Meatless Monday Serves as Model for New Health Behavior Change Campaigns

The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) recognizes that one important way to affect change in the food system is to find ways to improve consumer purchasing and eating behaviors. The Meatless Monday campaign, which CLF endorsed seven years ago, encourages Americans to take control of their health by refraining from eating meat products one day a week. Meats like beef are more likely to contain saturated fats than most non-meat food sources. By cutting out high sources of saturated fats one day a week, Americans can help meet the Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2010 goal of reducing saturated fat intake to less than 10 percent of calories consumed each day. Meatless Monday has the potential to not only improve the populations’ health, but could also reduce unsustainable levels of demand for meat products, particularly industrially-produced meat, which use huge amounts of valuable natural resources and pose significant public health and environmental risks.

On the health behavior change side, the “Monday” model has great potential to serve as an effective communications tool to bolster virtually any long-term campaign.  The model provides health promotion communicators 52 times a year to hammer home a message, convey reinforcements, reminders, and prompts. Likewise, it also gives a person trying to improve her/his own health behaviors 52 times a year to restart their commitment or behavior change if they fall off the wagon. Read More >

CLF Responds to NYT ‘Farm and Antibiotics’ Editorial

Today’s New York Times carries an editorial, “Farms and Antibiotics,” in support of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, calling for withdrawal of FDA approval of nontherapeutic use of antimicrobial drugs critical to human medicine. Reprinted below is a letter submitted to the Times by the Center for a Livable Future:

We applaud the New York Times for drawing attention to the critical issue of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in factory farms (“Farms and Antibiotics,” July 23, 2009).

We would like to clarify that PAMTA (The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act) calls for withdrawal of FDA approval of nontherapeutic use of antimicrobial drugs critical to human medicine, defining “nontherapeutic” as follows:

The term ‘nontherapeutic use’, with respect to a critical antimicrobial animal drug, means any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine purpose.

The Times and the PAMTA definition of nontherapeutic use of “routine disease prevention” suggests that administration of antimicrobials for non-routine disease prevention may be warranted.

The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF), an academic center that has supported an extensive portfolio of research on antimicrobial use in animal agriculture, maintains that use of antimicrobials in the absence of clinically-observable disease selects for resistant bacteria, and is therefore never warranted. The only permissible administration of antimicrobials in the setting of animal agriculture is on an individual animal basis, under the circumstances of overt disease, and at the direction of a veterinarian.

Your editorial notes industry opposition to the bill, indicating fears that it would make it “much harder for industrial farms to crowd thousands of animals together in confined, inhumane and unhealthy quarters.” No data support concerns that the cessation of antimicrobial use for growth promotion or disease prophylaxis will result in losses to the animal agriculture industry. In fact, a WHO evaluation of the termination of antimicrobial growth promoter usage in Denmark found that cessation of their use led to approximately a one percent increase in cost to swine producers and no net cost to poultry producers. Coupled with evidence (cited in PAMTA) that antimicrobial use in animal production increases antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment andresistant bacteria in meat products, ending their routine use will provide a substantial public health benefit.

We also applaud Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, for recognizing the importance of PAMTA.

The relentless increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major threat to the health of the public, and policymakers should move quickly to phase out and ban the use of antimicrobials for non-therapeutic use in food animal production. PAMTA is a good beginning.

Robert S. Lawrence, MD
Director, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Keeve E. Nachman, Ph.D.
Science Director, Food Production, Health and Environment, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Pa. School Board Transportation Committee Hears Concerns

I accompanied Dr. Roni Neff to southern Pennsylvania last week and this week to attend a school board and committee meeting in order to share information about public health threats associated with large-scale food animal production facilities. Roni was invited by the Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group to present this information because of concern about a proposed 2,450-head hog facility to be located about a quarter of a mile away from a site where eight South Eastern School District buses are parked up to 14 hours per day.

