It's a Water Problem

After spending 3 months thinking and writing about sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and school food environments I am a little concerned about the effects of the New York Times' Toxic Waters series and peoples' consumption of water (a great alternative to all those sugary drinks).

The series is exposing the many problems with our nations' water supply (including the dangers hidden in some tap water).

News Flash

The intersection between the environment and public's health has made recent headlines in the New York Times. I wonder if it is any surprise that conditions related to CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are implicated in at least one of the public health disasters. Here two of the most interesting (and disturbing) stories I read recently:

• Health Ills Abound as Runoff Fouls Wells - The New York Times reported today that excess cattle manure is contaminating local water systems. The pollution is resulting in a wide-range of health problems including diarrhea, ear infections, and skin rashes. The problem appears to be in the enforcement of laws already on the books. Local communities need more safety mechanisms in place to identify and prevent possible sources of water contamination and to act quickly once a problem is identified.



• Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering - A Sunday special in the New York Times investigates the problem of contaminated drinking water, beginning with a community in coal country West Virginia. Though legislation is in place (the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act) both are systematically violated resulting in dental caries, skin rashes, and likely far greater medical conditions. Again, regulators are overwhelmed, but urgent action and redress is needed.
  
  
  

Missing the Health in Health Care Reform

Michael Pollan was preaching to the choir today in his New York Times op-ed piece on "Big Food Vs. Big Insurance." His words were music to my ears:

"...the fact that the United States spends twice as much per person as most European countries on health care can be substantially explained...by our being fatter. ...

That's why our success in bringing health care costs under control ultimately depends on whether Washington can summon the political will to take on and reform a second, even more powerful industry: the food industry."

As excited as I was to hear Obama's rallying cry on health care reform last night, I was disappointed to hear prevention offered as a critical element of reform only one, maybe two, times.  Prevention isn't a sexy or politically inspiring topic, I know. Yet, public health is all about prevention. Public health is about "creating the conditions in which people can be healthy."

The food industry has significantly changed the way Americans (and populations globally) eat. Few countries have been spared. Those that refuse to let huge US-based multinational food manufacturers in, or that limit their reach, have often met much resistance and criticism. Yet, as Barbara Kingsolver would say, these resistant countries are protecting their food culture. They are also consequently protecting their health.

In an effort to get the cheapest, most convenient food we have sacrified quality, nutrition, and health. We have kids in America who are both obese AND malnourished. How have we let that happen?

While I am all in support of health care reform moving forward, it will in no way be a panacea for America's poor health. There are enough players out there who want to profit from sickness, not just the insurance companies. Pollan has brought this to our attention, once again.

Buying "Organic" Or Are You?

A few weeks ago the Washington Post ran an article titled "Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label is Questioned." It discusses the major battle that is being waged by organic food advocates over the federal loopholes that allow companies to achieve a 'USDA Organic' seal of approval without assurances that 100% of the ingredients are non-synthetic or cultivated organically (in actuality the real proportion is only 95% organic ingredients - click here for an explanation of the tiers of 'organic' labels). A few examples:

• Pre-grated organic cheeses -- wood starch
• Organic beer - non-organic hops (how is it organic then? the water?)
• Baby formula - synthetic fatty acids

So why did the federal government introduce these loopholes? Industry lobbying. The organic market is growing -- everyone wants to be 'in on it' even if they do not technically produce or sell organic products. So because Kraft and Dole (among others...) want to be able to put organic products in stores without the requisite time, energy, and skill they appeal to the Organic Standards Board to expand the list of allowable non-organic substances (...that 5%...). In 2002 that list had 77 items, now it has 245!

This is the reason why consumer education is so challenging and important. Industry is constantly trying to manipulate consumers by calling their products "100% whole grain," "fresh," and "natural". They play on consumer desire to eat healthier, but what results is little actual change and movement toward healthy because consumers are often being duped.

This is a major reason why small farms that sell to your local grocer -- not the big chains -- may not market their products as "organic" even though they are! Why go through the hassle of getting the organic label when the food giants are corrupting the name?

In my opinion, the addition of synthetic ingredients should disqualify products to be labelled as 'organic.' This is clearly not how the USDA defines it. And as for the quote by Barbara Robinson, the deputy USDA administrator for the organics program,

"We don't attempt to say how synthetic products can be produced... Manufacturers say the fatty acids [added to infant formula] are safe and provide health benefits to infants."

I would like to know how rigorous and effective are the health and safety checks conducted by manufacturers (??!!) -- I would say that is not a part of their training or expertise. These politicians can not rely on them for information! They need to look to an independent, expertly conducted evidence base of research. They must fund this and prioritize it for progress to be made and for this nonsense to end. 

We need people in Washington to stand up for small farmers and to not cave in to industry lobbyists. There needs to be a 'food constitution' and a revival of food culture in the United States that expects transparency and clarity with regards to what we are putting in our bodies each day and how that will affect our health, energy, and vitality down the road. 

Will Obama's increased funding for the Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program put an end to these charades? Or will it just expand the consumer abuse? 

I mean, really! If I'm paying more to buy 'organic' it better be exactly what I think it is...

Take Our Beef, Or Else!

The week before leaving office, former President Bush approved a 300% tariff hike on Roquefort cheese. The news caught my attention while riding the T. Dramatically, the Metro article suggested that in retaliation the EU may raise the tariff for US imports of Coca-Cola. While this seems a bit far-feteched, I had to wonder 'Why? Why did our government decide to place such an enormous tax on Roquefort, the infamous moldy, sheep's milk, inimitable creation?'  

Well, according to reports in Time, Huffington Post, and the UK's Guardian this political decision was made to punish the European Union (EU) for their refusal to import meat raised with artificial hormones and antibiotics, a restriction that dates back to 1989. Take that EU or more specifically, the French district of Lozeyron! No longer will Americans enjoy your delectable cheese because you refuse to import our potentially toxic meats! I mean really?! What may be the effect of such tariffs -- recipes left unfulfilled? Wisconsin (i.e., domestic) alternatives embraced? Roquefort-lover riots in protest?

This short announcement caught my eye because it sheds light on the huge influence that the meat industry has on US policy -- both domestic and international. The EU ban on beef imports was due to the untraditional methods used to raise the cattle (i.e., use of antibiotics and hormones to help the cows grow fatter, faster on a  corn, rather than grass-based,  diet). In fact, the International Trade Commission published a 2008 report on the current state of US beef exports, which details which countries and regions are not importing US beef and why.  

Anyway, it was an interesting story I had to share. For more on US Food Policy and developments in "BigAg" check out this US Food Policy blog out of Tufts University. It is a great blog!