How Many Calories Is That?

  • The study showed that in some cases, dishes had twice as many calories as they were supposed to. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Counting calories is easier
to do now that more restaurants
are publicly posting calorie
information about their food.
But Samara Freemark
tells us why those numbers might
be misleading:

Transcript

Counting calories is easier
to do now that more restaurants
are publicly posting calorie
information about their food.
But Samara Freemark
tells us why those numbers might
be misleading:

18% – a new study says that’s the average amount that restaurants underreport the calories in their dishes.

Researchers at Tufts University analyzed the calorie content of meals from chain restaurants. Then they compared those numbers to the calorie counts posted publicly by restaurants on websites and menus.

Susan Roberts is the senior author of the study. She says in some cases, dishes had twice as many calories as they were supposed to.

“You just assume that the numbers are right, you don’t really think about, well, is this number only half what it really is? To have the calories on the web or in the restaurant, that would be a great thing. But they do have to be accurate.”

Roberts says the biggest culprit is portion size – restaurants serve larger amounts of food than advertised. She says the researchers also found that many restaurants served extra side dishes that weren’t included in posted calorie counts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Chicken Surprise at Stores

  • Consumer Reports bought whole chickens from 100 different stores to test for their study. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

A Consumer Reports study finds
most of the chickens bought at
the grocery store are contaminated
with bacteria that can cause you
to get sick. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A Consumer Reports study finds
most of the chickens bought at
the grocery store are contaminated
with bacteria that can cause you
to get sick. Lester Graham reports:

Consumer Reports bought whole chickens from 100 different stores.

Dr. Urvashi Rangan says they tested them for two different strains of bacteria.

“Salmonella and campylobacter infections can give people serious diarhea, abdominal cramping for sometimes days, even weeks at a time.”

Two-thirds of the chickens they tested were tainted.

Rangan says the U.S. government’s guidelines are pretty loose for the chicken processors.

“Each company is basically allowed to script their own hygeine plan. And, clearly, there aren’t enough standards or standardidization among them that has allowed them to achieve a decent rate of cleanliness.”

The chickens that were cleanest were organic air-chilled chickens. The Consumer Report’s study is available online and will be published in the January issue of the magazine.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Part 1: School Lunches and Super Doughnuts

  • Mother Gwen Rosenburg doesn't think schools should serve SuperDonuts. (Photo by Julie Grant)

We hear a lot about American kids
and obesity. Many children eat half
their meals at school – and some
parents question whether those meals
are teaching kids healthy eating habits.
In the first part of our series on
school lunch programs, Julie Grant
reports on the push for change in
the cafeteria:

Transcript

We hear a lot about American kids
and obesity. Many children eat half
their meals at school – and some
parents question whether those meals
are teaching kids healthy eating habits.
In the first part of our series on
school lunch programs, Julie Grant
reports on the push for change in
the cafeteria:

Gwen Rosenburg was appalled when she saw the menu at her son’s elementary school. It was called a heart-healthy menu.

“So, I saw chicken patties and corn dogs and chicken nuggets, hot dogs and hamburgers. And super-donuts for breakfast and s’mores flavored Pop Tarts for breakfast. And then I got really angry – because I don’t like to be called stupid.”

Super-Donuts. That sounded like junk food – not heart healthy food. So Rosenburg called the school district to complain.

But her district, like many, hires an outside company to take care of food service. So Rosenburg started writing to the company, Aramark, to find out the nutritional content of the foods it was serving. She didn’t get many answers.

Rosenburg didn’t want her kids to eat the school food.
Most people told her to stop complaining and just pack lunch.

But that only helped her to realize why this bothered her so much. Lots of families don’t have enough money to pack lunch – so their kids have no choice but to eat the subsidized school meals.

“It bothered me that my tax dollars were paying for food that I wouldn’t serve my kids. Once I made that realization it seemed suddenly unethical for me to do nothing and say, ‘thank God I’m not poor.’”

Rosenburg went on a campaign and contacted everyone she could think of about it. She also started her own blog to document her attempts to improve school meals in her district.

Patrick McMullen is in charge of food service in Rosenburg’s district. He works for the company, Aramark. McMullen says things are a lot better now than they were ten years ago. Back then, the high school had soda on tap, free with lunches.

