Balance of Food

Argument is getting louder for Canada to have a federal school lunch program

Kids still in their snowsuits trying to hurriedly eat their brown bag lunches. The noise is rather loud and rambunctious with very little adult supervision.

We've seen a lot of press in Canada lately about the push for a national school lunch program. This imagery is shown to be an improvement over previous requests for a federal school lunch program in Canada.

Traditionally, Canada hasn't had a national school lunch program because kids would go home for lunch. Clearly those school lunch patterns have shifted.

There are schools that have school lunches, but that funding coming from provincial and territorial governments, municipal governments, and charities.

"What we'd like to see is a national school food program where all kids from across the country know that they can go to school and get access to healthy food and eat it in an environment that teaches them about what healthy food means and about nutrition," said Sasha McNicoll, coordinator at the Coalition for Healthy School Food, organized by the advocacy group Food Secure Canada.

McNicoll and Diana Bronson, executive director of Food Secure Canada, have been behind a lot of this press, including this op-ed column in the Toronto Star.

That is an ideal, as are the policies of numerous countries such as Japan, France, and Brazil. The fear is that a Canadian federal school lunch program might be more like the United States. A recent UNICEF report has Canada at 37 of 41 high-income countries over the lack of access to healthy food as compared to rates of obese or overweight children. Canada ranked below the United States and only ahead of Bulgaria, Malta, Turkey, and Mexico.

This clip from the 2015 film Where to Invade Next from Michael Moore demonstrates the gold standard for school lunches. Should Canada shoot for this ideal standard in setting up a federal school lunch program?

BalanceofFood.com school lunch coverage

BalanceofFood.com Canada policy coverage

Canada wouldn't quite have the hostility toward a federal school lunch program that exists politically south of the 49th parallel. However, there would be some conservatives that don't want to spend federal money on the nutrition of young children. The other countries have a better sense of food, where teaching about nutrition in the classroom or lunchroom is more viable.

So if Canada is going on this route and implement a federal school lunch program, here are some detours to navigate:

• Kids need time to eat lunch. This has been an ongoing issue in the United States where children simply don't have enough time to eat lunch.
• Don't hold school lunch funding increases in the hands of politicians. The United States has had one non-inflationary increase in school lunch funding since 1974. That increase was 6¢ per lunch.
• Schedule field trips to hydroponic and aquaponic farms. Canada is a cold climate in most areas so school gardens like you find in Berkeley, CA aren't as prominent. Children should see food being grown in some fashion.
• Parents and caretakers have to be part of the nutrition education process.
• Start out with high standards. This may seem obvious, but you don't want to have to negotiate quality over time. The standards can't be too high if the children aren't used to eating food that is less sweet and processed. They still have to want to eat the school lunch.
• Be ready to improvise with remote communities. Canada has a lot of areas that are difficult to get to, whether that be in Labrador, the territories, or northern communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

I would love to have the research time and money to answer this question: Is Canada still better off without a federal school lunch program than the United States is with a federal school lunch program. Yes, Canada has problems with school children not getting enough nutrition for breakfast and lunch. Food insecurity is a little too common in Canada. The hope is that a federal program in Canada would be able to do better for kids than the U.S. system does for its kids.

Culinary high school programs could solve multiple food issues

We have seen some good anecdotal evidence over what Canada can do with a school lunch program. We wrote about a program in Edmonton where students can learn culinary skills. First Nation formed its own Natoaganeg Community Food Centre last fall to educate children about the importance of healthy food. The community food centre even has wild meat and fish provided by hunters from the community. Canadian Feed the Children has worked with the community on its school lunch program.

Canada offers a lot of advantages over the United States. The population is 11% of what the U.S. has. The society respects that school lunch is important. Canadians are more trusting of government. They can learn from the mistakes that other countries implemented with a federal school lunch program. If the Canadian can surpass the United States, that would be progress.

Unlike in previous years, the people fighting for a federal school lunch program has a clearer image of where we are and where Canada should go than we've seen in past years. Canada is the only country in the G7/G8 without a federal school lunch program. The Liberals under Justin Trudeau have a lot of their plate (pun intended). This would be an ideal time to get Canada on the list of countries with a federal school lunch program.

photos credit: Sweetgreen
video credit: YouTube/Where to Invade Next

Chipping away at the few school lunch gains under Barack Obama

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos hints she may cut free and reduced lunch school programs for poor children https://t.co/otuN97ICak

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2017

Betsy DeVos, who amazingly is the actual Secretary of Education in the United States, made a recent crack about "free lunch." Given the GOP speed at proposing to eliminate the gains in the school lunch in the Obama Administration and go beyond, the "free lunch" joke didn't go over well in the Twittersphere.

