Divided We Eat

Newsweek Magazine has a very interesting article, written by Lisa Miller and published November 22, 2010, with associated photo essays and side articles on American eating choices. It is titled,  Divided We Eat.

As more of us indulge our passion for local, organic delicacies, a growing number of Americans don’t have enough nutritious food to eat. How we can bridge the gap.

It's an interesting read, and I encourage our readers to check it out. Don't miss the link to the listing of the Ten Things That Changed the Way We Eat.

Alliance Seeks to Boost Image of Production Agriculture

There is a news item that has been picked up by a number of sources - the formation of a new alliance of agricultural groups for the purpose of marketing the benefits of production agriculture.  Those concerned about aspects of current agricultural production panned the new alliance and those concerned about media criticism of agricultural production cheered.  The Shook, Hardy & Bacon Food & Beverage Litigation Newsletter provided a neutral news recap excerpted as follows:

Agriculture Groups Form Alliance to Bolster Image of U.S. Farm Production Methods
 
A coalition of 24 farmer- and rancher-led organizations has reportedly formed an alliance to “develop and implement a well-funded, long-term, and coordinated public trust campaign for American agriculture.” The U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) includes organizations from virtually all aspects of agriculture that share the goal of bolstering the image of farm production methods.
 
According to a November 11, 2010, USFRA press release, the alliance’s initial focus will be to (i) “increase consumer, consumer influencer and thought leader trust and confidence in today’s agriculture”; (ii) “serve as a resource to food companies on the benefits of today’s agricultural production”; (iii) “work with leading health, environmental and dietary organizations to demonstrate the benefits of today’s agricultural production”; and (iv) “increase the role of U.S. farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues.”. . .

 “The sun rises today on a new, collaborative and coordinated effort by many segments of production agriculture to tell our great story as never before,” newly-elected USFRA Chair Bob Stallman said in a statement. . . . See USFRA Press Release, November 11, 2010; National Journal Daily, November 12, 2010.

I don't think that what agriculture needs is a better marketing campaign.  I agree that farmers and non-farm consumers need to learn more about each other.  But one-way street lobbying efforts are not the way to achieve that result.

The agricultural sector is doing a lot of great things. But there are also some significant problems that have resulted from our phenomenal production.  A little self-reflection is called for. 

The press releases issued by the new USFRA all seem to imply that if we just tell everyone how good agriculture is, the problems will go away.  However, an ad campaign will not clean up wells contaminated by industrialized dairy operations.  It will not create more water when underground acquifers are depleted.  It will not halt the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria.  It will not slow fossil fuel consumption.  It will not make our food any safer or pay our migrant workers a living wage.

Shouldn't funds be spent to figure out ways to address these and other significant problems while preserving agricultural productivity?  Wouldn't it be fantastic to see agricultural groups coming together to solve problems, or even more amazing -  coming together with consumer groups to discuss solutions to our problems?  Isn't an ad campaign just another way to pretend that the problems don't exist?

Let's have an honest discussion, i.e., a dialogue about the sustainability of our food system -  environmental sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability (making sure that farmers earn enough to cover the costs of good production practices), not an ad campaign.  The farmers that I admire are the kind of people that step up to problems and are always looking for better ways to do things.  Not shoving problems under the rug and advertising complacency.

By the way, the acronym USFRA is already in use by the U.S. First Responders Association, a non-profit, network, of firefighters, EMS, rescue, police officers, military and civilian support teams.

Pesticide Residue Conflict Puts UDSA in the Middle

In September, a USDA press release announced a round of new USDA grants of "Funds to Enhance the Competitiveness of Specialty Crops."  Most appear to be great projects, and it is nice to see healthy food getting government dollars.

The Atlantic, however, did some digging into the grant recipients - When Big Ag Attacks: Government Sponsored Pesticide Propaganda.  As reported,  One California grant goes to:

"Partner with the Alliance for Food and Farming to correct the misconception that some fresh produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide residues by providing the media, the public and various target audiences with scientific information concerning the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables." 

According to the organizations' website, Alliance for Food and Farming was formed in 1989 and currently has a membership of approximately 50 farmers or farm groups who represent producers of U.S. fruit, vegetable and other specialty crops. The Atlantic, however, refers to it as a PR front, with directors from corporate agriculture.

In July 2010, Alliance launched a website blasting an Environmental Working Group's website and specifically its, Shoppers Guide to Pesticides.  The Shoppers Guide lists the fruits and vegetables most likely and those least likely to contain pesticide residues.  EWG specifically recommends "that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic,” but cautions consumers to consider pesticide residue in the selections they make.

The Alliance website, Safe Fruits and Vegetables challenges the EWG guide, stating that it is:

(a) misleading to consumers, (b) an impediment to public health because it discourages consumption of fresh produce and (c) lacks scientific evidence that the pesticide levels found pose any risk. As a result, there is no reason why a consumer should use this list to guide their purchasing decisions for fruits and vegetables.