It was quite an eye-opening experience. Both meetings were contentious because of tensions between a farmer wanting to transition to a large-scale food animal operation and citizens’ concern about the impact this type of facility will have on the surrounding environment and human health. Debates such as this one (but not necessarily surrounding school buses) have been occurring around the country for decades as food animal production has become increasingly consolidated and dependent on industrial, large-scale operations where thousands of animals are raised in confined settings. Read More >

The GM Stranglehold

Monsanto brand corn used all over the world; courtesy of Flickr

Monsanto brand corn used all over the world; courtesy of Flickr

In recent weeks some 280 South African corn farmers went to harvest their corn and discovered that although the exterior of the plants looked lush the interior was bare. An article by the Digital Journal reports that millions of dollars were lost to farmers when their three varieties of Monsanto brand corn seeds failed to produce. Monsanto’s “on the record” statement that 75,000 hectares, or 25 percent of the total planted hectares were damaged while other sources choose to emphasize an 80 percent reduction in crop yield for some farmers. Many activists are taking this opportunity to criticize genetically modified (GM) seeds and food in efforts to ban their use in South Africa. Monsanto insists that there was no error in the production technology, rather in the fertilization process and has offered to compensate affected farmers in this instance.

My criticism is focused not at the broad category that is GM but at the single company that has come to control the world’s agricultural production and transitively the fates of many countries. The problem is that Monsanto is a monopoly in global GM seed production and sales. When their seeds prove as unreliable as they have been, the world’s (or at least the countries that depend on Monsanto products, primarily India, Brazil and South Africa) ability to feed itself and all the economic and political complications that follow famine are at the mercy of one company. And that is what it comes down to, Monsanto is a company and its goal is ultimately profit, not the welfare of the people who rely on them. Read More >

A 50-Year Farm Bill?

The Washington Post’s Jane Black wrote a great Q & A piece in today’s paper with Farmer-Writer-Academic Wendell Berry; Wes Jackson, president of the Land Institute,; and Fred Kirschenmann, Leopold Center fellow and president of the Stone Barns Center. The three had traveled to DC to promote an ambitious proposal to legislators for a new form of food policy in the shape of a 50-year farm bill.

“The plan asks for $50 million annually for plant breeding and genetics research,” and “puts forward a new vision of agriculture, one that values not only yields but also local ecosystems, healthy food and rural communities,” writes Black in the piece, “3 Wise Men, Planting Ideas Where It Counts.”

Says Jackson of the 50-year farm bill: “The idea begins with acknowledging that nature covers much of the land with perennials, and agriculture reversed that thousands of years ago. In our modern times, we’ve offset the consequences with management techniques and fossil fuels that are nonrenewable and contribute to greenhouse gases.”

Black asks Kirschenmann about the approach of using Genetically Modified Plants (GMOs) to feed a growing population. “If you think about it, that approach really isn’t working here,” he notes. “If it weren’t for subsidies, farmers wouldn’t be able to buy the technologies that are supposed to save us. How are African farmers going to afford the technologies?”

Could inside-the-beltway thinking grasp something in a 50-year interval? Both Jackson and Kirschenmann believe so, citing Washington’s apparent ability to tackle long-range issues like climate change and population growth. “They have to extend the horizon. So we think the time is right to add agriculture to that.”

School Board Refuses to Hear Presentation on Public Health Risks

On Thursday evening, my colleague, Jillian Fry and I went up to rural southern Pennsylvania with the intent of speaking to the school board of the South Eastern School District. We had been invited to speak by members of Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens to provide a summary of potential environmental hazards to schoolchildren and bus drivers, resulting from having school buses parked one-quarter of a mile from a proposed large-scale swine production facility in Peach Bottom. Specifically, there are concerns about exposures to bacteria (including antibiotic-resistant bacteria), toxins, allergens, viruses and other substances from riding or spending time around the school buses.

I saw my role as providing a summary of the science, separate from the politics. As it turned out, the politics were unavoidable. When we got to the meeting, I was not on the agenda. Maria Payans, a community member who had invited me, pulled out a stack of documents indicating she had gone through proper channels to have my talk put on the school board’s agenda. The school board took what turned out to be a long break to discuss the situation. When they came back, they read aloud the entire policy describing who could speak at meetings, but did not directly explain how they were interpreting it regarding whether I could speak. Read More >

Wal-mart: Leading the way on global sustainability?

