Balance of Food

Canada focuses sharpest budget cuts on those who protect food safety

The good news is that Canada has a department devoted to food inspection. The bad news is that there will be fewer inspectors as a result of federal budget cuts.

The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture Canada will suffer among the worst hits in federal budget cuts by the Harper government.

In the election campaign of 2011, the Conservative budget promised $100 million over five years to increase capacity in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Politicians do break promises on occasion. When you offer to raise the stakes to protect citizens from tainted food, and you make the department that helps prevent tainted food a high priority for a deep cut, well that decision makes a significant impact on average Canadians.

Under the Harper government, a listeriosis outbreak in 2008 led to 22 deaths and 35 serious illnesses from tainted deli meat.

Canada has an advantage over the United States since it has a government agency devoted to food inspection. The USDA runs marketing and inspection of the same food, and as we've seen lately, the FDA begging for voluntary help in cutting down on antibiotics in the food supply is really sad and pathetic.

But if that agency can't be effective, especially given the increasing number of food problems in recent years, Canada's advantage isn't nearly as large as it should be.

Crossing your fingers that your food is safe isn't a smart government policy.

Previous coverage:

What a Stephen Harper government means for Canada's national food strategy

Canada's political parties have stronger food policies in their platforms for the upcoming election

'Pink slime' conversions prove that food quality battle is all about PR

 

Jamie Oliver has to be a little pissed off these days, and rightly so.

Oliver demonstrated how pink slime is produced, and did all of this on U.S. broadcast television … in April 2011.

Okay, so most Americans weren't paying attention. And Oliver wasn't even the first person who has brought this up. Oliver, though, is famous and showed us on TV, where we get most of our news.

In the premiere episode of Season 2, Oliver demonstrated the process in Jamie's Kitchen, washing machine and all. My take at the time?

"The bits and trimmings of the inedible meat, then separated in a washing machine, and mixed with water and ammonia — boy that was hard to watch, even if you are an omnivore."

Jamie's words got lost due to poor ratings, a key reason for the gap between the first two episodes and the rest of the show. By the time the momentum kicked in for the series during Friday airings in June, Oliver's pink slime demonstration was lost in the shuffle.

The recent push of events that has had so many companies run screaming away from "pink slime" demonstrates why getting better food quality has to be an ongoing battle.

Previous coverage: USDA needs better reasons to avoid telling us that we're eating pink slime

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" took on the topic last week, coming late to the party. But as often happens, Stewart put what we were eating in perspective, and why we'll eat whatever is in front of us.

"McDonald's walked away from it? McDonald's doesn't think it's an appropriate thing to eat? These are the people that molded a pork disk into a rib-shaped sandwich that contains no ribs. But this stuff, pink slime, that's too fake for McDonald's."

Ask any of the school systems, chain restaurants, and grocery stores whether they thought pink slime was a big deal, they know the key issue is public relations. Companies ran away from high-fructose corn syrup not because of the nuances of sweeteners, but as a way to stand out in the marketplace and pressure from the public.

The beef industry isn't thrilled with this change of events, because it was winning the Orwellian war. Calling ammonia-treated bits and trimmings of inedible meat "lean, finely textured beef" instead of "pink slime" — PR genius, unless you have to eat it.

Iowa State Sen. Brad Zaun (R) tried to get the PR advantage in writing a letter to the editor in the Des Moines Register. However, Zaun was unscrupulous in disparaging BalanceofFood.com friend Michelle Simon. You be the judge.

Simon: "So let’s hope this week’s groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to demand labeling, buy organic, or stop eating ground beef all together."

Zaun: "So let’s hope this week’s groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to … stop eating ground beef all together."

Simon's point is that consumers should know what they're eating. Zaun's point was to be deceptive to try and discredit legitimate concern over what we're eating.

Despite what we think sometimes, the Daily Show is about comedy first. So in search of a punchline, Stewart admitted what we all fear. If it's in front of us, we will eat it.