Today, you can’t even buy carbonated beverages in the schools here. McMullen says most people agree that was a healthy change.

But it’s not usually that clear: he says every family has its own idea of what is good food.

“Somebody likes chicken nuggets, somebody doesn’t. A lot of people see chicken nuggets as an unhealthy item. Some people think it’s perfectly fine because it’s a lean meat.”

McMullen says it’s his job to make sure the school meals stay within the district’s budget, while meeting USDA nutritional guidelines. And that kids buy and eat them. That’s why things like that Super-Donut exist.

“A Super-Donut is a fortified donut that’s made with juice and it’s infused with nutrients.”

McMullen says some parents see Super-Donuts as a healthy item. But lots of parents around the country have complained about the Super-Donut.

Janey Thornton is Undersecretary for Food and Nutrition at the US Department of Agriculture. The USDA is in charge of the national school lunch program.

Thornton says a food like the Super-donut is handy. Kids like it and they can eat it at their desks. She says parents wouldn’t complain if it was shaped like a piece of breakfast bread.

“Because it’s round with a hole in it, and we assume that it has donut-like qualities then, it sometimes gets a bad rap.”

But some parents think it’s giving kids a false impression of what’s healthy. Gwen Rosenburg says the Super-Donut is a prime example of how school meals are setting up kids for a lifetime of bad eating habits.

“Alright, I’m not supposed to eat a donut for breakfast. Sometimes I do, right. But I don’t believe that it is healthy. I know that it is not a healthy food option. But when you present it to children and say this is what the government, taxpayers, this is what your community has purchased for you to eat and you get it for free. It’s a donut. What exactly are you teaching them to do for the rest of their lives?”

Rosenburg says there are so many efforts to teach kids healthy habits, but those messages are easily undermined in the cafeteria.

There are districts around the country that have been improving school meals – offering salad bars and whole grain breads. Rosenburg says all her efforts have made some difference. Her district has added foods she thinks are healthier to the menu, and her son even buys his lunch sometimes.

“All I really wanted all along was something that I could say ‘I would let my kid eat that.’ And if I would let my kid eat that, then I would gladly whatever tax dollars to give it for free to the kid whose family can’t afford it. But if they’re going to serve food that I won’t let my child eat, I do not want them to serve that to impoverished children. It’s morally wrong. And it reeked to me like a form a classism.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Food Going to Waste

  • On average, Americans weigh 20 pounds more than they did back in 1974. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Americans’ waistlines have been
expanding for decades. But new
research suggests at the same time,
more and more food is going to waste.
Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Americans’ waistlines have been
expanding for decades. But new
research suggests at the same time,
more and more food is going to waste.
Shawn Allee reports:

On average, Americans weigh 20 pounds more than they did back in 1974.

But Kevin Hall found there’s more to the story. He studies nutrition at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Hall’s research revealed we produce more food to keep up with our bigger appetites, but he also found we’re wasting more.

“We were kinda shocked to see that the rate of increase of food supply was greater than the rate of increase of food consumption we calculated. Somewhere along the supply chain from the farm to the dinner table, that food was wasted.”

Kevin Hall estimates well more than one third of our food production goes to waste.

He says it’s not clear who’s to blame, but someone should find out because food production uses a lot of water and fuel.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Trying for a Healthier Holiday

  • Linda Barberic's partner Keith helps her prepare a healthy meal, using olive oil instead of butter. (Photo by Julie Grant)

With so many Americans facing diabetes,
heart disease, and other health problems,
the Thanksgiving meal has become a battleground
in some families. Some family members want
to make it a healthy meal, others want to
stick with their traditional family dishes.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

With so many Americans facing diabetes,
heart disease, and other health problems,
the Thanksgiving meal has become a battleground
in some families. Some family members want
to make it a healthy meal, others want to
stick with their traditional family dishes.
Julie Grant reports:

Four years ago, Linda Barberic gave her left kidney to her sister. The surgery went well. But since then, there have been a lot of other health problems in the family.

“We’ve had a few strokes in the family, we’ve got diabetes, we’ve got high blood pressure, we’ve got some other heart conditions, a few heart attacks.”

That’s some serious stuff. Linda thinks a lot of it has to do with the way her family eats: lots of salt, fat and sweets. She is hosting everyone for Thanksgiving dinner. And thought this might be a good time to get them all on board with healthier eating.