By the same logic, the classrooms, teachers, library (if you have one), gymnasium, chalk, and desks are also "free." School programs are subsidized by taxpayer dollars. The government, in all forms, have worked really hard to make sure as little money is spent on those school lunches. Republicans and conservative Democratic politicians, in particular, have worked hard to make sure the food served is as non-nutritious as possible.

The GOP is also looking into making qualification into the program more difficult and reducing nutrition standards. 

If you are going to use taxpayer money for education, then you should get the best return. Healthy school lunches can be efficient in making that happen.

Blanche Lincoln, who worked hard to cut school lunch increase, lost her Senate race

BalanceofFood.com school lunch coverage

The lack of a solid immigration policy has hurt farmers in recent years in terms of workers to harvest the food that ends up on American plates. We are hearing rumblings of that situation being that much worse this summer. How much damage will need to happen before the MSM starts to pay attention? You would think the answer would be "a lot" but this may be a trick question since they likely will never pay attention.

Food prices would go up with food left unharvested, but that connection is difficult to find in the thinking of major media.

Donald Trump wants to gut food safety regulations

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on how they approach food

FDA sets 2018 deadline for added sugars on food labels

U.S. should copy minister of urban agriculture idea from Venezuela

Canadian Senate suggests food policy changes U.S. should copy

5 questions you should ask presidential candidates about U.S. food policy

Sonny Perdue is still the choice of the new administration for Secretary of Agriculture. Perdue's nomination has run into problems with the Office of Government Ethics over possible conflict-of-interest concerns should Perdue be the ag secretary as well as ethics concerns while governor of Georgia.

Perdue's paperwork hasn't even reached the Senate, the body that would confirm his nomination. One of those senators is his cousin, Sen. David Perdue (R-GA).

Perdue has worked in agriculture, a rarity for those in the chair of the Secretary of Agriculture. He once ran a grain and fertilizer business. Environmental groups are concerned about his record.

Whether Perdue or someone else ends up being the Ag Secretary, we won't know until they are confirmed as to how policy will change. No one expects improvements; more about lessening damage.

Celebrating the Michelle Obama legacy for food and nutrition

However symbolic the White House organic garden may be, the garden is staying. Michelle Obama took steps to ensure the garden will stay and Melania Trump has also said the garden will stay.

We are still very early on in the process of this new administration. Given his love for fast food and disdain for vegetables, combined with the GOP narrow view of quality in the food supply, we have to keep an eye out for what may happen next.  

Twitter grab: Twitter @BenjaminNorton

Celebrating the Michelle Obama legacy for food and nutrition

Michelle Obama will leave behind an incredible legacy as First Lady of the United States on food, nutrition, childhood obesity, and school lunches. Let's Move made an impact on trying to get kids to spend less time on screens and more time playing.

The First Lady used television well in a natural manner to spread the message. iCarly fit in well to attracting young people to hear the message. The Biggest Loser was a natural fit with people trying to lose weight. Let's not forget the many talk show appearances from Ellen to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

You might think that her natural grace and flair comes easy. Some of us still can't shake the image of Nancy Reagan on Diff'rent Strokes talking about drug abuse. Nancy Reagan used to be an actress.

Like Batman, Michelle Obama had her list of enemies: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Chicago Tribune, Basil Marceaux, James Sensenbrenner, those against federal school lunch programs. Instead of being constructive, they were destructive. Obama played it cool every time, even when the other side won significant victories. As she noted during the 2016 election campaign, "when they go low, we go high."

The White House organic garden started out as a powerful symbol but also proved beneficial to people in the capital city with bountiful produce.

Regardless of who the next president of the United States was going to be, Michelle Obama's legacy needs to be applauded. Michelle Obama, private citizen, will still have a platform after January 20 and we hope she takes advantage of that opportunity. The Obamas are staying in Washington until Sasha graduates from high school. The organic garden isn't too far away from their new home, if the new tenants will let her.

Her enemies, who fought hard and mostly without facts, will work to destroy anything Obama accomplished in her 8 years in that role. They can't take away her legacy, the idea that someone with power wanted people to eat better and exercise more. Obama talked about "vegetable feasts," not "federal food nannies." Her positivity can't be shattered.

