Nancy Huehnergarth Huffington Post 12/27/11 03:51 PM ET
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.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Food Politics » The farm bill hackathon: results and a plea for more
Marion Nestle Food Politics December 13, 2011
Grist and Food and Tech Connect have excellent reports on last week’s Farm Bill Hackathon. This event brought together farm bill experts and designers to try to produce materials that make farm bill issues accessible.
The terrific winning entry: A Clean Farm Bill of Health slideshow illustrating the contradiction between USDA dietary advice policy and that for farm supports.
I could not participate in the Hackathon but having just taught a class on the farm bill I know what I’d like to have: a complete text of the farm bill annotated to include all of the relevant information.
The 663-page 2008 farm bill is readily accessible online, but it is unreadable (by me at least). This is because it refers to previous bills and other Acts of Congress, which in turn refer to previous bills and Acts, in some cases going back to 1933.
You don’t believe me? Try this entirely typical section, chosen at random:
SEC. 12001. DEFINITION OF ORGANIC CROP.
Section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1502(b)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
‘‘(7) ORGANIC CROP.—The term ‘organic crop’ means an
agricultural commodity that is organically produced consistent
with section 2103 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 6502).’’.
It would be so nice to have a text that gives the relevant information in one place: what the Federal Crop Insurance Act says, what paragraphs 7 and 8 are all about, and what’s in section 2103 of the 1990 Act.
Hackers: anyone want to take this on?
Grist and Food and Tech Connect have excellent reports on last week’s Farm Bill Hackathon. This event brought together farm bill experts and designers to try to produce materials that make farm bill issues accessible.
The terrific winning entry: A Clean Farm Bill of Health slideshow illustrating the contradiction between USDA dietary advice policy and that for farm supports.
I could not participate in the Hackathon but having just taught a class on the farm bill I know what I’d like to have: a complete text of the farm bill annotated to include all of the relevant information.
The 663-page 2008 farm bill is readily accessible online, but it is unreadable (by me at least). This is because it refers to previous bills and other Acts of Congress, which in turn refer to previous bills and Acts, in some cases going back to 1933.
You don’t believe me? Try this entirely typical section, chosen at random:
SEC. 12001. DEFINITION OF ORGANIC CROP.
Section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1502(b)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
‘‘(7) ORGANIC CROP.—The term ‘organic crop’ means an
agricultural commodity that is organically produced consistent
with section 2103 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 6502).’’.
It would be so nice to have a text that gives the relevant information in one place: what the Federal Crop Insurance Act says, what paragraphs 7 and 8 are all about, and what’s in section 2103 of the 1990 Act.
Hackers: anyone want to take this on?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Food and Media Companies Lobby to Weaken Guidelines on Marketing Food to Children
Posted: 12/ 7/11 04:15 PM ET
This post was written by Nancy Watzman, consultant for the Sunlight Foundation.
A major lobbying push by a powerful group of food and media companies appears to be working, with a federal agency indicating it would back off on parts of proposed voluntary guidelines for marketing food to children. The guidelines are meant to combat childhood obesity.
Also, language in a pending congressional spending bill, one of several that Congress must approve before the end of the year to keep the government running, threatens to prohibit the agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from issuing a final version of the nutritional guidelines at all without doing a cost-benefit analysis first.
Big companies such as Nestle, Kellogg, Viacom, McDonalds, General Mills, and Time Warner have indicated on official reports that they have lobbied on the controversial proposed guidelines; all together such companies have reported spending more than $37 million on lobbying this year. Most of these companies have a long list of concerns on Capitol Hill of which the nutrition guidelines are just one; however the totals reported demonstrate how powerful a presence these entities have in Washington. Most are also major sources of campaign money for members of Congress.
Kellogg complained that the new guidelines--which the government has stressed would be voluntary--were too strict and among other things could eliminate their use of popular characters like "Tony the Tiger" and "Ernie Keebler," the elf. Children's advocacy and health groups countered that an epidemic of childhood obesity warranted tough action.
