Wheat left from a derailment mixed with ongoing rain raises a stink in the neighborhood
By KEVIN MORAN Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle (July 27, 2007)
Wheat that spilled after a train derailed in a West University neighborhood earlier this month now smells so bad residents say they're being forced to stay inside.
"It smells like sewage just sitting there in the backyard," said Alana Kirsch, whose 5-year-old son, Texas, can't use his backyard swing set because of the stench. "It's nasty."
"It smells like a farm feed lot," said 13-year-resident Joel Stelling, Kirsch's neighbor. "It's slop back there. The smell is blowing through the neighborhood."
Union Pacific cleanup crews didn't finish the job after four cars carrying wheat and corn overturned July 2, spilling into residents' backyards, neighbors say. The remains have begun to rot and ferment.
"They cleaned up the majority of it over the July 4th holiday but some of it still remains and the rain has mixed in with the wheat to cause a really foul odor," Joel said.
UP spokesman James Barnes said Thursday that workers can't take heavy equipment onto the site to remove the rotting leftovers because rains have made the ground too unstable. And UP isn't making any promises about when it will be able to relieve the neighborhood of the stench.
"When the ground is firm enough to support the equipment, we will work as expeditiously as possible," Barnes said. "But we have to be mindful of the conditions because we wouldn't want to move in the equipment and then compromise safety or have stranded equipment out there."
Barnes said UP has no estimate of how many days of dry weather must pass before something can be done.
"We actually have people who go out and look at the situation and monitor how things are going," Barnes said. "As soon as we can get in there, we will restart the cleanup as quickly and safely as possible."
That's not the answer Joel and other neighbors want to hear.
Joel said he's suggested that UP use pumping equipment he saw during the first cleanup effort to move the rotting material to the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way, where there are no homes. Ground there is higher and the material might dry more quickly there, he said.
Barnes said he's not sure if pumping is possible but the company will do what it can to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
"We really apologize to the residents for the inconvenience," Barnes said.
kevin.moran@chron.com
Friday, July 27, 2007
Food in Botulism Recall Still Being Sold
By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press, July 27, 2007
Stores nationwide are continuing to sell recalled canned chili, stew, hash and other foods potentially contaminated with poisonous bacteria even after repeated warnings the products could kill.
Thousands of cans are being removed from store shelves as quickly as investigators find them, more than a week after Castleberry's Food Co. began recalling more than 90 potentially contaminated products over fears of botulism contamination.
The recall now covers two years' production at the company's Augusta, Ga., plant — a tally that spirals into the tens of millions of cans.
Spot checks by the Food and Drug Administration and state officials continue to turn up recalled
products for sale in convenience stores, gas stations and family run groceries, from Florida to Alaska. The FDA alone has found them in roughly 250 of the more than 3,700 stores visited in nationwide checks, according to figures the agency provided to The Associated Press.
In states like North Carolina, more than one in three stores checked by state officials in recent days were still offering recalled products for sale. Officials there pulled 5,500 cans and pledged to keep searching.
"We're not going to quit. These numbers are too high," said Joe Reardon, who oversees food protection for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Four people have been sickened and hospitalized because of the contaminated food, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Officials fear the tally will grow.
"Frankly, the fact we have had only four illnesses in this situation has people saying, 'Well, what is the big deal?' The deal is this is something that can land you in the ICU, not being able to breathe, for weeks," said Dr. David Acheson, the FDA's lead food safety expert.
FDA investigators believe Castleberry's failed to properly cook some or all the products, allowing the Clostridium botulinum bacteria to survive the canning process. In the oxygen-free and moist environment of the sealed cans, the bacteria thrive and produce a toxin that causes botulism, a muscle-paralyzing disease.
"The longer this stuff stays in the can, the worse it gets," Acheson said.
The bacteria also produce gases that can cause contaminated cans to swell and burst. Already, cans being held in a company warehouse have begun to break open. Health officials say the extremely potent toxin can infect people if it is inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the eye or breaks in the skin.
Health experts consider botulism a severe health threat but worry that word of the recall has not reached all consumers or retailers, especially mom-and-pop operations.
"It has been a problem getting the message out. We're having a problem reaching the smaller stores," said Lynae Granzow, an epidemiologist with the Indiana Department of Health.
In Massachusetts, health inspectors found recalled products in fewer than 50 small stores, mostly in the Boston area, state Department of Public Health spokeswoman Donna Rheaume said. Spot checks in Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Montana, New York, Indiana and elsewhere also have found them on shelves.
Castleberry's has hired a company to collect the recalled products from stores. It has posted a complete list of the recalled products, including some dog foods, on its Web site — http://www.castleberrys.com/
People who have any of the recalled products at home should double-bag and throw them away, the FDA recommends.
Castleberry's is owned by Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC, based in San Diego.
___
On the Net:
FDA botulism information: http://tinyurl.com/324exf
Stores nationwide are continuing to sell recalled canned chili, stew, hash and other foods potentially contaminated with poisonous bacteria even after repeated warnings the products could kill.
Thousands of cans are being removed from store shelves as quickly as investigators find them, more than a week after Castleberry's Food Co. began recalling more than 90 potentially contaminated products over fears of botulism contamination.
The recall now covers two years' production at the company's Augusta, Ga., plant — a tally that spirals into the tens of millions of cans.
Spot checks by the Food and Drug Administration and state officials continue to turn up recalled
products for sale in convenience stores, gas stations and family run groceries, from Florida to Alaska. The FDA alone has found them in roughly 250 of the more than 3,700 stores visited in nationwide checks, according to figures the agency provided to The Associated Press.
In states like North Carolina, more than one in three stores checked by state officials in recent days were still offering recalled products for sale. Officials there pulled 5,500 cans and pledged to keep searching.
"We're not going to quit. These numbers are too high," said Joe Reardon, who oversees food protection for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Four people have been sickened and hospitalized because of the contaminated food, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Officials fear the tally will grow.
"Frankly, the fact we have had only four illnesses in this situation has people saying, 'Well, what is the big deal?' The deal is this is something that can land you in the ICU, not being able to breathe, for weeks," said Dr. David Acheson, the FDA's lead food safety expert.
FDA investigators believe Castleberry's failed to properly cook some or all the products, allowing the Clostridium botulinum bacteria to survive the canning process. In the oxygen-free and moist environment of the sealed cans, the bacteria thrive and produce a toxin that causes botulism, a muscle-paralyzing disease.
"The longer this stuff stays in the can, the worse it gets," Acheson said.
The bacteria also produce gases that can cause contaminated cans to swell and burst. Already, cans being held in a company warehouse have begun to break open. Health officials say the extremely potent toxin can infect people if it is inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the eye or breaks in the skin.
Health experts consider botulism a severe health threat but worry that word of the recall has not reached all consumers or retailers, especially mom-and-pop operations.
"It has been a problem getting the message out. We're having a problem reaching the smaller stores," said Lynae Granzow, an epidemiologist with the Indiana Department of Health.
In Massachusetts, health inspectors found recalled products in fewer than 50 small stores, mostly in the Boston area, state Department of Public Health spokeswoman Donna Rheaume said. Spot checks in Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Montana, New York, Indiana and elsewhere also have found them on shelves.
Castleberry's has hired a company to collect the recalled products from stores. It has posted a complete list of the recalled products, including some dog foods, on its Web site — http://www.castleberrys.com/
People who have any of the recalled products at home should double-bag and throw them away, the FDA recommends.
Castleberry's is owned by Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC, based in San Diego.
