reste à faire

“In Creole, it’s ’ché,’ not ‘cher' like in French.” a future classmate enlightened me on the differences between the two languages at Tufts Admitted Students day, earlier this month. To my delight, the differences were small. Though I would’ve been content continuing to explore linguistic nuances, more exciting stories awaited- this particular admitted student worked in Haiti, for an NGO that distributed American food aid to Haitians in need.

Food aid is mainly managed by the Food for Peace program, which was founded in 1954 and housed under USAID. It was originally created as a way to use surplus American crops, but is now a different system, with farmers competing for commodity contracts and various NGOs handling distribution.

As the leading supplier in food aid, the U.S. spent $17.9 billion on food aid between 2003 and 2012. So where does all this money go? Not where you might think it does. Much of it is wasted due to special interests and government bureaucracy. This is due to a series of Congress-imposed rules that make our food aid system inefficient, expensive, and impractical. For one, all donated food must come from American producers. What’s more, over half of all food must be transported with U.S.-flagged ships with American crews and up to 15 % of the donated food is then sold in the host country to cover the costs of NGO development programs.

Given the current operating methods, one might be surprised to hear that the published goals of Food for Peace do not include supporting American agricultural and shipping interests. According to their website, their aim is “to minimize hunger in the world so that people everywhere can enjoy active and productive lives and ultimately, to ensure that one day no one needs food assistance.” They should know that a critical part of creating a self-sustaining food economy is to develop the local market and agricultural sector. Many developing countries that have sufficient regional food supply or have food locally but lack distribution infrastructure, have advocated for use of alternative systems. Using a cash or voucher based system is faster, less costly, and bolsters local economies. According to Oxfam, it takes four to six months for food from the U.S. to reach its final destination. In addition to hampering our response time to sudden emergencies, we are wasting taxpayer money on unnecessary middle-men and red tape. And finally, all this doesn’t come cheap- 59 cents out  every dollar spent on aid goes to shipping costs and regulations.

Clearly, reform is desperately needed. Obama has requested changes in the FY 2017 budget proposal that would provide for more flexibility in food aid. These include allowing up to 25% of emergency food aid to be spent locally or through cash-based transfers or vouchers  and eliminating monetization. The administration has proposed replacing the monetization with cash grants that would provide the same resources to non-profits. This act would save $75 million a year in shipping costs and avoiding its distorting effect on local food prices.

The push for food aid reform is neither new, nor partisan. Past experience demonstrates how system rigidity not only risks the lives of those in need but can also harm our national security efforts. The little known, but painful experience in Afghanistan represents a casualty of our own system. Following U.S. military intervention, security was improved to the point where USAID began distributing drought-tolerant wheat seeds to farmers in order to address famine and develop the local agricultural economy. Farmers went on to produce the largest wheat crop in the country’s history, causing the market price to drop 20% from historical averages. At the same time, USAID was importing several hundred tons of wheat donations, further collapsing the price. Many farmers responded by converting their fields back to the more profitable poppy production. If USAID had the flexibility to purchase wheat from local farmers, it could have stabilized wheat prices and motivated farmers to remain in wheat production. Following these events, the Bush administration proposed their own reforms, which much resemble those of Obama’s. Unfortunately, the a coalition of shippers, farmers, and the aid community, commonly referred to as the “iron triangle,” successfully opposed these reforms.

The most current incident of food aid self-sabotage is reflected in the USDA’s recent announcement of peanut donations to Haiti. Due to conditions involving Farm Bill subsidies, loan agreements, and  a low market price (more details on that here), peanut farmers are turning over enormous amounts of peanuts to the government in place of loan repayments. The fate of all these extra peanuts? Haiti. 500 tons of peanuts are being sent to Haiti later this year, which might initially seem like an innocuous decision but is quite the contrary. Peanuts are one of the few crops that Haiti produces successfully, thanks to joint efforts by the Clinton Foundation and their partners, who have spent over $30 million in the country.

In addition to advocating for reform in Food for Peace fund allocations, President Obama has moved forward to make permanent his Feed the Future initiative. Feed the Future, established in 2010, tackles global hunger by increasing local agricultural production in developing countries with an emphasis on small holder farms. By working closely with local government and community partners, it aims to improve nutrition for local populations and offers a long-term solution to hunger. President Obama hopes to make this five year program permanent through the Global Food Security Act, which would allocate $1 billion annually to the initiative. The bill has received House approval and is awaiting a companion bill in the Senate.

