder currently refuses to fund advocacy marketing or counter-marketing campaigns, I'd say we're in trouble. You need to fight fire with fire, and food and ag reformers are holding a tiny matchstick while industry wields a $30 million blowtorch.



Hi Nancy,

My name is Kyle Trompeter and I work for a word-of-mouth marketing agency, Zocalo Group.

We’re partnering with the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, a newly formed alliance consisting of a wide range of prominent farmer and rancher-led organizations and agricultural partners, in an effort to help them connect with the public in an open discussion about food production and agriculture. As part of what we’re doing, we’re speaking with people who would likely have valuable points of view on this. And, we thought you would be able to contribute some useful insights, given your reputation in the food industry.

We are working toward holding events and activities in the coming months so we’d love to talk with you soon. Would it be possible to touch base for a few minutes by phone to get a sense of your thoughts on agriculture, give you a heads up about what the USFRA is doing and maybe discuss your interest in participating in the conversation?

For more information about the USFRA, please visit us online at: www.usfraonline.org

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Kyle Trompeter


Kyle Trompeter
Zócalo Group | 200 E. Randolph, Suite 4200 | Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 596-5906| Mobile: (708) 655-2809 | Email: ktrompeter@zocalogroup.com

McChange Doesn't Come Easy

Under intense pressure from health advocates, and with the kind of fanfare that only a gazillion dollar multinational company can muster, McDonald's has announced that it will soon include apple slices and a significantly smaller serving of french fries in its Happy Meal. The fast food giant will also cut sodium by 15 percent in all of its food by 2015. While most Americans may find this about as scintillating as cleaning out the cat litter box, the media and public health community clearly found it fascinating based on the number of published articles and blog posts, and the lively discussion that emerged on Twitter.

So just how significant is the McDonald's announcement? And how should the health community react? Before I discuss this, let's clarify a few points:

1) McDonald's, one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world, is only interested in the health of its customers as it relates to its own bottom line.
2) The Happy Meal changes are the result of unrelenting pressure exerted by child health advocates including bills passed in San Francisco and Santa Clara County that set nutrition standards for kids' fast food meals sold with toys, as well as a lawsuit from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
3) Even with apple slices, a smaller french fry portion and reduced sodium, the Happy Meal is still not a healthy meal.

So how should health advocates react when fast food behemoth and industry leader McDonald's blinks? Should we praise this step forward, even if it's a small step? Here's how I think we should handle this type of announcement:

First, let's pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Concern about childhood obesity and unhealthy fast food are at an all time high thanks to food reformers' efforts. The fact that the First Lady has made childhood obesity her signature issue is testament to the growing success of the healthy food movement. And now, a multinational corporation that made its fortune selling unhealthy junk food is touting nutritional improvements in an attempt to mend its image, maintain market share and stave off public health policy that would regulate what it can sell and advertise to kids. This is progress.

Second, we should acknowledge these positive changes, even if we feel they are inadequate. Whether McDonald's initiated the change in order to pre-empt policy or entice health conscious families back to the golden arches isn't the point; we're constantly criticizing McDonald's and other fast food chains so it's only fair that we acknowledge positive changes. And by acknowledgment, I mean just that -- let's save the effusive praise for when McDonald's makes its Happy Meal the truly healthy meal our kids deserve. I thought that the First Lady's muted and measured comments -- she called McDonald's plan "positive steps" toward her Let's Move goal of ending childhood obesity -- set the tone perfectly. Mrs. Obama also added that she "looks forward" to the company's "efforts in the years to come." That's a diplomatic way of saying you're going to have to do a lot better.

Finally, let's keep up the pressure on McDonald's by continuing to highlight the shortcomings of the Happy Meal. If McDonald's had seen fit to include a non-fried vegetable and a whole wheat bun for the hamburger, and had made low-fat plain milk the default beverage rather than soda, this would have been a momentous announcement. Health advocates will not rest until McDonald's and other fast food restaurants have made meaningful changes (via either internal or external policy change) including a truly healthy kids' meal and an agreement to end to marketing to children.

Jan Fields, the president of McDonald’s USA, said of the new Happy Meal: “McDonald’s will always try to do the right thing, and we know we can help make a difference in our communities.” I think McDonald's will continue to do the right thing -- but only if health advocates hold their feet to the fire. Kindling, anyone?