"Pink slime. Face it. It's probably no worse than the shit you already eat."

Let's hope from now on, we'll be eating less pink slime and less of the other … er, well, crap.

Chicken nuggets added to 4-year-old's lunch proves liberals, conservatives can agree on school lunches

While it's sad that food quality has become a political issue, you can find joy when liberals and conservatives agree on a food issue.

In this instance, both liberals and conservatives disagreed with the decision to supplement a 4-year-old home-packed lunch with chicken nuggets.

Conservatives felt the decision smacked of the nanny state and government intruding in the role of parents.

Liberals hated the idea of a reasonably healthy lunch supplemented with "nutritious" processed chicken.

They were both right in that the decision was wrong. And perhaps, this could be a teaching moment to prove that the sides of the school lunch battle can agree on something.

The school lunch battle has been intense enough without dealing in home-packed lunches. Conservatives wouldn't want interference with home-packed lunches. Liberals have bigger problems to consider.

After all, this is what the small child had in her lunch box: turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. Sounds better than most school lunches.

Adults eat unbalanced meals and mostly do okay. Children need more balanced meals, but the difficulty stems from another element where liberals and conservatives can agree, though for different reasons: the USDA guidelines aren't a good way to determine whether a meal is nutritious.

Conservatives don't think the government should set standards. Liberals hate that French fries, tater tots, pizza, and ketchup become "vegetables."

From what we've heard, the 4-year-old child was missing milk from her meal (though cheese could have counted) and somehow ended up with chicken nuggets. And it's not like this happens on a regular basis, even in day care centers and preschools in North Carolina.

Wouldn't it be nice … if parents packed lunches for their kids each and every day, and those lunches were reasonably nutritious, and the kids ate most if not all of those lunches. Conservatives and liberals would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if parents gave their kids a balanced breakfast in the morning and a good nutritious dinner at night. Liberals and conservatives would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if schools would have well-prepared food to supplement children's lunches on those days and times where close to perfect isn't even a remote possibility. Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.

Despite the "Leave It to Beaver" mentality of some of the GOP presidential contenders, if that world ever existed, we don't have that world now. Our school children are suffering not just in terms of food but also the energy to learn and play.

Even if liberals and conservatives disagree on the solutions, do they agree on the problems? Until they agree on the problems, very little will get solved … even with chicken nuggets.

Latest school lunch improvements prove it's important who gets elected

The push back is going in the direction of improved school lunches. The announcement, with First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and celebrity chef Rachael Ray, should give supporters great joy and pride.

The first major overhaul of school lunch in over 15 years is cause for celebration.

Yes, pizza and French fries have a more prominent position in school lunches, thanks to moves by (mostly) Republicans. Funny how conservative politicians complain that government shouldn't tell people what to eat, yet they want government to make sure more of their French fries get served in public schools.

Well, French fries and tater tots. The move by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is more about potatoes, trying to find ways to keep potatoes but make them healthier.

School lunches can get healthier, but the potato will almost certainly be fried in French fry form or tater tot form. Yes, the potato is healthy when baked and boiled, but the chances of that happening in school lunchrooms are slimmer than having a Republican president push for more school lunch funding.

On the good side, school lunches will come in with reduced sodium, more whole grains, and more choices for fruits and vegetables.

One overlooked change is a change from "nutrition-based" or "nutrient standard" to a "food-based" system. Think fewer fortified foods and more real foods, a pleasant and very positive change.

We see the contrast of school lunch reform with a Democratic-controlled Congress vs. a Republican-controlled Congress. The positive improvements stem from legislation fashioned when the Dems were in charge. Classifying pizza as a vegetable and fighting for more potatoes -- under a GOP-controlled Congress.

In presidential years, the primary focus is on who runs for president, as it should. Michelle Obama has fought harder than anyone in power for these improvements. Every two years, citizens get to vote for who goes to the House and Senate. It does matter who is in charge of the House and Senate.

