There's so much to report this week!
A very good friend and respected colleague of mine is on Dr. Oz today....again! This time she talks about the link between obesity and cancer. Here's a clip of what's to come: Dr. Kathleen Wolin talks about Obesity and Cancer on Dr. Oz.
The website for ChildObesity 180 has launched as well. Currently focused on three main initiatives (healthy out of school time snacks, healthier school breakfasts, and physical activity during school hours), this new Tufts project is very exciting! Check it out: ChildObesity 180: Reverse the Trend
And finally, my alma mater, Hotchkiss, gets mention in the NYT for their program that connects students to the land via farming on school property. I didn't think it was possible to love Hotchkiss more, but I absolutely do. Read more about the efforts at Hotchkiss and other New England schools:
Prep Schools Encourage Students to Learn to Farm
Perhaps Hotchkiss and the rest will start a nationwide trend!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Finally Fall!
Happy Back to School! I love fall- for me, it's the time of year for new beginnings, new challenges, and, honestly, my birthday! It's the time of year where I feel like I get a fresh start. Which is why I'm so excited to follow my advisor, Dr. Miriam Nelson, as she tours the country visiting the Change Clubs!
What are they? US Today has a great article that talks about the Change Clubs and what tasks specific communities are tackling: Change Clubs get Americans Moving.
Want to follow Mim, Eleanor and Rebecca on their nine-week, cross-country trek? Check out the StrongWomen Tour site! I'll be peeking in every day!
What are they? US Today has a great article that talks about the Change Clubs and what tasks specific communities are tackling: Change Clubs get Americans Moving.
Want to follow Mim, Eleanor and Rebecca on their nine-week, cross-country trek? Check out the StrongWomen Tour site! I'll be peeking in every day!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Dietary Guidelines 2010
Every five years, the USDA and HHS release updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans....and today is that day.
Four Key Recommendations:
1. Balancing Calories to Manage Weight
2. Foods and Food Components to Reduce
3. Foods and Nutrients to Increase
4. Building Healthy Eating Patterns
What I liked:
- The word LIMIT is back, and specifically refers to sodium, solid fats (read saturated fats, like those found in meat products), added sugars and refined grains.
- Specific foods are emphasized (as opposed to nutrients)(and they are done so in this order): Vegetables, Fruit, Whole Grains, Fat-Free or Low-Fat Milk products, Seafood, LEAN meats, Eggs, Beans and Peas, Nuts and Seeds
- In the specific messages for consumers: Make half your plate fruits and vegetables. This particular message is very strong, easily understandable to consumers and cannot be beat. I hope this particular message gets driven home the hardest.
- Also included in the consumer handout is the message to Drink Water instead of Sugary Drinks. See comments above.
What was disappointing:
- What happened to the strong recommendation about eating a plant-based diet?
- The message on sodium is very important, but it's asking a lot. It will require industry buy in, and I'd prefer to see an equally strong message about salt (what people consume) and salty snacks and convenience foods in particular.
- The Calorie Message: Do consumers get this? I think they don't and that it's a waste of space. Consumers don't count calories. The DGs would be better served talking about specific foods and food groups, not calories and nutrients (see comments on sodium vs. salt).
- The Building Healthy Eating Patterns is similarly weak. It also references calorie intake. Not very clear for consumers.
- The further reduction in Saturated Fat intake was not adopted. I think this was a trade-off in terms of emphasis...a greater emphasis was on sodium. It makes sense, but still.
- In the executive summary and key messages for consumers, the Physical Activity Guidelines were not specifically referenced. Getting more physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior is a good message- and it was highlighted- but the specific recommendations are more clear. How much and what kind of physical activity one does matters- and this needs to be communicated, repeatedly, to consumers.
So, I look forward to seeing what happens to the MyPyramid and other consumer messages. We'll see what happens...and how other leaders in nutrition and food policy respond!
Find further information, the Executive Summary and Consumer-Specific messages here.
