A little known provision nestled in the momentous healthcare bill passed this week means a big change for all those who eat out.  Over the next year, the FDA is mandated to write rules that will require calorie counts on menus of all restaurant chains with 20+ locations.

It turns out that reinforcing calorie counts with the 2000 calories a day recommendation is most effective.  Let’s hope the FDA takes note.

Studies are still being done on the effectiveness of this approach, with early ones showing no change to a 6% reduction in purchased calories.  Either way, giving consumers more information can only be a good thing.

Calorie count laws have already passed in New York City, Seattle, and California. This legislation is a great example of popular local initiatives bubbling up to the national level.

Update: And I suspect this is why the Restaurant Association was lobbying against the healthcare bill.

The Rudd Center has a great little calculator that estimates how much revenue a city or state could generate with a tax on sugar sweetened beverages.  On the low end with a tax of 1 cent per ounce, Washington, DC could generate $25 million per year:

The big winner? California with an estimated intake of $1.8 billion per year.  And we all know they could use the money.

(H/T Bitten)

The Problem:

The state spends tens of billions of dollars on imported food, much of which already is or could be grown in state, and exports its own farm produce. Local food systems developed at the community level have flourished—in the last decade, the number of farmers’ markets in Illinois has grown from 97 to 270, while the number of community-supported agriculture organizations, groups that sell shares of farm harvests directly to consumers, has more than quadrupled. But large consumers—like hospitals, museums, restaurants, grocery stores, corporate kitchens, schools, and universities—have found it difficult to procure local food in the quantities they need. And, many inner-city and rural communities in Illinois lack access to grocery stores, markets, or other sources of fresh, healthy foods.

The Solution:

Specifically, the legislation sets up a grown-in-Illinois label and certification program, directs state agencies to purchase at least 20 percent of their food locally by 2020, and allows them to pay premium prices for local food. One particular goal is to increase the amount of local food served in public schools.

The law also establishes a new agency that will encourage farmers to grow food for local markets and will help build the statewide distribution networks needed to get their fresh produce to the people who want to eat it.

Pretty cool.  Check out the whole article on how Illinois is trying to go local by Brooke Jarvis over at Yes! Magazine.

Seems the CEO of Whole Foods really stepped in it this past week, when he came out with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal disparaging healthcare reform. Mackey came off as a died in the wool right-winger parroting Fox News talking points:

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.

As Jusiper points out, the man clearly doesn’t understand his customer base if he thinks that carrying water for Limbaugh is a good way to burnish his brand.

Not very smart for a company that depends almost entirely on wealthy Democrats who are willing to pay five dollars for a six ounce carrot soda. Come on, you can do it, boycott them for at least a week and discover how much money you can save at Trader Joe’s.

This mess prompted several progressive activists to engage in the fight, calling on people to boycott Whole Foods, which in turn, caused Whole Foods to release a non-apology apology.

Really, I would have thought that Mackey was smarter than this. Hope Trader Joes appreciates the lesson to be learned here.

McCain is continuing his (sometimes crusade against earmarks today, with his attempt to strip several elements out of the Agricultural Appropriations Bill this morning, including money to research the the economical problems of producing dairy.  Obviously it would be better to just remain in the dark about that issue.

Railing against millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending, Mr. McCain zeroed in on a $372,000 study of dairy profitability in Pennsylvania — one of a few items in the bill related to the milk business.

And those payments that are trying to keep dairy farmers afloat during the current crisis? McCain wants to give that the old heave-hoe, too.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products under a dairy indemnity program, such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended: Provided, That such program is carried out by the Secretary in the same manner as the dairy indemnity program described in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-12).

Luckily, the amendment failed.  Good thing McCain does that failure thing a lot.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act has failed to gain passage in the House this afternoon.  Needing a two-thirds vote, the tally came in 6 votes short, 280-150. Most opposition was Republican, but there was a few key Democrats that voted nay:

Arcuri
Bean
Blumenauer
Childers
Griffith
Heinrich
Hinchey
Kagen
Kind
Luján
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Minnick
Perriello
Pingree (ME)
Salazar
Shuler
Taylor
Teague
Welch
Woolsey

This is a really odd collection of reps here.  On one side, there is conservative dems like Huler and Bean, on the otherhand there are some of the most progressive members mixed in such as Blumenauer and Welch. The bill will now go back to committe for a new round of revisions in order to pull in the needed 6 votes.

The Seattle Department of Transportation recently relaxed gardening ordiances, making the city just a little more friendly to its urban gardeners.  It used to be that planting anything but grass on the green strips (parking strips) between the sidewalk and the street would set a person back $225 for a permit. Now the permits are free and residents are welcome to grow vegetables in the green space.

Of course there are nay-sayers and you can check out their arguments in the comments of the article.  The two prevailing critiques are 1) vegetables will encourage the local rat population, and 2) that exhaust fumes will poison the plants.