Temptation of the Week: Resist the non-existent message that government wants to tell you what to eat

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I'm tired of the government trying to tell you what to eat."
-- disgruntled conservative person

Amazing how a person can be tired of something that isn't happening, doesn't exist, and where there are no plans to ever start.

Yet when either Barack or Michelle Obama do something or My Pyramid becomes MyPlate or the FDA or USDA try to make sure animals are decently cared for in food production or try and prevent food safety problems or food-borne illnesses, someone usually grumbles and grouses and says something similar to "I'm tired of the government trying to tell you what to eat."

Trying to ensure a safe food supply is not the government telling you what to eat. Michelle Obama offering advice on eating better is not the government telling you what to eat.

The government does encourage you to eat American grown food through the USDA, and through farm policy and trade restrictions, encourage you to eat lots of GMO soybeans and high-fructose corn syrup. And those policies make it difficult to find alternatives. However, they still aren't telling you what to eat.

You would think telling citizenry what to eat would be more like a school lunch menu in a George Orwell book:

-- Salisbury steak (1 piece)
-- Mashed potatoes with 2 pats of butter
-- Green beans
-- Fruit cup
-- Chocolate chip brownie
-- Milk (chocolate or strawberry)

This would be the government telling you that "you must eat this" if somehow the government could enforce this and require you to eat it without outside options. As long as you live near a 7-11, you will have other options.

Those in the conservative spectrum could argue that the grumblers aren't being literal, and liberal hippie freaks are overreacting to what they are saying. When someone says "the government is telling me what to eat," how are we supposed to take that?

Let's try looking at their take from their vantage point. They feel like the government is stepping in unnecessarily to take control of a situation best handled by the free market. We've had that free market setup for about 30 years; all the health numbers from obesity to Type 2 diabetes over the last 30 years has proven to be a fail for that policy.

If the right argues that government has no responsibility, then those people should answer to why corporations and farm policy don't address those issues. They have responsibilities. Yes, they should make a profit (this isn't a George Orwell book), but with that function comes responsibilities.

"I'm tired of corporations selling us short, trying to cram in as much sodium and high-fructose corn syrup as they can into our food supply."

Not as succinct as "government trying to tell me what to eat." Then again, the truth isn't as "marketable" as political rhetoric.

(Editor's note: One year from today, we will either have a new president or Barack Obama will be sworn in for his second term.)

2012 braces to be rough political year for food advocacy

While the political eyes have been on Iowa for the last couple of weeks leading up to last night's GOP caucus (congratulations to Mitt Romney, who just edged out Rick Santorum), the upcoming Farm Bill hasn't had all that much attention.

Iowa has significant political influence since the Hawkeye State holds the first caucus. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a food policy that helps large farm corporations (ironically at the expense of the small Iowa farmer). The oddity of having a farm bill come up in an election year is not the smartest way to run food policy.

We are definitely looking at cuts in farm programs; the question is how much and will it affect those who need subsidies the least.

The farm bill is one of many politically related food stories to watch for in 2012.

Another growing question is whether First Lady Michelle Obama has slowed down her efforts to get us to eat better. The topic is hot in the blogosphere.

Mrs. Obama has been more focused on exercise, which is extremely admirable. Having a complete picture of what kids (and adults) should do is a wonderful cause by the First Lady.

Now I don't always stand up for the blogosphere, but in this case, I understand their concern.

Pushing exercise is a lot easier than expressing concern about the food supply, and a lot less politically damaging. The First Lady and her husband, President Barack Obama, have received significant criticism for what they eat, despite the fact that they are in better shape than most of the country, and their detractors are primarily severely out of shape (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, James Sensenbrenner).

Mrs. Obama, if your goal is to broaden the perspective of what we need to do, go for it. If you have been bullied into not talking about food choices because of political and pundit pressure, then you need to fight back for those who don't have the power to make a difference.

Finally, the fact that we are in an election year means food fights (no, not the Animal House kind) among Democratic and Republican politicians as they try to gain points heading into November. It will be a long year (with an extra day) — pace yourself accordingly.