___
On the Net:
FDA botulism information: http://tinyurl.com/324exf
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Farm Subsidies Seem Immune to an Overhaul
New York Times, July 26, 2007
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON, July 25 — For the many critics of farm subsidies, including President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this seemed like the ideal year for Congress to tackle the federal payments long criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms.
Many crop prices are at or near record highs. Concern over the country’s dependence on foreign oil has sent demand for corn-based ethanol soaring. European wheat fields have been battered by too much rain. And market analysts are projecting continued boom years for American farmers into the foreseeable future.
But as the latest farm bill heads to the House floor on Thursday, farm-state lawmakers seem likely to prevail in keeping the old subsidies largely in place, drawing a veto threat on Wednesday from the White House.
“The bill put forth by the committee misses a major opportunity,” Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday. “The time really is right for reform in farm policy.”
Faced with fierce opposition from the House Agriculture Committee, Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders lowered their sights and are now backing the committee’s bill, in part to protect freshman lawmakers from rural areas who may be vulnerable in the 2008 elections.
Instead, Ms. Pelosi helped to secure more modest changes, pushing the committee to provide $1.8 billion for programs that aid fruit and vegetable growers, generating support from lawmakers in states like Florida and California, Ms. Pelosi’s home, and deflating some traditional opposition to the farm bill.
At the same time, she pronounced the bill a “good first step to reform” by ending subsidies for the richest farmers — those earning more than $1 million a year — and closing a loophole that let some farmers exceed subsidy limits by owning partnerships in multiple farms.
The bill also requires country-of-origin labeling for meat, a requirement favored by consumer advocates and small ranchers.
“This bill represents reform,” said Representative Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the Agriculture Committee. “We have made changes that nobody thought that we could ever do.”
A group of dissident lawmakers led by Representatives Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, is still pushing a plan to curtail the subsidies sharply.
But they have been largely outmuscled by the Agriculture Committee. It 46 members are slightly more than 10 percent of the House but their districts received more than 40 percent of all farm subsidies from 2003 to 2005, according to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, which opposes the subsidies.
Critics in Congress include fiscal conservatives who deride the payments as wasteful government spending and liberals who call them corporate welfare for agribusiness. All say the measure will simply perpetuate the overly generous subsidy system, at a point when American farmers are well-positioned to weather changes.
“When farm prosperity is as good as it is right now, this is the time to reform,” said Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the dissident group. “If we can’t reform these farm programs at this moment in our history, we will never be able to do it.”
The group has proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would cut subsidies and increase spending on environmental conservation, rural development and nutrition programs, including food banks. It would end subsidies to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year, similar to the $200,000 cap proposed by the Bush administration. It would also substantially limit payments that farmers receive under guaranteed loan programs.
The effort by Mr. Kind has exposed divisions among House Democrats, some of whom argue that he could cost the party its new majority. The fear is that freshmen Democrats from rural swing districts could lose their seats if voters blamed them for lower farm subsidies. Mr. Kind rejected such assertions. “The vast majority of our new members benefit from our proposal,” he said.
The White House, in a statement Wednesday, said that Mr. Bush would veto the farm bill in its current form because it was too expensive and would require raising taxes while fixing the subsidies.
“I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform,” Mr. Johanns, the agriculture secretary, said in a conference call with reporters.
While the administration and Congressional critics of the bill are pushing for some of the same changes, the White House would extend and even increase so-called direct payments to farmers of corn, soybeans, cotton and other major crops that the dissidents in Congress hope to largely eliminate.
These payments, totaling more than $5 billion a year, are made even when farmers are earning sizable profits. Critics say they should be replaced with crop insurance and other revenue protections that pay only if farmers actually lose money.
The White House, however, favors these direct payments in part because they are based on past crop production, not on current crops or prices, meaning they have no impact on market conditions and do not violate world trade agreements.
The strategic maneuvering by the administration, and some unusual alliances on Capitol Hill, reflect the curious politics of farm policies, cutting across party lines and mirroring regional interests more than partisan loyalties.
The keen interest in the bill, even among urban lawmakers from districts without a corn or barley field, underscores the vast scope of the farm bill, which includes not just agriculture policies but nutrition programs like food stamps, and an array of energy, land conservation and other programs.
For instance, Democrats proposed a tax increase to pay for the part of the farm bill that would increase antihunger efforts by $4 billion.
The proposal would generate about $7 billion over five years by imposing taxes on some foreign corporations operating in the United States that do not pay taxes on certain rents, royalties and interest payments as a result of international treaties. Democrats said they were simply closing a loophole.
Republicans on the Agriculture Committee, who had been questioning where the money would
come from, immediately began to revolt, saying they would vote against the bill.
Other Republicans, who had no intention of supporting the farm bill, seized the chance to excoriate the Democrats on the tax increase. They included the minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.
“When you throw in the tax increase, he’d probably vote against it twice if he could,” said a Boehner spokesman, Brian Kennedy.
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON, July 25 — For the many critics of farm subsidies, including President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this seemed like the ideal year for Congress to tackle the federal payments long criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms.
Many crop prices are at or near record highs. Concern over the country’s dependence on foreign oil has sent demand for corn-based ethanol soaring. European wheat fields have been battered by too much rain. And market analysts are projecting continued boom years for American farmers into the foreseeable future.
But as the latest farm bill heads to the House floor on Thursday, farm-state lawmakers seem likely to prevail in keeping the old subsidies largely in place, drawing a veto threat on Wednesday from the White House.
“The bill put forth by the committee misses a major opportunity,” Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday. “The time really is right for reform in farm policy.”
Faced with fierce opposition from the House Agriculture Committee, Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders lowered their sights and are now backing the committee’s bill, in part to protect freshman lawmakers from rural areas who may be vulnerable in the 2008 elections.
Instead, Ms. Pelosi helped to secure more modest changes, pushing the committee to provide $1.8 billion for programs that aid fruit and vegetable growers, generating support from lawmakers in states like Florida and California, Ms. Pelosi’s home, and deflating some traditional opposition to the farm bill.
At the same time, she pronounced the bill a “good first step to reform” by ending subsidies for the richest farmers — those earning more than $1 million a year — and closing a loophole that let some farmers exceed subsidy limits by owning partnerships in multiple farms.
The bill also requires country-of-origin labeling for meat, a requirement favored by consumer advocates and small ranchers.
“This bill represents reform,” said Representative Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the Agriculture Committee. “We have made changes that nobody thought that we could ever do.”
A group of dissident lawmakers led by Representatives Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, is still pushing a plan to curtail the subsidies sharply.
But they have been largely outmuscled by the Agriculture Committee. It 46 members are slightly more than 10 percent of the House but their districts received more than 40 percent of all farm subsidies from 2003 to 2005, according to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, which opposes the subsidies.
Critics in Congress include fiscal conservatives who deride the payments as wasteful government spending and liberals who call them corporate welfare for agribusiness. All say the measure will simply perpetuate the overly generous subsidy system, at a point when American farmers are well-positioned to weather changes.
“When farm prosperity is as good as it is right now, this is the time to reform,” said Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the dissident group. “If we can’t reform these farm programs at this moment in our history, we will never be able to do it.”
The group has proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would cut subsidies and increase spending on environmental conservation, rural development and nutrition programs, including food banks. It would end subsidies to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year, similar to the $200,000 cap proposed by the Bush administration. It would also substantially limit payments that farmers receive under guaranteed loan programs.
The effort by Mr. Kind has exposed divisions among House Democrats, some of whom argue that he could cost the party its new majority. The fear is that freshmen Democrats from rural swing districts could lose their seats if voters blamed them for lower farm subsidies. Mr. Kind rejected such assertions. “The vast majority of our new members benefit from our proposal,” he said.
