The Weight of the Nation — a four-part mini-series that ran this week on HBO (and online) — has received a lot of attention. Produced in coordination with several federal government agencies and paired with a major national conference, the show has been heralded as “groundbreaking” and “bold.” But it’s really just the same old story.

The Weight of the Nation trailer alone smacks of tired stereotypes, but colleagues implored me to watch the entire series, so I did. And it was even worse than I feared.

I’m all in favor of bringing more attention to the nation’s diet-related health crisis. But the HBO series distracts us with the usual scare tactics, dances around the hard political issues, and leaves the viewer with the misguided impression that if we all just worked harder in our own communities, we could fix this mess.

A still from Weight of the Nation.

Fear the fat — more shaming and blaming

Many others have provided excellent explanations for why all the alarm-sounding over obesity should be questioned from a scientific perspective. For example, see Deb Burgard’s and Linda Bacon’s responses to the series, which both stem from the Health at Every Size movement, and aim to shift away from size and fat-shaming toward health and compassion.

Marilyn Wann also gives a historical overview and critique of the series and disputes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s claim that Weight of the Nation is “an unprecedented public health campaign.”

But even without getting into a debate over data, there’s clear evidence — in the form of scientific research — that many people exhibit “obesity bias.” In other words, fat people have enough problems dealing with discrimination, bullying, and stigma, and shows like this make life even more difficult for them.

Indeed, the first two episodes were all about the sad people suffering from one malady or another, interspersed with health-expert talking heads scaring us with statistics and images of organs and surgeries. There was not a peep about thin people’s risk for many of the same diet-related chronic diseases.

What The Weight of the Nation got right

The third segment, which focuses on children, did finally address junk food marketing, with excellent quotes from folks like Kelly Brownell of the Rudd Center on Obesity and Food Policy (he calls such marketing “powerful, pernicious, and predatory”), and Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “Marketing shapes kids’ choices, to foods that will kill them,” Wootan told the filmmakers. This segment also included good footage of a congressional hearing on the marketing of processed food, the only foray into actual policymaking in the entire program.

Also helpful were segments on agricultural policies and the way our bodies are hardwired to conserve fat. These were a clear attempt to shift the conversation away from personal responsibility. However, none of these discussions dove deeply enough into the politics. Overall, the show’s messages stayed safely in the realms of medicine, exercise, behavior change, and localized solutions.

Missed opportunities

The Weight of the Nation includes numerous examples of soda and junk food marketing to children, but spends far too little time on the powerful lobbying by the food, advertising, and media industries that undermine policymaking. And it’s not like such information isn’t readily available.

During a segment showing Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D) wandering the streets of his city in search of healthy food, I thought: This would be a great time to talk about how the American Beverage Association lobbied to stop his soda tax proposal. (The group even donated $10 million to Philadelphia’s Children’s Hospital to ensure his silence.) But no, not a chance.

On a similar note, many of the experts on the show identified soft drinks as enemy No. 1. But none of the many scenes with New York City’s Health Commissioner Tom Farley mentioned that city’s attempt to restrict food stamp spending on soft drinks — another attempt at policy change that got heavy push-back from the soda industry.

I was hopeful during one segment when the talking heads admitted that exercise and physical activity were really far less important than food intake when it comes to addressing obesity, a point I’ve made related to children. (Kudos for the experts’ takedown of the awful show The Biggest Loser.)

But despite this, far too much emphasis was placed on exercise throughout the program and the only tangible policy ideas were for things like walking and bike paths.

Where are the policy solutions?

In fact, most disappointing was how the program offered no clear policy solutions. And not a single lawyer appeared to discuss litigation as a strategy to hold the food industry accountable. And what about the farm bill, which is up for renewal this year?

Nope, that’s all too edgy — even for HBO.

Of course, the entire project was produced in collaboration with the federal Department of Health and Human Services, which isn’t exactly going to criticize the Obama administration for its failure to lead on numerous food issues. Also featured prominently was the congressional advisory body, the Institute of Medicine, which released a set of recommendations last week that are remarkably similar to those released seven years ago.

Obesity distracts from food system change

Continuing to focus on obesity is problematic for numerous reasons. As this program painfully demonstrates, it’s too easy to place the blame on individuals as the locus of change. Add to that how the food industry uses obesity as an excuse to market healthier foods (while they help fund playgrounds and exercise programs) and you have a smokescreen behind which the real issues are often obscured.

Instead of focusing on body size, let’s garner the political power we need to fix the food system. This approach is admittedly much more complex than calories in/calories out, but it’s also more compassionate. As Deb Burgard explains, the blame game is just too easy:

Blaming fatness keeps us from addressing the root causes of our problems and is clearly unfair to fat people. Many powerful people understand this but find it expedient to frame a problem in terms of fat in order to bring attention to it. They don’t think people will attend to the real issue unless they whip up the fat panic … I say, have the courage to make your argument about the real issues and stop doing it on the backs of fat people.

Doing so will take a concerted political movement — one that can’t be brought to you by cable television.

"Pink slime" whistleblower Kit Foshee. (Photo by Government Accountability Project.)