Apparently, the Alliance now has funds from the USDA for additional testing.  Two facts are disturbing about this grant.  First, the grant specifies that the testing is supposed to "correct the misconception" about pesticides in produce.  Isn't that bad science per se, as it pre-determines the desired outcome?  And second, it turns out that the USDA may be funding research to refute its own research. 

EWG analysts have developed the Guide based on data from nearly 89,000 tests for pesticide residues in produce conducted between 2000 and 2008 and collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

I'd like to see USDA stick with funding good research, not research designed to promote one crop or one method of farming over another.  Isn't that what good science is all about?   Funding a grant for research with a pre-designed outcome just reinforces public cynicism.  Let's put research dollars into reducing and eliminating pesticide residues, not into public relations campaigns.

The Role of Government and the Dairy Check Off

Much has been made about "limited" government in this election season, but unfortunately much of that discussion has been more about slogans than about any real analysis.

The New York Times raised a related issue today that takes the role of government discussion in a different direction, highlighting a problem that I have raised for years in my teaching of agricultural law subjects.  The USDA is consistently expected to balance two distinct and often divergent roles -  supporting the U.S. agricultural industry and supporting a healthy and safe food system. 

The New York Times article, While Warning About Fat, US Pushes Cheese Sales provides a concrete example.  The USDA is both involved in promoting cheese consumption and in encouraging us to eat a diet with less saturated fat.  The article quotes Dr. Walter C. Willett, chairman of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department. "The USDA should not be involved in these programs that are promoting foods that we are consuming too much of already."

The article discusses Dairy Management, an organization funded by the dairy industry through its government-backed "check-off program" as the entity that is actively promoting the increased consumption of cheese.  This, in and of itself, is not unusual.  Almost all food producers actively promote their products.  We are literally bombarded with television advertisements, celebrity endorsements, "happy meals," grocery product placement tricks, etc., all designed to get us to eat foods, many of which are not good for us, at least in the quantity we eat them.  It should be no surprise that the dairy industry wants us to eat more cheese.  As Dairy Management brags on its website:

Between 1983 — the year the dairy checkoff came into existence — and the present, sales have increased by nearly 90 pounds per capita, an increase of 17 percent. Today, per capita consumption is growing at a healthy pace, outpacing population growth.

It is the involvement of the government that creates the real controversy.  And, this is a complex issue. One cannot "follow the money" and understand the story.  The dairy check-off program, like other agricultural check-off programs, is funded almost exclusively by dairy producers and processors through a mandatory check-off system.  The only specific allegation of USDA funding is money provided to Dairy Management for the promotion of dairy products for export markets. 

The government connection is more structural.  The check-off system was created by Congress. The dairy check-off is one of a number of similar systems (e.g., pork and beef check offs).  It is mandatory, and in response to a challenge by smaller producers, it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as a constitutional exercise of "government speech."

As the USDA explains with respect to the dairy program:

The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized a national producer program for dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and reduce milk surpluses. This self-help program is funded by a mandatory 15-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on all milk produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially by dairy farmers. It is administered by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).

Consider what Justice Scalia said in the Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the beef check-off system. This similar system was challenged by smaller producers who did not feel that its message served them well. The court rejected the challenge, holding it was protected "government speech."

The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government. Congress has directed the implementation of a “coordinated program” of promotion, “including paid advertising, to advance the image and desirability of beef and beef products.” 7 U.S.C. §§ 2901(b), 2902(13). Congress and the Secretary have also specified, in general terms, what the promotional campaigns shall contain, see, e.g., § 2904(4)(B)(i) (campaigns “shall ... take into account” different types of beef products), and what they shall not, see, e.g., 7 CFR § 1260.169(d) (2004) (campaigns shall not, without prior approval, refer “to a brand or trade name of any beef product”). Thus, Congress and the Secretary have set out the overarching message and some of its elements, and they have left the development of the remaining details to an entity whose members are answerable to the Secretary (and in some cases appointed by him as well).

Moreover, the record demonstrates that the Secretary exercises final approval authority over every word used in every promotional campaign. All proposed promotional messages are reviewed by Department officials both for substance and for wording, and some proposals are rejected or rewritten by the Department. Nor is the Secretary's role limited to final approval or rejection: Officials of the Department also attend and participate in the open meetings at which proposals are developed.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550, 125 S.Ct. 2055 (2005).

The New York Times article raises a very important issue. Justice Souter actually raised a similar point in his dissent, noting that USDA dietary guidelines were inconsistent with the additional consumption of beef advocated by the ad campaign. What the Times article may miss, however, is that this is not a problem within the USDA. Secretary Vilsack has done more than any USDA Secretary of Agriculture has ever done to promote healthy foods. His department, however, has been given duties that sometimes cannot be reconciled. Congress needs to address the issue and de-couple the government from industry advertising.  And, then, if the ads are false (as in the referenced claim that dairy products will help to reduce weight), the FTC should challenge them.