Four Key Recommendations:
1. Balancing Calories to Manage Weight
2. Foods and Food Components to Reduce
3. Foods and Nutrients to Increase
4. Building Healthy Eating Patterns
What I liked:
- The word LIMIT is back, and specifically refers to sodium, solid fats (read saturated fats, like those found in meat products), added sugars and refined grains.
- Specific foods are emphasized (as opposed to nutrients)(and they are done so in this order): Vegetables, Fruit, Whole Grains, Fat-Free or Low-Fat Milk products, Seafood, LEAN meats, Eggs, Beans and Peas, Nuts and Seeds
- In the specific messages for consumers: Make half your plate fruits and vegetables. This particular message is very strong, easily understandable to consumers and cannot be beat. I hope this particular message gets driven home the hardest.
- Also included in the consumer handout is the message to Drink Water instead of Sugary Drinks. See comments above.
What was disappointing:
- What happened to the strong recommendation about eating a plant-based diet?
- The message on sodium is very important, but it's asking a lot. It will require industry buy in, and I'd prefer to see an equally strong message about salt (what people consume) and salty snacks and convenience foods in particular.
- The Calorie Message: Do consumers get this? I think they don't and that it's a waste of space. Consumers don't count calories. The DGs would be better served talking about specific foods and food groups, not calories and nutrients (see comments on sodium vs. salt).
- The Building Healthy Eating Patterns is similarly weak. It also references calorie intake. Not very clear for consumers.
- The further reduction in Saturated Fat intake was not adopted. I think this was a trade-off in terms of emphasis...a greater emphasis was on sodium. It makes sense, but still.
- In the executive summary and key messages for consumers, the Physical Activity Guidelines were not specifically referenced. Getting more physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior is a good message- and it was highlighted- but the specific recommendations are more clear. How much and what kind of physical activity one does matters- and this needs to be communicated, repeatedly, to consumers.
So, I look forward to seeing what happens to the MyPyramid and other consumer messages. We'll see what happens...and how other leaders in nutrition and food policy respond!
Find further information, the Executive Summary and Consumer-Specific messages here.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
A Bone to Pick with the USDA
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to hear Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of the USDA, give the keynote speech at Friedman's Annual Symposium. You *might* recognize her as one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Important People in the World". Well, I wholeheartedly agree. (I might be biased as she was one of my favorite professors during the master's program.)
One of the questions she fielded from the audience was about what the USDA was going to do to address the issue of SOFAs in the American Diet. (SOFAs stand for solid fats and added sugars. Not to be confused with the other "sofa" issue here in the States, mainly that people won't get off them.)
What Dr. Merrigan didn't mention was the checkoff programs currently in existence here in the United States. These are quasi-governmental bodies aimed at increasing consumption of certain key commodities produced in the US. I say they are quasi-governmental because, although they are really a part of AMS (the agricultural marketing service), they are paid for by taxes on industry and the boards of the committees include private sector players.
These programs are responsible for campaigns such as the milk mustache, "Beef. It's what's for dinner." and "Pork: The Other White Meat". All of these programs encourage consumption of products high in saturated (solid) fats. (Saturated fats are those fats that are solid at room temperature and are almost exclusively found in animal products.) This is in direct opposition to government health messages, such as the Dietary Guidelines, which call for Americans to "limit" (you should read that as "avoid") saturated fat. In fact, the current recommendations to the USDA by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee actually calls for even lower recommended intakes for saturated fat (from 10% of daily caloric intake down to 7%).
This makes this report from the NYT especially disturbing. At a time when Americans are eating way too much saturated fat from cheese products, the USDA is teaming up with industry (Dominos, Wendy's, BK) to fund ad campaigns to encourage consumption?
It's enough to make you sick.
Maybe even give you a heart attack, and I do mean that quite literally.
One of the questions she fielded from the audience was about what the USDA was going to do to address the issue of SOFAs in the American Diet. (SOFAs stand for solid fats and added sugars. Not to be confused with the other "sofa" issue here in the States, mainly that people won't get off them.)