Since there will be significant changes in the government, keeping the legacy of Michelle Obama alive requires the help of the people. We have touted the need for government to help where it can. The American people need to help out that legacy. Fight for school lunch reform. Encourage people to grow gardens. Focus on new food labels with an emphasis on added sugars.

The fear is that her legacy reads more like an obituary. Let's not make this an obituary.

BalanceofFood.com U.S. food policy coverage

BalanceofFood.com Congress food policy coverage

BalanceofFood.com school lunch coverage

Here are a few stories we have written over the years about Michelle Obama. The articles are in reverse chronological order so you can go back to the beginning.

2016

5 questions you should ask presidential candidates about U.S. food policy

2015

Appreciating Jon Stewart, The Daily Show on food and nutrition

President Obama needs to replace Sam Kass with a nutrition czar

2014

Saying goodbye to the Colbert Report

Election Day back when school lunch reform made headlines

Michelle Obama fights back against GOP school lunch cuts

2013

Barack Obama has 4 more years to improve U.S. food supply, but we need to help

2012

Election Day through the eyes of the food supply

BalanceofFood.com endorses Michelle Obama to be First Lady for 4 more years

Sarah Palin's diet/fitness philosophy likely similar to Michelle Obama's approach

iCarly tries to make veggies 'wacky' to appeal to young children

Michelle Obama talks of vegetable feasts on 'Daily Show'

Michelle Obama uses 'Biggest Loser' to push 'Let's Move'

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

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

2012 braces to be rough political year for food advocacy

2011

Rep. James Sensenbrenner latest to pile onto Michelle Obama

'Federal Food Nannies' aren't real, despite Chicago Tribune editorial

What should Michelle Obama do if she wants to order fast food in public?

Christie, Huckabee stand up for Michelle Obama, but repeat Sarah Palin's lies in the process

Rush Limbaugh better off learning Michelle Obama's 'rules' before he criticizes them

Podcast: Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, and the politics of breastfeeding

2010

Obama signs school lunch bill, still waiting on food safety bill

Sarah Palin could help improve food supply if she argued policy, not politics

Seek out White House reminders of fresh local food

Basil Marceaux's paranoia aside, government will never measure waistlines

Michelle Obama also strikes the balance of food

Going back to 1970s might be best way to cut future childhood obesity

Should hear soon about White House childhood obesity task force

Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move' gets Kids Choice Award seal of approval

Michelle Obama takes obesity fight straight to corporations

2009

Has Barack Obama found the Balance of Food?

Why White House organic vegetable garden is so important

photo credit: iCarly/Nickleodeon

The Biggest Loser still avoiding healthy food options

My Diet Is Better Than Yours proved a reality TV weight-loss show can show positive nutrition tips. So let's look at how a long-time player handles the topic of food temptations.

The Biggest Loser is focusing on temptations this season. In Episode 2, the show promised us footage of the contestants dealing with food temptations.

The track record of the program has been about exercise like Ivory Soap has been about pure. The rare instances of nutrition have come when the show featured teenagers. Adults need help, too.

Collapsing on a treadmill!? TV gold. Learning good nutrition? Off-camera, please.

My Diet Is Better than Yours proves valuable with helpful food tips

Previewing 2016 weight-loss TV shows

We were taken to a pretend food court. Since we can't learn anything without a game, the contestants had to identify the correct food based on the nutritional content questions, race down and grab that food and bring the food back to the starting line.

Which one of these dishes has the most fat? chicken parmesan, meat lasagna, pepperoni pizza, cheese calzone

This isn't really a question about actual nutrition; this was more about pointing to which fat food had slightly more fat than the other fat foods. Also, the serving size was chosen at random so the contestants couldn't really factor portions into their thinking, like they would do in real life.

Pepperoni pizza is the answer: 3 slices of pizza with 1050 calories, 48 grams of fat, and 1920 mg of sodium. Half the calories came from saturated fat. We don't know which dish was the "healthiest." That would have been more helpful.

They didn't mention that most of that fat comes from mozzarella cheese. Few Americans know the fat content of food, and the question ignores potential good fat.

Which of these food items is considered to be the unhealthiest on the school lunch menu? chicken burritos, cheese nachos, steak tacos, cheese quesadillas

Cheese nachos won out with 1570 calories, 60 grams of fat, and 2380 mg sodium. We learned that the nachos had more calories than a kid should eat all day.

The question is subjective: based on fat, sodium, calories, or all of the above? Also, cheese nachos can be made healthier with black beans and plenty of vegetables, though school children aren't getting that version.