How Sweet It Is! Jamie Oliver Spurs Flavored Milk Ban in the LAUSD

What happens when you add ridiculous amounts of sugar to different foods to get kids to eat them? It creates a preference for sugary foods that will likely last a lifetime.

That’s why so many food reformers were thrilled to hear that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has decided to no longer offer cartons of flavored milk (e.g. chocolate and strawberry) which can contain up to 8 teaspoons of added sugar. As one of the largest school systems in the nation, we can only hope that they will inspire other school districts to do the same.

Added sugars are a staple of today’s processed and packaged foods, particularly those marketed to kids. Frosted Flakes, Fruit Loops and Cocoa Krispies have been horrifying public health advocates and parents for decades. Take a look at the sugar content of kids’ yogurt, frozen waffles, fruit drinks, instant oatmeal and applesauce. And here’s a shocker: some bottled spaghetti sauces have as much sugar as a granola bar or a pop tart.

Why do we need all this sugar in our food? If you ask Big Food and Big Beverage, they’ll tell you they are responding to consumer demand. Truth is the food industry has made the unilateral decision to add sugar to almost every processed food Americans, and in particular our kids, consume regularly. If we didn’t crave sugar before, we do now!

If you think sugar (or its other names like sucrose, fructose, lactose, and glucose) isn’t a problem in our children’s diet, think again. An American Heart Association study found children as young as 1-3 typically consume around 12 teaspoons of sugar a day. By the time a child is 4-8 years old his sugar consumption is, on average, a whopping 21 teaspoons a day. And teens, ages 14-18, are practically drowning in a sugary diet, averaging about 34.3 teaspoons daily. That is over four times the recommended amount!

Numerous food reformers have been warning about added sugar in milk for years. Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Boulder Valley School District in Louisville, Colorado, which has banned flavored milk says “chocolate milk is soda in drag.” Diligent parent groups around the country have asked for flavored milk to be removed from schools but have come up against strong opposition from the Dairy Association, which is a deep-pocketed and very powerful lobbying organization.

But it wasn’t until British TV chef Jamie Oliver came to Los Angeles with his “Food Revolution” TV show and Internet petition, that the ground truly began to shift. On one episode of "Food Revolution" Oliver filled a school bus with white sand to represent the amount of sugar LAUSD students consume weekly in flavored milk. "If you have flavored milk, that's candy," he told the Associated Press.

Thank you, Jamie Oliver, for bringing your in-your-face brand of activism to America! Sometimes the only way to beat back a powerful industry and a complacent bureaucracy is with a bit of showmanship and judicious use of all kinds of media. Food reformers, take note.

School buses no place for junk food ads

Published in the Albany Times Union, Friday, June 10, 2011


New York's school buses could become traveling billboards if state Sen. Mark Grisanti, R-Buffalo, and Assemblyman Steven Englebright, D-Suffolk County, get their way. They have introduced a bill that would amend education law to allow school buses to carry advertising.

Alcohol and tobacco advertising would be prohibited, of course. But New York's children, who are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, could be subjected to a blizzard of ads for sugary cereals, fast food, soda and other products -- courtesy of your local school board. Cities with populations of more than a million (New York City) would be exempt from the law, but the rest of the state could opt to collect this ill-advised advertising revenue.

It's understandable that schools are searching for new revenue sources while state education funding is being reduced. But it makes no sense to allow districts to hawk unhealthy foods or other products to New York's children. The state has the 18th-highest rate in the nation of overweight youths (ages 10-17) at 33 percent, according to Trust for America's Health. And 80 percent of overweight/obese adolescents become overweight/obese adults, putting them at an increased risk for chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, hypertension and some cancers.

To put into perspective how excited junk food and fast food marketers must be to have a possible new venue for reaching almost every kid in the state, note the enormous sums they already spend to target children. A 2006 Federal Trade Commission study of 44 companies found that food and beverage marketing to children and adolescents totaled some $1.6 billion. Approximately $870 million was spent on food marketing directed to children under 12.

New York's potential new school bus marketing would be visible to a captive audience of children at least twice daily. Plus, products advertised on a school bus will have that school district's implicit endorsement, whether the district intends it or not.

Marketers in all industries are keen to reach young audiences because this targeted marketing works. A Yale Rudd Center study that focused on McDonald's, which advertises heavily to the toddler to teen set, found 40 percent of parents report that their child asks to go to McDonald's at least once a week, while 15 percent of preschoolers ask to go every day.