The White House, in a statement Wednesday, said that Mr. Bush would veto the farm bill in its current form because it was too expensive and would require raising taxes while fixing the subsidies.
“I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform,” Mr. Johanns, the agriculture secretary, said in a conference call with reporters.
While the administration and Congressional critics of the bill are pushing for some of the same changes, the White House would extend and even increase so-called direct payments to farmers of corn, soybeans, cotton and other major crops that the dissidents in Congress hope to largely eliminate.
These payments, totaling more than $5 billion a year, are made even when farmers are earning sizable profits. Critics say they should be replaced with crop insurance and other revenue protections that pay only if farmers actually lose money.
The White House, however, favors these direct payments in part because they are based on past crop production, not on current crops or prices, meaning they have no impact on market conditions and do not violate world trade agreements.
The strategic maneuvering by the administration, and some unusual alliances on Capitol Hill, reflect the curious politics of farm policies, cutting across party lines and mirroring regional interests more than partisan loyalties.
The keen interest in the bill, even among urban lawmakers from districts without a corn or barley field, underscores the vast scope of the farm bill, which includes not just agriculture policies but nutrition programs like food stamps, and an array of energy, land conservation and other programs.
For instance, Democrats proposed a tax increase to pay for the part of the farm bill that would increase antihunger efforts by $4 billion.
The proposal would generate about $7 billion over five years by imposing taxes on some foreign corporations operating in the United States that do not pay taxes on certain rents, royalties and interest payments as a result of international treaties. Democrats said they were simply closing a loophole.
Republicans on the Agriculture Committee, who had been questioning where the money would
come from, immediately began to revolt, saying they would vote against the bill.
Other Republicans, who had no intention of supporting the farm bill, seized the chance to excoriate the Democrats on the tax increase. They included the minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.
“When you throw in the tax increase, he’d probably vote against it twice if he could,” said a Boehner spokesman, Brian Kennedy.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Localvore's Dilemma
Sometimes buying local food helps in the battle against climate change. Sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes, it's just too confusing to decide.
By Drake Bennett The Boston Globe, July 22, 2007
AT VARIOUS POINTS in the coming months, a few hundred of Vermont's most ethical eaters will take the "Localvore Challenge." The actual dates of the challenge vary from town to town, but the idea is that, for a single meal, or a day, or an entire week, participants will eat only food that was grown or raised within 100 miles of where they live.
Vermont's localvores (also known as "locavores" or "locatarians") and their counterparts around the country are part of a burgeoning movement. In recent years, as large companies with globe-straddling supply networks have come to dominate organic agriculture, "local" has emerged as the new watchword of conscientious consumption. Over the past year and a half, the interest in local food has been fueled by best-selling memoirs and manifestos about local eating and dietary self-sufficiency, such as Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle," Bill McKibben's "Deep Economy," and Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
The case for local food is several-fold: It tastes better, its proponents argue, and preserves species biodiversity. It shores up small-scale economies and communities in the face of globalization and cultural homogenization. It even, some of its advocates claim, protects against terrorism: a decentralized food system could limit the impact of a virus or other bio-agent introduced into the food supply.
One of the arguments most often heard, however, is about energy. And at a time of rising concern about climate change, the great distances that most of our food travels are a potent symbol of the system's profligacy and cost in greenhouse gases. For local-food activists, "food miles" have become a favored measure of environmental impact. Food activists in the US and especially in Western Europe have pushed to put the term on menus and grocery-store labels.
"[T]he typical item of food on an American's plate travels some fifteen hundred miles to get there," Michael Pollan writes in "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "and is frequently better traveled and more worldly than its eater."
But a gathering body of evidence suggests that local food can sometimes consume more energy -- and produce more greenhouse gases -- than food imported from great distances. Moving food by train or ship is quite efficient, pound for pound, and transportation can often be a relatively small part of the total energy "footprint" of food compared with growing, packaging, or, for that matter, cooking it. A head of lettuce grown in Vermont may have less of an energy impact than one shipped up from Chile. But grow that Vermont lettuce late in the season in a heated greenhouse and its energy impact leapfrogs the imported option. So while local food may have its benefits, helping with climate change is not always one of them.
"All things being equal, it's better if food only travels 10 miles," says Peter Tyedmers, an ecological economist at Nova Scotia's Dalhousie University. "Sometimes all things are equal; many times they aren't."
The new research is part of an ambitious attempt to understand how food -- and the massive, almost impossibly complex system that produces and moves it across the globe -- affects the environment. For several years in Europe, and increasingly here in the US as well, food analysts have started to adopt a methodology called Life Cycle Assessment -- a comprehensive accounting of all of the resources that go into the food network, from fertilizer and fuel to the concrete and steel used to build a packing plant and the electricity used to keep it cool.
These researchers laud the public interest in food and its environmental impact, but their work, they say, shows that "local" is not the best way to think about food and energy, or the best basis for food-buying decisions. Some of these researchers are trying to devise more accurate ways of telling consumers the climate impact of their food choices. But they are discovering that the task can be tricky. The key, they argue, is to find a way to label foods that is both accurate and simple enough for consumers to accept.
Their work also highlights a more fundamental challenge for local-food enthusiasts. Michael Pollan states this challenge starkly: "Local means local in season," he says. In places like Boston, it means not only summers of fresh berries and arugula but January diets heavy on root vegetables and canned tomatoes. Can such a movement ever find mainstream acceptance?
The American food-supply network can do certain tasks very well, and one of them is to efficiently ship things over very large distances. The costs in energy can be high: air shipping is by far the most fuel-intensive, and is the fastest growing sector of food transport. However, it still only accounts for a small minority of the food shipments into and throughout the country.
Judged by unit of weight, ship and rail transport in particular are highly energy efficient. Financial considerations force shippers to pack as much as they can into their cargo containers, whether they're being carried by ship, rail, or truck, and to ensure that they rarely make a return trip empty. And because of their size, container ships and trains enjoy impressive economies of scale. The marginal extra energy it takes to transport a single bunch of bananas packed in with 60,000 tons of other cargo on a container ship is more than an order of magnitude less than that required to move them with a couple hundred pounds of cargo in a car or small truck.
"Local food systems are often built around small-scale logistics," says Chris Foster, a research fellow at England's Manchester Business School and co-author of a December 2006 study on the environmental impacts of food production and consumption commissioned for Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. "You begin to make more trips in cars. More food is shifted around in small trucks and vans, which are relatively energy-inefficient ways of moving."
The difference can be dramatic, according to Rich Pirog, a food-systems researcher at Iowa State University's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. A bag of potatoes shipped from Idaho to Boston by rail, he estimates, is likely to require less energy in transit than the same bag of potatoes driven from Maine to Boston in a farmer's truck. In recent decades, the national food-distribution system has shifted from rail to trucking, so fuel use has risen, but that still doesn't necessarily make local the best energy option.
A study Pirog did of Iowa's food supply in 2001 suggested that a transition to a more localized food system, at least in Iowa's case, would cut fuel use over today's international system. But the same study found that a multi-state regional system would be better still. The trucks transporting food in that model would be bigger and more efficient per unit of food than in the local model, while not traveling as far as in a national model.
How food travels, in other words, matters as much as how far it travels, and what happens on the farm or in the kitchen can leave a much bigger energy footprint than what happens between them.
"Often it's those activities and behaviors at the two ends of the production system that tend to dominate," says Peter Tyedmers. Food analysts point out that, per pound of food, the grocery shopper's drive home from the store or farmer's market can often use more energy than the entire rest of the supply chain.