Chicken alfredo, macaroni and cheese, and pie a la mode were the other answers to the food court questions. Then again, if you aren't sure about these dishes, you won't learn anything advantageous on this show.

CanadianCrossing.com reality TV coverage

The message was AVOID, AVOID but without any positive reinforcement. Jasmin on My Diet was still able to eat macaroni and cheese with healthy upgrades. The Biggest Loser contestants were just scared. Did they learn how to avoid said temptation? Nope. Just learned that BAD was BAD. Sigh.

After the food court games, the contestants were taken to a lab to see how much sugar and fat they were putting in their bodies. Colby, a large man with a thick Georgia accent, has a drinking problem: in an average day, Colby drinks a 6-pack of soda, 3 sweet ice teas, 6 glasses of juice, and a sport drink. That comes out to 1.25 lbs. of "sugar" a day, with a lot of that sweetener being high-fructose corn syrup.

Scary, to be consistent, but helpful in that Colby was consuming mass amount of calories that didn't involve food. A small nugget of knowledge, even if it isn't positive.

The food court losers also had to eat the food as punishment for losing. In the second half of week 2, the contestants had to drag food trucks, and the losing team had to eat off the food trucks for the week.

Yes, these shows are designed to humiliate and play up emotions, but there is so much the people and the viewers could be learning on these shows. Good nutrition would be a significant start.

photos credit: The Biggest Loser/NBC

5 questions you should ask presidential candidates about U.S. food policy

As we enter a year that is evenly divisible by 4, this is the season to elect nominees for president of the United States, and then on November 8, actually elect the next president of the United States. The new president will be inaugurated one year from today.

As we've seen under Barack Obama, there is only so much a president can do. There is only so much a First Spouse can do, but damn, Michelle Obama has set a very high bar.

The Dems might get control of the Senate back to start 2017. There are no guarantees in politics, but a number of Senate seats (e.g., Illinois, Wisconsin) flipped to the GOP in a backlash in 2010 that should flip back. Also, the Dems tend to do better in lower races in presidential cycles lately.

The House of Representatives is a different beast thanks to redistricting, also from that 2010 election. The way the districts are drawn, the likelihood of the Dems getting enough seats are extremely slim. And even if that happens, some of those wins will be short-lived.

Food politics: Getting change despite a GOP-controlled House and Senate

The president can play a role in momentum for the nation, or in the case of the United States, not try to push the idea of ketchup being a vegetable.

We finally got a presidential candidate to weigh in (pun intended) on school lunches. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie promised a 11-year-old Iowa boy to do away with the healthy school lunch initiative. The boy had complained that pizza and crispitos had disappeared from the menu.

"I don't care what you're eating for lunch every day. I really don't. I want you to eat whatever your mother wants you to eat and your father want you to eat," Christie said. If his parents really want their children to eat crispitos, they could serve them for dinner or even breakfast.

"I want people to eat healthier. I've been trying to eat more healthy. We all should be trying to do that. It makes us better, makes us living longer, better quality of life, all the rest of it. But in the end, it's your choice."

The theoretical objective is that government shouldn't decide what kids should eat for school lunches. Even in the days of school lunches before Michelle Obama got involved, government decided what kids should eat for school lunches. Deciding that healthier is better has advantages on several levels, including improving school performance. Also, with some households, a healthy school lunch is a child's best meal of the day.

Gov. Christie had a much kinder reaction to Michelle Obama's quest in 2011 when he wasn't running for president.

As a citizen who is determining who to vote for to be the next president of the United States, you should be able to ask the folks who are running where they stand, or don't stand, on food policy. If you live in a state up for grabs and/or choose to reach out to them, here are some ideas on what to ask.

Where do you stand on the FDA's move to include added sugars on nutrition labels? What additional moves would you work toward as president to increase consumers' knowledge of the food they are buying?

When we finally get nutrition labels that reflect added sugars, we will get that separation between fruit and milk sugars vs. added sugars to give a better reflection in sweet foods. The previous Canadian conservative government wanted to lump all the sugars together, defeating the purpose of added sugars.

Added sugars should be measured in grams, not teaspoons

What's Tempting: Tracking added sugars

What's Tempting: Food labels listing added sugars

Adding sugars, especially high-fructose corn syrup, is a way for food companies to make foods more addictive. The litany of synonyms for sugar help to throw off consumers looking for sugar in listed ingredients.

This is an example of government regulation that aids consumers without being overbearing in the marketplace. The next president can do more to help consumers through FDA action.