"This influence parallels the influence of unhealthy food marketing in our children's lives," says Jeff McIntyre, director of policy for Children Now. "The real price is an obesity rate that has more than tripled in the last 30 year, alarming rises in cardiovascular diseases in younger children, and predictions of shorter life expectancies for American children for the first time in our country's history."
In October hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a representative from Campbell Soup Company, which reports spending $70,000 on lobbying this year, charged that the nutritional criteria in the guidelines are "unrealistic, counterproductive, contrary to established nutrition policy" and that industry would do a better job of policing itself.
Another witness from the Association of National Advertisers, which reported spending $820,000 on lobbying this year, argued that the proposed guidelines are “backdoor regulation” by four "extremely powerful government agencies that seek to accomplish a goal indirectly that could not be reached through normal rulemaking procedures."
At the same hearing, David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the FTC, announced that the agency was "in the midst of making significant revisions to its preliminary proposal' and that these changes would "share much in common" with new standards proposed by an industry group last summer. These changes include making the guidelines applicable to a smaller age group--children ages 2 to 11 rather than 2 to 17, and exempting seasonal advertising, such as in-store displays for Halloween.
Several weeks later, at a hearing for the renomination of FTC commissioner Jon Leibowitz, Democratic and Republican senators alike--who as reported by Sunlight counted food and media companies among their campaign donors--lobbed hostile questions about the guidelines. Leibowitz stressed the voluntary nature of the guidelines and the fact they are unenforceable.
Meanwhile, last summer, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., reported the Washington Post, inserted language into a pending appropriations bill that would prohibit the FTC from completing its draft report on nutrition guidelines without first doing a cost benefit analysis. Among her donors this election cycle are PACs for the American Beverage Association, the National Restaurant Association, and PepsiCo Inc., all of which are lobbying against the guidelines. Her office did not return several calls for comment.
The FTC guidelines, which the agency is issuing in conjunction with several other agencies, were mandated in a 2009 appropriations bill. Industry rallied against the guidelines, particularly when the FTC issued a draft and opened it up for comment last April. The agency received 29,000 comments, the great majority from letter writing campaigns supporting the proposal, according to Vladeck's testimony. Industry groups, however, also are heavily represented, with most of the groups that reported lobbying on the guidelines also filing comment letters. (Unique comments can be found on the FTC's website here.)
Some of the companies went beyond in-house lobbying staff to get help from lobbying firms on the issue. For example, the Coca-Cola Company used Williams and Jensen. Pepsico got assistance from the C2 Group and Russell and Barron. Sara Lee used SNR Denton. Over all public relations were handled by Anita Dunn, formerly communications director at the Obama White House, at the firm SKDKnickerbocker Consulting.
Children's advocacy and health organizations that support the guidelines have also reported lobbying on the guidelines; however, their efforts are not as well funded. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which sent a representative to testify at the October hearings and which was instrumental in creating the 2009 legislation mandating the guidelines, has reported spending $62,354 on lobbying this year. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported spending $205,168, and the American Dental Association, $1.9 million. Other supportive groups, such as Children Now, do not report any lobbying expenses.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This post was written by Nancy Watzman, consultant for the Sunlight Foundation.
A major lobbying push by a powerful group of food and media companies appears to be working, with a federal agency indicating it would back off on parts of proposed voluntary guidelines for marketing food to children. The guidelines are meant to combat childhood obesity.
Also, language in a pending congressional spending bill, one of several that Congress must approve before the end of the year to keep the government running, threatens to prohibit the agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from issuing a final version of the nutritional guidelines at all without doing a cost-benefit analysis first.
Big companies such as Nestle, Kellogg, Viacom, McDonalds, General Mills, and Time Warner have indicated on official reports that they have lobbied on the controversial proposed guidelines; all together such companies have reported spending more than $37 million on lobbying this year. Most of these companies have a long list of concerns on Capitol Hill of which the nutrition guidelines are just one; however the totals reported demonstrate how powerful a presence these entities have in Washington. Most are also major sources of campaign money for members of Congress.