Regardless of method, it is indisputable that the need for effective humanitarian aid is at an all time high. Approximately 60 million people have been displaced by conflict and the climate change-linked natural disasters have increased in frequency. The U.S. runs a formidable aid operation but can do better. By embracing more flexible methods, such as purchasing regionally or using cash-based systems, food aid would be cheaper, more efficient, and quicker. To give some perspective: In 2013, we spent 1.7 billion to reach 46 million people. A reformed system would allow us to reach 4-10 million more people for the same amount of money!

Granted, enacting these reforms will not be without challenges. Aid groups have shied away from supporting changes in the past for fear of politically risking the whole system. What is the point of designing a more effective system if politicians representing agri-businesses end the whole program? The Global Food Security Act was only approved after a rule stipulating that the bill would not affect existing, arguably self-serving, food aid programs was included. Additionally, increasing regional purchases means the U.S. will have to invest more time and money to establish a regional supply network.

Walmart, the nation’s largest food retailer, announced yesterday that they would source only cage-free eggs by 2025. Yup, you read that right- Walmart. Gone are they days where only your hippie-from-Whole Foods preached the horrors of battery cage chicken-raising. Walmart is joining the ranks of numerous other “Big Food” retailers, including Costco, Smart and Final, and Kroger.  What’s more, retailers are making these changes in reaction to consumer demands, not under pressure to comply with new laws, like the one passed in California. Nowhere else is it more evident than in recent actions taken by major retailers and restaurants that consumers are increasingly concerned with the effects of their food choices and are finally making their voice heard.

Traditionally, when it comes to food, consumers have only been concerned with taste, price, and food safety. However, we have seen a marked shift in consumer preference to “natural” food choices in the past few years-  for reasons ranging from personal health, environmental degradation and animal welfare. Since the post WWII era, food companies have cleverly found ways to incorporate processed foods into our everyday lives. The rise of smaller, natural food companies, who emphasize their commitment to organic sourcing and non-artificial ingredients reflect people’s desire to now step back from these convenience-driven foods that put little value on consumer health. Big Food has taken note, and many of these natural companies are being bought out by larger, multinational food companies. General Mills, has seen strong performance from its natural and organic division, which now includes Annie’s, Larabar, and Cascadian Farms, among others.

Consumers have objected to these acquisitions, citing concerns that the companies’ independence and commitment to their founding ideals would be compromised. However, that does not seem to be the case. Many smaller companies such as Ben and Jerry’s (Unilever) and Annie’s (General Mills) have been clear that the acquisitions have not changed the companies practices. In fact, Annie’s showed its independence by taking a public stance against General Mill’s position regarding GMO labeling. This autonomy likely will not change, as parent companies know that compromising their practices will only push away the very consumers who have made the brand so lucrative. What does bother me, however, is the length companies go to hide their relationships. Many of the products do not reveal the parent company on the labeling after the acquisition, leading people to falsely believe that they are not supporting Big Food. This is important, since a recent survey showed that 55% of people, up from 48% in 2013, are distrustful of the existing food system.

Most interesting to me, is how larger public attention has turned to the way food is produced. GMOs have garnered an incredible amount of press lately, driven by the incredible advent of Vermont’s GMO-labeling law, coming into effect July 1st. The tiny, idiosyncratic state has inspired major international corporations such as Campbell, Mars, General Mills, ConAgra, and Kellogg to change the way they label their products nation-wide. Granted, not all companies welcomed the change with open arms. In a blog post, General Mills, who had been outspoken in their support for a federal bill that would preempt GMO-labeling in any state, publicly stated, “We made the decision to use the Vermont labeling everywhere in the country — not because we want to or because we think it’s a great tool to inform or educate consumers, but because a national standard doesn’t exist and we face fines if we don’t comply.”

Many anti-labeling advocates claim it will mislead consumers to believe that their is a health risk to GMO foods, influencing their purchasing decisions, and that it will raise the cost of products. Though there is no proven scientific evidence that GMO foods pose a health risk, GMO opposition stems from the fact that these crops often require heavy use of pesticides and herbicides known to be harmful to the environment. Personally, I believe people should have access to information regarding the way their food was produced, not just its contents. Though the process of genetic modification does not hurt human or environmental health, the way it is used in practice, generating immense profits for biochemical companies through sales of environmentally harmful pesticides, is harmful to everyone’s environment.