Would you continue to have a "nutrition czar" in the White House? How much priority would a "nutrition czar" have in your administration?

The Obama Administration brought in Sam Kass as a senior policy adviser for nutrition policy and executive director of Let’s Move! Kass served in that role from the start of the administration until leaving in December 2014.

Debra Eschmeyer, who co-founded Food Corps (an AmeriCorps type service program), replaced Kass in those roles.

The surgeon general used to play a larger role in health policy. But the obstruction has limited having a surgeon general in the position, and even when a person is finally in power, little is said about food and nutrition. Policymakers are aware that the United States has a senior policy adviser for nutrition policy, but average Americans would have no idea (unless they read BalanceofFood.com.)

President Obama needs to replace Sam Kass with a nutrition czar

This is not a knock at Eschmeyer or Kass but a reality check that increased visibility would help people possibly rethink their approach to food. Michelle Obama is an excellent spokesperson but more people should know what Eschmeyer is doing to help people.

There is a concern that this push toward better nutrition will suffer when the Obamas leave, even if the next president comes from the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton has certainly been active in nutrition and exercise concerns. The next president should take what is there and build onto that success.

While we would be tempted to have this post reach to a cabinet level position, that person would be subject to confirmation by people who don't believe the government has a role in a better food policy.

In 2010, Congress passed a 6¢ increase in school lunch funding, the first such non-inflationary increase in 36 years. But Congress hasn't passed any increases since then. Are America's children worth a better investment in their school lunches? If you don't think money is the answer, what can we do to improve the nutrition our kids are getting in their learning environment?

We know children can be, well, selective, in their eating habits. Making food nutritious can change the taste of foods, particularly if your palate is used to, well, junk. While steps have been taken to improve the nutritional content of school lunches, patience wasn't part of that package.

The news has been grandiose from Washington but on the local level, the backlash is louder and more effective. Still, we are better off than we were 5 years ago.

Election Day back when school lunch reform made headlines

The next president can build off this limited success. Building momentum beyond a 4-year or 8-year term as president has been a significant burden for those who believe in long-term, progressive growth. Still, the potential for 16 years in a positive direction could do wonders for a really tough area of concern in school lunches.

What would you include in a national food policy?

By the absence of an official national food policy, we still have one. But we should have an official national food policy and work toward reaching those goals.

"We have the My Pyramid, I mean, MyPlate. Isn't that enough?" A start, but not close to what we need.

What's Tempting: National food policy

Sadly, our unofficial national food policy is a race to the bottom. The school lunch program best exemplifies this short-sighted madness. Maybe we do need a "Bill of Rights" for food policy. Our proposal in 2008 was for the incoming president pick Michael Pollan as Secretary of Agriculture. Mark Bittman might have been better suited, even if he has crossed over to the food producer side.

A national food policy should be a balance of the ideals of a food supply, but also have a voice and contribution from food producers, though that balance should be more in favor of the former than the latter. As for the contributions of food producers, see the next question.

What should the private sector, the food suppliers, do to improve the food supply in this country?

Question 4 should apply to both major political parties, but the GOP isn't interesting in a national food policy. Maybe 50 local food policies, though as we've seen with the European Union, a unified front can do wonders for food quality. If Question 4 doesn't interest the Republicans, Question 5 should be entirely relevant.

Sarah Palin's diet/fitness philosophy likely similar to Michelle Obama's approach

Podcast: Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, and the politics of breastfeeding

Sarah Palin could help improve food supply if she argued policy, not politics

Like with climate change, Republican politicians can deny the problems. But people who vote Republican know our food supply is not managed well. Farmers who vote Republican know we need changes. Like climate change, we need a dialogue from all sides of the equation.

Food producers need to be held more accountable in their practices. As we've seen in other countries, these need not be intrusive. Just that people should know what they are buying.

Republicans, especially politicians from that party, like to talk about free enterprise and unfiltered capitalism. Many of the criticisms from the left, such as subsidizing GMO corn and soybeans, would also be criticisms from the right if the question were framed in a way that would appeal to them.

The populism of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump has shown there is a cry from both sides of the aisle over significant change, including the food supply. The best way to appeal to Republicans is to skip past the politicians, pundits, and the crony class right to the people who struggle financially to put food on the table.

Mark Bittman: Sell out or realist?

Mark Bittman is leaving the food policy beat after 5 years at The New York Times in part because "this column has run its course." Bittman is leaving The New York Times "to take a central role in a year-old food company."