Kellogg complained that the new guidelines--which the government has stressed would be voluntary--were too strict and among other things could eliminate their use of popular characters like "Tony the Tiger" and "Ernie Keebler," the elf. Children's advocacy and health groups countered that an epidemic of childhood obesity warranted tough action.
"This influence parallels the influence of unhealthy food marketing in our children's lives," says Jeff McIntyre, director of policy for Children Now. "The real price is an obesity rate that has more than tripled in the last 30 year, alarming rises in cardiovascular diseases in younger children, and predictions of shorter life expectancies for American children for the first time in our country's history."
In October hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a representative from Campbell Soup Company, which reports spending $70,000 on lobbying this year, charged that the nutritional criteria in the guidelines are "unrealistic, counterproductive, contrary to established nutrition policy" and that industry would do a better job of policing itself.
Another witness from the Association of National Advertisers, which reported spending $820,000 on lobbying this year, argued that the proposed guidelines are “backdoor regulation” by four "extremely powerful government agencies that seek to accomplish a goal indirectly that could not be reached through normal rulemaking procedures."
At the same hearing, David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the FTC, announced that the agency was "in the midst of making significant revisions to its preliminary proposal' and that these changes would "share much in common" with new standards proposed by an industry group last summer. These changes include making the guidelines applicable to a smaller age group--children ages 2 to 11 rather than 2 to 17, and exempting seasonal advertising, such as in-store displays for Halloween.
Several weeks later, at a hearing for the renomination of FTC commissioner Jon Leibowitz, Democratic and Republican senators alike--who as reported by Sunlight counted food and media companies among their campaign donors--lobbed hostile questions about the guidelines. Leibowitz stressed the voluntary nature of the guidelines and the fact they are unenforceable.
Meanwhile, last summer, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., reported the Washington Post, inserted language into a pending appropriations bill that would prohibit the FTC from completing its draft report on nutrition guidelines without first doing a cost benefit analysis. Among her donors this election cycle are PACs for the American Beverage Association, the National Restaurant Association, and PepsiCo Inc., all of which are lobbying against the guidelines. Her office did not return several calls for comment.
The FTC guidelines, which the agency is issuing in conjunction with several other agencies, were mandated in a 2009 appropriations bill. Industry rallied against the guidelines, particularly when the FTC issued a draft and opened it up for comment last April. The agency received 29,000 comments, the great majority from letter writing campaigns supporting the proposal, according to Vladeck's testimony. Industry groups, however, also are heavily represented, with most of the groups that reported lobbying on the guidelines also filing comment letters. (Unique comments can be found on the FTC's website here.)
Some of the companies went beyond in-house lobbying staff to get help from lobbying firms on the issue. For example, the Coca-Cola Company used Williams and Jensen. Pepsico got assistance from the C2 Group and Russell and Barron. Sara Lee used SNR Denton. Over all public relations were handled by Anita Dunn, formerly communications director at the Obama White House, at the firm SKDKnickerbocker Consulting.
Children's advocacy and health organizations that support the guidelines have also reported lobbying on the guidelines; however, their efforts are not as well funded. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which sent a representative to testify at the October hearings and which was instrumental in creating the 2009 legislation mandating the guidelines, has reported spending $62,354 on lobbying this year. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported spending $205,168, and the American Dental Association, $1.9 million. Other supportive groups, such as Children Now, do not report any lobbying expenses.