So she sent out a mass email to the family.

“So I thought this year, why not give everyone a challenge and make it a healthy Thanksgiving. Really – no fats, no butters, no salts, no heavy creams.”

Linda even suggested some recipes: steamed green beans with lemon zest, fingerling potatoes roasted with fresh garlic and thyme.

The resounding response: No salt, no fat, no fun.

Someone even said they wouldn’t come. They wanted the turkey with gravy, green bean casserole with crispy onions on top, and Mom’s dumplings with lots of butter.

Her brother-in-law Matt Previte is one of those with a heart condition. He and Linda’s sister, Sandy Previte, appreciate Linda’s thought, but…

Matt: “For one meal, for one day, one special occasion – it’s not worth it.”

Sandy: “How often do we eat gravy? Twice a year. So I’m like, let’s do the traditional. Why not? Let’s just stick with what it’s about – people getting together to have good food.”

So Sandy says why not have the gravy, have the butter?
But her sister Linda says it’s not one or two days a year. Her family, like many, eats fatty, salty foods all the time.
That’s one big reason why two-thirds of American adults are considered overweight or obese. And diabetes has become an epidemic.

So, why do we keep going back for more – when we know it’s making us sick?
Linda Spurlock is director of human health at the Museum of Natural History in Cleveland.
She says we’re hard-wired to crave sugar, fat and salt.

“If you did not have the inherited yearning for fat or for sugar and grab it anytime you could get your hands on it, you probably would not live to reproduce back 2- or 3- million years ago.”

But while our ancestors had to smash open bones to get to the marrow – so they could get the fat they needed – we can just pull up to the drive through and order whatever we want to eat.

Spurlock says the original Thanksgiving meal was probably a small, lean turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and roasted root vegetables.

“And how it got bigger and bigger and bigger –
I have a feeling that it wasn’t until quite recently that people had the expectation of several kinds of pie for dessert and yes giblet gravy and mashed potatoes and sweet potatoes.”

Spurlock says Americans can start eating healthier by training themselves to enjoy the simple taste of vegetables. But she says Thanksgiving probably isn’t the time for it.

Linda Barberic has come to the same conclusion.

“ I kind of just backed off on it. And said, ‘do what you’re going to do.’ Thanksgiving is about family. I’m grateful that everyone is healthy this year and everyone is here. So, I’m just grateful to have Thanksgiving. But, I have a feeling there will be some fat. (laughs)”

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: The End of Overeating

  • Dr. Kessler's new book describes the three components in food that keep us addicted: sugar, salt, and fat. (Photo courtesy of the National Canter Institute)

On average, people in the US
are much fatter than just 30
years ago. Obesity is an epidemic.
The Environment Report’s Lester
Graham talked with the author
of the book ‘The End of Overeating,’
which argues the American diet
is to blame:

Transcript

On average, people in the US
are much fatter than just 30
years ago. Obesity is an epidemic.
The Environment Report’s Lester
Graham talked with the author
of the book ‘The End of Overeating,’
which argues the American diet
is to blame:

Lester Graham: This is The Environment Report. People in the US are much fatter than just 30 years ago. Obesity has become an epidemic. The author of the book, “The End of Overeating” argues, “It’s the American diet.” David Kessler is a pediatrician and served as commissioner of the US Food and Drug administration under George Bush I and Bill Clinton. Dr. Kessler, give me the short answer, why has obesity become so rampant in the US?

David Kessler: We’ve taken fat, sugar, and salt, put it on every corner in America, made it available 24/7, made it socially acceptable to eat any time. We’ve added the emotional gloss of advertising—you’ll love it, you’ll want it. We’ve made food into entertainment. In fact, we’re living in a food carnival.

LG: I’ve been watching restaurant commercials, especially since reading your book, and I see a lot of, “It’s a fun time, it’s a good time, bring your friends, it’s a family gathering.” There is a lot of that emotional appeal, but it doesn’t talk about nutrition.

DK: Exactly. Sometimes about the economic value of food, but always it’s the emotional gloss that’s added. And food’s very reinforcing. Fat, sugar, and salt stimulate us, we come back more. But when you add that emotional gloss: “You’ll want it, you need it, you’ll have a good time.” That amplifies the reward value of food.