Life Cycle Assessment -- in essence an exhaustive itemization of a product's every environmental impact -- was originally developed by engineers and chemists in the late 1960s for durable goods like cars and household appliances. Only in recent years has it started to be applied to food. Most of the food research has been done in Europe, where energy costs are higher than in the US and climate change has been a less contentious issue.
A few LCA studies -- of tomatoes in Sweden, of apples and lettuce in Great Britain -- suggest that in certain situations and certain seasons, the imported option is more energy-efficient than the local one.
During the European winter, it takes far less energy to grow produce outdoors in a warm climate like Spain or North Africa or New Zealand than in a heated greenhouse in Sweden or England. The energy that goes into heating that greenhouse, the studies found, or to storing locally grown fruit at a temperature cold enough to keep it for any length of time beyond the end of the growing season, can easily outweigh the energy required to ship produce from a warmer country.
One of few comprehensive studies done in North America compared the energy used to bring consumers British Canadian farmed salmon and Alaskan wild salmon, according to Tyedmers, who led the work. The results have yet to be published, but Tyedners says that he found that everything from the method of fishing to the source of a region's electricity to the form in which the fish was transported ended up being more important factors than shipping distance.
And for cattle, the greatest climate impact comes not from hauling cows and milk and steaks around the country, but from cow burps. Cows are impressive emitters of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide (contrary to popular belief, most of it comes out the front of the cow, not the rear). A cow with a bit of indigestion can contribute as much to global warming in a day as the average SUV.
But if "food miles" are such a crude measure, what's an environmentally concerned grocery shopper to look to? Some food activists are targeting the ends of the food production process -- farmers both in the US and Europe are looking at ways to heat greenhouses with renewable energy, or to avoid heating them at all even during winter, and both the British government and Ben & Jerry's recently announced efforts to modify cow feed to reduce methane production. Others are working to wring inefficiencies out of the local food-distribution system by getting farmers to consolidate their produce into larger trucks making fewer trips.
More broadly, though, some food analysts are trying to introduce LCA thinking to consumers. The Swedish government, as well as the British retailer Tesco, has announced plans to affix products with "carbon labels" that announce just how much carbon was emitted in production and distribution. Here in the US, Bon Appetit Management Company, a corporate caterer that serves Yahoo!, MIT and others, plans to introduce a similar measure next spring.
Rich Pirog sees this as a start. Ultimately, he envisions a series of labels: In addition to nutrition information, a box of cereal or a bunch of green beans would bear stickers relaying their carbon emissions along with their fair-trade credentials. The risk in such a scheme, however, is that consumers, given too much information, absorb none of it.
For their part, some localvores are suspicious of such labeling proposals. "To me the whole idea of calculating out the carbon impact way overcomplicates something that should be pretty simple," says Robin McDermott, co-founder of the Mad River Valley Locavores. Even if it turned out that an imported bunch of tomatoes were somehow more environmentally friendly than a local one, she says, she'd still go with local. "There's the taste," she says, "and you're supporting local farmers."
Michael Pollan hastens to point out that eating locally is only part of a larger food ethic. The problem isn't merely, he argues, that we ship our lettuce across the country; the problem is that people living in New England, a place naturally unfriendly to large-scale lettuce production, feel entitled to eat lettuce in February. Before World War II, he points out, Americans ate locally and in season because they had no choice.
"It's a new idea," he says, "this expectation that we can have a salad all year round."
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
By Drake Bennett The Boston Globe, July 22, 2007
AT VARIOUS POINTS in the coming months, a few hundred of Vermont's most ethical eaters will take the "Localvore Challenge." The actual dates of the challenge vary from town to town, but the idea is that, for a single meal, or a day, or an entire week, participants will eat only food that was grown or raised within 100 miles of where they live.
Vermont's localvores (also known as "locavores" or "locatarians") and their counterparts around the country are part of a burgeoning movement. In recent years, as large companies with globe-straddling supply networks have come to dominate organic agriculture, "local" has emerged as the new watchword of conscientious consumption. Over the past year and a half, the interest in local food has been fueled by best-selling memoirs and manifestos about local eating and dietary self-sufficiency, such as Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle," Bill McKibben's "Deep Economy," and Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
The case for local food is several-fold: It tastes better, its proponents argue, and preserves species biodiversity. It shores up small-scale economies and communities in the face of globalization and cultural homogenization. It even, some of its advocates claim, protects against terrorism: a decentralized food system could limit the impact of a virus or other bio-agent introduced into the food supply.
One of the arguments most often heard, however, is about energy. And at a time of rising concern about climate change, the great distances that most of our food travels are a potent symbol of the system's profligacy and cost in greenhouse gases. For local-food activists, "food miles" have become a favored measure of environmental impact. Food activists in the US and especially in Western Europe have pushed to put the term on menus and grocery-store labels.
"[T]he typical item of food on an American's plate travels some fifteen hundred miles to get there," Michael Pollan writes in "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "and is frequently better traveled and more worldly than its eater."
But a gathering body of evidence suggests that local food can sometimes consume more energy -- and produce more greenhouse gases -- than food imported from great distances. Moving food by train or ship is quite efficient, pound for pound, and transportation can often be a relatively small part of the total energy "footprint" of food compared with growing, packaging, or, for that matter, cooking it. A head of lettuce grown in Vermont may have less of an energy impact than one shipped up from Chile. But grow that Vermont lettuce late in the season in a heated greenhouse and its energy impact leapfrogs the imported option. So while local food may have its benefits, helping with climate change is not always one of them.
"All things being equal, it's better if food only travels 10 miles," says Peter Tyedmers, an ecological economist at Nova Scotia's Dalhousie University. "Sometimes all things are equal; many times they aren't."
The new research is part of an ambitious attempt to understand how food -- and the massive, almost impossibly complex system that produces and moves it across the globe -- affects the environment. For several years in Europe, and increasingly here in the US as well, food analysts have started to adopt a methodology called Life Cycle Assessment -- a comprehensive accounting of all of the resources that go into the food network, from fertilizer and fuel to the concrete and steel used to build a packing plant and the electricity used to keep it cool.
These researchers laud the public interest in food and its environmental impact, but their work, they say, shows that "local" is not the best way to think about food and energy, or the best basis for food-buying decisions. Some of these researchers are trying to devise more accurate ways of telling consumers the climate impact of their food choices. But they are discovering that the task can be tricky. The key, they argue, is to find a way to label foods that is both accurate and simple enough for consumers to accept.
Their work also highlights a more fundamental challenge for local-food enthusiasts. Michael Pollan states this challenge starkly: "Local means local in season," he says. In places like Boston, it means not only summers of fresh berries and arugula but January diets heavy on root vegetables and canned tomatoes. Can such a movement ever find mainstream acceptance?
The American food-supply network can do certain tasks very well, and one of them is to efficiently ship things over very large distances. The costs in energy can be high: air shipping is by far the most fuel-intensive, and is the fastest growing sector of food transport. However, it still only accounts for a small minority of the food shipments into and throughout the country.
Judged by unit of weight, ship and rail transport in particular are highly energy efficient. Financial considerations force shippers to pack as much as they can into their cargo containers, whether they're being carried by ship, rail, or truck, and to ensure that they rarely make a return trip empty. And because of their size, container ships and trains enjoy impressive economies of scale. The marginal extra energy it takes to transport a single bunch of bananas packed in with 60,000 tons of other cargo on a container ship is more than an order of magnitude less than that required to move them with a couple hundred pounds of cargo in a car or small truck.