Organization Reported amount spent on lobbying in 2011
American Advertising Federation $123,000
American Assn of Advertising Agencies $180,756
American Bakers Assn $23,339
American Beverage Assn $700,000
Assn of National Advertisers $820,000
Campbell Soup $70,000
Cargill Inc. $1,620,356
Coca-Cola Co $4,740,000
Dean Foods $775,000
Dunkin' Brands $390,000
Entertainment Software Assn $3,309,034
General Mills $660,000
Grocery Manufacturers Assn $2,980,000
Kellogg Co $639,484
Kraft Foods $2,090,000
Mars Inc $1,720,000
McDonald's Corp $1,120,000
National Grocers Assn $220,000
National Restaurant Assn $2,119,000
Nestle SA $3,136,400
PepsiCo Inc $2,610,000
Sara Lee Corp $390,000
Snack Food Assn $150,000
Time Warner $3,301,979
Viacom Inc $2,370,000
YUM! Brands $845,000
TOTAL $37,103,348
Follow The Sunlight Foundation on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@SunFoundation American Advertising Federation $123,000
American Assn of Advertising Agencies $180,756
American Bakers Assn $23,339
American Beverage Assn $700,000
Assn of National Advertisers $820,000
Campbell Soup $70,000
Cargill Inc. $1,620,356
Coca-Cola Co $4,740,000
Dean Foods $775,000
Dunkin' Brands $390,000
Entertainment Software Assn $3,309,034
General Mills $660,000
Grocery Manufacturers Assn $2,980,000
Kellogg Co $639,484
Kraft Foods $2,090,000
Mars Inc $1,720,000
McDonald's Corp $1,120,000
National Grocers Assn $220,000
National Restaurant Assn $2,119,000
Nestle SA $3,136,400
PepsiCo Inc $2,610,000
Sara Lee Corp $390,000
Snack Food Assn $150,000
Time Warner $3,301,979
Viacom Inc $2,370,000
YUM! Brands $845,000
TOTAL $37,103,348
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
NYTimes: How the Food Industry Eats Your Kid's Lunch
By LUCY KOMISAR December 3, 2011
An increasingly cozy alliance between companies that manufacture processed foods and companies that serve the meals is making students — a captive market — fat and sick while pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. At a time of fiscal austerity, these companies are seducing school administrators with promises to cut costs through privatization. Parents who want healthier meals, meanwhile, are outgunned.
Each day, 32 million children in the United States get lunch at schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which uses agricultural surplus to feed children. About 21 million of these students eat free or reduced-price meals, a number that has surged since the recession. The program, which also provides breakfast, costs $13.3 billion a year.
Sadly, it is being mismanaged and exploited. About a quarter of the school nutrition program has been privatized, much of it outsourced to food service management giants like Aramark, based in Philadelphia; Sodexo, based in France; and the Chartwells division of the Compass Group, based in Britain.
They work in tandem with food manufacturers like the chicken producers Tyson and Pilgrim’s, all of which profit when good food is turned to bad.
Here’s one way it works. The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006.
The Agriculture Department doesn’t track spending to process the food, but school authorities do. The Michigan Department of Education, for example, gets free raw chicken worth $11.40 a case and sends it for processing into nuggets at $33.45 a case. The schools in San Bernardino, Calif., spend $14.75 to make French fries out of $5.95 worth of potatoes.
The money is ill spent. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has warned that sending food to be processed often means lower nutritional value and noted that “many schools continue to exceed the standards for fat, saturated fat and sodium.” A 2008 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that by the time many healthier commodities reach students, “they have about the same nutritional value as junk foods.”
Monica Zimmer, a Sodexo spokeswoman, said that “much has changed” since those studies, pointing to the company’s support for “nutrition education to encourage young students to eat more fruits and vegetables.”
Roland Zullo, a researcher at the University of Michigan, found in 2008 that Michigan schools that hired private food-service management firms spent less on labor and food but more on fees and supplies, yielding “no substantive economic savings.” Alarmingly, he even found that privatization was associated with lower test scores, hypothesizing that the high-fat and high-sugar foods served by the companies might be the cause. In a later study, in 2010, Dr. Zullo found that Chartwells was able to trim costs by cutting benefits for workers in Ann Arbor schools, but that the schools didn’t end up realizing any savings.
Why is this allowed to happen? Part of it is that school authorities don’t want the trouble of overseeing real kitchens. Part of it is that the management companies are saving money by not having to pay skilled kitchen workers.
In addition, the management companies have a cozy relationship with food processers, which routinely pay the companies rebates (typically around 14 percent) in return for contracts. The rebates have generally been kept secret from schools, which are charged the full price.