LG: Now your book spends a lot of time looking at the science of why we respond to sugar, salt, and fat and how the food industry has taken advantage of our response to sugar, salt, and fat. Why do we like those things in our food, why do we always crave more?

DK: That was the question that got me started 7 years ago. I wanted to understand why it was so hard for me to resist my favorite foods. I was watching Oprah one night, there was a woman on the show who said, “I eat when my husband leaves for work in the morning, I eat before he comes home at night, I eat when I’m happy, I eat when I’m sad, I eat when I’m hungry, I eat when I’m not hungry.” And then she said, “I don’t like myself.” And it was that behavior, I could relate to that. I have suits in every size. That’s what I wanted to understand, I wanted to understand the science and we finally do have the science to explain to that woman that it’s not her fault. In fact, her brain is becoming excessively activated by all the food cues in our environment—she’s being bombarded, she’s being constantly stimulated.

LG: You infer the food processors and the chain restaurants, are using some of the same techniques the tobacco companies used to get people hooked on cigarettes. In what ways?

DK: They certainly understand the inputs. They understand that sugar, fat and salt stimulate. They understand the outputs, that you come back for more. Have they understand the neuroscience? I doubt it. But they learned experientially what works, and they optimized food, they constructed food to stimulate us to come back for more. Let me explain how it works, let me give you analogy with tobacco. We have to be careful, there are similarities but there are also differences. Nicotine: nicotine is a moderately reinforcing chemical. But add to that the smoke, the throat scratch, the cellophane crinkling of the pack, the color of the pack, the image of the cowboy, the glamour, the sexiness, the sense that it was cool, the imagery from 20, 30, 40 years ago. What did we end up with? A highly addictive product. If I give you a packet of sugar and say, go have a good time, you’ll look at me and say, “What are you talking about?” Add to that sugar fat, add texture, add mouth-feel, add color, add temperature, put it on every corner, make it into entertainment, and what do we end up with? One of the great public health crises of our times.

LG: Now I don’t think the food industry sees this as necessarily trying to build addiction or using these chemicals as a way to re-wire our brain. I think any good chef will tell you, I want to cook things that will please you, that make you happy. It just so happens that sugar, salt, and fat make us happy. So, what’s wrong with it, if that’s what we want?

DK: The argument that the food companies will use is that all their giving consumers is what they want. But we now know, we have the science to show, that these chemicals are activating the brains of millions of Americans and what happens is that we keep on coming back for more. Look at modern American food, pick any appetizer from any major American restaurant chain. What is it? It’s layered and loaded with fat, sugar, and salt.

LG: Well, let’s pick one you highlighted in your book, because I happen to like it, it’s the Southwest Egg Roll at Chilis. It’s tasty!

DK: The Washington Post outed me because I had to go dumpster diving in order to find out what was in restaurant foods. We worked for a decade at the FDA putting nutrition facts labeling on all foods in the Supermarket, but not so in the restaurant foods. If you look at the ingredients, some fifty ingredients: the sugars, the fat, the fat loaded on fat, the salt in that eggroll. One industry insider just called it the equivalent of a fat bomb.

LG: You spend a little bit of time in the book on how food is labeled. How, for example, cereal manufacturers hide just how much sugar is really in that box. How do they hide it?

DK: Different names on the label, not just sugar, they’ll use honey, they’ll use molasses, they’ll use other terms so its not the first ingredient listed on cereals. But, understand, its not just any one ingredient. We have made food highly stimulating. The multi-sensory nature of food, it’s a rollercoaster in the mouth. 30 years ago, we used to chew on the average of 30 times per bite. Now it’s less than half of that. Food goes down in a whoosh, it stimulates, it rarely lingers. In fact, most of what we are eating is so pre-digested. Chicken: I went in and ordered a margarita grilled chicken dish, I thought it was healthy. Little did I know it was bathed, it was mixed in these cement mixers with sugar and fat, our meat is injected with these needles, solutions are added, sure it tastes good. But in some ways it keeps us in this cycle of consumption. And understand the cycle of consumption based on past learning, past memory, we get cued. Our brains get activated. The cue can be as simple as a sight, a smell, a location, my car can be a cue! Because where I’ve gone before, I get in the car and start having these thoughts of wanting. I was walking down Powell street and I started thinking about chocolate covered pretzels. Why? Because I had been, six months earlier, a place on Powell street. I had forgotten entirely about it, we’re such effective learners—just walking down that street will create thoughts of wanting. Thoughts of wanting arouse me, they capture my attention, they pre-occupy me, I eat for that momentary pleasure. Next time I get cued, I do it again, and every time I engage in this cycle, I just strengthen the neural circuits. What am I in search of? I’m in search of this ephemeral pleasure, is there any real satisfaction? Rarely.

