It was meant to be the kickoff of a national conversation, but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sponsored meeting on chemical exposures and public health, held in Washington last week, felt more like an argument at times.
The meeting started off predictably enough—with Howard Frumkin, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,discussing the importance of strengthening scientific understanding of chemical exposures, urging better collaboration among public health agencies, local governments and non-governmental organizations, and outlined the goal of developing an action agenda for strengthening the public health approach to chemical exposures.This agenda, he said, should be based on values everyone can get behind—including prevention of morbidity and mortality, good science, the effective use of resources, care for vulnerable populations, and responsible stewardship for future generations.
Lisa Jackson, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, won the loudest applause of the day for her remarks.Jackson, who leads a staff of 18,000 at the EPA, said she aims to restore America’s faith in the EPA to protect them and preserve the environment.By refocusing on core issues such as chemical management, reporting requirements, environmental justice, land use management—Jackson hopes to bring increased accountability to the agency. Read More >
The Center for a Livable Future has joined with several other environmental groups concerned that potential amendments to an Interior Appropriations Bill may hinder the Environmental Protection Agency’s reporting of greenhouse gas (CHG) emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations. Several CLF staffers signed a letter to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), adapted from a joint letter sent to multiple members of the Appropriations Committee. The joint letter was signed by, CLF, The Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Air Task Force, Cool Foods Campaign, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Working Group, Farm Sanctuary, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Humane Society of the United States, Illinois Citizens for Clean Air & Water, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Organic Consumers Association, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
A new take on global fertilizer use blames wealthy countries for over-polluting water ways and accelerating climate change while leaving poor countries with depleted soils and a lack of food.
The world’s use of fertilizer is extreme-in an article out this month in the journal SCIENCE, researchers highlight the disparities between fertilizer use in developed and developing countries. In many parts of the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, a lack of access to fertilizers for maintaining soil fertility translates into year after year of low crop yields, chronic malnutrition, and the degradation of soils. Conversely, in developing countries like the United States, over-fertilization of agricultural lands has led to “the degradation of downstream water quality and eutrophication of coastal marine ecosystems, the development of photochemical smog, and rising global concentrations of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.”
While the authors don’t elaborate on how different fertilizers impact soil and agriculture (organic agriculture has been shown to be more drought resistant than agriculture using synthetic fertilizers and better suited to Africa’s economic and climactic environment), they argue that more research into farm nutrient budgets and policies which tackle food security, as well as the ecological and human health effects of agriculture, be implemented.
Video games, fattening snack foods and the parents themselves are often blamed for the dramatic spike in overweight and obese kids during the past 30 years or so.But speakers at the National Conference on Childhood Obesity last week in Washington, D.C. attempted to frame the issue in a different light, looking at the bigger picture.They asked the question: Are government and industry responsible for childhood obesity?
While the end goal should not be to find an all-purpose scapegoat for the obesity epidemic (none exists), or merely to shift blame to one party or another, panelists did try to explain how government and industry can affect that ever-important balance of energy in vs. energy out, and what role these entities have in the prevention of obesity and the promotion of healthy food choices.Whether we like it or not, public policies do have an effect on what we eat, so we should at least be aware of how they do so, right?
Dr. Neal Barnard, director of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)—the group behind the conference—reiterated the common refrain (if you’ve been to a few of these type of meetings or read books by the likes of Marion Nestle or Michael Pollan) that government food subsidies and dietary guidelines have been more about business and politics than about substantiated nutrition research.As a result, meat and dairy consumption is disproportionately promoted in dietary guidelines—because of the industries’ lobbying power and in spite of the nutritional concerns involving some of these foods.
One particularly interesting tidbit was Barnard’s assertion that the feds have partnered with fast food giants like Subway, Pizza Hut, Burger King and Taco Bell to increase Americans’ cheese intake and benefit the nation’s dairy industry. They did this by creating new cheesy menu items, offering special promotions and in some cases even instructing staff to whet the appetite of their customers by asking them if they want cheese on their respective burger, sandwich or taco as they stood at the counter or pulled up to the drive-thru window. Read More >
Despite its content, moviegoers’ appetites for “Food, Inc.” are only growing stronger. Just in its second week of limited-release, theaters are selling out of tickets for the documentary, which is highly critical of the industrial food system. Much of the demand may be attributed to the tidal wave of accolades from critics and writers in newspapers, magazines and blogs all over the country.
Most recently Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote about the film in his Sunday column:
“A terrific new documentary, “Food, Inc.,” playing in cinemas nationwide, offers a powerful and largely persuasive diagnosis of American agriculture. Go see it, but be warned that you may not want to eat for a week afterward. (It was particularly unnerving to see leftover animal bits washed over with ammonia and ground into “hamburger filler.” If you happen to be eating a hamburger as you read this, I apologize.)”