This past week, the media woke up to the shocking reality that our meat supply is in fact industrialized. Long gone are the days of the friendly local butcher grinding meat for kids’ hamburgers. Instead, most hamburger now comes from a corporate behemoth you’ve probably never heard of called Beef Products Inc. (BPI), or “the world’s leading producer of lean beef processed from fresh beef trimmings.”

BPI now finds itself on the receiving end of consumer outrage over the ammonia-treated ground beef filler that one former United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) official famously dubbed “pink slime.” The news surfaced last week that this scary stuff is currently being served in school lunches, and a petition aimed at getting current USDA officials to stop serving “pink slime” has garnered more than 200,000 signatures in about a week. [Update: As of March 15, the USDA has announced that schools will be able to "opt out" of pink slime. What they'll be able to replace it with if they do is another question.]

All the hullaballoo reminded me of a dramatic talk I witnessed about a year ago on this very topic at a conference organized by the Government Accountability Project (GAP)’s Food Integrity Campaign called “Employee Rights and the Food Safety Modernization Act.” The event’s focus was on the little-known but critical aspects of the newly enacted food safety law, which would give whistleblowers new protection.

The show-stopping presentation came from Kit Foshee, a former employee-turned-whistleblower who was fired by BPI, the very same company now in the news for pink slime. Foshee inspired a widely published op-ed written by GAP that lead to a several larger exposes in major newspapers.

So I went back to watch his presentation again, which the conference organizers were kind enough to make available online. (But only after Foshee’s attorneys gave their approval; it will soon become apparent why that huddle was needed.)

Foshee’s talk was remarkable for its content — he worked as BPI’s corporate quality assurance manager for 10 years and spoke in great detail about BPI’s beef filler-making process — but it was also a real act of bravery, as it involved confronting his former employers, who just happened to be in the room.

A few minutes into his talk, as Foshee was pointing out the absurdity of BPI’s food safety awards on their website, he dramatically turned toward the BPI attorneys and asked if they were there to protect whistleblowers and to keep our food safe, like the rest of us?

I stopped taking notes and looked up, as everyone else in the room did. I can’t recall ever hearing a whistleblower speak, let alone confront the company that fired him. The tension in the room was palpable but Foshee plowed ahead and answered for the BPI reps, who weren’t interested in dialogue.

“No, I am going to tell you right now, they’re not here to protect whistleblowers … They’re here with their tape recorder because they are going to find a way to shut me up. They’ve got sealed documents, that if I say anything about, they’re going to persecute me. So we’re going to stick with the publicly available information, from their website, to stay safe.”

(Foshee was referring to sealed court documents that resulted from his wrongful termination lawsuit against BPI. Later, he would challenge BPI to “open up these documents and see who’s lying.” Indeed, what is BPI trying to hide?)

He described the ammonia BPI added as “Mr. Clean,” and spoke of its awful smell. He asked if people would buy hamburgers if they knew BPI used ammonia “to clean it up.”

BPI and the meat industry have defended using ammonia (see pinkslimeisamyth.com) by claiming it reduces bacteria. Foshee disputed the company’s claims in great detail, calling their statements about reduced levels of the deadly strain of E. coli 0157:H7 “totally misleading.” (Their claims were also soundly disputed back in 2009 in this New York Times expose.)

Foshee said BPI would manipulate test results in various ways, including raising pH levels and avoiding effective testing methods. He said, “all they wanted was a test to give a negative result” and move on. Then he directed his remarks to the BPI attorneys in the audience, saying: “You want to promote that you’re a safe company to further your sales” but (pointing to their webpage) “this is false advertising.”

Then he said that many other meat companies had actually eliminated their own testing, relying instead on BPI’s safety claims. He exclaimed: “I don’t blame companies for believing it, because what idiot would [falsely] claim that?”

In another dramatic moment, Foshee challenged the BPI reps by saying “You want to sue me? Sue me, but quote your own studies correctly. It’s on your website. Quit trying to mislead consumers into thinking that if they buy from a company that uses BPI products in its ground beef, it’s safer — that’s absolutely false.”

Foshee then explained why whistleblowers need protection: “because companies falsify data … This company is still falsely advertising right now. Their product is in all the ground beef that you’re eating every day.”

He also told us how painful it was to get fired. He and his wife divorced because of the toll the experience took on his marriage when he gave up a six-figure salary. “You try to explain to your spouse why you’re giving up $30,000 bonuses,” he said.

According to Amanda Hitt, director of the Food Integrity Campaign, within hours of Foshee’s talk, BPI removed entire sections of its website. She also disputes BPI’s claims of food safety and says the goal was to offer up cheap filler for hamburgers. “This product was never about safety, it’s about economics,” she added.

In the meantime, pink slime is just one of many problems with industrialized meat. So let’s hope this week’s groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to demand labeling, buy organic, or stop eating ground beef all together.

We all have whistleblowers like Kit Foshee to thank for speaking out and shining a light on the need for real food safety, amidst the slime. Now, let’s hope the media pays more than just passing attention to these critical issues.

A version of this post ran on Michele Simon’s website Appetite for Profit.

Early USDA guidelines highlighted the "meat group."

Most vegetarians are tired of being asked, “Where do you get your protein?” by a seemingly concerned family member, friend, or even stranger.