"Local food systems are often built around small-scale logistics," says Chris Foster, a research fellow at England's Manchester Business School and co-author of a December 2006 study on the environmental impacts of food production and consumption commissioned for Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. "You begin to make more trips in cars. More food is shifted around in small trucks and vans, which are relatively energy-inefficient ways of moving."
The difference can be dramatic, according to Rich Pirog, a food-systems researcher at Iowa State University's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. A bag of potatoes shipped from Idaho to Boston by rail, he estimates, is likely to require less energy in transit than the same bag of potatoes driven from Maine to Boston in a farmer's truck. In recent decades, the national food-distribution system has shifted from rail to trucking, so fuel use has risen, but that still doesn't necessarily make local the best energy option.
A study Pirog did of Iowa's food supply in 2001 suggested that a transition to a more localized food system, at least in Iowa's case, would cut fuel use over today's international system. But the same study found that a multi-state regional system would be better still. The trucks transporting food in that model would be bigger and more efficient per unit of food than in the local model, while not traveling as far as in a national model.
How food travels, in other words, matters as much as how far it travels, and what happens on the farm or in the kitchen can leave a much bigger energy footprint than what happens between them.
"Often it's those activities and behaviors at the two ends of the production system that tend to dominate," says Peter Tyedmers. Food analysts point out that, per pound of food, the grocery shopper's drive home from the store or farmer's market can often use more energy than the entire rest of the supply chain.
Life Cycle Assessment -- in essence an exhaustive itemization of a product's every environmental impact -- was originally developed by engineers and chemists in the late 1960s for durable goods like cars and household appliances. Only in recent years has it started to be applied to food. Most of the food research has been done in Europe, where energy costs are higher than in the US and climate change has been a less contentious issue.
A few LCA studies -- of tomatoes in Sweden, of apples and lettuce in Great Britain -- suggest that in certain situations and certain seasons, the imported option is more energy-efficient than the local one.
During the European winter, it takes far less energy to grow produce outdoors in a warm climate like Spain or North Africa or New Zealand than in a heated greenhouse in Sweden or England. The energy that goes into heating that greenhouse, the studies found, or to storing locally grown fruit at a temperature cold enough to keep it for any length of time beyond the end of the growing season, can easily outweigh the energy required to ship produce from a warmer country.
One of few comprehensive studies done in North America compared the energy used to bring consumers British Canadian farmed salmon and Alaskan wild salmon, according to Tyedmers, who led the work. The results have yet to be published, but Tyedners says that he found that everything from the method of fishing to the source of a region's electricity to the form in which the fish was transported ended up being more important factors than shipping distance.
And for cattle, the greatest climate impact comes not from hauling cows and milk and steaks around the country, but from cow burps. Cows are impressive emitters of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide (contrary to popular belief, most of it comes out the front of the cow, not the rear). A cow with a bit of indigestion can contribute as much to global warming in a day as the average SUV.
But if "food miles" are such a crude measure, what's an environmentally concerned grocery shopper to look to? Some food activists are targeting the ends of the food production process -- farmers both in the US and Europe are looking at ways to heat greenhouses with renewable energy, or to avoid heating them at all even during winter, and both the British government and Ben & Jerry's recently announced efforts to modify cow feed to reduce methane production. Others are working to wring inefficiencies out of the local food-distribution system by getting farmers to consolidate their produce into larger trucks making fewer trips.
More broadly, though, some food analysts are trying to introduce LCA thinking to consumers. The Swedish government, as well as the British retailer Tesco, has announced plans to affix products with "carbon labels" that announce just how much carbon was emitted in production and distribution. Here in the US, Bon Appetit Management Company, a corporate caterer that serves Yahoo!, MIT and others, plans to introduce a similar measure next spring.
Rich Pirog sees this as a start. Ultimately, he envisions a series of labels: In addition to nutrition information, a box of cereal or a bunch of green beans would bear stickers relaying their carbon emissions along with their fair-trade credentials. The risk in such a scheme, however, is that consumers, given too much information, absorb none of it.
For their part, some localvores are suspicious of such labeling proposals. "To me the whole idea of calculating out the carbon impact way overcomplicates something that should be pretty simple," says Robin McDermott, co-founder of the Mad River Valley Locavores. Even if it turned out that an imported bunch of tomatoes were somehow more environmentally friendly than a local one, she says, she'd still go with local. "There's the taste," she says, "and you're supporting local farmers."
Michael Pollan hastens to point out that eating locally is only part of a larger food ethic. The problem isn't merely, he argues, that we ship our lettuce across the country; the problem is that people living in New England, a place naturally unfriendly to large-scale lettuce production, feel entitled to eat lettuce in February. Before World War II, he points out, Americans ate locally and in season because they had no choice.
"It's a new idea," he says, "this expectation that we can have a salad all year round."
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
Friday, July 20, 2007
House Agriculture Committee Passes Groundbreaking Farm Bill
WASHINGTON - The House Agriculture Committee today passed a new Farm Bill that makes historic investments in conservation, nutrition and renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America’s farmers and ranchers. Additionally, for the first time, the 2007 Farm Bill provides substantial funding for the fruit and vegetable industry.
“This Farm Bill provides strong programs that will help American agriculture meet the 21st Century needs of the United States and the world with a safe, stable food supply, nutrition assistance, environmental benefits, and renewable energy products,” Chairman Peterson said.
“We have incorporated some new ideas and important reforms in this Farm Bill, focusing farm program benefits so they get to real farmers and boosting investment in programs that help those who haven’t received benefits through the Farm Bill before.”
“It is a tradition for this Committee to produce a bipartisan farm bill and I am pleased that today we upheld a tradition that enables us to truly serve the best interests of American agriculture and all who enjoy the benefits of a safe, reliable and affordable food and fiber supply. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman in a bipartisan fashion as we move ahead with this farm bill,” said Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte.
Important highlights of the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) include:
· Investing more than $1.6 billion in priorities to strengthen and support the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States. A new section for Horticulture and Organic Agriculture includes nutrition, research, pest management and trade promotion programs.
· Providing farmers participating in commodity programs with a choice between traditional price protection and new market-oriented revenue coverage payments.
· Strengthening payment limits to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year (adjusted gross income) can’t collect conservation and farm program payments and closing loopholes that allow people to avoid payment limits by receiving money through multiple business units.
· Rebalancing loan rates and target prices among commodities, achieving greater regional equity.
· Cutting federal payment rates to crop insurance companies that are making record profits due to higher crop prices.
· Extending and makes significant new investments in popular conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and many others.
· Expanding the USDA Snack Program, which helps schools provide healthy snacks to students during after-school activities to all 50 states and continuing the DOD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides a variety of fresh produce to schools.
· Strengthening and enhancing the food stamp program by reforming benefit rules to improve coverage of food costs and expand access to the program with additional funding support.
· Including key provisions that invest in rural communities nationwide, including economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication services.
· Establishing a new National Agriculture Research Program Office to coordinate the programs and activities of USDA’s research agencies to minimize duplication and maximize coordination at all levels and creates a competitive grants program.
· Protecting and sustaining our nation’s forest resources.
· Making important new investments in renewable energy research, development and production in rural America.
The Committee also approved language that will finally allow full implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meat in the Farm Bill. This language is a victory for consumers who overwhelmingly support the program. It includes three categories of labeling, one that indicates product was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States; one that indicates that product was not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.; and one that includes products entirely from other countries. For ground meat, products can be labeled with a list of countries where product may have originated.