Last year, Andrew M. Cuomo, then the New York State attorney general, won a $20 million settlement over Sodexo’s pocketing of such rebates. Other states are following New York and looking into the rebates; the Agriculture Department began its own inquiry in August.
With the crackdown on these rebates, food service companies have turned to another accounting trick. I found evidence that the rebate abuses are continuing, now under the name of “prompt payment discounts,” under an Agriculture Department loophole. These discounts, for payments that are often not prompt at all, are really rebates under another name. New York State requires rebates to be returned to schools, but the Sodexo settlement shows how unevenly the ban has been enforced.
The food service companies I spoke with denied any impropriety. “Our culinary philosophy, as a company, is to promote scratch cooking where possible and encourage variety and nutritionally balanced meals,” said Ayde Lyons, a Chartwells spokeswoman. “We use minimally processed foods whenever possible.”
There are economic and nutritional consequences to privatization. School kitchen workers are generally unionized, with benefits; they are also typically local residents who have children in public schools and care about their well-being. Laid-off school workers become an economic drain instead of a positive force. And the rebate deals with national food manufacturers cut out local farmers and small producers like bakers, who could offer fresh, healthy food and help the local economy.
Children pay the price. Dr. Zullo found that privately managed school cafeterias offered meals that were higher in sugar and fats and made unhealthy snack items — soda, cookies, potato chips — more readily available. The companies were also less likely to use reduced-sugar recipes. Linda Hugle, a retired school principal in Three Rivers, Ore., told me that when her district switched to Sodexo, “the savings were paltry.” She added, “You pay a little less and your kids get strawberry milk, frozen French fries and artificial shortening.”
Advocates who fight for better food face an uphill battle. Dorothy Brayley, executive director of Kids First, a nutrition advocacy group in Pawtucket, R.I., told me she encountered resistance in trying to persuade Sodexo to buy from local farmers. (Sodexo says it does buy some local produce and has opened salad bars in many schools.) Donna D. Walsh, a former school board president in Westchester County, N.Y., told me she worked with a supportive superintendent to get Aramark to stop deep-frying food and to open a salad bar. But after a new superintendent came in, she said, the company went back to profit-driven menus of pizza and bagels.
The federal government could intervene. The Agriculture Department proposed new rules this year that would set maximum calories for school meals; require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains; and limit trans fats.
Not surprisingly, the most committed foes of the rules are the same corporations that make money supplying bad food. Aramark, Sodexo and Chartwells, as well as food processing companies like ConAgra, wrote letters arguing, among other things, that children may not want to eat healthier food.
Any increase in fruit and vegetables might result in “plate waste,” wrote Sodexo. A protein requirement at breakfast, Aramark said, would hamper efforts to offer “popular breakfast items.” Their lobbying persuaded members of Congress to block a once-a-week limit on starchy vegetables and to continue to allow a few tablespoons of tomato sauce on pizza to count as a vegetable serving. Thanks to that cave-in, children will continue to get their vegetables in the form of potatoes for breakfast and pizza for lunch.
One-third of children from the ages of 6 to 19 are overweight or obese. These children could see their life expectancies shortened because of their vulnerability to diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, profit, not health, is the priority of the food service management companies, food processors and even elected officials. Until more parents demand reform of the school lunch system, children will continue to suffer.
Lucy Komisar is an investigative reporter and author, who received support from the Investigative Fund, a project of the Nation Institute, for the reporting of this essay.
An increasingly cozy alliance between companies that manufacture processed foods and companies that serve the meals is making students — a captive market — fat and sick while pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. At a time of fiscal austerity, these companies are seducing school administrators with promises to cut costs through privatization. Parents who want healthier meals, meanwhile, are outgunned.
Each day, 32 million children in the United States get lunch at schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which uses agricultural surplus to feed children. About 21 million of these students eat free or reduced-price meals, a number that has surged since the recession. The program, which also provides breakfast, costs $13.3 billion a year.