I know many vegetarians and none of us have come close to suffering from Kwashiorkor. Never heard of it? It’s a form of malnutrition from lack of protein, found in areas of famine and extreme poverty. Protein deficiency is rare in the developed world, despite a significant portion of the population eschewing meat.

So where did this idea come from that vegetarians and vegans are doomed to a life of protein deficiency?

Protein propaganda

We have the meat industry to thank for the message that animal products equal protein. Decades of science tells us that a mostly plant-based diet is optimum for health (and prevention of obesity, especially in children), and that eating too much meat, cheese, and other animal foods contributes to heart disease, cancer (especially colon cancer), and other chronic illness such as Type 2 diabetes.

Such science is very inconvenient for the industries that promote these foods. So they’ve had to get creative. One way to distract attention away from heart attacks and colon cancer is to conflate the idea of meat with a nutrient that we do in fact need: protein.

And all signs indicate that this spin has worked. If you ask Americans why they eat meat, one of the top answers (if not the No. 1 answer) would likely be, for the protein. This, combined with effective marketing to promote the idea that meat tastes really good, is manly, and so forth (not to mention federal subsidies and industry consolidation to help ensure meat remains cheap), has been a huge success.

And how about that ubiquitous Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner ad campaign? Most Americans have no clue that behind these generic food messages is the federally organized Beef Check-Off program. While funding to pay for the marketing comes from industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers this program (and numerous others like it). (In 2010, the beef industry was accused of misusing the money for lobbying. In a related blog post, nutrition professor Marion Nestle said these funds “reek of conflict of interest.”)

The 1991 food pyramid included the meat, poultry, fish, dried beans, eggs, and nuts in one group and received a great deal of industry push back

Protein politics at USDA

Long before MyPlate, MyPramid, and other dietary guidance icons, the federal government took a simpler approach — the four food groups: The meat group (beans and nuts were also listed but as “alternates”), the milk group, the bread/cereal group, and the vegetable/fruit group. For years, this served the meat industry’s interests quite well.

That is, until the science showing that meat-centered diets were causing disease became too compelling for the federal government to ignore. In 1979, the feds released a report advising Americans to eat less red meat. The meat industry was not pleased, to put it mildly. As a result of the backlash, this report, explains Nestle (in her must-have-on-your-shelf book Food Politics) was “the last federal publication to explicitly advise, ‘eat less meat.’” From then on, the feds adopted the industry-friendly but confusing “choose lean meats” euphemism. This is essentially where things stand today.

In 1991, the meat industry threw such a fit over the soon-to-be-released Food Guide Pyramid (which gave meat and dairy less prominence) that USDA delayed the release for a year and spent $1 million on consumer surveys.

While the most recent MyPlate icon, which recommends filling half your plate with fruits and vegetables, is a huge improvement, it’s still inadequate and confusing. For example, it still states that protein is a category of food. As Nestle explains:

Protein is not a food. It is a nutrient. USDA must think everyone knows that “protein” means beans, poultry and fish, as well as meat. But grains and dairy, each with its own sector, are also important protein sources. The meat industry wants you to equate protein with meat. It should be happy with this guide.

Reframing the discussion

Even the sustainable agriculture movement too often perpetuates the protein-equals-meat myth. As I wrote earlier, no shortage of resources exist to guide those who are inclined to keep eating meat to do so in a kinder, gentler manner, at least when it comes to the environment and animal treatment.

However, with a few notable exceptions (including the growing Meatless Mondays campaign and New York Times columnist Mark Bittman, aka the “less-meatarian”), most good food leaders (other than vegetarian groups, obviously) are not talking about eating less meat or promoting other, healthier forms of protein. And I don’t buy into the idea that grass-fed beef and pasture-raised pork are healthier. These expensive alternatives still don’t compare to nutrient- and fiber-rich plant-based protein sources.

The best way to counter protein propaganda is for the good food movement to come together on this relatively simple message: Eat less meat. I guarantee the meat lobby will hate us for it. But I can live with that.

Unfortunately for the food industry, dioxins accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals that Americans consume. According to the Food and Drug Administration:

Although dioxins are environmental contaminants, most dioxin exposure occurs through the diet, with over 95% coming through dietary intake of animal fats.

The feds have further identified the highest levels in fish, followed by eggs, and then cheese, as Michael Greger explains in his scary “Dioxins in the Food Supply” video. Although some dioxins have been banned for decades, they persist in the environment, sort of like nature’s way of punishing humanity in perpetuity for its arrogance and stupidity. (Thankfully, levels have been declining.)

Here is how a meat industry-friendly media outlet describes the problem:

Pretty scary stuff, and even scarier when you realize everyone eats a certain amount of dioxin every day. That’s because dioxins are found in meat and dairy products, and most other foods. Animals absorb dioxin, which occurs naturally in the environment and moves through the food chain via the food animals consume, especially forages. Consumed at high levels, dioxins are linked to various human ailments including reproductive problems and cancer.

So, might industry want to help the feds warn Americans about this persistent, extremely toxic chemical in the food supply? Of course not. Instead, they’ve formed (what else?) a lobbying group, complete with the Orwellian name: The Food Industry Dioxin Working Group (members listed below). The group worked very hard on this letter [PDF] to the White House complaining, that as a result of EPA’s impending action:

… consumers may try to avoid any foods “identified” as containing or likely to contain any dioxin. The implications of this action are chilling. EPA is proposing to create a situation in which most U.S. agricultural products could arbitrarily be classified as unfit for consumption.