Movie critic Roger Ebert admitted his review didn’t read much like a movie review:
“This review doesn’t read one thing like a movie review. But most of the stuff I discuss in it, I learned from the new documentary “Food, Inc.,” directed by Robert Kenner and based on the recent book An Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan. I figured it wasn’t important for me to go into detail about the photography and the editing. I just wanted to scare the bejesus out of you, which is what “Food, Inc.” did to me.”
Truthfully, the movie shouldn’t scare you, but I hope it inspires viewers to do something about it. The makers of “Food, Inc.” hope so too and offer “10 simple things you can do to change our food system.” Considering I’m the project director for the Johns Hopkins Healthy Monday Projects, I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight number five.
“5. Meatless Mondays – Go without meat one day a week”
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Center for a Livable Future have embraced the Meatless Monday national campaign since its inception almost a decade ago. The campaign’s goal is to reduce the negative health and environmental impacts of industrially produced meat.
The perception of red meat consumption as masculine is heavily entrenched in Western culture, not unlike a weighty steel fork jabbed through a grizzled slab of tough, bloody steak. But new evidence suggests this association may originate more with monkeys and marketing than any real boost to manhood.
The role of nutritional need in motivating our dietary choices seems, at times, a vestigial remnant of earlier times. Whatever remains of this guiding principle is regularly drowned out by much louder influences: convenience, the aesthetics of packaging, or the appeal of a particular spokesperson. Even taste, texture, tradition and access to food can play a secondary role to the siren song of the Cocoa Puffs bird, or a Coca-Cola swilling Paris Hilton. The socio-cultural influences on diet choice – crafted, molded and amplified by marketing buzz and self-perpetuating social norms – elevate the qualities of some foods to a near-mythical status in the consumer mind. Paramount among these gastronomic legends are associations between red meat consumption and masculinity.
“Vegetables are for girls… If your instincts tell you a vegetarian diet isn’t manly, you’re right.” (Men’s Health, 2000)
President Obama spoke at the AMA conference last week
Last week at the American Medical Association’s 158th annual meeting in Chicago members passed a resolution that supports the advocacy of sustainable healthy food systems. This is a landmark time for environmentalists since the AMA had previously endorsed healthy food alternatives and minimizing the environmental impact of certain foods, but never before has it publicly recognized the dangerous effects of the current industrial food manufacturing system. The AMA issued a statement making clear the benefits of more healthy and sustainable food systems. They get it: “Healthy food is part of a sustainable food system, in which food is defined not only by its nutrient content, but also by how and where it is raised, grown, processed, and distributed.”
The resolution piggybacked a report issued by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health that recognizes the ecological footprint of industrially produced food, understanding that it contributes to antibiotic resistance, climate change and air and water pollution. Combating these causes of damage to the environment is a preventive treatment for illnesses and conditions such as asthma. This preventive approach is all the rage as it is consistent with President Obama’s stance on healthcare reform, and who wouldn’t want to be in the President’s good graces?
The major buzzword of the week is “sustainable,” a term used by the President himself when addressing the large AMA meeting on June 15th. Sustainable food systems seem to fit into the sustainable healthcare picture that the President is pursuing. Not to mention, the idea of sustainable food systems has already been on his radar, something he implied when describing the White House victory garden which is in place to educate children on the significance of locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. Read More >
During my TV-news days, I supported the old axiom; it must be a balanced report if we’re getting just as much negative feedback as we are positive responses. I found the same rule of thumb to hold true on Capitol Hill. Good legislation usually means each side had to make serious concessions, inevitably leaving a number of unhappy people to complain about its inadequacies. Perhaps that’s why I’m feeling a little uneasy over the latest developments surrounding the long overdue Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. After some serious arm-twisting from Big Ag and members of the House Agriculture Committee, the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously agreed Wednesday to alter the proposed legislation and “exempt livestock and poultry from oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.” I’ve heard a lot of praise for the committee’s bi-partisan approval of the bill, but where are the dissenters? Where is the healthy debate? Read More >
I’m heartened to learn that the “meatless Monday” concept has taken hold globally. It is welcome news that former Beatles mega-star Paul McCartney and his daughters launched a new Meat Free Monday campaign in the United Kingdom, just weeks after Belgium’s city of Ghent enacted its own “Veggie Day.” I praise Sir Paul and the city of Ghent for publicly recognizing the health and environmental benefits of reducing the demand for meat worldwide.
For the past seven years, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Center for a Livable Future have embraced the nationwide “Meatless Monday” program. The campaign’s goal is to reduce the negative health and environmental impacts of industrially produced meat. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, a project of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Pew Charitable Trusts, found that the current industrial system of producing food animals too often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves and that significant changes must be implemented now. Reducing the amount of meat we eat is a good first step. Read More >
Despite its content, moviegoers’ appetites for 
The perception of red meat consumption as masculine is heavily entrenched in Western culture, not unlike a weighty steel fork jabbed through a grizzled slab of tough, bloody steak. But new evidence suggests this association may originate more with monkeys and marketing than any real boost to manhood.