If Mark Bittman feels that way, imagine how I feel after 10 years of covering the beat without the money, fame, and influence he has had.

A journalist friend of mine who covers the food beat still has a job, but her workload got cut back recently. She would do well in the NYT role as would I because we are still committed to food policy journalism.

"I've raised the topics I thought I should; I made the best arguments around those subjects where I was capable; I threw my heart and energy into it; and to a large extent have said what I had to say."

Though I have been doing this blog for 10 years, I can relate to this sentiment. You have seen fewer stories recently at BalanceofFood.com because to some extent, I have spoken what needs to be said on a number of issues. But I still think strong, good voices should be heard on food and nutrition.

The fact that Bittman went after Tamar Haspel's "ridiculous stance" on "expressing disdain for salads" is all the more reason for him to stay around.

A year or two ago, I would have ripped into Haspel over her take on salads. Maybe I understand Bittman more than I care to admit.

"I've been surprised by the lack of progress in other areas. I would have bet that we'd have gotten antibiotics out of the food supply by now, because the downside of their abuse is so clear. That hasn't happened, largely through a lack of conviction on the part of the Obama administration (no industry is going to voluntarily stop using an ingredient if it believes it benefits its business)."

As someone who has covered food and politics, I have not been surprised at a lack of progress. Criticizing the Obama administration is perfectly fine, but understand that every single positive change from government has happened while Obama has been in office. Also, the Dems have controlled the House, Senate, and White House at the same time for only 4 years since 1981. As slow as the U.S. political system moves even when people are on the same page, glaciers are literally moving faster, even without climate change.

Even with a presidential election in 2016, the political landscape won't change terribly much. A Democratic administration might extend what the Obamas have done, but Bernie Sanders might be the only Dem running for president who would address significant change in this area. Thanks to redrawing congressional boundaries in a heavily partisan fashion, the House is likely to remain under GOP control until at least 2022, no matter how little they do. Without the House, the Senate can't generate a lot of momentum on the topic.

"But it's time to hang 'em up. Just after I started this column, I promised my editors that I wouldn't overstay my welcome, that five years represented a sensible amount of time to rail against the injustices and praise the advances I was seeing in the world of food and things linked to it."

I'm not quite sure what direction this blog will take. We certainly have stories to write about food and its impact. But we don't want to keep writing about the same points with the same level of outrage. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are still alive but aren't in the business of attacking what passes for food marketing and policy. We don't see Larry Wilmore or Trevor Noah or even John Oliver spending too much time on food policy.

A lot of journalists have been forced to sell out because journalism jobs keep disappearing. Bittman's job at The New York Times is disappearing, though voluntarily. We need more good food writers in positions of power to wage influence over the American food scene. If The New York Times were to call or e-mail, we would be glad to discuss a future in food policy journalism. Hopefully, more people will take up the task to try and make a difference.

Mark Bittman may be quitting the fight, but the fight needs to go on for a long time.

Appreciating Jon Stewart, The Daily Show on food and nutrition

Unlike the Colbert Report, The Daily Show isn't going off the air. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is leaving the airwaves tonight. We don't know quite what to expect for the future Daily Show.

Let's start by pointing out that the actual show is taking a hiatus until late September. The Daily Show with Trevor Noah debuts on September 28. We don't know how much the new incarnation will spend on food trends or nutrition issues. The new host might be more aghast at American food trends.

The Daily Show has been taking its own look back at the amazing Jon Stewart era, mostly in silly ways such as his singing ability, noises, and his (mostly early) ritual of saying he hadn't seen or read the guest's work.

Daily Show coverage on BalanceofFood.com

Saying goodbye to the Colbert Report

We wanted to take our own look at what Jon Stewart and others on and off the screen at the show have contributed to bringing awareness to food and nutrition trends.

While Stewart's focus wasn't as much on food as his counterpart Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report, The Daily Show has had some fun while shining a badly needed light on hunger issues, school lunches, food safety, and even some time for Baconnaise.

Jon Stewart would occasionally take on the indulgences of food, such as his "love" for Baconnaise and Jimmy Dean's pancakes and sausage on a stick.

Who can forget Stewart's odd obsession with Arby's? We are going to miss that and a lot more.

We are going to miss Jon Stewart and what he has brought to The Daily Show since 1999. We are especially going to miss what he and the rest of the crew have said about food and nutrition trends.