Over the past decade, thanks to increased awareness and stronger nutrition standards, school districts across the state have been eliminating junk food and junk food advertising, and turning down contracts with companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

It would be a huge step backward to create a new opportunity for predatory marketers to get to kids during the school day.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood notes that advertising on buses won't even make a dent in schools' deficits.

School bus advertising in a Colorado Springs district with more than 27,000 students only generates $40,000, according to the news website Cincinnati.com. By selling ad space on its 103 buses, the Thompson School District in Colorado generated about $3,000 a year -- about 20 cents a student, according to School Transportation News. Ypsilanti, Mich., stopped placing ads on school buses when revenue fell far short of projections, Advertising Age reported.

We urge legislators to take a stand against predatory marketing by opposing S.3229/A.7701. Our schools should be free of advertising. We should not try to fund them at the expense of our children's health.

Nancy Huehnergarth is director of the New York State Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Alliance

MyPlate Mania: Much Ado About Nothing

Anyone who thinks that the USDA's new food icon, MyPlate (www.choosemyplate.gov) is going to change the eating habits of Americans, needs to have his head examined.

While there's no question that the new USDA food icon is a vast improvement over the jumbled and confusing pyramid, MyPlate's usefulness is limited, just like its predecessors. It will be used as a teaching tool at schools -- never mind that the entire concept of MyPlate is currently contradicted in school cafeterias, vending machines and stores. It will be slapped on the front of processed food packaging by Big Food and Beverage, deep pocketed industries eager to capitalize on any association with health -- but Americans will take little notice. And it will likely be trotted out by the USDA and Let's Move for ceremonial occasions.

In the meantime, even if MyPlate were staring them in the face (which is unlikely), Americans' plates will continue to be piled high with anything but produce and whole grains because current federal and state policies (or lack thereof) discourage their production and consumption. The "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy of behavior change doesn't work for anyone, not even the federal government.

If we want Americans to truly change the way they eat, we need to change our food system and environment through federal policy. Let's start by enacting some of the food policies that have been bandied about for years: school nutrition standards (which passed in December 2010 but the House GOP has threatened to defund); nutrition standards for foods marketed to children (a set of strong voluntary standards were recently proposed by an Interagency Workgroup, but the House GOP and Big Food are working feverishly to scuttle them ); menu labeling (which passed in 2010 and has shown promising results but the House GOP has threatened to defund); the sugary drink tax (which has thrown Big Beverage into a philanthropic frenzy in order to silence potential critics and kill legislation); and, the most important policy change of all -- reworking our entire farm subsidy system. Until these policies are in place, the American dinner plate will look less like MyPlate and more like the average plate carried back from a buffet table.

Food icons are nice, filled with bright colors and have made for days of exciting media coverage. But they aren't the answer to our problems. Let's focus on what will really make a difference -- enacting thoughtful and meaningful policies that make healthy food affordable and create a healthier food environment for all Americans.

In the War against Big Food, Money and Messaging Trump Science

“We need to bring as much rigor to the fight (for a healthy, sustainable food system) as we have to the science.” That perceptive statement came from a public health leader, Dr. Robert K. Ross, President and CEO of the California Endowment at the May 4th Future of Food conference in Washington D.C., and raises a critically important point.*

The world of public health and its funders can be very genteel. When a policy like the soda tax fails to get enacted due to strong, well financed opposition from industry, public health advocates want more science. They often believe that the new data collected, the indisputable conclusions drawn, or the attendant policy recommendations will finally convince policymakers and the public to take action. But, as Dr. Ross pointed out, if you think you are in a policy debate and the other side thinks it is in a fight, you are not going to come out too well. And so far in this food fight, public health is pretty bruised and battered.

The reality is, that when up against deep-pocketed, no-holds barred opponents, like Big Food, Big Beverage and Big Agriculture, public health’s focus on science and evidence is easily trumped by money and messaging. If public health advocates don’t start rolling up their sleeves and using some of the same tactics used by industry, progress in this fight to create a safe, healthy, sustainable food system is going to move more slowly than a teenager asked to clean his room. Science and “being right” are no substitute for a strong, strategic and powerful movement. Public health groups and their funders must find ways to pool resources and utilize costly professional advocacy marketing, P.R. and grassroots movement development. Sweeping policy change can only be driven by a powerful professional messaging campaign and a grassroots movement.