What Dr. Merrigan didn't mention was the checkoff programs currently in existence here in the United States. These are quasi-governmental bodies aimed at increasing consumption of certain key commodities produced in the US. I say they are quasi-governmental because, although they are really a part of AMS (the agricultural marketing service), they are paid for by taxes on industry and the boards of the committees include private sector players.
These programs are responsible for campaigns such as the milk mustache, "Beef. It's what's for dinner." and "Pork: The Other White Meat". All of these programs encourage consumption of products high in saturated (solid) fats. (Saturated fats are those fats that are solid at room temperature and are almost exclusively found in animal products.) This is in direct opposition to government health messages, such as the Dietary Guidelines, which call for Americans to "limit" (you should read that as "avoid") saturated fat. In fact, the current recommendations to the USDA by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee actually calls for even lower recommended intakes for saturated fat (from 10% of daily caloric intake down to 7%).
This makes this report from the NYT especially disturbing. At a time when Americans are eating way too much saturated fat from cheese products, the USDA is teaming up with industry (Dominos, Wendy's, BK) to fund ad campaigns to encourage consumption?
It's enough to make you sick.
Maybe even give you a heart attack, and I do mean that quite literally.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Shape Up Somerville: Eat Smart, Play Hard
Shape Up Somerville is an innovative, comprehensive lifestyle intervention designed to improve dietary habits and increase physical activity. It's a program run out of the research center that I am working for, and PBS just did an excellent report on it.
Check it out! (Reshaping Somerville)
I actually took general nutrition as an undergrad from Dr. Economos...I absolutely credit her with planting the seed that eventually led me back to Tufts for a Master's in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition!
Check it out! (Reshaping Somerville)
I actually took general nutrition as an undergrad from Dr. Economos...I absolutely credit her with planting the seed that eventually led me back to Tufts for a Master's in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Why Banning Soda Purchases for Food Stamp Users is Misguided
I woke up (early) this morning to the following story: A Push to Ban Soda Purchases with Food Stamps. I just about fell out of my chair, not because of the story itself, but because I had just had a practice exam session with a colleague and we had discussed something very similar.
Essentially, Mayor Bloomberg has requested that the USDA allow NYC to ban the purchase of sodas and other sugary beverages (referred to from here on as SSBs, or sugar-sweetened beverages) using Food Stamps. First, I applaud the stance that Mayor Bloomberg has taken on health and the obesity epidemic. And I agree with him that we need to get the American public to drink less SSBs (but not just those who are using Food Stamps, a program which is now actually called SNAP, which is going to be relevant to my argument). I just don't agree that restricting Food Stamp purchases this way is either the right way to do it (in terms of stigmatization) or the correct way to do it (in terms of behavior change). And here's why...
First, how does Food Stamps, formally known now as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work? Food Stamps is a nutrition program that is a means-test targeted program, meaning your eligibility to receive benefits is based on your means (your income plus other assets). It's actually got another layer of targeting built in, in that you have to be interested enough in receiving the benefits (need them enough) that taking the time to apply and submit proof of income and assets is worth it. Once you qualify to receive benefits (the main test is having a gross income at 130% of the poverty line or less), then your benefit is calculated.
Here's where the "Supplemental" aspect of SNAP/Food Stamps comes in. Food Stamps are designed to be supplemental to your food budget. The underlying assumption is that, assuming you have income, you are putting some of that income towards food purchases. The benefit formula is as follows:
Benefit= Maximum Benefit- (0.3 times your income level)
Therefore, as your income goes down, your benefits will go up, and at a level of zero income, you will receive the maximum benefit. The current maximum benefit for a family of four is $668 per month. At levels of income above zero, it is assumed that 1/3 of your income will be spent on food.