During the Committee’s business meeting held July 17-19, the Agriculture Committee considered H.R. 2419 and an “en bloc” amendment that included additional important programs that the Committee wants to include in the Farm Bill but that require additional funding.
Copies of the bill considered by the Committee and the amendments that were adopted are available on the Committee’s website at: http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html.
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Farm Bill before the end of July.
###
“This Farm Bill provides strong programs that will help American agriculture meet the 21st Century needs of the United States and the world with a safe, stable food supply, nutrition assistance, environmental benefits, and renewable energy products,” Chairman Peterson said.
“We have incorporated some new ideas and important reforms in this Farm Bill, focusing farm program benefits so they get to real farmers and boosting investment in programs that help those who haven’t received benefits through the Farm Bill before.”
“It is a tradition for this Committee to produce a bipartisan farm bill and I am pleased that today we upheld a tradition that enables us to truly serve the best interests of American agriculture and all who enjoy the benefits of a safe, reliable and affordable food and fiber supply. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman in a bipartisan fashion as we move ahead with this farm bill,” said Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte.
Important highlights of the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) include:
· Investing more than $1.6 billion in priorities to strengthen and support the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States. A new section for Horticulture and Organic Agriculture includes nutrition, research, pest management and trade promotion programs.
· Providing farmers participating in commodity programs with a choice between traditional price protection and new market-oriented revenue coverage payments.
· Strengthening payment limits to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year (adjusted gross income) can’t collect conservation and farm program payments and closing loopholes that allow people to avoid payment limits by receiving money through multiple business units.
· Rebalancing loan rates and target prices among commodities, achieving greater regional equity.
· Cutting federal payment rates to crop insurance companies that are making record profits due to higher crop prices.
· Extending and makes significant new investments in popular conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and many others.
· Expanding the USDA Snack Program, which helps schools provide healthy snacks to students during after-school activities to all 50 states and continuing the DOD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides a variety of fresh produce to schools.
· Strengthening and enhancing the food stamp program by reforming benefit rules to improve coverage of food costs and expand access to the program with additional funding support.
· Including key provisions that invest in rural communities nationwide, including economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication services.
· Establishing a new National Agriculture Research Program Office to coordinate the programs and activities of USDA’s research agencies to minimize duplication and maximize coordination at all levels and creates a competitive grants program.
· Protecting and sustaining our nation’s forest resources.
· Making important new investments in renewable energy research, development and production in rural America.
The Committee also approved language that will finally allow full implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meat in the Farm Bill. This language is a victory for consumers who overwhelmingly support the program. It includes three categories of labeling, one that indicates product was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States; one that indicates that product was not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.; and one that includes products entirely from other countries. For ground meat, products can be labeled with a list of countries where product may have originated.
During the Committee’s business meeting held July 17-19, the Agriculture Committee considered H.R. 2419 and an “en bloc” amendment that included additional important programs that the Committee wants to include in the Farm Bill but that require additional funding.
Copies of the bill considered by the Committee and the amendments that were adopted are available on the Committee’s website at: http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html.
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Farm Bill before the end of July.
###
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Food-labeling Effort Gains New Momentum
Star-Telegram, July 15, 2007
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- Shoppers are in the dark about where much of their food comes from despite a five-year-old law requiring meat and other products to carry labels with their country of origin.
That soon may change. Reports of tainted seafood from China have raised consumer awareness about the safety of imported food and many of the law's most powerful opponents have left Congress.
"The political dynamic is such that there's just no getting around it," said Colin Woodall, director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The livestock group has opposed a mandatory labeling program.
The Agriculture Department never put in place the labeling requirement because then-majority Republicans repeatedly delayed it, most recently to 2008.
The law's leading opponents are grocery stores and large meatpacking companies, many of whom mix U.S. and Mexican beef, along with other businesses involved in getting products to supermarket shelves. They say the tracking and the paperwork needed to comply with the law is too burdensome and would cause them to raise prices.
Those interests had influential allies on Capitol Hill - mostly Texas Republicans - before Democrats took over this year.
President Bush, a Texan who has strong ties to the cattle industry, never has liked the labeling law, either. He reluctantly embraced it as a part of the wide-ranging farm bill in 2002 that set agriculture policy.
The labeling requirement, popular with small, independent ranchers who sell their own products, applies to certain cuts of beef, lamb, pork, as well as to peanuts, fruits and vegetables. Processed foods are exempt. So are restaurants and other food service establishments.
The labeling program was not delayed for seafood. The former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, wanted it to promote his state's lucrative fishing industry.
House supporters of the labeling law are working to make sure it goes into effect next year. Their job will be easier because several lawmakers - mostly Texas Republicans concerned about their state's livestock industry - will not be around to block it.
"We had to kick and scream and fight to get this in the farm bill," said Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. He said supporters are concerned that the Bush administration keeps dragging its feet.
Congress plans hearings this week on whether the Food and Drug Administration can ensure the safety of the nation's food supply. In the wake of increased U.S. complaints about tainted Chinese products, the Chinese government late Friday said it has suspended imports of chicken feet, pig ears and other animal products from seven U.S. companies. Beijing claimed the American meat had contaminants.
The spotlight on federal oversight is adding momentum to a renewed push by consumer groups to put the labeling law in place.
"When consumers hear about all these things in China, their tendency is to avoid things from China," said Chris Waldrop of the Consumer Federation of America. "But they can't because we don't have country of origin labeling, so they are left in the supermarket to their own devices."
The same experts point to several instances of mad cow disease in Canada as evidence of the need for stricter labeling.
But Regina Hildwine, director of food labeling and standards for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, says the labels will be "additional noise" on crowded packaging.
"There's a lot more information on a label that's more important for a consumer to understand, like nutrition facts," she said.
Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said he will try to beat back language in a spending bill that would establish firm guidelines to begin the labeling in September 2008. LaHood is siding with the meatpacking companies and grocery chains.
"It's going to cause a lot of heartburn," he said.
The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, has said he would be open to writing a new law if all sides could agree. Without a compromise, though, he says he will leave it alone and let it begin in 2008.
Other lawmakers say that is not soon enough and are pushing for the requirement to become effective this year. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said a must-pass spending bill could be an option to try that.
The law is a priority for lawmakers from the Midwest and northern Rockies, where smaller ranchers face heavy competition from Canada.
"Only by differentiating domestic beef from the rising tide of imported beef can our industry compete," said Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF USA, a group that represents smaller independent producers.
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- Shoppers are in the dark about where much of their food comes from despite a five-year-old law requiring meat and other products to carry labels with their country of origin.
That soon may change. Reports of tainted seafood from China have raised consumer awareness about the safety of imported food and many of the law's most powerful opponents have left Congress.
"The political dynamic is such that there's just no getting around it," said Colin Woodall, director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The livestock group has opposed a mandatory labeling program.
The Agriculture Department never put in place the labeling requirement because then-majority Republicans repeatedly delayed it, most recently to 2008.
The law's leading opponents are grocery stores and large meatpacking companies, many of whom mix U.S. and Mexican beef, along with other businesses involved in getting products to supermarket shelves. They say the tracking and the paperwork needed to comply with the law is too burdensome and would cause them to raise prices.
Those interests had influential allies on Capitol Hill - mostly Texas Republicans - before Democrats took over this year.
President Bush, a Texan who has strong ties to the cattle industry, never has liked the labeling law, either. He reluctantly embraced it as a part of the wide-ranging farm bill in 2002 that set agriculture policy.
The labeling requirement, popular with small, independent ranchers who sell their own products, applies to certain cuts of beef, lamb, pork, as well as to peanuts, fruits and vegetables. Processed foods are exempt. So are restaurants and other food service establishments.