On the other side of food production, livestock management processes have attracted  not only the ire of cage-free activists, but also attention to the overuse of animal antibiotics. Restaurants like Subway, Chick-fil-a, and Starbucks have made commitments to source from antibiotic-free meats. The concerns with overuse of antibiotics is that it foments the rise of the “superbug,” a bacteria resistant to existing antibiotics. When we use antibiotics on a large scale, there will inevitably be some bacteria that survive and become resistant to drugs. Repeated and widespread use of non-medical related antibiotics only contribute to the likelihood of creating a more resistant bacteria. Naturally, such an event would pose a danger to both livestock and humans.

By now, it’s likely that you have seen the stark comparisons of American school lunches next to comparatively gourmet French school meals. Having recently moved back to America after two years of teaching at French schools, I can attest to this difference- French schools approach their meals and food education in a manner that foreign for most of us stateside. But how did American lunchrooms end up on the other end of the spectrum with such controversial fare?

Kevin Kosar, writing for Politico, takes us on a fascinating trip back to the inception of the American school food program to show that school food was created with agricultural, rather than the children’s, interests at heart. Here’s a quick recap: concern over child malnutrition was first raised during World War I, when the military found high levels of stunted growth during the recruitment process. However, it was not until the Great Depression, when farmers took an economic hit, that the government introduced a school food program. Demand for food had dropped rapidly and farmers reacted to low prices by growing more, exacerbating the situation. The government purchased the excess food that the farmers couldn't sell and distributed it to schools, which stabilized good prices. Since the program was created to address a commodity surplus, balanced school lunches was not a top priority. Kosar writes, “school districts often found themselves with heaps of almonds and apricots one month, then surfeits of onions and eggs the next.” During World War II, the program further expanded due to complaints regarding malnourished military recruits. In 1944, politicians from rural states acted quickly to make the program permanent through the USDA.

Today, the school food program has drastically changed. Farm surpluses only constitute about 10% of school lunches and the government no longer makes purchasing decisions. Rather, according to the USDA, the government sets nutrition standards and schools decide what specific foods to purchase and preparation methods. While all meals are subsidized to an extent, students pay depending on their families’ income level- some receiving free or half-priced lunches- and the USDA reimburses schools with the amount dependent on the neediness of their student population. Additionally, new programs such as the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program help increase consumption of fresh foods in selected elementary schools.

Kosar also takes issue with Farm to School programs, arguing “Nor is it clear how kids will be aided by grants to ‘increase awareness of, and participation in, farm to school programs.’”  However, his claim shows a critical misunderstanding of program function, especially regarding its emphasis on food education. California’s Farm to School program, started last year, aims to “connect schools with local farms with the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias, improving student nutrition, providing health and nutrition education opportunities, and supporting local small farmers.” The legislation explicitly limits usage of funds to food literacy education, development of salad bars, and staff training and kitchen equipment to facilitate preparation of fresh foods. Following a visit to a recipient school in Riverside County last summer, I saw students lining up for the salad bar, strategically placed in front of the hot foods line, and a calendar of dates for school trips to local farms. Schools were utilizing existing tools- the cafeteria environment - to not only change food options, but to change the context in which options are presented in order to influence behavior*. Furthermore, by connecting students to farmers, they are able to learn about where their food actually comes from. I am confident that connecting students to the land and the people that real food comes from will help them appreciate and be more open to try new types of food. During the farm visits, students sample new types of fruits and vegetables they might not be familiar with- baby corn, for example. Upon return, students are encouraged to continue trying the new food in the cafeteria and, based off personal testimony, students have been surprisingly receptive. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as studies suggest that people need to be exposed to new foods multiple times before accepting it. Many parents cannot afford to have food rejected by the kids, so shifting this role to schools is ideal, as peer pressure and subsidized pricing ease the burden.

California’s Farm to School is part of a larger national effort, exemplified by Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Over 10% of Californian schools are still unable to comply with the higher nutrition standards, disqualifying them from the increase in school meal reimbursement rates. First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move challenge, which aims to end childhood obesity within a generation, and  has also brought more public attention to the issue.

That doesn’t mean that agricultural interests are out of the picture. Instead, farms and food companies wield their power by influencing nutrition standards. Politicians now wield their influence through appropriations bills and dietary guidelines. Past fights range from maintaining the proportion of white potatoes on school lunch trays to counting tomato sauce on pizza as serving of vegetables.