Sadly, it is being mismanaged and exploited. About a quarter of the school nutrition program has been privatized, much of it outsourced to food service management giants like Aramark, based in Philadelphia; Sodexo, based in France; and the Chartwells division of the Compass Group, based in Britain.
They work in tandem with food manufacturers like the chicken producers Tyson and Pilgrim’s, all of which profit when good food is turned to bad.
Here’s one way it works. The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006.
The Agriculture Department doesn’t track spending to process the food, but school authorities do. The Michigan Department of Education, for example, gets free raw chicken worth $11.40 a case and sends it for processing into nuggets at $33.45 a case. The schools in San Bernardino, Calif., spend $14.75 to make French fries out of $5.95 worth of potatoes.
The money is ill spent. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has warned that sending food to be processed often means lower nutritional value and noted that “many schools continue to exceed the standards for fat, saturated fat and sodium.” A 2008 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that by the time many healthier commodities reach students, “they have about the same nutritional value as junk foods.”
Monica Zimmer, a Sodexo spokeswoman, said that “much has changed” since those studies, pointing to the company’s support for “nutrition education to encourage young students to eat more fruits and vegetables.”
Roland Zullo, a researcher at the University of Michigan, found in 2008 that Michigan schools that hired private food-service management firms spent less on labor and food but more on fees and supplies, yielding “no substantive economic savings.” Alarmingly, he even found that privatization was associated with lower test scores, hypothesizing that the high-fat and high-sugar foods served by the companies might be the cause. In a later study, in 2010, Dr. Zullo found that Chartwells was able to trim costs by cutting benefits for workers in Ann Arbor schools, but that the schools didn’t end up realizing any savings.
Why is this allowed to happen? Part of it is that school authorities don’t want the trouble of overseeing real kitchens. Part of it is that the management companies are saving money by not having to pay skilled kitchen workers.
In addition, the management companies have a cozy relationship with food processers, which routinely pay the companies rebates (typically around 14 percent) in return for contracts. The rebates have generally been kept secret from schools, which are charged the full price.
Last year, Andrew M. Cuomo, then the New York State attorney general, won a $20 million settlement over Sodexo’s pocketing of such rebates. Other states are following New York and looking into the rebates; the Agriculture Department began its own inquiry in August.
With the crackdown on these rebates, food service companies have turned to another accounting trick. I found evidence that the rebate abuses are continuing, now under the name of “prompt payment discounts,” under an Agriculture Department loophole. These discounts, for payments that are often not prompt at all, are really rebates under another name. New York State requires rebates to be returned to schools, but the Sodexo settlement shows how unevenly the ban has been enforced.
The food service companies I spoke with denied any impropriety. “Our culinary philosophy, as a company, is to promote scratch cooking where possible and encourage variety and nutritionally balanced meals,” said Ayde Lyons, a Chartwells spokeswoman. “We use minimally processed foods whenever possible.”
There are economic and nutritional consequences to privatization. School kitchen workers are generally unionized, with benefits; they are also typically local residents who have children in public schools and care about their well-being. Laid-off school workers become an economic drain instead of a positive force. And the rebate deals with national food manufacturers cut out local farmers and small producers like bakers, who could offer fresh, healthy food and help the local economy.
Children pay the price. Dr. Zullo found that privately managed school cafeterias offered meals that were higher in sugar and fats and made unhealthy snack items — soda, cookies, potato chips — more readily available. The companies were also less likely to use reduced-sugar recipes. Linda Hugle, a retired school principal in Three Rivers, Ore., told me that when her district switched to Sodexo, “the savings were paltry.” She added, “You pay a little less and your kids get strawberry milk, frozen French fries and artificial shortening.”
Advocates who fight for better food face an uphill battle. Dorothy Brayley, executive director of Kids First, a nutrition advocacy group in Pawtucket, R.I., told me she encountered resistance in trying to persuade Sodexo to buy from local farmers. (Sodexo says it does buy some local produce and has opened salad bars in many schools.) Donna D. Walsh, a former school board president in Westchester County, N.Y., told me she worked with a supportive superintendent to get Aramark to stop deep-frying food and to open a salad bar. But after a new superintendent came in, she said, the company went back to profit-driven menus of pizza and bagels.