This is a crucial point, as there are really two main buckets of people who receive Food Stamps benefits in terms of how the program affects their spending: Constrained and Unconstrained. Unconstrained individuals, because they are spending some of their income on food in addition to the benefits of SNAP, are not changing their spending habits- meaning that they are not spending more than they would like on food, and that Food Stamps is not increasing their purchasing of food to a level greater than they would prefer. In this case, Food Stamps acts as an income transfer: the cash that they would have already preferred to spend on food can now be freed up in their budgets to be spent on other needs. It is like giving these recipients a raise- their budget is increased, and there are no restrictions on their spending (aside from the fact that some things are banned under food stamps: non-food like liquor, and some prepared foods). The key point here is that they are spending more on food than their Food Stamp benefit alone.
Constrained individuals on the other hand are forced to buy food that they wouldn't otherwise buy. This indicates that they have needs greater than food (medical care, housing) but the government has essentially chosen for them that they will spend this benefit on food. It's not an income transfer in this case. Even at the same level of income as someone else, this group has different preferences (higher priorities than food spending) but are forced to spend Food Stamp dollars on food. This group would rather have cash that could be spent on their higher priority items.
The point I am trying to make here is that, for unconstrained individuals, banning the purchases of SSBs using Food Stamp dollars will not have the intended effect. If a given recipient prefers to purchase SSBs, it's simply a matter of shifting their food budget so that their own dollars are spent on SSBs and Food Stamp dollars are spent on something else. This group can still buy Sugar-Sweetened Beverages at the same rate previously, given how cheap SSBs are relative to other foods, particularly nutritious foods, in the diet. Only those very constrained individuals would have their purchases changed by this policy.
This is my first problem with this policy: it won't meaningfully change behavior among the targeted population.
My second issue is that it stigmatizes Food Stamp recipients. It restricts their choices, and in so doing, feels punitive. Food Stamp recipients are not the only Americans who are drinking far too many SSBs. I feel this policy is a lot of noise and attention for one that won't work in the way intended, and that time, money and effort could be better spent on policies that have a more effective design.
If we REALLY want to change the food choices that Americans generally, and Food Stamp recipients specifically, make, then I propose that we make fruits and vegetables cheaper. It's non-punitive. It's got potential to change behavior. One of the complaints that is often heard from Food Stamp recipients is that they would like to buy healthier choices, but that fruits and vegetables (and other non-processed foods) are so much more expensive. I could devote a hundred pages to how this happened (Thank you, Earl Butz), but the bottom line is that people's purchasing decisions are based on the relative costs of different foods, and if we make fruits and vegetables competitive with the reconstituted soy/corn blend junk that it competes with (re: pretty much all processed foods, including SSBs), we just might have the START to a solution. (By no means do I think this will be enough to fix the obesity epidemic in this country.)
Food Stamps, like all policy interventions, is not a perfect solution, but it is a rather elegant one. Like all policies, it's a compromise. It's designed to not distort the markets (by increasing food demand or imposing different consumption choices on the recipients), but at the same time allow the government to put a priority on food spending for low income families. From a free-market perspective, giving cash benefits would be the ideal market solution, but for obvious reasons, this is not politically very popular. Food Stamps tried to bridge this gap, and while it has its flaws, it does the best it can.
Essentially, Mayor Bloomberg has requested that the USDA allow NYC to ban the purchase of sodas and other sugary beverages (referred to from here on as SSBs, or sugar-sweetened beverages) using Food Stamps. First, I applaud the stance that Mayor Bloomberg has taken on health and the obesity epidemic. And I agree with him that we need to get the American public to drink less SSBs (but not just those who are using Food Stamps, a program which is now actually called SNAP, which is going to be relevant to my argument). I just don't agree that restricting Food Stamp purchases this way is either the right way to do it (in terms of stigmatization) or the correct way to do it (in terms of behavior change). And here's why...
First, how does Food Stamps, formally known now as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work? Food Stamps is a nutrition program that is a means-test targeted program, meaning your eligibility to receive benefits is based on your means (your income plus other assets). It's actually got another layer of targeting built in, in that you have to be interested enough in receiving the benefits (need them enough) that taking the time to apply and submit proof of income and assets is worth it. Once you qualify to receive benefits (the main test is having a gross income at 130% of the poverty line or less), then your benefit is calculated.