Schools are in a uniquely influential position to determine future behavior of our nation’s population. 31.6 million children get their meals everyday from the school lunch program. We cannot underestimate of degree of impact those seven school hours a day have on shaping kids’ habits, especially since they come at such a formative age. American schools teach math, science, and writing, but often overlook that precious lunch hour to provide a much-needed quality meal and food education. Taking a comprehensive view at the links between food education and school meals and limiting the political influence of big ag would be the first step to valuing the interests of our nation’s youth. Then, who knows, maybe one day American lunchrooms will be the envy of the French.

If someone were to ask, “What does ‘good food’ mean to you?” I’m willing to bet that there would be a number of responses along the lines of “healthy, delicious, organic,” perhaps even “local” and “non-GMO.” Unfortunately, we often overlook one of the most important aspects of our food system: farm workers. Throughout this month, I’d like the focus on the various issues surrounding the farm worker industry, including immigration, worker abuse, and our topic today, pesticide exposure.

If someone were to ask, “What does ‘good food’ mean to you?” I’m willing to bet that there would be a number of responses along the lines of “healthy, delicious, organic,” perhaps even “local” and “non-GMO.” Unfortunately, we often overlook one of the most important aspects of our food system: farm workers.

Farm workers have long been subject to a myriad of worker rights abuses; one of the largest being a lack of protection against pesticides. Unfortunately, existing levels of government pesticide regulations are not enough. From the story of Lake Apopka, where thousands of workers were exposed to now-banned pesticides during the 50’s and are still suffering health consequences today, to current studies documenting the impact of exposure to pesticides on children’s IQ levels, respiratory systems, and attention spans, it is clear that health consequences of pesticide exposure have been woefully overlooked.

A major part of the problem is that the pesticide approval and regulation processes in the U.S. have failed to protect public health. Products are put on the market and can only be removed after being proven “unsafe” by independent testing. However, proving causation among human subjects is difficult due to research ethics limitations- one cannot administer glyphosate to subjects in a double-blind study in good conscience. Moreover, most states’ pesticide approval processes, which evaluate one product at a time, do not consider the real-life application techniques. Farmers often use a mixture of pesticides and interactions between the highly-reactive chemicals can “ratchet up toxic effects,” greatly enhancing their health risks. This poses a major safety hazard since many of the most commonly applied fumigants have been linked to respiratory and endocrine damage, as well as chronic health problems such as cancer and reproductive and development disorders. The EPA estimates there are between 10,000-20,000 cases of pesticide poisoning of US farm workers every year. These numbers do not include the many who are afraid to report problems for fear of immigration complications or employer retaliation. Additionally, even when workers do decide to voice their complaints despite their fears, they often go unanswered. An Associated Press report found that pesticide investigations can take up to two years, with most ending in a warning.

The issue of pesticide use goes beyond damaging the health of farm workers; it is an environmental justice issue. Areas with high-spray exposure tend to be areas with lower socioeconomic status, meaning schools and workplaces located in those communities also feel the consequences. Much like the case of Flint, Michigan, complaints from low-income, non-white communities often do not get the attention deserved. In one such situation, students at Rio Mesa High School in Oxnard, California are heavily exposed to fumigants sprayed on fields close to campus. Though regulators admitted to the existence of the fumigants, they failed to respond to community complaints and dismissed complaints from local families. Following the dismissal, a Department of Pesticide Regulation and UCLA study using on-site air monitors revealed that existing exposure levels surpassed government limitations for cancer risk.

Currently, there is no comprehensive restrictions on pesticide use near schools, with DPR leaving the decision up to county regulators. After numerous complaints and demands from agricultural communities, DPR announced last year that they would revisit regulations regarding pesticide application near schools and release draft rules in December of 2015. In view the health risks posed by pesticide exposure, community groups have asked for the establishment of a buffer zone around schools and advance notice of pesticide application. Unfortunately, the enactment of such regulations have faced heavy pushback from farmers who cite unfair regulations and the DPR’s delivery of draft rules has been pushed back to an unknown later date.