Further, Steve Kopperud, coordinator for the Food Industry Dioxin Working Group is afraid the media will have a field day with the EPA limits. And then what might happen? “You will have a whole lot of folks running in circles saying there’s nothing safe to eat, it will scare the crap out of people.”

Maybe, but if all those scared people running in circles don’t get cancer, isn’t that more important?

Members of the The Food Industry Dioxin Working Group:

American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry Association
American Frozen Food Institute
American Meat Institute
Corn Refiners Association
International Dairy Foods Association
National Chicken Council
National Grain & Feed Association
National Meat Association
National Milk Producers Federation
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Pork Producers Council
National Renderers Association
National Turkey Federation
Pet Food Institute
United Egg Producers

This post is cross-posted from Michele Simon’s blog, Appetite for Profit.

Yes, you heard that right. The first lady actually said that eating vegetables is a chore. And that playing is a preferable focus for her campaign because it’s easier.

In February 2010, when the first lady announced a campaign to “end childhood obesity within a generation,” I was immediately skeptical. I worried that “Let’s Move” signaled an over-emphasis on physical activity, a much safer political issue than eating habits, and one that Big Food gladly embraces.

But when I took a closer look, I was pleasantly surprised to see that three of the four issues areas initially identified by the campaign were food-related. (A fifth issue has since been added.) The goals or “pillars” of the campaign are: 1) improving access to healthy, affordable food; 2) providing healthy food in schools; 3) empowering parents and caregivers; 4) increasing physical activity; and 5) creating a healthy start for children.

It’s hard to argue with any of those worthy causes, and it’s important to have the first lady bring attention to issues such as food deserts, and to serve as a national spokesperson in a way we’ve not seen before. I have also given praise where praise was due, such as when the first lady recommended — as part of a checklist for daycare centers to follow — significant limits on screen time for children.

And while the White House insists that food is very much still on the agenda, it’s hard to ignore the potential for politics going into an election year. (When New York University professor Marion Nestle recently dared to question the first lady’s renewed emphasis on exercise, she got set straight by White House chef and Let’s Move advisor Sam Kass; that’s how touchy this subject is.)

Exercise is fun, but it doesn’t match the science

Putting politics aside for a moment, let’s talk research, which can often get lost in the shuffle or, worse, distorted by corporate interests.

Obesity expert Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, says the first lady’s focus on physical activity to help “end childhood obesity in a generation” is misguided. More importantly, he says, it’s not evidence-based.

He pointed me to many scientific studies showing that physical activity, while important for other reasons, has not been shown to be effective in preventing childhood obesity. (See here, here, here, and here.) On the contrary, data shows that an increase in food intake alone explains the rise in obesity in children. 

Children’s diets have changed so drastically in the last few decades, with the increase in calories, for example, due to soda and fast food so large, that moderate increases in exercise are not likely to make a difference.

As Freedhoff explains, it’s a “testament to the simple fact that it’s far more difficult to burn calories than it is to consume them.” 

To be clear, exercise does have many health benefits; it just shouldn’t be used to distract us from overconsumption and marketing of junk food. Also, lots of skinny kids suffer from diet-related health problems, including allergies.

So if science isn’t driving the exercise bandwagon, what is?

Playing it safe

After nearly two years, it’s clear that Let’s Move is steering away from anything that challenges the food industry. In fact, the campaign organizers appear eager to form corporate partnerships. For example, the first lady hailed Walmart’s so-called “healthy food initiative” as a new “nutrition charter.” Of course, Walmart hasn’t exactly kept its promises when it comes to the environment, so we have little reason to trust the company when it comes to nutrition.

Moreover, the first lady’s deafening silence over the past few months during extremely heated public battles over children’s diets gives us more proof than we ever needed that she is either unwilling or unable to take on the hard political issues.

While Mrs. Obama certainly showed leadership last year to help pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to improve school food, she hasn’t followed through. The recent hostile takeover of the USDA’s school food regulations by Congress on behalf of the frozen food lobby was one such example.

From the beginning, Let’s Move has also been mostly MIA on the extremely contentious and intractable problem of junk food marketing to children.

In one exception, the first lady gave a strong speech in March 2010 to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (Big Food lobbyists) imploring food companies to clean up their act. At the time, she asked: “What does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids?”

But her admonishments had little impact. Instead, the food industry has launched a no-holds-barred attack on an attempt by the federal government to place reasonable, science-based, voluntary restrictions on food marketing to children.

To make its case to the feds, kids’ cereal giant General Mills went so far as to argue that getting kids to eat more fruits and vegetables would hurt the nation’s economy because food costs “would increase by a staggering amount.”

The argument was based on a bogus economic study, which warned that demand for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, resulting in almost $500 billion more spent on imported food and $30 billion less on domestically grown grain. As Donald Cohen, who recently uncovered this absurd claim, noted:

Even if the voluntary guidelines were that effective and their study was accurate, it’s audacious marketing spin to turn an overwhelmingly positive victory for public health into a big government, job killing attack on freedom.