Here's where the "Supplemental" aspect of SNAP/Food Stamps comes in. Food Stamps are designed to be supplemental to your food budget. The underlying assumption is that, assuming you have income, you are putting some of that income towards food purchases. The benefit formula is as follows:
Benefit= Maximum Benefit- (0.3 times your income level)
Therefore, as your income goes down, your benefits will go up, and at a level of zero income, you will receive the maximum benefit. The current maximum benefit for a family of four is $668 per month. At levels of income above zero, it is assumed that 1/3 of your income will be spent on food.
This is a crucial point, as there are really two main buckets of people who receive Food Stamps benefits in terms of how the program affects their spending: Constrained and Unconstrained. Unconstrained individuals, because they are spending some of their income on food in addition to the benefits of SNAP, are not changing their spending habits- meaning that they are not spending more than they would like on food, and that Food Stamps is not increasing their purchasing of food to a level greater than they would prefer. In this case, Food Stamps acts as an income transfer: the cash that they would have already preferred to spend on food can now be freed up in their budgets to be spent on other needs. It is like giving these recipients a raise- their budget is increased, and there are no restrictions on their spending (aside from the fact that some things are banned under food stamps: non-food like liquor, and some prepared foods). The key point here is that they are spending more on food than their Food Stamp benefit alone.
Constrained individuals on the other hand are forced to buy food that they wouldn't otherwise buy. This indicates that they have needs greater than food (medical care, housing) but the government has essentially chosen for them that they will spend this benefit on food. It's not an income transfer in this case. Even at the same level of income as someone else, this group has different preferences (higher priorities than food spending) but are forced to spend Food Stamp dollars on food. This group would rather have cash that could be spent on their higher priority items.
The point I am trying to make here is that, for unconstrained individuals, banning the purchases of SSBs using Food Stamp dollars will not have the intended effect. If a given recipient prefers to purchase SSBs, it's simply a matter of shifting their food budget so that their own dollars are spent on SSBs and Food Stamp dollars are spent on something else. This group can still buy Sugar-Sweetened Beverages at the same rate previously, given how cheap SSBs are relative to other foods, particularly nutritious foods, in the diet. Only those very constrained individuals would have their purchases changed by this policy.
This is my first problem with this policy: it won't meaningfully change behavior among the targeted population.
My second issue is that it stigmatizes Food Stamp recipients. It restricts their choices, and in so doing, feels punitive. Food Stamp recipients are not the only Americans who are drinking far too many SSBs. I feel this policy is a lot of noise and attention for one that won't work in the way intended, and that time, money and effort could be better spent on policies that have a more effective design.
If we REALLY want to change the food choices that Americans generally, and Food Stamp recipients specifically, make, then I propose that we make fruits and vegetables cheaper. It's non-punitive. It's got potential to change behavior. One of the complaints that is often heard from Food Stamp recipients is that they would like to buy healthier choices, but that fruits and vegetables (and other non-processed foods) are so much more expensive. I could devote a hundred pages to how this happened (Thank you, Earl Butz), but the bottom line is that people's purchasing decisions are based on the relative costs of different foods, and if we make fruits and vegetables competitive with the reconstituted soy/corn blend junk that it competes with (re: pretty much all processed foods, including SSBs), we just might have the START to a solution. (By no means do I think this will be enough to fix the obesity epidemic in this country.)
Food Stamps, like all policy interventions, is not a perfect solution, but it is a rather elegant one. Like all policies, it's a compromise. It's designed to not distort the markets (by increasing food demand or imposing different consumption choices on the recipients), but at the same time allow the government to put a priority on food spending for low income families. From a free-market perspective, giving cash benefits would be the ideal market solution, but for obvious reasons, this is not politically very popular. Food Stamps tried to bridge this gap, and while it has its flaws, it does the best it can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)