While big box stores may be an easy target for critics who bash their significant environmental impacts, one national bohemoth is taking steps to inform its customers just how environmentally-friendly each product is.  Yesterday, Wal-mart unveiled a plan for a “sustainability index” label to academic, industry and government representatives  at its Arkansas headquarters.
The giant retailer ($406 billion in revenues in 2008) is developing an ambitious, comprehensive, and fiendishly complex plan to measure the sustainability of every product it sells. Wal-Mart has been working quietly on what it calls a “sustainability index” for more than a year, and it will take another year or two for labels to appear on products. But the company’s grand plan-”audacious beyond words” is how one insider describes it-has the potential to transform retailing by requiring manufacturers of consumer products to dig deep into their supply chains, measure their environmental impact, and compete on those terms for favorable treatment from the world’s most powerful retailer.
But why would Wal-mart take on such a Hurculean task?  Besides the obvious cynical answer (they are a corporation out to make money), Wal-mart execs say they see this as a way to  inform consumers of the different between “green-washing” and truly sustainable production and increase efficiency of global production, perhaps even lowering costs to consumers in the process.
The company also said for the record they do not want ownership of this index– rather, they set out to spur a collaborative effort to develop a wealth of information about the international supply chain.  In remarks published on Wal-mart’s web site, the Mike Duke, Wal-mart’s President and CEO stated that in order for this venture to succeed, it needed to be a global effort with the ultimate goal of providing for a better future for the world’s citizens.

“If we get this right…the Index will drive higher quality and lower costs,” Duke said. “It will mean more innovative products that lower carbon output, that promote clean air and water, and that create a more transparent and responsible supply chain. And it will make us even stronger businesses, bringing us ever closer to our customers and what they need to live better …20…50…100 years from now.”

And who can fault that?  While the implementation of this plan is still several years away, it’s heartening to see that a company like Wal-mart, with such vast global influence, is not only taking an interest in sustainability, but taking a concrete action to measure how its suppliers are doing, and engaging environmental experts from acadamia, industry and the government to help develop guidelines that could potentially revitalize how the world produces consumer goods.
For more on Wal-mart’s sustainability index plan, check out yesterday’s New York Times article.

IATP Calls for Halt to Antibiotic Use in Ethanol Industry

In the wake of recent Congressional hearings calling for a halt to the use of antibiotics in farm animal production, Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has (IATP) just released a report saying the use of antibiotics in ethanol production is unnecessary.

“The ethanol industry should voluntarily stop the unnecessary use of antibiotics in the production process, particularly because viable alternatives are readily available,” says the IATP report, “Fueling Resistance? Antibiotics in Ethanol Production.”

“The epidemic of antibiotic resistance threatens every one of us,” says IATP’s David Wallinga, M.D. “The best way to keep our existing antibiotics effective is to stop unnecessary antibiotics wherever they are used-in hospitals, in animals and in ethanol production.”

According to IATP, ethanol producers add antibiotics to the ethanol fermentation process to control bacterial outbreaks. And, since there are no reporting requirements for antibiotic use in ethanol production, there are no reliable numbers are available on how widespread the practice is. IATP notes that in 2008, the FDA found residues from four types of antibiotics in dried distillers grains-the nutrient-rich residue sold as livestock feed that is a co-product of ethanol production.

It seems that nearly half of the nation’s 170 ethanol production facilities avoid antibiotic use through readily available alternatives. and many others are exploring ways to stop antibiotic use. “The bad news is that many ethanol facilities are currently using antibiotics. The good news is that they don’t have to,” says IATP’s Jim Kleinschmit.

It’s all in the definition. Will Big Ag try to redefine what’s considered preventive care now that the White House signaled it supports banning the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in food animals?

Chalk one up for public health advocates fighting to keep antibiotics an effective treatment for fighting disease in people after the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, revealed that the Obama Administration, “supports ending the use of antibiotics for growth and feed efficiency” in food animals. Dr. Sharfstein made the statement during a House Rules Committee hearing Monday afternoon, which was called by the committee chair, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D, NY), to discuss her proposed Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. (PAMTA) Read More >

CLF Official Statement on PAMTA

Center for a Livable Future Statement on

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA).

Washington, D.C. (July 15, 2009) – The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) Director Robert Lawrence, MD, issued the following statement today regarding recent Congressional action on the issue of antibiotic resistance.

“On Monday, the U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing this session on the important issue of antibiotic resistance. The Center for Livable Future (CLF) applauds the leadership of Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and her colleagues to support the increasingly critical public health recommendations put forward in the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (H.R. 1549/S. 619).”

“A panel of experts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, science and business communities spoke at the hearing about the need to end non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters in the production of food animals. The increase we continue to see in antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major threat to the health of the public, and policymakers should move to phase out and ban the use of antimicrobials for non-therapeutic use in food animal production. PAMTA serves to curtail such use, instead saving antibiotics for therapeutic purposes only.”

Read More >