Food stamps/hunger

Jason Greenslate is no proof of food stamps fraud

Expensive seafood on food stamps is latest conservative lie

Daily Show on the real life Hunger Games

Temptation of the Week: A Place at the Table

School lunch

Paul Ryan school lunch lie is why we need truthful discussion

850 calories argument makes for good TV, but falls short on honesty

Food safety

Daily Show takes on Subway yoga mat bread

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

Jon Stewart, Spaghetti O's, and the food safety bill

Corporate food

Daily Show slams Monsanto's seed dominance

Daily Show takes on ag-gag laws

Other highlights

Dylan Ratigan making nice transition to helping veterans become farmers

Daily Show finds the bliss point with Michael Moss

Daily Show has fun with Quebec maple syrup heist

Temptation of the Week: Reducing drink sizes

Michelle Obama talks of vegetable feasts on Daily Show

Daily Show tells us we are getting just a little fatter

Daily Show takes on Happy Meals in San Francisco

Setting food rules is good, but make them your own rules (Michael Pollan)

Robert Kenner on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Daily Show takes on backlash toward White House organic garden

Can baconnaise be part of the balance?

photo credit: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

What's Tempting: Real treats from childhood

Some of our food sensibilities run really deep. Food companies using nostalgia have a much easier time bringing us back. However, the problem lies when we aren't getting what we truly yearn for from way back when.

Little Debbie's is using nostalgia in its latest campaign, with childhood versions reminding adults how they were once children who would enjoy Little Debbie's treats.

In the chocolate cupcakes commercial, the younger version of the woman is there "reminding you how things used to be. How you'd have a Little Debbie whenever you finished cleaning your room or finished a book report."

The woman continues the thought process: "Or finished a garden."

"You've earned it," said the girl.

The tagline is "Your love for Little Debbie is something you never outgrow."

Let's pretend the person in the commercial is your humble narrator. Let's see how the conversation should really go.

Younger Self: "I'm here to remind you how things used to be. How you'd have a Little Debbie whenever you came home from school after the horrible cafeteria lunches or finished piano practice."

Current Self: "Yeah. Back then, I was starving for calories. Eating the treats was just to make up for lost calories at lunchtime. Now, I'm definitely not starving for calories."

Younger Self: Yeah, but food … treats … you know. The connection. Emotions. Eating. You remember.

Current Self: Look where that lifetime emotional eating has me now. Bigger than I want to be. I don't always enjoy the food.

Younger Self: But you would enjoy the Little Debbie treat. Brings back some good childhood memories. If you had my metabolism, you wouldn't even think about it.

Current Self: Okay, you talked me into it. Give me the Little Debbie's from my childhood.

Younger Self: Well, no. You have to buy Little Debbie's in your time. I'm just a visual reminder.

Current Self: Yeah, but the 2015 version has high-fructose corn syrup and doesn't taste nearly as good as what I used to love.

Younger Self: That's way over my head. I'm a kid. I run around and eat whatever I can.

The conversation would revolve around Twinkies and Hostess products since they were relevant in my childhood. Regular readers know of my love for Canadian Twinkies back when they did taste like the snack cakes of my childhood.

• 2012 losses: Dublin Dr. Pepper and authentic Canadian Twinkies

• Death of the Canadian Twinkie: Alive in name only

If you were into Little Debbie's and you miss them, the 2015 version of Little Debbie's isn't a trip back to your childhood. The girl on the box is the same, but what is inside the box isn't the same.

I've wanted a time machine to go back and have the soft drinks of my youth, the Kentucky Fried Chicken (not KFC) where you had to wait for 5-7 minutes for your food to be freshly cooked and that dark brown color of the chicken skin that you can't get now. My parents wanted to go back to the days before Kentucky Fried Chicken of their college years, the actual restaurant Harlan Sanders had in Corbin, KY. They aren't getting their "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and I'm not getting my Kentucky Fried Chicken version either.

We could easily have a debate over whether adults of a certain age should be eating that much extra dessert, even for nostalgia. I would argue that if you could have the childhood version of Twinkies, Little Debbie's, KFC, 7UP, or your childhood favorite, you should have that if only to remind you of what we have today.

When Michelle Obama wanted to reduce the childhood obesity rate, the mark she set was what the obesity rate was in the 1970s. There are numerous factors involved as to why obesity levels have risen, but the junk food of the 1970s was better for you than a lot of the junk food now.

We now live in a society where people take pictures of what they eat. We use the pictures to remind us of what we ate. I would love to go back and take some pictures with our "futuristic" smartphones of the food from my childhood. I would love to go back and have some of that food again.

But I can't. That food doesn't exist and there is no time machine. I do have great memories of eating junk food from my childhood, and I loved not having to think about calories back then.