Industry hires the top messaging agencies and consultants, and devotes big money to framing their messages and successfully reframing ours. Witness the millions (certainly well over $100 million) Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper/Snapple, et al., have spent on a nationwide campaign to fight soda taxes. In New York State alone, the soft drink industry spent $13 million in just the first six months of 2010, to successfully fend off a penny per ounce soda tax. What did that money buy? A slick, professional ad campaign that was created by the same advocacy marketing firm that brought us the infamous “Harry and Louise.” And what were public health professionals doing to convince legislators and the public that a soda tax was necessary for the health of consumers? They were distributing fact sheets filled with meticulously researched statistics and dozens of studies that have identified sugary drinks as a leading cause of our obesity epidemic -- ammunition which fell flat compared to Big Beverage’s professional and misleading messaging campaign.

Studies and evidence get steamrollered by marketing, messaging and deft public relations. While good science should be the basis of any public health campaign, it can't be the only strategy. Dr. Ross’ fine speech should act as a wake up call to the entire public health community and our funders. I propose that a public health conference called "How to Fight Industry at its Own Game" be organized in order to change the way public health advocates, professionals and their funders view their responsibilities and teach them some of the tactics they need to win.

We must fight fire with fire. Let's light the match!



*Thank you to Marion Nestle for highlighting Dr. Ross' speech in her blog, Food Politics.

In Denial? Health Organizations that Take Money From Pepsi, Coke, etc. are Damaging the Healthy Food Movement and Public Health

Ever since sugary drink taxes were proposed, Big Beverage has been in a philanthropic frenzy trying to co-opt as many groups as possible.  Witness recent Big Beverage donations to:

o     The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for obesity prevention programs – I kid you not! ($10 million was promised if Philly did not pass a sugary drink tax – they didn’t and the donation was made)

o     The American Academy of Family Physicians for a partnership with Coca-Cola

o     Save the Children ($5 Million from PepsiCo) and the promise of a major grant donation from Coca-Cola, all to get the organization to stop advocating for passage of sugary drink taxes (they stopped advocating).

It's time for a thoughtful discussion among advocates on whether health, wellness, food security and other organizations should accept funding from junk food purveyors like Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, McDonald’s or Frito Lay, or if it’s best to accept no funding at all from the food/beverage industry.  

It's clear that Pepsi and other beverage brands use their philanthropy to purchase allies and silence potential critics, just like Big Tobacco did.  What's amazing is how many important organizations that do good work are in denial on this issue. The most common defense is that there is much good work that can be done -- even with tainted, special interest money -- and that accepting funding from a company like PepsiCo doesn't impact their organization's advocacy positions on sugary drinks. That doesn't hold water, as the Save the Children debacle demonstrated and it's hard to believe that health organizations and others would not feel obliged to "tone down" their rhetoric on topics that might make PepsiCo withhold future donations.

In addition, by accepting funding from a company like PepsiCo, health organizations and others are simultaneously promoting a brand that markets junk food and unhealthy sugary beverages – specifically targeting kids, teens and low-income consumers.  Is that the message they want to deliver to their constituents?

No doubt there is a dearth of funding for the projects and advocacy that many well-intentioned groups are involved in. However, deep pocketed companies like Coke, Pepsi and McDonald’s are well aware of the lack of funding and that’s what makes their “philanthropy” so devious.  They know that if they dangle funding in front of cash-starved health/wellness/food security and other groups, they will find many takers – and simultaneously silence potential critics of their products and marketing practices.     

The current, hyper-publicized Pepsi Refresh campaign that is attracting hundreds of small projects in an online competition -- a good number of which are health related -- is just another high profile way for Pepsi to use its deep pockets to improve its image and silence critics. Pepsi is hardly the only brand blanketing America with philanthropy designed to win friends and influence legislators. According to a marketing executive who is extremely cognizant of beverage and fast food industry marketing to the Hispanic and African American communities, “In minority communities fast food and Big Soda have aligned with practically every recognized advocacy and aspirational non-profit organization.”

That’s not by accident. It’s clearly a carefully thought out strategy (remarkably similar to the strategy of Big Tobacco) to try to buy silence from as many organizations, market segments and communities as possible. 

In my opinion, organizations that accept this type of tainted, special interest money not only damage their credibility but are complicit in presenting Big Beverage/fast food purveyors (and their products, by association) as benevolent benefactors. This sets back the healthy food movement, probably by years, and that's exactly what companies like PepsiCo are banking on.