Action
Tests Reveal Poison in Nearly All Campbell's Soup
Published November 04, 2009 @ 01:16PM PT
The food processing world is reeling right now one day after a shocking new series of tests released by Consumer Reports revealed that many leading brands of canned foods contain Bisphenol A (BPA)—a toxic chemical linked to health risks including reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems.
BPA is used in the lining of cans and the toxin leaches from the lining into the food. According to Consumer Reports just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed scientific limits on daily exposure for children.
The federal government is currently studying the dangers of BPA and advocates are calling on the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage packaging by the end of the year. Companies in other industries, including Wal-Mart, Target, Nalgene, and Babies R Us have already made commitments to stop using BPA.
The food industry, however, is fighting hard to stop any government regulation. They say it is too logistically complicated to move away from BPA-lined cans. And it is true that right now there isn’t a good way to produce cans without BPA. But alternative packaging does exist. You may have heard of glass, to take just one example. Or, given how much mind-blowing chemical science goes into the production of most packaged foods, with a shift in research spending the manufacturers could probably devise a technological solution.
Boycott Whole Foods
Published August 19, 2009 @ 12:40PM PT
I've been looking the other way for a long time each time I go to Whole Foods, aka Whole Paycheck. I mean, I already know that they profit off of creating an image of sustainability- mixing organic produce with conventional. I know that the CEO John Mackey is a libertarian who opposes labor unions (none of the Whole Foods are union), and in general opposes most the ideals I fight for in my life. But, Whole Foods make my shopping pretty easy and made it easy for me to check my values at the door.
But, no more.
It is one thing to disagree with a CEO like John Mackey. Fine. We all have different politics. But, its another thing when he is taking his money and influence to fight against everything I believe in. And, right now we are a critical tipping point on health care, and the need for a public health care option.
John Mackey decided to tke the politics of the teabaggers and make them acceptable for the Wall Street crowd last week in the Wall Street Journal.. He started by throwing out the "socialism" charge at President Obama and then goes onto to argue for Health Savings Accounts, deregulation, and getting rid of insurance companies from being able to discriminate against medical conditions. Oh, and he throws in as well, people are fat so that is why we have a health care problem ( solution- shop at Whole Foods, duh!).
Mackey argues against the public option with: "While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system"And that is where he lost me, and my whole paycheck. We need a strong public option. We need to be able to have a system that can compete with the massive insurance industry. Our small businesses, including small scare organic farmers, need real health insurance reform.
I am for a sustainable food system and I believe a important key is looking to make sure all the players up the chain are supported. Which means- we need to make sure workers are paid well ( ahem- EFCA), that farmers and employees on farms can buy health insurance ( ahem- public option), and that the companies we buy from support our values for real, not just market our values back to us.
So, I am taking my money to the farmers markets, UFCW organized grocery stores, and smaller natural food stores. I hope you follow suit.
If you're on facebook, you can join the Boycott Whole Foods group here.
[Update: Natasha here, minor URL edit and corrections made, sorry to bump in.]
Politicians vs. Leaders
Published July 22, 2009 @ 02:35PM PT
This week, Steph continues her series on a critical piece of social infrastructure necessary for growing the small-scale farming sector, or any other part of a more localized economy that depends on small businesses: making a public health insurance option available to everyone.
When President Obama was elected, it seemed like everyone was quoting Abraham Lincoln. When I saw this quote today, though, it got me thinking about the current status of the health care reform debate:
A statesman is he who thinks in the future generations, and a politician is he who thinks in the upcoming elections. – Abraham Lincoln
It reminded me of another saying, though I can’t find who said it so maybe I’m making it up – A politician does what is popular, whereas a leader does what’s right.
In either case, the health care debate is separating Congress into statesmen and politicians, with politicians like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint who is trying to block all health care reform in order to settle mere political quarrels on one side, and leaders like Reps. Ron Kind and Earl Pomeroy fighting to make the lives of their constituents better on the other side.
Both Reps. Kind and Pomeroy are rural Democrats, and yet they were two of the three members of the House Ways and Means Committee (one of the committees that is charged with writing the bill in the House) who voted against party lines and against the bill. Voting against their party is a mighty unpopular thing to do, but it was right to stand up for the rural communities they represent.