The federal government could intervene. The Agriculture Department proposed new rules this year that would set maximum calories for school meals; require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains; and limit trans fats.
Not surprisingly, the most committed foes of the rules are the same corporations that make money supplying bad food. Aramark, Sodexo and Chartwells, as well as food processing companies like ConAgra, wrote letters arguing, among other things, that children may not want to eat healthier food.
Any increase in fruit and vegetables might result in “plate waste,” wrote Sodexo. A protein requirement at breakfast, Aramark said, would hamper efforts to offer “popular breakfast items.” Their lobbying persuaded members of Congress to block a once-a-week limit on starchy vegetables and to continue to allow a few tablespoons of tomato sauce on pizza to count as a vegetable serving. Thanks to that cave-in, children will continue to get their vegetables in the form of potatoes for breakfast and pizza for lunch.
One-third of children from the ages of 6 to 19 are overweight or obese. These children could see their life expectancies shortened because of their vulnerability to diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, profit, not health, is the priority of the food service management companies, food processors and even elected officials. Until more parents demand reform of the school lunch system, children will continue to suffer.
Lucy Komisar is an investigative reporter and author, who received support from the Investigative Fund, a project of the Nation Institute, for the reporting of this essay.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Y.M.C.A. ‘Healthy Living Standards’ for Children - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/ymca-healthy-living-standards-for-children.html?_r=1&src=rechp
Y.M.C.A. Adopting Health Policies for Youth
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — The Y.M.C.A., one of the nation’s largest child-care providers, intends to announce Wednesday that it is adopting new “healthy living standards,” including offering fruits, vegetables and water at snack time, increasing the amount of exercise and limiting video games and television for youngsters in its programs.
The guidelines grow out of discussions the Y has been having with Michelle Obama, the first lady, and the Partnership for a Healthier America, a year-old nonprofit group dedicated to supporting Mrs. Obama’s campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The first lady will join Y officials for the announcement.
Roughly 700,000 youngsters are enrolled in early childhood, after-school and summer programs at 10,000 Y chapters around the country, and the organization has a broad reach into the lives of American families. Independent experts and White House officials say they hope the Y’s move will serve as a model for other day-care providers.
“The difference between kids getting a sugary beverage and an unhealthy snack versus water and an apple can change a kid’s life, if that’s what they are eating day in and day out after school,” said Sam Kass, Mrs. Obama’s top food policy adviser. “The Y sets a standard.”
The standards, however, will be voluntary; Neil Nicoll, president and chief executive of the Y.M.C.A. of the U.S.A., said the national organization could not impose them on chapters. But Mr. Nicoll said that they had been developed in consultation with Y leaders around the country, and that he expected 85 percent of chapters to comply.
“We don’t anticipate a lot of pushback,” he said. “We find that once kids get into healthy habits of eating carrots instead of cookies and being physically active instead of sitting in front of the screen, they go with the flow pretty easily.”
Specifically, the Y is urging its chapters to serve fruits and vegetables at each meal, and to offer water instead of juice. For young children, the guidelines call for 15 minutes of exercise per hour, no more than 60 minutes per day of screen time for 2- to 5-year-olds, and no screen time for children under 2. Older children would have 60 minutes a day of physical activity, and no access to television or movies. Digital devices would be used only for homework or programs that promote physical activity.
Mr. Nicoll estimates the changes will cost 50 cents per child per day; he said the Y was working with food vendors to help chapters buy discounted fruits and vegetables. It has also pledged an independent evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.
“The early childhood and youth development fields need more evidence of what works to prevent and treat obesity in children and adults,” said Carol Emig, president of Child Trends, a research organization not affiliated with the Y. “Hopefully, the Y experience will produce such evidence.”