This one-two punch comes from the very industry players with whom Mrs. Obama claimed she could “find common ground.” And it has left many advocates feeling defeated.

So when, instead of speaking out on behalf of the millions of children who will continue to be served french fries and pizza in school and get bombarded daily with Happy Meal ads, the first lady announces (as she did this week) that Let’s Move has broken a record for jumping jacks, it’s disappointing to say the least.

Here’s what Freedhoff had to say to the first lady:

I’d tell her that we should be striving to change the environment so as to make lower-calorie, less-processed food choices the default. Let’s Move may be politically palatable, but “Let’s Cook” would likely have a far greater impact on health.

Let’s Cook? Uh-oh, sounds like a job killer.

Photo: kalavinka

The law is scheduled to go into effect today, but the fast food giant — who didn’t want to change the nutritional makeup of its Happy Meals — has devised a clever gimmick to maintain the status quo. Instead of giving the toys away for free, parents will now pay 10 cents for the latest plastic action figure. And for bonus PR, the dime will be donated to the city’s Ronald McDonald House.

Some media outlets have claimed that McDonald’s has successfully found a loophole, or has dodged or skirted the law. And it may look that way on the surface, but I’m not so sure.

It’s not clear to this lawyer that the clown trick is in full compliance with the law. What has really changed and how exactly will this new 10-cent rule play out at the cash register? Is McDonald’s HQ requiring its San Francisco franchises to ask if a parent would like to pay 10 cents extra for the toy? Even if they are, the reality is that the Happy Meal business model depends on toys being automatically included.

Fast food outlets manipulate so-called “default options” on the menu to ensure maximum sales. For example, when you order a “combo meal” it’s likely to automatically come with a soda — not, say, juice or milk — because soda has higher profit margins.

McDonald’s is determined to keep Happy Meals tied to toys, because a new toy every week ensures repeat business (and repeated nagging). The easiest way to do this is to include the toy as the default option. If parents started refusing the toys, it would defeat the entire purpose of the Happy Meal: to fulfill the company’s (likely very lucrative) contractual agreements with media companies that require them to cross-promote the latest movie, kids’ TV show, etc.

It’s no wonder then, that McDonald’s is so desperate to retain the toys. But is this true compliance with a law that was meant to disassociate toys from unhealthy food? I don’t think so.

McDonald’s has a history of acting irresponsibly, despite its claims to the contrary. For example, the company proudly touts its membership in the Children’s Food and Beverage Initiative. Through this voluntary, self-regulatory trade group, the company makes numerous claims about how responsible its child marketing policy is, including:

McDonald’s is proud of our long heritage of responsible communication with our customers, especially children, and continues to play a leadership role in the development of standards that govern advertising for children and adults.

McDonald’s ran this ad in the San Francisco Chronicle the day before the law took effect.However, an in-depth investigation by the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University found that McDonald’s has failed to live up to its voluntary pledge — in numerous ways. For example, the study found that McDonald’s increased its TV advertising from 2007 to 2009, with preschoolers seeing 21 percent more ads for McDonald’s and older children viewing 26 percent more.

The Rudd Center study also found:

• McDonald’s web-based marketing (on Ronald.com) is aimed at children as young as 2.

• McDonald’s 13 websites attracted 365,000 unique child visitors and 294,000 unique teen visitors on average each month in 2009.
• African American teens viewed 75 percent more TV ads for McDonald’s compared to white teens.

All this is despite McDonald’s “commitment to responsible marketing to children.”

The Rudd Center also found that this type of marketing works. Forty percent of parents reported their child asks to go to McDonald’s at least once a week, with 15 percent of preschoolers asking to go every day. Wonder why? Toys play a huge part in that incessant asking. The fact that McDonald’s is so determined to keep toys shows just how huge.

Can’t parents just say no? Of course they can, but both ideas can be true: Parents need to set limits and McDonald’s needs to stop marketing to children. As ample science tells us, marketing to young children is inherently deceptive because they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being targeted. Therefore, under both federal and state law, marketing to young children is already illegal. (Read my previous article for the full legal explanation.)

As I see it, voluntary pledges are a dismal failure. Only better laws enforced over time will change the behavior of companies like McDonald’s. And when advocates do get laws passed to protect kids, McDonald’s will keep trying to avoid them. But we don’t have to let them get away with it. Here’s how you can get involved:

1. If you live in San Francisco, contact San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar’s office (the author of the bill) and tell him not to allow the City to accept this move by McDonald’s. San Francisco may still be able to fix the law with new language or change how it is enforced.
2. Contact the San Francisco city attorney’s office to tell them the same thing.
3. If you live elsewhere in California, contact the state attorney general’s office, which has authority to enforce consumer deception laws. If you live outside of California, you can find your state attorney general listed here.
4. File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for regulating advertising at the federal level. Deceptive marketing is already illegal, and marketing to young children is inherently deceptive.
5. File a complaint with the industry-sponsored Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative about McDonald’s irresponsible marketing practices.
6. Just for fun, contact McDonald’s to tell them what you think.
7. Finally, support nonprofits that are working to hold companies like McDonald’s accountable. The two I recommend are The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Corporate Accountability International.  

It’s clear this company won’t improve on its own. Maybe it’s time to Occupy McDonald’s?