People have long held to the notion that lack of knowledge is a major reason that people make unhealthy choices. Policymakers tend to favor labeling initiatives partly because they believe in its logic- having more information to base their food choices will lead to better choices- but also because it is easier and cheaper to tackle than other causes leading to obesity (palate formation, youth malnutrition, broader inequality issues). Moves to label calorie counts of foods, such as that taken by New York City in 2008, were meant to combat this issue. Up until recently, the calorie labeling initiative has been recognized as a failure since calorie counts did not significantly change eating habits according to population-wide studies. Which is why new research showing significant impact when one splits research participants into subpopulations based on BMI is so important.

When researchers took data and organized them according to BMI, creating three subpopulations- normal, overweight, and obese, nuanced behavioral changes due to menu labeling became clear. According to the research article, men’s BMI dropped in all groups after the introduction of menu labeling, with the largest changes seen in obese and overweight men. For women, the overweight category was the only one that yielded statistically significant results. These results make sense when we consider that those in the normal weight category don’t need to make diet changes. Resultantly, they are less likely to alter their food choices. Additionally, they tended to be more highly educated than those in the other categories and may be aware that calorie count is a small piece of the larger nutritional content picture. It turns out that this law helps those who need it most- an impact previously overlooked. 

So why is this information relevant? The Obama administration is currently fighting to implement its requirement of calorie labeling on menus of restaurants with over 20 locations, mandated under a provision in Obamacare. Citing potential burdens on the restaurant industry, Republican legislators have introduced the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, which, ironically, is neither common sense, nor promotes nutrition disclosure. This bill would allow restaurants to post their calorie information online instead of on in-store menus, allow restaurants and not nutrition exerts to decide their their serving size, and delay implementation. Supporters argue that posting calorie counts is ineffective, too expensive, and too time-consuming for small restaurant owners. However, the efficacy of the move has been demonstrated by the linked article and I question how doing researching calorie counts for an online report is significantly less costly than using it for in-store labeling. Of course, printing and editing the new menus will come with its costs but considering this law only applies to restaurants with 20+ locations, it will not be your local mom-and-pop shop footing the bill. I do believe the the FDA should release more details regarding how to label made-to-order items. According to its Q & A page, combination meals made up of otherwise individual menu items need to have their total calorie count shown. Meals with over three different options for its components (burger with option of salad, fries, or a shake) can have a calorie range. However, how this will be applied to sandwich and pizza shops with a hundreds of possible combinations is unclear. Regarding its legislative status, the bill has passed the house and is now moving to the Senate.

Earlier this month, France took an impressive step towards reducing food waste. From this July and on, supermarkets larger than 4,305 sq. ft/400 sq. m must donate their unsold food to charitable organizations and are not allowed to purposely render food inedible before throwing it out. Previously, supermarkets had been known for throwing bleach over their tossed items or locking the trash bins, claiming they wanted to avoid food poisoning cases from foragers.

This is a promising step towards reducing food waste, though not due to its material effects. More importantly, its shines a spotlight on the issue of food waste. Governments have been slow to tackle the issue of food waste in the form of enforceable legislation and the French Assemblée Nationale’s unanimous vote on this bill will hopefully act as encouragement for other countries, as well as the individual to take their own action.

This doesn’t mean the bill is flawless. First, I worry about the quick implementation deadline. Involved parties get a bit less than 5 months and charitable organizations have already voiced concern about lack of funding and support to acquire the tools (personnel, freezers, etc.) they need to handle the greater capacity. Second, this move should not distract us from the fact that industrial agriculture has led to overproduction and just because we improved the recycling and hunger aspects doesn’t mean that the resources, labor, and environmental impact put into agriculture is nullified. We produce much more food that is needed to feed everyone. France has powerful actors in the agricultural sectors that wouldn’t bow down easily to the idea reducing production. Another important step is to look at what happens from the field to the grocery store. Food processing and distribution wastes an enormous amount of food. I hope to see legislative action taken on those fronts as well.

A majorly inspiring part of the bill is its plan to “introduce an education programme about food waste in schools and businesses.” At my French middle school last year, there was a week during which attention was focused on “le gaspillage” and kids were encouraged to take only as much food as they would eat at the cafeteria line. French people are, comparatively, quite aware of controlling their amount of food waste- not necessarily because they are aware of its impacts, but because of their attitudes towards the value of and culture surrounding food. Nonetheless, education in addition to government action is the best way to motivate people to be more supportive of similar initiatives and reduce waste coming from households.