As for the rat argument, in my own city experience, poor trash storage is a much bigger problem than vegetable plants.  In any case, the adoption of a few outdoor cats on my block has done wonders for tamping down on the rodents.  As for the exhaust fumes, many argue that the chemicals used on most conventional farm land is much worse for the plants than the presence of car exhaust, but either way, if that is a concern for you, no one is going to force feed anyone parking strip veggies.

Parking Strip Squash courtesy of www.fiftybucksaweek.com

There’s a new astroturf game in town, and thy name is Americans Against Food Taxes.  Soda makers and sellers are running scared and they are gearing up the campaign machines to fight the idea of a sugar tax; an idea which has been gaining momentum.

They got the savvy new media angle going on, too! Why they’re even on twitter!  So far they’ve mostly used the feed to announce their partners, like the South Carolina Beverage Association and the Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, and articles by well known dietitians like Dick Armey.  You know, regular folks like you and me.  And yes, Coca-Cola is on board, too.

They got a slick new ad, too. Lovable all American family? Check. Economical, responsible camping vacation? Check. Confusing viewers by blurring the difference between sugary soft drinks and healthy fruit juice? Check.  This one has it all.

The optics on this are not great for those who wish to see the true cost of unhealthy food be reflected in grocery prices. It’s too easy to paint this tax as nanny-state-itis and a burden on the average Joe. Critics will try to obscure the link between soda and obesity, even though institutions such as the Harvard School of Public Health found that for each additional serving of soda or juice drink(pdf) a child consumes per day, the child’s chance of becoming overweight increases by 60%. But that’s not going to stop Dick:

For years, critics of soda have argued that it is a unique contributor to obesity. This flies in the face of both common sense and scientific research. The fact is that Americans are getting heavier because we’re eating more and exercising less.

Imposing new taxes on soda is also a dangerous way to go about financing new programs like health care. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation projects that revenue from a soda tax would generate increased revenue every year — from $4.5 billion in 2009 to $5 billion in 2013. Yet history has shown that if you tax a product, people buy less of it.

Catch that?  Poor defenseless soda is getting a bad rap. Not that he offers up an alternative culprit.  Nor is he willing to admit its a contributing factor in the rise in obesity. Plus, he goes on to claim that this is a bad tax because it is going to curb behavior that it intends to curb. Gotta love logic like that. We can expect lots more of the same from the food and bev minions.

There isn’t an obvious major advocacy organization to pick up the mantle on this and take on the food and beverage lobby. Maybe, just maybe, either the nurses or the doctors will take up the cause, but it is doubtful that they would be willing to expend the ammo on this fight. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has been on the case since 2005 with their Liquid Candy campaign, but its unclear how active they still are on the issue and much they have in the way of resources.

My guess is that health advocates are going to lose this fight, there are too many powerful lobbies lining up against a sugar tax. I do hope I’m wrong.  However, fighting for a sugar tax may open the door to a compromise solution of at the very least finally ditching subsidies for sugar and corn. If we’re not going to tax the empty calories, at least the US government can stop making them so cheap.

Huge news for the community gardeners out there! Rep. Insless (WA-1) introduced a bill this week that would provide grants for local community gardens.  The bill does not specify how much would be available, but does say that the the grants could be used for the following:

• (1) Acquiring any interest in real property.

• (2) Construction.

• (3) Community outreach.

• (4) Operations.

• (5) Any other appropriate activity.

The grants can be used for up to 80% of the overall costs attributed to the garden.  The other 20% must be cash or in-kind contributions. Usually work donated can be counted as in-kind contributions, which could probably easily be covered by the sweat equity the garden members donate.

H/T Jill.

Food safety is moving briskly along.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously passed legislation yesterday that would increase government oversight of the U.S. food supply and, if the measure passes in the House, it will be the most sweeping reform of the food safety system in nearly 50 years. The House of Representatives is expected to decide on the bill before the July 4 recess.

The bill is not perfect, but at least it will increase inspections significantly.

There’s a proposal in Nassau County, New York to tax fast food items an extra 2%.  The new tax is projected to bring in $12 million for the county next year should it be enacted.  They have a very complicated system to determine what constitutes fast food:

He defines fast-food restaurant as “any franchised outlet of a restaurant chain that derives 30 percent or more of its revenues from the sale of prepared, ready-to-eat food, and which serves one or more menu items that contain more than 0.5 grams of trans fat or 5 grams of saturated fat per serving.”

The one or more menu item definition is a little odd.  By this definition, the tax would able to things like apple sslices and salads as well as big macs.  Of course, some of those salads can pack in a scary amount of fat. The good thing is it would not apply to small independent non-chain restaurants, like you local pizza shop.  Still the focus primarily centers on fats and not sugar or sodium.  If the goal was to apply a sin tax like alcohol, then shouldn’t the tax be on any food that harbors more than say 20% of fat, sugar, and/or sodium?