Who’s really controlling kids’ health? It’s time to do some finger slice-pointing. (Photo by Pink Stock.)

By now, most of us have seen the headlines. They’ve ranged from “Is Pizza Sauce a Vegetable? Congress says Yes” to the more childish, “Congress to USDA: Pizza is So a Vegetable, Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.”

News outlets have had a field day over a recent proposal from Congress that suggests pizza sauce should qualify as a vegetable within the National School Lunch program. And most have oversimplified the story.

The typical news story went like so: The nutrition advocates want healthier school meals, but Republicans don’t believe the decision should be up to the feds. Simple, right? Here’s one example:

Conservatives in Congress say the federal government shouldn’t be telling children what to eat. They say requirements proposed by the president went too far, costing budget strapped schools too much. Local schools are caught in the middle.

Meanwhile, some food policy writers — Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott and Ed Bruske aka The Slow Cook, for example — have done a better job of explaining the massive industry lobbying at play.

And while it is easy to compare this current craziness to the infamous Reagan-era “ketchup-is-a-vegetable” school lunch proposal (which did not pass), it might be helpful to insert a bit more history, analysis, and political context into the discussion.

History: As much as the GOP would like to hang this on Obama, the effort to improve the quality of school meals dates back decades. In the mid-1990s, a huge battle was finally won to bring school nutrition in line with the federal government’s own dietary advice. Since then, science evolved and the standards needed updating. Meanwhile, school vending machines are increasingly loaded with soft drinks and candy. Then, in 2004, (yes, under the Bush administration) Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve nutrition standards for school food. Finally, in 2009, at the request of the USDA, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report with very specific school lunch recommendations — based on science. So this process dates back to long before Obama (despite the GOP’s habit of blaming him for every problem since the dawn of time).

Common sense: If you stop and think about it, shouldn’t all food assistance programs (i.e., those paid for with taxpayer dollars), at the very least, comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans? Remember the feds’ new MyPlate diagram, which recommends half the meal be comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables? Yes, those guidelines.

Politics: As some have reported, a great deal of the behind-the-scenes lobbying influencing this decision came from the American Frozen Food Institute (yes, there’s a trade group for frozen pizza, fries, and other school food abominations; and surprise! they are thrilled by this outcome.) But almost everyone missed the industry front group, The Coalition for Sustainable Meal Programs. (I could not make that one up.) Funded by corporations such as ConAgra, the group has picked apart the proposed rules under the guise of “providing healthy meals and fighting hunger.” They argue against serving fruit without added sugar and for retaining the current levels of sodium in school food because, as their website says, “Sodium is an essential mineral and is required for life.”

But the issue isn’t just that the processed food industry is upset with proposed improvements to school meals, it’s how lobbyists are flexing their political muscle to get their way. The critical (and most underreported) part of this story is how Congress has hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding.

Congress is putting language to undercut the USDA rules into its agriculture appropriations bill — a sneaky move that’s often used when lobbyists want something to pass outside of the usual legislative (and in this case regulatory) process.

You know things are bad politically when even the USDA is backed into a corner. The agency seemed a tad shell-shocked recently when, in defending its proposed rules, it told the Washington Post that keeping pizza in schools won’t save any money, as the GOP claimed.

Let’s recap: Congress authorized USDA to improve the nutritional quality of school meals seven years ago (which was already long overdue). USDA commissioned a report from the IOM to help the agency do exactly that, based on the best available science. USDA subsequently proposed regulations, has taken public comment, and should then come out with final regulations. (It’s Civics 101, folks: Congress makes the laws and the executive branch carries them out). Agencies such as the USDA are the experts, not Congress. That is why the legislature delegates authority to the agency in charge. But the food industry didn’t get what it wanted through the normal channels, so it went to Congress, which usurped the entire process. I’d love to see reporters asking: How the hell did that happen?

And let’s not forget this is supposed to be about our nation’s kids. Which raises one more interesting question: Where exactly is Michelle Obama and her Let’s Move campaign now? The first lady has been a champion for healthier school meals, but it looks — once again — like she has no real power to impact policy. The food industry, on the other hand, has plenty. And while politicians curry favor with lobbyists, schoolchildren will pay the ultimate price, with their health.

Conventionally grown apples topped the EWG’s list of the 12 fruits and vegetables most contaminated with pesticides.

While Grist previously covered much of this cooptation, one industry front group deserves special attention: the International Food and Information Council (IFIC). It certainly sounds legit. But if anything sets off my BS detector, it’s the word “council,” which is often used by corporate front groups to magically transform public relations into credible science.

A closer look reveals IFIC’s true agenda. On its board of trustees sits representatives from PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and General Mills, while funders include the likes of Coca-Cola, Hershey, McDonald’s, Nestle, and Monsanto.

IFIC’s mission is “to effectively communicate science-based information about health, nutrition and food safety for the public good.” Heartwarming. Under the “Food Safety Resources” section of its site, IFIC offers their perspective on such sticky issues as arsenic in food and “The Science of Bisphenol A.” For the public good, of course.