Surprisingly, the largest amount of food waste doesn’t come  from supermarkets or food processing, but from the individual consumer. According to The Guardian, France wastes 7.1 million tons of food annually, with 67% by consumer, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by shops. Globally, we waste one-third of the food we produce while millions go hungry. If that doesn’t make you angry, you’re a lost case. Just kidding. Maybe all you need is a close up view and a good story about food waste. I’d recommend every check out Just Eat It, a documentary following a Canadian couple’s mission to survive off of wasted food for six months. Save those leftovers tonight, people :P

Agrihoods. Sounds like the title of a parody of South Central gangsters fighting over land to plant precious carrots and beans. Wait, maybe that already happened. (But really, Rob Finley is great, must-watch).

In any case, ‘agrihoods,’ or developed supported agriculture, are planned housing developments built around a working farm, much like some communities are built around golf courses, rec centers, or swimming pools. Though not a new idea, they are quickly growing in popularity, with over 200 total sites up in California, to Georgia, to Hawaii. 

The latest is called “The Cannery” in Davis, California and its surrounding houses are solar-powered and electric-car ready. Housing prices range from the mid 400,000 to 1 million. The developers cite its “weathered barn” as the community’s signature piece. 

As much as this sounds like utopia, I can’t help but feel bothered by the underlying idea. Pew research has found that Americans are moving to geographical locations that match their political beliefs. And while this may seem natural, we can’t deny the impact that it will have. People are more receptive to “foreign”  ideas when they can put a familiar face to someone that believes in such ideas. We can see this phenomenon in play when understanding the political polarization happening in the U.S. So, by building these high-priced communities so clearly aimed at a specific type of person - most likely liberal, upper-middle to upper income, values conservation efforts- are we not inadvertently removing them from the rest of society? Creating a community where everyone agrees with one another may seem idyllic, but removing them from the public marketplace of ideas makes these ideas seem even more elitist and bougie- something conservationists and foodies are already often accused of. 

I’m fascinated by the role of our infancy/childhood in shaping the rest of our adult life. After sharing the article titled “In Baby’s ‘First Bite,’ A Chance to Shape a Child’s Taste” (see previous posts) with my sister, she sent me this Washington Post article, “The crippling thing about growing up poor that stays with you forever.”

While the last piece highlighted the influence of childhood diet on their future palate, this one recounts a likely expected, but interesting correlation between one’s ability to regulate food intake and their economic situation growing up. Researcher Sarah Hill and her colleagues discovered that people growing up in low-income households have a harder time regulating their food intake, that is, eating when they are hungry and stopping when they are full. Researchers designed experiments monitoring snack intake when participants were hungry vs. not hungry and when they paired the snacks with soda vs. water. Across the board, those who grew up disadvantaged tended to consume without regard to their bodily signals. It is important to note that this correlation was only found with those who experienced low socioeconomic status as a child, and not those who experience during their adult stage. Resultantly, if we consider that low-income, obese populations are not only having trouble picking healthy options, but knowing when to stop, we can better obesity programs to reflect the information. Focusing on portion sizes and mindfulness would be a promising first step.

Despite the importance of these early stages, adults need not to worry- these habits CAN be trained, it just won’t be spoon-fed to you. And for those with the opportunity to affect food policy, we are again reminded of how important early childhood nutrition is. The food and health inequality gap is widening and acting on studies like this improve the likelihood of closing the gap.

Ancestral Eating, where one is encourage to follow the diet of our ancestors. This could range from the Paleo Diet, modeled off our paleolithic ancestors which has come under fire for being 1. impractical 2. ignoring the evolution that now allows us to consume things such as dairy, to diets that encourage us to eat a like our grandparents did- before globalization made the typical American diet available everywhere and processed foods were rare/nonexistent.

I first really heard of this idea last summer while interning for Long Beach Fresh and exploring ways to get across to a variety of ethnic communities. At first, it struck me as interesting but parts of it seemed misguided. Namely, the parts that After all, aren’t we taught that human bodies work in x, y, and z fashion? College physiology books explain how bodies process different proteins, how saturated vs unsaturated fat is processed, and how our nutritional inputs end up affecting how our body builds itself. To take a more philosophical angle- we, humans, are all the same biological living, thinking species and though we might appear different on the outside, and come from different places, we have the same genome and naturally, should react to foods in a similar way. The idea of advising people to adopt different diets according to their ethnic background (which would be complicated for the multitude of mixed race people) made me uncomfortable. 