The labeling program was not delayed for seafood. The former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, wanted it to promote his state's lucrative fishing industry.
House supporters of the labeling law are working to make sure it goes into effect next year. Their job will be easier because several lawmakers - mostly Texas Republicans concerned about their state's livestock industry - will not be around to block it.
"We had to kick and scream and fight to get this in the farm bill," said Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. He said supporters are concerned that the Bush administration keeps dragging its feet.
Congress plans hearings this week on whether the Food and Drug Administration can ensure the safety of the nation's food supply. In the wake of increased U.S. complaints about tainted Chinese products, the Chinese government late Friday said it has suspended imports of chicken feet, pig ears and other animal products from seven U.S. companies. Beijing claimed the American meat had contaminants.
The spotlight on federal oversight is adding momentum to a renewed push by consumer groups to put the labeling law in place.
"When consumers hear about all these things in China, their tendency is to avoid things from China," said Chris Waldrop of the Consumer Federation of America. "But they can't because we don't have country of origin labeling, so they are left in the supermarket to their own devices."
The same experts point to several instances of mad cow disease in Canada as evidence of the need for stricter labeling.
But Regina Hildwine, director of food labeling and standards for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, says the labels will be "additional noise" on crowded packaging.
"There's a lot more information on a label that's more important for a consumer to understand, like nutrition facts," she said.
Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said he will try to beat back language in a spending bill that would establish firm guidelines to begin the labeling in September 2008. LaHood is siding with the meatpacking companies and grocery chains.
"It's going to cause a lot of heartburn," he said.
The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, has said he would be open to writing a new law if all sides could agree. Without a compromise, though, he says he will leave it alone and let it begin in 2008.
Other lawmakers say that is not soon enough and are pushing for the requirement to become effective this year. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said a must-pass spending bill could be an option to try that.
The law is a priority for lawmakers from the Midwest and northern Rockies, where smaller ranchers face heavy competition from Canada.
"Only by differentiating domestic beef from the rising tide of imported beef can our industry compete," said Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF USA, a group that represents smaller independent producers.
Limiting Ads of Junk Food to Children
New York Times, July 18, 2007
By BROOKS BARNES
Trix are no longer for kids — at least not on children’s television shows. But Cocoa Puffs are another matter.
Trying to persuade critics the industry does not need government regulation, 11 big food companies, including McDonald’s, Campbell Soup and PepsiCo, have agreed to stop advertising to children under 12 products that do not meet certain nutritional standards. Some of the companies, like Coca-Cola, have already withdrawn all such commercials or are in the process of doing so. Others, like General Mills, said they would withdraw them over the next year or so, while a handful agreed to expand their self-imposed bans to radio, print and Internet advertising.
Still, the agreements will probably amount to a ripple rather than a sea change in terms of what foods children see pitched on their favorite television shows and Web sites. For example, while General Mills will no longer be advertising Trix to the 12-and-under crowd, it will continue to peddle Cocoa Puffs, which have one less gram of sugar per serving. And it will be able to continue advertising Trix on television shows and other media that are considered to cater to “families” rather than just children.
That qualifier amounts to a major loophole, given the media-watching habits of children. An episode of Nickelodon’s “SpongeBob SquarePants,” for instance, is viewed by an average audience of 876,000 children age 6 to 11, according to Nielsen Media Research, and falls in the category of shows that are off-limits to ads for junk food. But “American Idol” from Fox, which qualifies as a family show, attracts 2.1 million children in the age group.
The companies have also agreed for the first time to open their marketing plans to the Council of Better Business Bureaus and its Children’s Advertising Review Unit, which will review them and report publicly on the findings. This scrutiny and the pledges to self-regulate, which will be announced at a Federal Trade Commission event today, are an attempt to show corporate responsiveness to growing concerns about childhood obesity.
“We are hopeful that people will look at this and say that the community has done a substantial, enormous amount of work,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.
Advertisers spend some $900 million annually on television tailored to children under 12, according to industry estimates. Together, the companies involved represent two-thirds of the total children’s advertising market, according to the Better Business Bureau. Cadbury Adams, Coca-Cola, Hershey, Kellogg, Kraft, Mars and Unilever are the other participating companies.
The nutritional parameters vary by company, but are all based on the 2005 United States Dietary Guidelines developed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.
A pat on the back from critics is unlikely. The pledges, which were made under the threat of regulatory intervention and, in some cases, the threat of lawsuits, fall short of the demands from child advocacy groups. Most critics have been pushing for uniform guidelines for marketers to follow and for oversight from a body with the authority to enforce them.
“This is great public relations for the companies, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough,” said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Boston-based group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “It is going to be impossible to monitor if the companies are actually doing what they say.”
To some degree, the pledges appeared to be an effort by the food companies to get out in front of a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity. Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Harkin announced July 5 that they would postpone a report from a task force they formed with the Federal Communications Commission in lieu of the companies’ plans to announce concessions today. At the time, Senator Brownback said, “The extension will allow for a more thorough examination of new initiatives.”
The financial impact of the pledges on television networks like Nickelodeon, ABC Family and Cartoon Network will depend on how well the food companies can tweak their products. Many of the companies are not automatically withdrawing their products from the airwaves; rather, they are trying to reformulate the foods to meet nutritional guidelines. If they cannot do so to their satisfaction, they say they will replace ads for so-called junk foods with spots for healthier alternatives.
Cadbury Adams, the maker of Bubblicious chewing gum, says it will either withdraw advertisements of the brand from certain media or will direct half of its current Bubblicious budget to the promotion of healthier eating habits. The company declined to specify how much it spends promoting Bubblicious each year, but said that a healthier habit might be choosing a smaller portion of gum.
MTV Networks, which owns Nickelodeon and other channels popular with younger viewers, expects the agreements to have minimal impact on its bottom line. “Many products sold by these companies haven’t been on our air for years,” said Jim Perry, executive vice president for ad sales at Nickelodeon and MTV Networks Kids and Family Group. Marva Smalls, executive vice president for Nickelodeon public affairs, added, “We have been on the road pressing for this.”
Similarly, some of the participating companies said that their ad budgets would not be altered in any meaningful way; PepsiCo, which makes Pepsi Cola and Frito-Lay snack foods, said that its children’s advertising budget represents only 1 percent of its overall ad budget. Starting Jan. 1, PepsiCo will advertise to children only products that meet the criteria set out in its 2004 “Smart Spot” nutritional program.
Under PepsiCo’s pledge, only two products can be marketed to children under 12, according to Lynn Markley, vice president for health and wellness. They are Baked Cheetos, which have 50 percent less fat than regular Cheetos, and Gatorade. In the case of Gatorade, the company says the brand will sponsor ads that give tips to children on participating in sports. The product itself will not be pictured.
PepsiCo’s commitment will also translate to a diminished role for Cap’n Crunch, the familiar mascot of the cereal made by the company’s Quaker Oats division. Ms. Markley said that the Cap’n will remain on cereal boxes but that as of Jan. 1, 2008, he will not appear in any television, print, Internet or other advertising to children under 12. This will mean an end to his interactive arcade-style game for children at www.capncrunch.com.
Other companies agreed in their pledges to limit their use of licensed characters like SpongeBob or Scooby-Doo.
Deborah Platt Majoras, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, called the various pledges “a significant step” and urged more food makers to join the effort. “While changes in food marketing alone will not solve the nation’s childhood obesity problem, these actions will help make a healthy choice the easy choice,” she said in a statement.