One well-attended panel at the ADA event asked, “How Risky is Our Food? Clarifying the Controversies of Chemical Risks.” I wondered: Who exactly is attempting to clarify the controversy? And while IFIC wasn’t linked to the session in the program, the moderator, Marianne Smith Edge, is the group’s senior vice president of nutrition and food safety. At no time during her remarks did she disclose IFIC’s corporate funding, although ADA rules are supposed to require speakers to disclose any conflicts of interest. The two panelists were Julie Miller Jones and Carl Winter, both academic researchers, apparently handpicked by IFIC for their industry-friendly positions. And indeed, each speaker downplayed the risks of chemicals such as pesticides, food dyes, and other additives in food, while practically making fun of organic production.

Miller Jones lamented that organics are too expensive and offered tired arguments about how risks are everywhere, so really, why worry? She also claimed that people automatically fear something because it is artificial. But, as Andy Bellatti, an RD in attendance, pointed out afterward, “The concern with artificial ingredients is over studies showing harmful effects.”

The lowest point in the session came when Carl Winter launched into a lengthy attack on the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen, an annual list of the 12 fruits and vegetables most contaminated with pesticides. Winter claimed the list wasn’t backed by science, resorting to outright mockery at times. This was the same theme Winter struck in an “Expert Perspective” article for IFIC’s newsletter this summer. His core argument is that EWG only considers pesticide residue and not actual exposure, which he argues, causes “negligible risks to consumers.”

Now reasonable people can disagree on this point, and I am no expert in pesticides, but it troubled me that the audience only got to hear one side of the story. Why wasn’t anyone from EWG invited to participate to defend their scientific analysis?

During the Q&A, several frustrated attendees challenged the presenters — the only time the audience heard any opposing viewpoint. Several who spoke up are members of the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition Dietary Practice Group (HEN), which represents a growing number of RDs who are challenging ADA’s corporate ties and making inroads, slowly but surely. (I recently became a “friend of HEN” to support this brave group of professionals challenging the status quo.)

I asked the moderator why IFIC had organized such a one-sided panel. IFIC denied any bias and defended its selection of presenters. Afterwards, an IFIC rep approached me to offer to put together a more balanced panel at next year’s event. I am still waiting for the follow-up phone call.

The pro-pesticide spin didn’t end there. A few of us took to Twitter during the session, which in turn inspired a hit piece on Forbes.com called “Cleaning up the EWG’s Dirty Dozen,” coauthored by Henry Miller and Jeff Stier. Both have past ties to the American Council on Science and Health, (there’s that “council” moniker again) a notorious industry front group that has attacked the likes of Marion Nestle. Miller is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, two right-wing/libertarian think tanks that favor deregulation. Both are also heavily funded by corporate interests.

Here’s how the Forbes article describes what happened at ADA, although neither author was actually in attendance:

Winter presented his report at the American Dietetic Association’s Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo this week. The food police on hand were outraged with his findings, but the best they could muster were ad hominem attacks on Dr. Winter and IFIC, such as, “Google Carl Winter and industry front group IFIC and you will understand.” In fact, EWG’s Senior Communications and Policy Advisor, Don Carr took to Twitter to call IFIC “industry goons.” So much for scientific debate.

OK, so the Google suggestion was mine and I’ve been called the food police before. But scientific debate? That was sorely lacking at the event itself, as Don Carr noted in his response to the article:

EWG was not invited to the American Dietetic Association’s Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo nor were we even alerted that our Shopper’s Guide would be the topic of discussion at the event sponsored by an industry front group. We welcome any opportunity for an honest, open and transparent discussion about pesticides and our consumer guide — but that was not afforded to us.

Indeed, how about a lively debate on whether chemicals in food are dangerous? That would have far more interesting and useful for the audience. But industry front groups are not interested in real debate. IFIC only wants to present the spin that supports its funders’ economic interests, which is entirely understandable. My question is this: How can the ADA allow such powerful economic interests to control the message so completely?

A verson of this article appeared in Food Safety News. 

Photo of Walmart register courtsey of Walmart stores and photo of Growing Power greenhouse courtsey of grfray.

So far the online debate over Growing Power taking this funding is predictable: Some defend it for pragmatic reasons, while others deplore the move, either because they don’t like this particular company or they think all corporate money is evil. However, this donation cannot be viewed in such a narrow context. There is a pattern here that spans decades. By partnering with a group that could otherwise be one of its staunchest critics, Walmart is taking a page right out of the Big Tobacco playbook: buying silence.

Philanthropy to win over potential critics is a time-honored tradition in Corporate America, and this is the just the latest installment. The tobacco industry saw great success with sponsorships of women’s causes (Philip Morris promoted its support of women’s shelters in ads, for instance) and both the tobacco and alcohol industries have simultaneously made significant donations to Latino groups while heavily targeting them with advertising. In fact, they’ve done the same with a number of other minority groups, as I’ve described before.

Of course Growing Power needs the cash and will do good things with it. It’s understandable, in these hard times, how the group could justify taking it. Why not put a corporation’s profits to good use? Viewed in that narrow frame, there’s logic in taking almost any donation.

But what happens if Walmart’s pledge made earlier this year — with the first lady by their side — to sell more fresh produce at affordable prices, falls through (or squeezes farmers), as it inevitably will? What happens next year, when Allen needs more money, and Walmart ups the ante? One colleague I spoke to says he has no problem with the deal, as long as Walmart doesn’t ask for a seat on Growing Power’s board. But they just might.