Rep. Kind said that he voted against the bill in part because it tied reimbursement rates for the public health insurance option to Medicare rates, which are problematically low in rural areas and providers are reimbursed for the volume of care they provide (which will inevitably be lower in rural areas due to population density). At the same time as he voted against a bill he felt would hurt his constituents, he reiterated his support for a public health insurance option.
Rep. Pomeroy also voted against the bill for similar reasons, saying that tying payment schedules of the public health insurance option to Medicare is a deal breaker for him and that the bill in its current form did not do enough for rural health care.
If you believe the reports that Mr. Obama’s poll numbers on health care are slipping, maybe it is because the President has not been as strong a leader as he could be. Reps. Kind and Pomeroy are standing up for rural America and leading the charge for health reform that works for all of us regardless of geography.
This evening at 8pm Central time, President Obama will discuss health care reform in a prime time news conference. I hope Mr. Obama’s inner statesman – and not his inner politician – is the one who shows up tonight.
Bill Establishes Farm-to-School Program in Texas
Published July 15, 2009 @ 09:56AM PT
Hello Sustainable Food people, remember me? I'll be doing my best to help Melissa with content for this blog while Natasha is away. Looking forward to getting back into the farm and food discussion over the next couple weeks.)
Last month, Texas Senate Bill 1027 passed through the state's Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 19, 2009. The bill, sponsored by state Senator Kirk Watson, provides for the establishment of an inter-agency farm-to-school coordination task force in order to increase the ability of schools in the state to purchase locally produced foods to feed students.
First off, yay! I'm happy to see that government officials in Texas are taking a proactive role in increasing the amount of healthy foods available to state schools.
With the recent documentation that a full 20 percent of pre-schoolers in the U.S. are obese (yes, not just overweight, but obese), this legislation could not come at a better time.
Among the various tasks the bill requires the task force to accomplish (with my comments italicized):
- Offer assistance in identifying funding sources and grants that allow schools and school districts to recover the costs associated with purchasing locally grown food products. (I can't tell you how important this provision is. The greatest barrier to getting more fresh and local food into schools is cost, and if government can help defray that cost, schools will be much more willing to shell out the extra money for fresh food.)
- Provide technical assistance to school food service agencies to establish procedures, recipes, menu rotations, and other internal processes that accommodate the use of locally grown foods in public schools. (It's easy to throw a bunch of frozen french fries in the deep frier, but it's quite another to figure out how to incorporate beets, leeks and other fresh veggies into meals--and get kids to actually eat them.)
- Identify, design, or make available training programs to enable local farmers and ranchers to market their products to schools and school districts. (Making it easier, and of course profitable, for farmers to sell their products to schools helps to remove another barrier in making more locally produced good available.)
Second, I'm even more pleased to see the emphasis the legislation places on nutritional and experiential food education. More than simply making it easier for schools to source locally grown food, the task force is designed to encourage kids to learn to appreciate and understand the value of diets that include lots of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The earlier you teach children about the joys of enjoying fresh food, the more likely they'll take these eating habits with them as they grow older.
It won't be until the winter of 2010 until this task force is actually set up and ready to make recommendations on how to increase local foods in schools. As we've seen before, just because a government program is set up, it does not mean it's going to be effective.
I'm hoping that this task force will keep in mind the health and well-being of the state's children as they're working toward a stronger statewide food system.
(Photo credit: Bonzo McGrue on Flickr)
Inventing Controversy
Published July 10, 2009 @ 11:34AM PT
There's nothing the media loves more than a good horse race. A little controversy - or a lot of it - sparks readers' interest and drives up sales. In the absence of actual controversy, though, the media sometimes has to invent some.
The debate over health care reform is a great example.
72% of Americans support a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers, according to a recent poll done by New York Times/CBS News. The poll was taken in mid-June and showed that people of all political stripes support health reform that, in the words of President Obama, "keep[s] insurance companies honest." Almost half of people identifying as Republicans supported the idea of a public health insurance option, as well as over 70% of independents and nearly 90% of Democrats.
Another recent survey of small business owners in Nebraska and Iowa found strikingly similar numbers. Done by the Small Business Majority, 69% of Iowa small business owners and 70% of Nebraska small business owners support the choice of a private or public health insurance plan.
I would hardly call this controversy.
It appears that the Democratic leadership in the Senate, where it's likely much of this debate will take place, is beginning to think that those numbers don't really constitute much controversy either. In an article from the newspaper Roll Call, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) that he should stop trying to put forward a bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option or that taxes health benefits, because doing so could lose the votes of 10 to 15 Senate Democrats.