LG: Your book is called “The End of Overeating.” How do we stop overeating, when much of the food at the grocery store and the restaurants is prepared the way it is, we have all these visual cues, these reminders of how food is a reward in our lives. How do we stop that cycle, how do we break or rewire our brain back to a more healthy style of eating?

DK: First, we have to come to the understanding that our behavior is becoming conditioned and driven. And it’s not just our behavior, it’s the behavior of our children. And once we understand that, once we understand that food in fact has become hot stimuli, and preoccupy us and capture our brains, and hijack our brain circuits, and we can see this on the neural imaging. What we have to do is cool down the stimulus. How do you cool down a stimulus? First, you can just get rid of the cues. That sounds easy, you create a safe environment in your home, but you end up walking down the street so that’s not very practical. The other effective way is to eat with some structure. What do we do in The United States? By putting fat, sugar, and salt on every corner, eating 24/7, eating in our cars, eating all the time, we’ve taken down any boundaries. So eating with some structure—knowing what you’re going to eat, when you’re going to eat it, and if it’s food that you want, it helps protect you from being bombarded by cues, because if you know what you’re going to be eating in several of hours, the cues in the intervening time that you get hit with just don’t have the same power. In the end, what’s the best way to reduce and take the power out of a stimulus? How do you change what you want? Want something else more. What we have to do, and I think this is essential as a country, because social norms effect us, they really effect our behavior, they effect our neural circuitry. If I look at that huge plate of fries and say, “That’s my friend, that’s gonna make me feel better,” my brain’s going to get activated and then there’s nothing I can do to stop myself from finishing that plate of fries. If however, we change how we view food, psychologists call it a critical perceptual shift. How did we win, well, we haven’t quite won it but how did we succeed in the perceptual shift against tobacco? 30, 40 years ago we used to view the product as something that was cool, something that was socially acceptable, something that we wanted. We changed that perception. Now we look at it for what it is, a deadly, disgusting, addictive product. Tobacco is easy because we can live without tobacco. Food is much harder. But, all the processed foods, foods that stimulate us, that are just fat and sugar, fat and salt, fat and sugar and salt, getting us to come back for more and more, I think we have to change how we view food back, perhaps it’s very simple in the end, ho w much real food are we eating?

LG: You did the research, started 7 years ago, you wrote the book, now you’re talking about food on interviews like this. How has it changed your life?

DK: What’s very interesting, being trained as a physician, I thought I would go into the world and understand the metabolism, the endocrinology, the bariatrics, the physiology. What I actually gained in understanding was that we’re all wired to focus on the most salient stimuli in our environment. That’s what makes us so successful as a species. It could be alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, it could be gambling, but for many of us, food has become the most salient stimuli, and what about that food? It’s the fat, sugar, and salt. I look at that food and I say, I need it, it’s going to make me feel better, and I’ve come over time to understand that I can feel just fine, eat about half as much as I was eating but feel just as satisfied.

LG: David Kessler is the author of “The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite.” Thanks very much for speaking with us.

DK: Thank you.

Related Links

Study Links Food Preservatives and Diseases

  • Nitrates and nitrites are found in a lot of foods - like bacon, hot dogs, and pepperoni - as food preservatives (Photo by Renee Comet, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

A new study in the Journal of
Alzheimer’s Disease finds a strong
link between some food preservatives
and an increased risk of death from
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.
Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

A new study in the Journal of
Alzheimer’s Disease finds a strong
link between some food preservatives
and an increased risk of death from
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.
Rebecca Williams has more:

Nitrates and nitrites are found in a lot of foods we eat: bacon, hot dogs, and even cheese and beer.