It’s not at all clear where Growing Power is drawing the line. On their blog, Allen defends the move by arguing that we “can no longer refuse to invite big corporations to the table of the Good Food Revolution.”

Invite them to the table? These corporations — McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Kraft, and especially Walmart — have already been to the table: In fact, they have set the table.

Corporate America can hardly claim that it’s been left out of the conversation about our food supply. My book, Appetite for Profit, was inspired by the retaliation the food industry has leveled against its critics. Retaliation in the form of a massive public relations campaign designed to convince the American public and policymakers alike that they have the public’s interest in mind.

McDonald’s pushing cheeseburgers and fries? No problem, now they sell salads. General Mills promoting sugary cereals to kids? Enter whole grain Reese’s Puffs. Not enough access to fresh food in poor areas? Walmart to the rescue.

Meanwhile, any policy effort to reform the food system in more meaningful ways is resisted by these same companies with powerful lobbying campaigns. Walmart is no exception to this pattern. Last year, the retail chain’s lobbying expenditures topped $6 million.

Christopher Cook (author of Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis — which I highly recommend) recently hit the nail on the head. He posted to a list-serve arguing that such donations are “not only tainted but tied to political allegiance with the corporate agenda.” He went on to say:

The PR and influence that Walmart and others gain from this “charitable giving” expands their corporate power and their market control — the very things that are directly undermining our food system, sustainability, and food access and justice. These corporations are a huge part of precisely why we are in such deep trouble with our food today. It’s not just about “tainted” dollars, it’s about how these corporations will profit (and they will) both economically and politically by buying market share in the food justice movement.

Andy Fisher, former head of the Community Food Security Coalition, also wrote an excellent critique on Civil Eats, where he concluded that Walmart cannot possibly be part of the solution to our broken food system because the company “hurts communities more than it helps them.”

So what then, I hear many asking, is the alternative given that the money is still sorely needed? Cook offers an admittedly more challenging solution: “We need a strongly united movement pushing aggressively for public investment in the great and vital work of Growing Power and other groups.”

I agree. Let’s get to work.

If you use Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class-action lawsuit against food giant ConAgra for deceptively marketing the products as natural.

These days it’s hard to walk down a supermarket aisle without bumping into a food product that claims to be “all-natural.” If you’ve ever wondered how even some junk food products can claim this moniker (witness: Cheetos Natural Puff White Cheddar Cheese Flavored Snacks — doesn’t that sound like it came straight from your garden?), the answer is simple, if illogical: The Food and Drug Administration has not defined the term “natural.”

So food marketers, knowing that many shoppers are increasingly concerned about healthful eating, figured: Why not just slap the natural label on anything we can get away with? That wishful thinking may soon be coming to an end if a few clever consumer lawyers have anything to say about it.

While various lawsuits have been filed in recent years claiming that food companies using the term “natural” are engaging in deceptive marketing, a suit filed in June in California against ConAgra could make the entire industrial food complex shake in its boots. 

The plaintiff claims he relied on Wesson oils’ “100 percent natural” label, when the products are actually made from genetically modified organisms. 

GMOs not exactly natural, so says Monsanto

Ironically, the complaint cites a definition of GMOs by none other than Monsanto, the company most notorious for its promotion of the technology. According to Monsanto, GMOs are: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.” 

The complaint also quotes a GMO definition from the World Health Organization: “Organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”

Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: their canola oil, vegetable oil, corn oil, and “best blend.” And it’s not just on the label that ConAgra is using the natural claim, but also online and in print advertisements. (Additional silly health claims on the website include “cholesterol free” — vegetable oils couldn’t possibly contain cholesterol anyway.)

The complaint describes the extent of ConAgra’s deception, alleging that the “labels are intended to evoke a natural, wholesome product.” And further:

The “100 percent Natural” statement is, like much of the label on Wesson Oils, displayed in vibrant green. The “Wesson” name is haloed by the image of the sun, and the canola oil features a picture of a green heart. 

A green heart — you just can’t get any healthier than that. However, as registered dietitian Andy Bellatti told me: “These oils are high in omega-6 fatty acids, which, in excessive amounts, are actually bad for your heart.” Guess they left that part out of the green heart icon. 

Supermarkets chock-full of GMOs

But what makes this lawsuit especially intriguing is its potentially far-ranging impact. According to the Center for Food Safety: “Upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves — from soda to soup, crackers to condiments — contain genetically-engineered ingredients.” While it’s unclear how many of these products also claim to be natural, given all the greenwashing going on these days, it’s likely to number in the thousands. 

Specifically, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered, as are 91 percent of soybeans, both extremely common ingredients in processed foods. Numerous groups, including the Center for Food Safety, have been calling attention to the potential hazards of GMOs for years. From their website:

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife, and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression, and cancer. 

Not exactly the stuff that green hearts are made of. The legal complaint also notes that on its corporate website (“but not on the Wesson site that consumers are more likely to visit”), ConAgra implies that its oils are genetically engineered. The company concludes: “Ultimately, consumers will decide what is acceptable in the marketplace based on the best science and public information available.” 

But by being told the oils are “100 percent natural,” consumers can no longer make an informed decision, as they are being misled. 

Which reminds me of a great quote from Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser: “If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”