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.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
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?”
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?”
Monday, December 26, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
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.
Friday, October 7, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)