Several national food advocacy groups kicked off a call for a floor price to be set on dairy. Food and Water Watch asked members to call on Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to raise the price on dairy, while Food Democracy Now asked their members to send him an electronic fax, calling for a floor price of $17.50 cwt. (CWT stands for centum weight - wholesale milk is sold in 100 lbs increments) The floor price is much needed due to the uncompetitive market dairies sell to:

Increasingly, dairy farmers are at the mercy of these giants, such as the Dairy Farmers of America, the country’s largest dairy “cooperative” which controls 40% of US milk production. Last year, the DFA was fined $12 million for price fixing by the US government and has also been implicated in the recent massive increase in imported milk products.

Already banks across the country are cutting off farmers’ access to credit and at least two dairy farmers have committed suicide in California. The latest estimates are that the crash in domestic prices might lead to the loss of up to 30 percent of the remaining dairy farmers by the end of this year — as many as 20,000 family dairy farmers could be off the land by the end of this year.

Additionally, the National Family Farms Coalition, Farm Aid, and Iowa Farmers Union held a rally in Iowa last Saturday to call attention to the plight of dairy farmers across the country.

Farm Aid circulated a petition to Secretary Vilsack to institute an emergency floor price of $18. Currently, farmers are receiving $8-10 per hundredweight for their milk, below 1970s prices. Other speakers exposed the corruption in the industry and the changes needed to give farmers a fair price for their milk. “Dairy farmers are among the hardest workers I know,” said Farm Aid board member Willie Nelson. “This rally was for a fair price for farmers and local milk for all of us. It’s about the little guy, not the big guy; the family farm, not the factory farm; consumers and farmers together, not corporate greed.”

Arden Tewksbury, a Pennsylvania dairy farmer and manager of Progressive Agriculture, spoke at the rally about S. 889, the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009, introduced by Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter to factor in farmers’ cost of production in the milk pricing system. Tewksbury said, “It was a very rewarding experience driving 14 hours to Iowa to get Midwest farmers to support our bill. I asked the dairy farmers in Iowa if they were tired of their milk prices and if they wanted a new milk pricing formula that covered their cost of production and they responded with a booming ‘Yes!’ to both questions.”

Everyone is mobilizing on this. Now its time to see if its enough to push our politicians out from under the thumb of DFA and the rest of Big Dairy.

Food interests across the board are gearing up to take on the Administration’s proposed cap on farm subsidies.  Obama’s 2010 budget details were released last Thursday, and it takes some serious swipes at the corporate welfare program that is US farm subsidies.  But is this part of a larger strategy? According to that budget, farm subsidy spending will be cut $1 billion a year in areas including:

• Subsidy eligibility will be capped at farms with $500,000 annual gross sales revenue
• Subsidies will be maxed out at $250,000 per farm per year
• A reduction is crop insurance subsidies
• 20% cut to MAP, the Market Access Program, that advertises US food overseas

As many small farm advocates have howled for the last several years, farm subsidies, which are intended to help family farmers through lean years, has become a major source of corporate welfare.  It also gets the US into plenty of trouble with the WTO, because technically subsidies are equivalent to tariffs when it comes to international commodity trading. The bill also aims to retain fixes from 2008 and close some of the many loopholes that Big Ag has been so good at leveraging:

The administration plan also would retain the $40,000 per person limit on direct payments and the $65,000 limit on counter-cyclical payments in the 2008 farm bill and institute a new $145,000 limit on marketing loan gains. (The 2008 law places no cap on loan deficiency payments or marketing loan gains.)

The budget cuts have also upset would be allies such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, who is concerned about cuts to the conservation program: (more…)

Two subcommittee hearings of note via Congress Matters:

• 5/13, 2:00 p.m. House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee hearing with Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
• 5/14, 10:00 a.m. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture —Public Hearing. RE: To review food safety standards for horticulture and organic agriculture

In my mind, Big Food is the equivalent of Big Oil. Both are commodities that provide energy. Both have serious environmental impacts. For both Big Food and Big Oil we need to convince people to consume less, but we shouldn’t and can’t straight-out outlaw the substances.

However, Kelly Brownell makes a very convincing case that Big Food is much more akin to Big Tobacco. In terms of how we approach solving the problems caused by these very lucrative industries, this is very true.

Brownell rightly points out that both products are/were heavily marketed to children in the hopes of created life-long loyal costumers. Both refute sound science (as does Big Oil in regards to climate change) in the hopes of creating doubt about the dangers of their products. Big Food is even dabbling in adding affeine, an additive substance, to their products.

Most interesting, there may be lessons to be learned on how to deal with and how to regulate Big Food from the fights that have been led against Big Tobacco. When it was first announced that McDonald’s was being sued for making customers fat, many were aghast that lawsut would be filed for what was thought to be an issue of personal responsibility. But back in the day, it was commonly believed that smoking was a personal responsibility issue also.

It is interesting to look at Big Tobacco as a blueprint for deal with Big Food. Already, there has been movements for better labeling and for blocking marketing to children. Perhaps one day there will be an eleven-figure decision against Big Food and the government will set up a huge healthcare fund with the proceeds.