Stephen Le, ancestral eating advocate and author of 100 Million Years of Food: What our Ancestors Ate and Why It Matters Today claims that we should follow our ancestral way of eating after seeing multiple cases where a traditional diet was influenced by an outside force (in all cases, American) and was promptly followed by a spike in chronic disease and shorter life spans. However, what if those issues weren’t caused by simply a change in diet but rather a change for a worse diet? I’m skeptical of the idea that it is the change in itself that causes bad impacts. In response to this idea, Gary Nabhan, author of Food, Genes and Culture: Eating Right for Your Origins, claims that our genes have evolved to respond the food we eat (e.g. Cretans can handle more unsaturated fats like olive oil than Northern Europeans). However, he states that the incredible rate that technology has evolved in recent history has allowed humans to move more quickly than the biological system adaptation process can handle.  For that, we are better off eating like our grandparents and giving our bodies a break. 

However, I find this advice troubling on multiple levels. 1. Assumption of gene homogeneity. The broad assumption that an ethnic group of people will have a specific type of reaction to a food (due to their ancestral origins) runs into the same problems that arise when putting too much weight on race in the medical field. Doctors sometimes take gene frequency and make it a categorical difference, to the detriment of their patients. That is, when a large percentage of an ethnic population shows greater frequency of a gene (e.g. one that puts them at particular risk for a disease or makes them more suitable for one type of medication), some take that information and assume that all members of the population have that trait. This crude and risky behavior puts many individuals at risk. A major example is that cystic fibrosis in black patients is largely under-diagnosed because it is assumed to be a “white disease.” If we apply the same thinking to diet, and assume that those of Mediterranean descent can handle oils and Northern Europeans cannot, we are being careless in the face of clear scientific evidence that ethnic origin does not determine important distinctions in DNA makeup.

2. Mixed raced people.  Genetic variability aside, how are mixed race people supposed to follow an ancestral diet? The percentage of mixed race Americans is rising quickly and we need to provide better diet advice than eat-like-your-grandma.

3. Availability. The foods our ancestors ate are very likely unavailable to us depending on where we live. Maybe fish was readily available for our great grandparents but if one lives in a landlocked region, procuring fish on a regular basis might be a challenge. Some culturally specific dietary pyramids

Of course, this is not to completely discredit the idea of ancestral eating. there are many good results that could come out of following ancestral diets, including the consumption of less added sugar, less processed foods, less mat, and generally more fruits and vegetables. Maybe therein lies the key. And if choosing to follow an ancestral diet helps you, then go with it! Oldways offers models of different ethnic food pyramids, though many end up promoting the same dietary advice as I mentioned above. I just wouldn’t feel too limited to remain boxed into your assigned ethnic pyramid ;) 

Happy Friday! Stumbled upon this interesting piece this morning as I was inhaling my breakfast. Dinner was beer and peanuts last night at the Energie Citoyenne meeting (a food activist group that organizes my CSA, among other things) and I was too tired to make a real dinner at 10pm. Subsequently woke up starving. Real healthy right?

Since I was fresh off writing about how children’s taste palates develop (in regards to the number of times one needs to try a new food to accept it), I found the author’s comments about the very “best” time to influence a palate- 4 to 7 months- particularly interesting. In fact, palate creation begins even before that. Author Bee Wilson cites a study showing how a mother can impact her babies’ taste buds while in gestation (by influencing the  components of amniotic fluid)  as well as another that indicates that what the mother eats while breastfeeding affects the palate of her baby. So, maybe it’s not such a good idea to fulfill the pregnant woman’s demands for ice cream? Shhh don’t tell them I said that. 

It was particularly interesting to see Wilson address how our natural taste preferences work in relation to our socialized taste preferences. Yes, it’s true that people are naturally drawn to sugar and averse to bitterness. Sure, it’s easy to over-extrapolate from that and give up, claiming “that we're doomed to grow up and love junk food.” However, tastes are largely learned. That is obvious when tasting food of different cultures. For example, Asian desserts are no where near as sweet as American or Turkish sweets. However, that does not mean that Asians enjoy their desserts any less! I love Asian desserts and, as a child, used to find desserts at my non-Asian friends’ homes too sweet. Unfortunately much of that has been unlearned and I enjoy the sundae and baklava as much as the next person, but perhaps hit my sugar limit earlier than someone else would.