So why, then, is there the appearance of controversy? Ezra Klein puts it well:
Every interview with members of the administration involved in health-care reform goes the same way: A reporter asks if they support the public plan. They do. Then the intrepid reporters asks if it's non-negotiable. And, like everything else in health-care reform "except for success," the public plan turns out to be negotiable. And that's the headline.
In the U.S. Senate, however, there seems to be actual controversy over whether the average American should have the choice of a public health insurance plan. When asked about the New York Times/CBS News poll showing such overwhelming support of a public health insurance option, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) quipped, "Poll numbers, as you know, are here today and gone tomorrow. What's going to decide what passes here are votes [of Senators]."
One only needs to follow the money to see where the appearance of controversy in the Senate might be coming from - the $1.4 million dollars per day that the health care industry is spending on lobbying Congress. And it's not enough to have just anyone lobbying for the industry on Capitol Hill - the Washington Post reports:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records...Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)...At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.)
When a legislator is hearing from scores more well-heeled and well-funded lobbyists than constituents, they may start to think that there is controversy where there largely isn't.
That's why your members of Congress need to hear from you. Right now.
You are the expert in the reasons why you need affordable health insurance, your community needs access to quality medical care, and why a public health insurance option creates competition that will help keep the health insurance companies from exploiting the elderly, the sick, and the self-employed.
Even if you've called before, even if your members of Congress have spoken in support of a public health insurance option before, they need to hear it again. We need to remind members of Congress what rural Americans need. Hearing from you helps them do the right thing and stand up against health industry lobbyists.
We may not have millions of dollars, but rural Americans know how to make a racket. Let's remind Congress who they represent and what we need: Health reform that works for all of us.
Buckle Up! The Final Push for Food Safety is On!
Published May 30, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
This is it! We've got a food safety bill, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (FSEA), and it will soon be introduced by Henry Waxman. He's posted a draft on his website and my lawyer friends are already combing through its 120-pages to figure out if it's "the change we need." But one thing seems certain: IF a food safety bill passes this year (and I think it will), it's going to be this one. We've got the next week or so to figure out what is in it, and what we want to see changed. We'll learn a bit at a June 3 hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and soon after that, the bill will be marked up by the committee (i.e. they'll make all the changes they want to make in it). Then the committee will vote on it. If they've done a good job compromising and making deals in the mark up, it should pass. And it will most likely pass the full House as well. From there the Senate will take it up, and who knows what is going to happen there (or when it will happen). But it's up to us to make sure that the House passes the best bill possible so that the Senate can have the best possible starting point.
So what does the bill include?
The good: The bill gives the FDA the authority to call for mandatory recalls. It also calls for increased inspections by the FDA for all food facilities (factories and warehouses, but not farms or restaurants). Currently these places get inspected about once a decade. The bill increases the frequency to every 6 mos to 4 years, depending on risk.
The not so good: The bill assesses "user fees" of $1000 per food facility to pay for the cost of increased inspection. While this is what is politically feasible at the moment, it's not ideal. I'd rather that the FDA didn't get funded by the people it regulates. Also, why is the woman who sells jam at my farmer's market required to pay the same amount as General Mills or Kraft? Note that farms and restaurants do NOT have to pay these user fees.
The missing: There is no current requirement for microbial testing for pathogens and reporting of results to the FDA. Umm... Congress? Wanna fix that?
If you want to make sure that the final bill is written to our liking and not to the lobbyists' liking, please call your member of Congress and voice your opinions. You can also look up members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and give them a call. You can email your own member of Congress, but make sure you call the others. Typically they don't read emails that come from outside their districts.
Branding Food As Politics
Published May 12, 2009 @ 12:02AM PT
When I was at the Brooklyn Food Conference, one of the things that came up briefly was the importance of branding.
Think about going out of town and needing to buy something. Maybe food, maybe something else. You look for the name of a store or restaurant chain that you know. Say you don't find one you recognize, but you go into a place that looks like they'll have what you need. Do you find yourself looking first for a familiar brand or dish before you'll start evaluating the alternatives?
If you're like most people, including me, the answer is probably yes. And why?
First, it isn't anything to be ashamed of. We have a lot of things on our minds at any given time. The world is full of choices and interesting stimuli; so much of it in fact that our brains use up a good few neurons suppressing much of our conscious awareness of non-essential information.
