The Food Environment

New Ads Target Dads

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

Public Health professionals can often be heard saying that education is not effective at getting people to change their behaviors.  This sounds pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that the majority of American’s are overweight, yet for over 100 years people have been taught that eating healthy and staying active is the best way to maintain a healthy weight.  There is a form of education however that is very effective--advertising. 

Food advertising is ubiquitous and has become part of our environment.  We are constantly bombarded with images to “educate” and lure us into eating unhealthy foods.  Ads are designed not just to inform us about how good a product is, but also to get us to associate that product with certain traits or lifestyles that we desire.  This messaging helps to build brand loyalty, so that we prefer one brand to another even though in reality there may be little difference between them.

This Week's Food News

By Young-Rok Shin, MD, MPH

Tired of reading about Hurricane Irene, check out these stories from the week of 8/22/2011.

In As Farmers’ Markets Go Mainstream, Some Fear a Glut Kate Zezima of the New York Times reported,  that although the recent surge in popularity of farmers’ markets has led to greater and easier accessibility to fresh farm produce for many consumers, the number of new markets being created may actually be greater than the demand for their products. Many farmers are reporting substantial decreases in their profit margins and are facing greater transportation and labor costs as they try to supply more markets in order to keep their revenues up.

USDA Actions Speak Louder Than Words

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

The soda industry scored a major victory last week when the USDA rejected New York City’s proposal for a pilot program to stop the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Funds (SNAP aka Food Stamps) from being used to purchase empty calorie soda.  While soda companies protested the program under the guise of protecting the rights of the poor, they were really concerned about protecting corporate profits.  The NYC plan would not have stopped anyone from purchasing soda if they chose to, but it would have reduced the income of companies selling soda.  NYC estimates that in its jurisdiction between $85 and $135 million of tax payer dollars are used, through the SNAP program, to pay for non-nutritious sodas each year.  If program such as NYC proposed were adopted nationwide, that would essentially mean over $1.7 billion less a year in federal subsidies to soda companies!

Obesity is well known to be the result of calorie intake exceeding calorie expenditure.  Soda has been implicated by numerous studies to be a major source of excess unhealthy calories in the American diet.  In fact conservative estimates show that American adult consume over 150 and children over 190 calories a day from sugar-sweetened beverages. 

While the Federal Government has spent the last 100 years asking citizens to eat a healthy diet, it has at the same time spent citizens’ money supporting a toxic food environment.  The typical example of this is taxpayer money used to subsidize the growing of corn and soy, which is turned into the fat and sugar that make up processed foods.  The purchasing of unhealthy foods with SNAP dollars represents another example of federal subsidies to food companies.  NYC proposal offered the Federal Government a chance to show its support for a healthy food environment.  Unfortunately actions do speak louder than words and the failure of the USDA to approve the pilot program demonstrates once again that the priorities of the Federal Government are the pocketbooks of the food industry not the public’s health.  Its time the Federal Government stops simply paying lipservice to eating healthy and adopts policies consistent with dietary reccomendations.

Do Genetically Engineered Foods Really Need to Be Regulated Less?

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

(Note: This article was originally published on the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future's Blog)

Nina Federoff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and professor at Penn State University penned an Opinion piece in the New York Times last week asking for less regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops.  Professor Federoff would like to see more grant money available for research and more scientists working on the development of GE foods, but states in her article, that the regulatory bars of the EPA, USDA, and FDA are set to high and are stifling scientists from making innovations.

Ignoring the rest of her argument that GE seeds dramatically improve crop yields (they don’t and in fact agroecological farming methods are not only better for the environment but better for yields), reduce the use of chemicals (they don’t, pesticide use has increased since the introduction of GE crops in the US), improve the lives of Farmers (not in India or the US), and have not been shown to cause harm to the environment (she forgot about the development of superweeds, pollution of waters, and harm to soil), lets focus on her idea that regulations are too complicated and stringent.  As you will see, this is simply not the case.  In fact, regulations may be too lax, as they allow corporations driven by profit, not protecting public health, to drive the research or lack their of, to demonstrate safety and as well explained in many of the above articles, the US experience with GM crops has indeed led to environmental problems.

This Week's Food News

Here are a few links to some interesting news about the Food Environment that happened this week.