The Y is the latest in a string of companies and organizations, including Wal-Mart and Walgreens, to sign onto Mrs. Obama’s initiative. This year, Bright Horizons, a company that provides day care to about 70,000 children, agreed to standards similar to those adopted by the Y.
The Partnership for a Healthier America, financed by philanthropies like the Kaiser Permanente and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, was founded to work with the private sector, and to ensure that Mrs. Obama’s initiative continues beyond her White House tenure. The Y will unveil its program at the partnership’s first conference; Mrs. Obama will be the keynote speaker.
“One in three kids are overweight or obese,” said Lawrence A. Soler, the partnership’s chief executive. “We are not going to be able to solve this problem in one or two presidential administrations.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: November 30, 2011
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the source of funding for the Partnership for a Healthier America. It was financed in part by the Kaiser Permanente Foundation, not Kaiser Permanente.
Y.M.C.A. Adopting Health Policies for Youth
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — The Y.M.C.A., one of the nation’s largest child-care providers, intends to announce Wednesday that it is adopting new “healthy living standards,” including offering fruits, vegetables and water at snack time, increasing the amount of exercise and limiting video games and television for youngsters in its programs.
The guidelines grow out of discussions the Y has been having with Michelle Obama, the first lady, and the Partnership for a Healthier America, a year-old nonprofit group dedicated to supporting Mrs. Obama’s campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The first lady will join Y officials for the announcement.
Roughly 700,000 youngsters are enrolled in early childhood, after-school and summer programs at 10,000 Y chapters around the country, and the organization has a broad reach into the lives of American families. Independent experts and White House officials say they hope the Y’s move will serve as a model for other day-care providers.
“The difference between kids getting a sugary beverage and an unhealthy snack versus water and an apple can change a kid’s life, if that’s what they are eating day in and day out after school,” said Sam Kass, Mrs. Obama’s top food policy adviser. “The Y sets a standard.”
The standards, however, will be voluntary; Neil Nicoll, president and chief executive of the Y.M.C.A. of the U.S.A., said the national organization could not impose them on chapters. But Mr. Nicoll said that they had been developed in consultation with Y leaders around the country, and that he expected 85 percent of chapters to comply.
“We don’t anticipate a lot of pushback,” he said. “We find that once kids get into healthy habits of eating carrots instead of cookies and being physically active instead of sitting in front of the screen, they go with the flow pretty easily.”
Specifically, the Y is urging its chapters to serve fruits and vegetables at each meal, and to offer water instead of juice. For young children, the guidelines call for 15 minutes of exercise per hour, no more than 60 minutes per day of screen time for 2- to 5-year-olds, and no screen time for children under 2. Older children would have 60 minutes a day of physical activity, and no access to television or movies. Digital devices would be used only for homework or programs that promote physical activity.
Mr. Nicoll estimates the changes will cost 50 cents per child per day; he said the Y was working with food vendors to help chapters buy discounted fruits and vegetables. It has also pledged an independent evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.
“The early childhood and youth development fields need more evidence of what works to prevent and treat obesity in children and adults,” said Carol Emig, president of Child Trends, a research organization not affiliated with the Y. “Hopefully, the Y experience will produce such evidence.”
The Y is the latest in a string of companies and organizations, including Wal-Mart and Walgreens, to sign onto Mrs. Obama’s initiative. This year, Bright Horizons, a company that provides day care to about 70,000 children, agreed to standards similar to those adopted by the Y.
The Partnership for a Healthier America, financed by philanthropies like the Kaiser Permanente and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, was founded to work with the private sector, and to ensure that Mrs. Obama’s initiative continues beyond her White House tenure. The Y will unveil its program at the partnership’s first conference; Mrs. Obama will be the keynote speaker.
“One in three kids are overweight or obese,” said Lawrence A. Soler, the partnership’s chief executive. “We are not going to be able to solve this problem in one or two presidential administrations.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: November 30, 2011
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the source of funding for the Partnership for a Healthier America. It was financed in part by the Kaiser Permanente Foundation, not Kaiser Permanente.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)