Along this same thread, it is clear that the two influencers- biological and social- play a role. Major food companies like General Mills and Prego talk of the “bliss point”, the “perfect” amount of an ingredient, whether that be sugar, fat, salt; that draws the most positive reaction from the consumer. But, if human taste is partly socially determined, this bliss point must be culturally varied, explaining why the same products may be made differently around the world. Likewise, if a pregnant mother is eating that country’s cuisine and products, they are biologically prepping their kids to like the types of foods waiting for them in the outside world. I believe that this may also be a contributing to eating habits among low-income families. For a variety of reasons low-income parents tend to eat a less-balanced diet, predisposing their children like similar foods and to continue to trend. 

Of course, this isn’t to say that people cannot change their preferences. Personally, things I hated as a child: wasabi, coffee, tomatoes, beer, mustard; I have now grown to love, through repeated exposure (and perhaps fear of missing out). Social modeling is a great way to get kids, adults, and animals alike to try new things. My family is addicted to Starbucks and we could only go so many times before I was forced to appreciate Pike’s Place.

Where to even start on this one? I often hear the same things repeated in food articles- more nutrition education, less food deserts, etc etc. But author Joe Pinkser’s article combining Caitlin Daniel’s study on the shopping habits of high income vs. low income families and the findings of Sinne Smed and Lars Garn Hanson on palate preferences between people of different education levels presents a different framework for explaining why higher income, highly education people have healthier diets. 

Past research has shown that people need to be presented with new foods eight to fifteen times before they accept them. For all I know, from my personal experiments with a veggie-shy significant other, this is true. So, while feeding a child a healthy diet vs. fast food may well fall within the same cost range, calculations are made assuming that food is not being wasted. But if it takes 10 times for a child to be presented with broccoli before he/she comes to eat their given serving, the family needs to absorb the cost of the rejected food, in addition to the back up food. Daniel’s work shows that many low-income parents just can’t afford to take that risk, partly explaining why kids from high-income families tend develop a taste for foods like pears, brussel sprouts, and sweet potatoes.

Smed and Garn reveal that although more educated people eat healthier, (in terms of fiber, sugar, and saturated fat consumption) they had the same understanding of the impacts of those nutrients are on health, and rather were guided by their taste preferences. 

Simply put, it is not that parts of our population are more nutritionally aware than other parts, nor that some practice greater self-control  than others. Food choices are heavily guided by taste and since we are influenced by the habits of our childhood, it is important to establish a palate for healthy eating at a young age. Pinkser expresses support for farm-to-school programs (and I concur) where kids learn and taste new foods at school and can voice their enthusiasm for new foods back at their home kitchens. Hopefully these findings can guide more food and nutrition programs to reconsider how they encourage better eating in their communities.

 The food movement and the issues it advocates for vary but often include, “organics, local food, genetically modified organisms, farm subsidies, antibiotics, farmworker conditions, animal welfare.” While food activists and enthusiastic eaters have voiced these causes to their social circles and beyond, why aren’t more food companies taking action? Haspel claims that the grand discrepancy between issues the food movement advocates for and the issues that people actually care is to blame. 

Consumers are demanding more “natural” items, which in my book, is always good. Who wants to be eating chemically flavored snack bars and preservative-laden soups? Obviously, its easier to make the link from food to “natural” to “healthy and safe.” But is replacing artificial cereal dyes to vegetable-sourced dyes really making the food any healthier? People are likely still consuming highly processed, sugary, carb-loaded cereal, just masked in new key words that mislead the well-intentioned consumer. Haspel cites studies showing that American consumption of vegetables and fruits have essentially remained unchanged in the last 10 years. Defining “natural” will surely be difficult, but it is sorely in need of regulation. Meanwhile, the author argues that movement on other fronts, including animal and worker rights and environmental impacts, are limited due to lack of consumer demand. 

There’s been lots of talk in the nutrition world about “personalized diets.” While I do agree that people metabolize and absorb nutrients differently, and as a result, react to the same foods differently, I feel wary about this burgeoning “personalized diet” industry.

Claiming that the idea of giving the same dietary advice to everyone has caused the obesity epidemic is misleading. If one looks at the past dietary guidelines, one will find that many are based on weak or nonexistent scientific evidence (e.g. consuming fat makes people fat). Just because we have been giving unfounded dietary advice does not make the act of giving it wrong as well.

What I find dangerous about this idea of companies analyzing DNA and giving personalized diet advice is that it may induce those who do not have the means to get tested to just give up following any sort of dietary advice. Eating well is not for those who can afford to find their special diet.