The chemicals aren’t there naturally – they’re added as preservatives. And they’re also used in fertilizers.

Dr. Suzanne de la Monte is the study’s lead author.

She says they found a strong connection between higher death rates from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes and the increases in our exposures to these chemicals in our food and water since the late 1960s.

“What we’ve identified says this is certainly something I would consider very very important. Are there other things? Probably.”

She says people could be genetically predisposed to these diseases.

But she says long term exposure to nitrates and nitrites could also be playing a role in two ways: whether we get these diseases and how severe they might end up being.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Global Trade in Frog Legs Bad for Frogs

  • At least 200 million, but maybe as many as one billion frogs are eaten every year (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Frog legs are showing up on more menus all over Europe and North America. Biologists say this is just more bad news for frogs. Frogs are already in serious trouble from habitat loss and a fatal disease caused by a fungus. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

Frog legs are showing up on more menus all over Europe and North America. Biologists say… this is just more bad news for frogs. Frogs are already in serious trouble from habitat loss and a fatal disease caused by a fungus. Rebecca Williams reports:

It’s hard to know exactly how many frogs we eat. Only a fraction is reported in global trade numbers. So, at least 200 million but maybe as many as one billion frogs are eaten every year.

Ian Warkentin has been looking at our appetite for frog legs. He’s the lead author of a new study in the journal Conservation Biology.

He says some frogs are raised for food. But most of the frogs are taken from the wild.

“There was a harvest in North America and a harvest in Europe that depleted those stocks. The source then became India and Bangladesh and now we’re moving to Indonesia and Southeast Asia. And our concern is, well, we’re just going to harvest them to the point where there no longer is a viable harvest any more.”

He’d like to see better oversight on wild frog harvests, and more commercial frog farming. But, until that happens, he says you might want to take a pass on the frog leg platter.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Interview: Making Our Food Safer

  • The Government Accountability Office identified food safety as one of the major issues for the new administration to address (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)

As President Obama starts looking at

priorities, he or his staff will

have to take a look at the “Urgent

Issues” identified by the Government

Accountability Office. There’s a list

of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the

oversight of financial institutions and

markets. Food safety is also on that list.

The Environment Report’s Lester Graham

spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the

GAO. She says food safety issues such

as the current recall of peanut butter

contaminated by salmonella are becoming

a real concern:

Transcript

As President Obama starts looking at

priorities, he or his staff will

have to take a look at the “Urgent

Issues” identified by the Government

Accountability Office. There’s a list

of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the

oversight of financial institutions and

markets. Food safety is also on that list.

The Environment Report’s Lester Graham

spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the

GAO. She says food safety issues such

as the current recall of peanut butter

contaminated by salmonella are becoming

a real concern:

Lisa Shames: I think we’re all becoming more aware of how globalized our food
supply is. More and more is being imported. And, we’re also keenly aware of
the publicity that the recent outbreaks have had. Two and a half years ago, it
started with spinach, and, most recently with peanut butter. And, in between,
we’ve become aware of ingredients that may have become part of the food
supply, such as the melamine in pet food, and, most recently, in milk products.
And, we’re also facing the risk that federal dollars are not being spent as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
Lester Graham: Well, I guess I understand that, but I’m more concerned about
whether I can buy food at the supermarket or at other places and be sure that it’s
safe.

Shames: Well, let me say at the outset that, overall, our food supply is generally
safe. But there are challenges, because the demographics are such that we’re
going to be more susceptible to food-borne outbreaks. The population is getting
older, pregnant women are more vulnerable to these food-borne outbreaks, as
well as those who have immune deficiencies.

Graham: Now, a GAO report that I read indicated there are a lot of government
agencies duplicating efforts, and, in some cases, there are gaps in food
inspection. How did we end up with such a hodge-podge of efforts on something
as important as food safety?

Shames: The food safety structure has evolved piece-meal. And, what has
happened is that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for meat, and
poultry, and processed eggs, and the Food and Drug Administration is
responsible for seafood and fresh produce. Even that now has become a little
more fragmented, in that the oversight of catfish is now the responsibility of the
Agriculture Department. So, it’s a system that has many players involved, and
there really is no formal mechanism for them to work in a more coordinated and
efficient manner.