In the donuts commercial, the little girl has a line at the end: "You're going to pay for that." She means money, but could be applied to calories and high-fructose corn syrup.

Those days are over. You can't go home. Have nostalgia for what once was, but live in the moment, create new food memories, and don't get bullied by food companies with false nostalgia substitutions. Hold out for the real thing, real memories of better tasting junk food gone by in time.

photo credit: Little Debbie's

President Obama needs to replace Sam Kass with a nutrition czar

The legacy of a president is made not just what is done while in office, but the precedents set during the administration.

Sam Kass served as the first White House senior policy adviser on nutrition. So as Kass has now left the White House to move to New York City to be with his new bride, MSNBC's Alex Wagner, will President Obama find a replacement to be the White House senior policy adviser on nutrition?

As we enter the 7th year of the 8 years the Obamas will be in the White House, the time is now to think about the legacy set by Barack and Michelle Obama, each in their own way, to set an example for better-grown food and improved nutrition knowledge.

Whoemver the next president will be, that person hopefully will continue having such a role in the White House. The best way to establish that legacy is for Obama to get a replacement for Kass.

Kass will still be involved with Let's Move. Kass said he will take a position in the private sector to promote healthy eating. But we also need someone in the government to play that role.

The White House organic garden, advocacy for better nutrition for school lunch and breakfast programs: these are some of the legacies Kass left behind in that role. But as Kass and many others have discovered, there is so much more work to be done.

One area a new senior policy adviser on nutrition (nutrition czar?) would be of great help is the changes to the Nutrition Facts labeling, including to make sure that added sugars becomes a permanent fixture in nutrition labeling.

If nothing else, health care costs, especially with a for-profit system, are a vital reason to have someone watching out for nutrition in the White House.

At some point, a Republican will win the White House. The hope is by then that a nutrition czar will be so firmly in the fixtures of the White House that even a GOP president will appoint a nutrition czar.

We saw during the extensive length of time in between surgeon generals that the political process can't drag down those fighting to improve the health of the citizens of the United States. The NRA freaked out over non-controversial comments made by Vivek Murthy, and got GOP Congressional members (not that they had to work hard to twist their arms) to delay Murthy's confirmation.

Unlike a surgeon general, a nutrition czar (or senior policy adviser on nutrition) would not have to be confirmed by the Senate. Still, putting these people in a position to help shouldn't be bogged down by political nonsense.

Unofficially, the focus on nutrition will be a significant part of the Obama presidential legacy. It's time to make that legacy a lot more official.

Election Day back when school lunch reform made headlines

Remember the days when we were bemoaning only a 6¢ increase in school lunch funding, the first non-inflationary increase in school lunch funding in 36 years?

What we wouldn't do to get another 6¢ non-inflationary increase in school lunch funding.

Election Day 2014 is today, and we aren't writing about the prospects of what today's results will mean for school lunch reform. The House is controlled by the GOP and that party would rather cut or eliminate school lunch funding rather than expanding the potential for millions of school children.

With gerrymandering, the GOP should retain control of the House through 2020, regardless of what Congress does. If the GOP gets controls of the Senate today (which the major TV news pundits have been long predicting), food industry reform, much less school lunch reform, is dead.

Barack Obama is still president and Michelle Obama is still kicking tail with Let's Move and trying to get kids (and adults) to eat better. But they need help — and even when the Dems were in charge for 2 years, all they could get was that 6¢ increase.

We are seeing conservative Democratic politicians running away from the president. Typically, the president's party loses seats in the 6th year of a presidency, which heightens the pundits' predictions. Loss of the Senate would put potential food industry reforms even further back on the national agenda.

So on this Election Day, please go out and vote. Do your research and bring notes to the voting booth. This is your country. This is your food supply. Voting sends a message that you are paying attention to what is going on, or not going on, in Washington and state capitals throughout the country.

After you vote, you can read some of the past election coverage of food issues from Election Days that offered more hope, promise, and change than Election Day 2014.

2012

• Election Day through the eyes of the food supply
• Latest school lunch improvements prove it's important who gets elected

2011

• Instead of 'no,' GOP needs to say 'yes' to solving food problems

2010

• Obama signs school lunch bill, still waiting on food safety bill
• We have a school lunch bill; President Obama should sign bill by the WH organic garden
• Blanche Lincoln, who worked hard to cut school lunch increase, lost her Senate race
• Election Day: vote for the future of food and nutrition legislation