Holiday notebook: Rep. James Sensenbrenner latest to pile onto Michelle Obama

We could quote Biblical verses in letting Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) know that what he said about First Lady Michelle Obama and her "large posterior." Judge not lest ye be judged or let he who is without sin cast the first stone come to mind.

However, the appropriate response to Sensenbrenner's insensitive comments should be "takes one to know one." (Sensenbrenner later apologized.)

Michelle Obama's frame in relation to her advocacy for eating better has become a mean-spirited GOP talking point. We expect politicians to attack each other, and like it or not, First Ladies have fallen into this realm. To be fair, we haven't seen Republican First Ladies treated the same way as Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Michelle Obama has been attacked for what she has eaten and how she looks, since the correlation must be that if she looks like that, she isn't practicing what she preaches. Two problems with this approach: Republicans don't understand what she is "preaching," and they have no idea what a woman is supposed to look like.

We have gone on and on about the former, as for the latter, Michelle Obama is a soon-to-be 48-year-old woman, mother of two. She is not an airbrushed model nor a air-headed, size 2 secretary working for a GOP politician. Michelle Obama is a real woman in great shape, regardless of age.

James Sensenbrenner is a 68-year-old overweight (obese?) GOP representative from Wisconsin since 1979. Despite the fact that House members have incredible gym access, apparently Sensenbrenner still doesn't know the location of the House gym.

---

Speaking of fat people, having the Cooking Channel on the background during the holiday led to this great find. Clarissa Dickson Wright of the Two Fat Ladies was lining a tin with bacon. My interest was peaked. After lining the tin, Wright put a layer of pheasant in the tin. She followed that with pickled walnuts, and then more pheasant. Finally, the tin was topped with a layer of bacon.

The final dish didn't look as exciting as the preparation led us to believe. Bacon does make things taste better, but the pickled walnuts sounded more tempting than the pheasant. Maybe the taste was better than the looks.

---

The success of chains such as the Olive Garden comes in part from their bland tasting food. Since my tastebuds freak out over bland food, I don't frequent them. Now that tastes are improving, i.e., spicing up, these chains are struggling.

As much as I dislike this approach, trying to change with the times won't bring success to these places. No one will ever associate exciting, non-mainstream food with these mega-chains. McDonald's hasn't tried to make a better burger; it tries to get you to drink more coffee.

These mega-chains do reflect most Americans inability to wrap their heads around anything that might throw them off a bit. From The Wall Street Journal:

In several years of tests, Olive Garden diners often deemed pesto too oily, bitter or green. Capers, with their salty, pickled flavor, are too unexpected for many customers, says a spokeswoman.

Oooh, capers. I'm so scared. Marge Simpson years ago being puzzled by "o-re-GAH-no."

Sometimes, eating at home is the better option. This way, you get the spices your way, often for a much cheaper meal. And you get to keep the tip.

If Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are 'pro-family' they need to be pro food stamps

The first two, and perhaps the only two GOP presidential candidates, who will take part in Donald Trump's presidential debate have one trait that is a particular thorn to us here at Balance of Food: they aren't fans of food stamps.

Rick Santorum's comments last week were mindfully clueless, while Newt Gingrich's take was more deliberately mendacious.

From the Le Mars Daily Sentinel:

Santorum told the group he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.

Forty-eight million people are on food stamps in a country with 300-million people, said Santorum.

"If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?" Santorum asked.

Being a part of government means you usually know what is going on, whether you like it or agree with it. Santorum served two terms in the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, and yet doesn't understand the government's financial support of cheap food. While he was in the Senate, he did serve with those in the House who have taken the food stamp challenge. Those in Congress tried to live on food stamps for a month. Santorum would take a lot longer than a month to absorb how difficult living on food stamps can be.

In a more compassionate country, we would actually increase the food stamp budget and/or work harder to get more people to be employed.