Schools Restore Fresh Cooking to the Cafeteria.  The NY Times reports on how one school district in Colorado, in which 60% of their students are on free or reduced lunch are going to be cooking school meals from scratch.  Unlike what you might have seen on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, the staff at these cafeterias is excited for the change and its actually going to cost less to cook healthier food from scratch.

More farmers markets mean more jobs.  Tom Laskawy of Grist writes about the release of USDA statistics that showed a 17% increase in the number of Famer’s markets over the past year and a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that suggest growing local agriculture will result in new jobs and less unemployment.

An important and often neglected component of our food system are the people that harvest our fruits and vegetables.  Many of these people are undocumented immigrants and/or are treated poorly.  The low wages and poor working conditions that these workers endure help keep the price of industrial food low.  (For more on this check out the Coalition of Imokalee Workers)  In this weeks NY Times “Room for Debate”  6 authors discuss the topic-Could Farms Survive Without Illegal Labor? 

Chicken, Now Available with Less Poison

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

(Note:  This Article was originally published in the American College of Preventive Medicine Resident Physician Newsletter)

Many people would probably be surprised to find out that arsenic, the metalloid element sometimes referred to as “the king of poisons”, has been a common additive to chicken feed for over 60 years.  Organic arsenic is the active component in Roxarsone, a drug that is fed to birds in order to speed growth, kill parasites, and improve the cosmetic appearance of their meat.  It is estimated that about 2 million pounds of Roxarsone are fed to conventionally raised chickens each year and according to one industry representative 88% of all chickens receive the drug. 

As of July 8, 2011, however, Pfizer the maker of Roxarsone, has voluntarily suspended sales of the drug.   This moves comes on the heels of an FDA study in which increased levels of inorganic arsenic were detected in the livers of chickens fed Roxarsone.

National Archives Looks at How the Government Influences What Americans Eat

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

The National Archives is the repository for important US government documents.  At the main branch in Washington DC, documents such as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are available for view.  Recently a new exhibit was set up just down the hall from these great papers titled “What’s Cooking, Uncle Sam? The Government’s Effect on the American Diet.”  The small exhibit which runs until January 3^rd 2012 uses items from the Archives to explain a number of different US policies that have effected how food is grown, regulated, and eaten.

Is Obesity Contagious?

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

The answer to that question, according to a well-publicized paper, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is yes.  The article published in 2007 by Christakis and Fowler used data from the Framingham Study (a long running cohort study from which we have learned a lot about chronic disease and its risk factors) to construct social networks to investigate the relationship between obesity and friendship.  Using complex statistical methods, the authors argue that obesity is more likely to occur in a previously non-obese person if a close friend becomes obese and that this development of obesity is independent of their environment or a tendency of people to choose friends with similar attributes.

Today’s New York Times reports that another more recent paper is refuting the claims made by Christakis and Fowlers and states that the statistical reasoning they applied to their data does not allow them to draw the conclusions they have.  In this new paper, author Prof Lyons, is quite annoyed by what he believes is the improper use of statistics (something that happens far too often) and he writes that in their New England Journal of Medicine Paper, Christakis and Fowler in many cases should have drawn conclusions opposite to what they did.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Food Stamps and the Farm Bill

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

Check out this extensive article I wrote with Ed Yowell for the Food Systems Network NYC Farm Bill Series about the Supplemental Nutrition Assitance Program (SNAP), the Farm Bill, and how people are looking at Food Stamps in a new way to improve public health.  FARM BILL 1.06

We Are Surrounded

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

Last week I had to 2^nd overnight ship an important package to Boston.  As the clerk at the FedEx counter finished ringing me up for the shipment, he asked “would you like to buy some candy?” 

“What?” I replied, somewhat taken aback by his question.

“We have a good selection of candy, would you like to buy some?” He repeated.

“No-no thank you.” I said in a rather dismayed tone and then I grabbed by receipt and left the store.  Shaking my head on the way out, I kept thinking that it was crazy that at the FedEx store they had tried to up sell me with candy, instead of perhaps a more express delivery!  But then, I probably should not have been so surprised.  After all, there are few places you can go these days that are not trying to sell you some type of tempting treats, be it candy or pastries, including bookstores, hardware stores, gas stations, office supply stores, furniture stores, clothing stores, and even gyms.