Graham: We also get some conflicting messages from agencies. Recently, the
Food and Drug Administration proposed that women who are pregnant or could
become pregnant eat more fish, while the Environmental Protection Agency
advises that those same women eat less fish because of contaminates such as
mercury. Why is there so much confusion?

Shames: Well, part of it is that there’s no convening mechanism for these
agencies to talk with each other. For example, a number of years ago, there was
a food safety council that was in place. We’ve also found that a government-
wide plan could also ensure that the goals of these agencies are complementary,
as well as the data that they collect, and the information they disseminate is
consistent and minimizes any confusion on the public’s part.

Graham: Are we talking about a sort of food czar?

Shames: Well, that is a possibility. We feel that agencies at least have to sit
around the table. And that really is one of our key recommendations to the
Congress and to the new administration. We’ve also asked for re-examination of
the food laws to make sure that they are consistent and uniform, as well as risk-
based. And that way we can target the scarce federal dollars where they’re
needed the most.

Related Links

Organics Rotting in Bad Economy

  • Shopping at organic foods stores is one thing consumers are cutting back on (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)

Watching paychecks shrink and
retirement funds dissolve is making people
change their buying habits. Many are
skipping things like natural foods because
they’re seen as luxuries. But Julie Grant
reports some analysts say this is just a
short term trend:

Transcript

Watching paychecks shrink and
retirement funds dissolve is making people
change their buying habits. Many are
skipping things like natural foods because
they’re seen as luxuries. But Julie Grant
reports some analysts say this is just a
short term trend:

Michelle DeSalvo’s daughter plans to go to college next
year. But her husband might need to take a pay cut just to
keep his job. So they’re trying to save money wherever
possible. That means no more shopping at the natural foods
store.

Michelle DeSalvo: “It’s definitely more expensive. You have
to go to things that are less expensive and natural is
definitely not that.”

Julie Grant: “So what has changed in your shopping habits?”

Michelle DeSalco: “I go to Wal-Mart. (laughs) Yeah, for
food. It’s cheaper.”

Not everyone is rushing to Wal-Mart.

Brenda Fisher says her family is struggling to pay for two
kids in college, and they’re looking for different ways to buy
food. She used to stop at the butcher shop at Whole Foods
– the national, natural foods supermarket. But not anymore.

“So I would buy their meats because their meats are
incredible. So um, I just can’t afford it. I would actually like
to buy a whole cow from a farmer, because they’re cheaper.
And I just have to get the money together.”

Okay, so not everyone wants to buy a cow. But a lot of
people are moving away from things that seem more
expensive – like natural and organic products.

In recent years, those foods have seen huge sales growth.
But as the economy has turned sour, so have their sales.
Whole Foods Store has seen a considerable sales drop at its
stores. And the company’s stock prices plunged more than
70% this year.

Nancy Koehn is professor of the history of retailing and
consumer behavior at the Harvard business school.
She says some people see upscale stores such as Whole
Foods as an indulgence – and that’s not what they’re
wanting.

“I think we will see, we are seeing, a rush away from a lot of
luxury right now.”

Koehn says that’s short term. She says consumers have
been floored by the tanking of the stock market and the
vulnerability of the financial systems. And they’ve done
something we haven’t seen in 25 years: they’ve stopped
buying.

But Koehn says this is just one moment. She says people
will walk back into stores. But they will have revised
priorities for their homes and families.

“There’s no way anyone’s coming out of this moment without
being effected by it. It’s a much more complicated story than
the rush to Wal-Mart.”

Koehn says natural foods stores, like Whole Foods, and
other environmentally-centered companies, are actually in
just the right place for the long term economic trend. When
consumers start buying again, she thinks, many will spend
money in places that are taking care of workers, animals,
and the environment.

“And I think we’re going to see that the same things that built
Whole Foods, that have made the environment and our
interconnectedness so important to people, and moved that
from item number 10 or 20 on people’s lists of important
issues up to the top 2 to 4. Those aren’t going away because
we’re in the trough of a business cycle.”

Koehn expects that many people will spend their holiday
money at big box discount stores. But she says many who
feel they’ve been treated badly in the economic downturn will
go back to the companies they think treat people and the
environment better.

Koehn expects that by early next year, companies that get
behind sustainable products will wind up being the economic
winners.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links