Santorum should give us his current family food budget; he has 7 children (one has passed on) and we'll tell him how much less he would need to survive if food stamps were his only option.

Santorum would only have to be asleep for the last five years to be that clueless. Gingrich's Rip Van Winkle impression took us back to a time when the Smashing Pumpkins first made it big and "NYPD Blue" was controversial television.

"Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash — you don't get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don't you want to be compassionate? You know, the Obama model: isn't there somebody you'd like to give money to this week. That's why we're now going to help bailout Italy because we haven't bailed out enough people this week, the president thought let's write another check. After all, we have so much extra money."

Gingrich calling Obama the "food stamp president" is more about the policies that led to the economic collapse, ones Gingrich will make stronger if elected president. In fact, George W. Bush expanded eligibility for food stamps. When Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he wanted to turn food stamps into a block grant program.

Like Santorum, Gingrich should be aware that food stamps are means-tested, meaning you have to disclose income and assets to get food stamps. And the debit card (not a credit card) can't be used on just anything, especially a trip to Hawaii. The average caller on talk radio may not know that is true, but Gingrich does know this to be true.

Santorum and Gingrich should see the segment from NBC's "Rock Center" on food stamps. These families don't want to be on food stamps, they don't want to be grocery shopping at midnight or 4:12 am, as we see in the segment. They want to be making more to support their families. One of the families has the mother working as a supervisor for a call center, management, for $13.50/hour, likely without benefits.

This twisted image of food stamp recipients sitting at home doing nothing but watch "Maury" or "Jerry Springer" is more in the minds of conservative politicians than the streets of America. On a national scale, the USDA estimates the fraud rate at about 1¢ per $1 in 2008, and that number has been falling over the previous 15 years. Gingrich sneers at switching to the cards, even though that is likely a factor in reducing fraud.

Santorum plays himself us as a "family-focused" politician. Though Gingrich hasn't showed it in his own life, he preaches "family" in his rhetoric. Meanwhile, actual real families who are having to survive on a lot less than either politician makes are having to scrimp by and do the best they can.

Santorum and Gingrich both know (or should know) Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH). They took the food stamp challenge in 2007 to see what it would be like to live for a week on food stamps. These four Congressmen would have a lot to teach Santorum and Gingrich about the world of food stamps.

These Congressmen didn't know that much about life on food stamps before they did this experiment. But they were willing to learn more, a trait missing from Santorum and Gingrich.

Most people on food stamps would trade their income status with either Santorum or Gingrich's income in a heartbeat. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should move in with food stamps recipients for a week to see how they live. Then, when they don't speak, their words will come from understanding and compassion.

Even with food stamps, those who are down on their luck also supplement their need for food with food pantries. In this holiday season, we will explore ways to better help those in need with food pantries in a column on Wednesday.

American school kids deserve better than 'pizza as a vegetable'

When we mocked Ragu last spring for its vegetable emphasis, the company pointed out that "Ragu has more than a full serving of veggies in every ½ cup." Now the spaghetti sauce manufacturer says it's 2 servings in every ½ cup.

Seems like Ragu took a lesson from the USDA or vice versa, as the GOP-led House has pushed through a spending bill that peels away some of the gains made in the school lunch program. The press and comedy shows had fun with this GOP-led House bill making pizza into a vegetable. What got missed in the humor and depression is that the USDA has virtually made pizza into a vegetable already.

The USDA counts tomato paste as a vegetable now, but to be fair, the organization has "standards." The requirement for the USDA was to count a ½ cup of tomato paste as a serving, something where pizza currently falls short. The House bill wanted to change that to make the tomato paste in pizza count as a vegetable, even at less than ½ cup.

Tomatoes and cooked tomatoes should certainly count as a vegetable, unlike potatoes, especially French fries and, dare we say, tater tots. The argument that Ragu and the USDA make is tomatoes count, no matter in what form and what might be alongside.

After all, if we were to drop our hypocrisy for a second, we don't like vegetables unless they're covered in something, and we do use sugar as a way to eat our veggies. "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down in the most delightful way."