Efforts to curtail junk food advertisements started escalating about three years ago, as evidence of the problem of child obesity started mounting. Food companies, concluding that the issue would not go away and fearing the kind of government scrutiny given to tobacco companies, started trying to police themselves.
Kraft was an early leader. In January 2005, the company said it would stop advertising products like Oreos, Chips Ahoy and most Oscar Mayer Lunchables on programs aimed at children ages 6 to 11. Other companies followed, including Kellogg, which said last month that it would stop marketing foods that have more than 12 grams of sugar per serving to children. These include such childhood favorites as Froot Loops, Apple Jacks and Pop-Tarts.
General Mills said it looked to Kellogg to establish its own nutritional standards. “We saw that public interest groups praised that level, and we decided to line up together on that,” said Christina L. Shea, senior vice president for external relations.
Ms. Shea said that some brands, like Cocoa Puffs, already complied with the standard of 12 grams of sugar or less per serving. Trix cereal, however, has 13 grams. Ms. Shea said the company would reformulate the cereal no later than the end of 2008, or not advertise the brand to children after that point.
Elizabeth Olson contributed reporting.
By BROOKS BARNES
Trix are no longer for kids — at least not on children’s television shows. But Cocoa Puffs are another matter.
Trying to persuade critics the industry does not need government regulation, 11 big food companies, including McDonald’s, Campbell Soup and PepsiCo, have agreed to stop advertising to children under 12 products that do not meet certain nutritional standards. Some of the companies, like Coca-Cola, have already withdrawn all such commercials or are in the process of doing so. Others, like General Mills, said they would withdraw them over the next year or so, while a handful agreed to expand their self-imposed bans to radio, print and Internet advertising.
Still, the agreements will probably amount to a ripple rather than a sea change in terms of what foods children see pitched on their favorite television shows and Web sites. For example, while General Mills will no longer be advertising Trix to the 12-and-under crowd, it will continue to peddle Cocoa Puffs, which have one less gram of sugar per serving. And it will be able to continue advertising Trix on television shows and other media that are considered to cater to “families” rather than just children.
That qualifier amounts to a major loophole, given the media-watching habits of children. An episode of Nickelodon’s “SpongeBob SquarePants,” for instance, is viewed by an average audience of 876,000 children age 6 to 11, according to Nielsen Media Research, and falls in the category of shows that are off-limits to ads for junk food. But “American Idol” from Fox, which qualifies as a family show, attracts 2.1 million children in the age group.
The companies have also agreed for the first time to open their marketing plans to the Council of Better Business Bureaus and its Children’s Advertising Review Unit, which will review them and report publicly on the findings. This scrutiny and the pledges to self-regulate, which will be announced at a Federal Trade Commission event today, are an attempt to show corporate responsiveness to growing concerns about childhood obesity.
“We are hopeful that people will look at this and say that the community has done a substantial, enormous amount of work,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.
Advertisers spend some $900 million annually on television tailored to children under 12, according to industry estimates. Together, the companies involved represent two-thirds of the total children’s advertising market, according to the Better Business Bureau. Cadbury Adams, Coca-Cola, Hershey, Kellogg, Kraft, Mars and Unilever are the other participating companies.
The nutritional parameters vary by company, but are all based on the 2005 United States Dietary Guidelines developed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.
A pat on the back from critics is unlikely. The pledges, which were made under the threat of regulatory intervention and, in some cases, the threat of lawsuits, fall short of the demands from child advocacy groups. Most critics have been pushing for uniform guidelines for marketers to follow and for oversight from a body with the authority to enforce them.
“This is great public relations for the companies, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough,” said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Boston-based group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “It is going to be impossible to monitor if the companies are actually doing what they say.”
To some degree, the pledges appeared to be an effort by the food companies to get out in front of a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity. Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Harkin announced July 5 that they would postpone a report from a task force they formed with the Federal Communications Commission in lieu of the companies’ plans to announce concessions today. At the time, Senator Brownback said, “The extension will allow for a more thorough examination of new initiatives.”
The financial impact of the pledges on television networks like Nickelodeon, ABC Family and Cartoon Network will depend on how well the food companies can tweak their products. Many of the companies are not automatically withdrawing their products from the airwaves; rather, they are trying to reformulate the foods to meet nutritional guidelines. If they cannot do so to their satisfaction, they say they will replace ads for so-called junk foods with spots for healthier alternatives.
Cadbury Adams, the maker of Bubblicious chewing gum, says it will either withdraw advertisements of the brand from certain media or will direct half of its current Bubblicious budget to the promotion of healthier eating habits. The company declined to specify how much it spends promoting Bubblicious each year, but said that a healthier habit might be choosing a smaller portion of gum.
MTV Networks, which owns Nickelodeon and other channels popular with younger viewers, expects the agreements to have minimal impact on its bottom line. “Many products sold by these companies haven’t been on our air for years,” said Jim Perry, executive vice president for ad sales at Nickelodeon and MTV Networks Kids and Family Group. Marva Smalls, executive vice president for Nickelodeon public affairs, added, “We have been on the road pressing for this.”
Similarly, some of the participating companies said that their ad budgets would not be altered in any meaningful way; PepsiCo, which makes Pepsi Cola and Frito-Lay snack foods, said that its children’s advertising budget represents only 1 percent of its overall ad budget. Starting Jan. 1, PepsiCo will advertise to children only products that meet the criteria set out in its 2004 “Smart Spot” nutritional program.
Under PepsiCo’s pledge, only two products can be marketed to children under 12, according to Lynn Markley, vice president for health and wellness. They are Baked Cheetos, which have 50 percent less fat than regular Cheetos, and Gatorade. In the case of Gatorade, the company says the brand will sponsor ads that give tips to children on participating in sports. The product itself will not be pictured.
PepsiCo’s commitment will also translate to a diminished role for Cap’n Crunch, the familiar mascot of the cereal made by the company’s Quaker Oats division. Ms. Markley said that the Cap’n will remain on cereal boxes but that as of Jan. 1, 2008, he will not appear in any television, print, Internet or other advertising to children under 12. This will mean an end to his interactive arcade-style game for children at www.capncrunch.com.
Other companies agreed in their pledges to limit their use of licensed characters like SpongeBob or Scooby-Doo.
Deborah Platt Majoras, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, called the various pledges “a significant step” and urged more food makers to join the effort. “While changes in food marketing alone will not solve the nation’s childhood obesity problem, these actions will help make a healthy choice the easy choice,” she said in a statement.
Efforts to curtail junk food advertisements started escalating about three years ago, as evidence of the problem of child obesity started mounting. Food companies, concluding that the issue would not go away and fearing the kind of government scrutiny given to tobacco companies, started trying to police themselves.
Kraft was an early leader. In January 2005, the company said it would stop advertising products like Oreos, Chips Ahoy and most Oscar Mayer Lunchables on programs aimed at children ages 6 to 11. Other companies followed, including Kellogg, which said last month that it would stop marketing foods that have more than 12 grams of sugar per serving to children. These include such childhood favorites as Froot Loops, Apple Jacks and Pop-Tarts.
General Mills said it looked to Kellogg to establish its own nutritional standards. “We saw that public interest groups praised that level, and we decided to line up together on that,” said Christina L. Shea, senior vice president for external relations.
Ms. Shea said that some brands, like Cocoa Puffs, already complied with the standard of 12 grams of sugar or less per serving. Trix cereal, however, has 13 grams. Ms. Shea said the company would reformulate the cereal no later than the end of 2008, or not advertise the brand to children after that point.
Elizabeth Olson contributed reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)