Common salad dressings have sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. Candied carrots. Sometimes, the pacifier isn't sweet, but salty. Processed dip mixes. Or buttery, as in asparagus in butter sauce, or cheesy, as broccoli either covered in cheese or smothered in a "cheese" sauce.

So we have accepted that vegetables need a little push to get them through our internal systems. However, this doesn't let the USDA or the Republicans in Congress off the hook.

In mocking Ragu, at least the spaghetti sauce is healthier for you than the pizza in school lunchrooms. Sure both the spaghetti sauce and the pizza sauce is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup and salt, and they are used on white flour products. However, the fat content of the mozzarella cheese on top of pizza and the nitrates in the meat usually featured on a school lunch pizza outweighs the parmesan cheese, even the kind from the green can, on spaghetti.

Feeding kids in the home (the Ragu commercial features a kid) deserves a modicum of protection, but somehow, feeding kids in a public school would demand higher standards. So even if ½ cup of tomato paste counts as a serving of vegetables, the USDA has the power to make that tomato paste mean more than the minimum standards it insists on setting. No amount of political pressure should reduce that even further.

Since the rule would need to be written in bureaucraticese, this is what we have in mind:

"If the only vegetable in a school lunch item, as noted in Section 1-6, Article 2, paragraph 4, meets the minimum standard of ½ cup of tomato paste, then the school lunch item can only count as a "vegetable" if the school lunch item also contains ½ cup of vegetables in solid form, only ¼ cup of which can be carrots, in solid form only, as noted in Section 1-3, Article 5, paragraph 2."

In English, what this means is that if you want to count pizza as a vegetable, you have to have real solid vegetables on the pizza. Yes, that pizza would still have too much high-fructose corn syrup in the sauce, too much starch in the crust, too much fat in the cheese, and too many nitrates in the meat, but you would be able to look at it and say "that has vegetables." or as Herman Cain would put it "a sissy pizza." And ketchup wouldn't be counted as a vegetable. Neither would French fries or tater tots.

The Republicans in these circumstances say "we don't want the government telling us what to eat." In the regular world, this isn't an issue. If you are a 10-year-old in a public school and your parents didn't pack you a lunch, the government is going to set guidelines on what happens in the school cafeteria, so the government will have some influence. Unless you want to get rid of publicly funded school lunches.

Until the GOP dumps the Department of Education and the school lunch program, those who want better school lunches will have to fight tooth and nail for our children to have better standards in the school lunch room. The late-night comedians can only do so much.

photo credit: Ragu

Michele Bachmann calls for less food regulation, really

"We want to have safety," she said. "But we also want to have common sense."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), in her third term in the House of Representatives and a presidential candidate, might be surprised to find that the current food safety system in the United States has neither safety or common sense. But she would be one of the few who doesn't know this.

Bachmann actually called for LESS food regulation in a campaign stop in Des Moines, IA.

Salmonella, e.coli are hotter Google topics than they should be thanks to a large factory farm system that is so huge that the USDA can't keep up.

As we've noted recently, smaller food processors have been hit with needless regulation and harassment. But since we are talking about conservatives, they aren't as concerned about organic farmers but protecting the factory farm system.

You can't help but make comparisons to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, not just because they are female, mothers, and prominent Republican politicians. Both Bachmann and Palin adopt an outsider's perspective that could be used for good instead of protecting large corporations.

Mothers are the ones who are more visible in fighting to protect their kids from unsafe food (sorry to seem sexist), but Palin and Bachmann aren't as concerned about the U.S. food system as these other mothers.

Unlike Palin, Bachmann had a chance to stand up for that food safety she says she wants, but voted against the food safety bill.

As we have stated numerous times, food safety shouldn't be a political issue. We should agree on bipartisan measures to ensure food safety. Since we don't, we should be aware of the same level of reality. Rep. Bachmann should do some more homework on what is coming out of factory farms.

Photo credit: AP