Sunday, March 1, 2015

Healthy Food for a Healthy World: Economic Costs of Global MalnutritionBy Louise Iverson, Research Associate, Global Agriculture & Food, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

The Chicago Council is pleased to launch a new campaign, “Healthy Food for a Healthy World,” to build awareness about the important role food can play in promoting health and alleviating malnutrition. We will publish one blog post each week exploring these issues, and the series will culminate in the release of a new Chicago Council report at the Global Food Security Symposium 2015 on April 16. Look for a new post each Wednesday, join the discussion using #GlobalAg, and tune in to the Symposium live steam on April 16.   
Malnutrition affects one in two people on the planet.* This figure may seem astounding, since we often think of malnutrition only in limited terms of famine and food shortages. But malnutrition encompasses not just undernourishment but also obesity, which can lead to diet-related diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes, and some forms of cancers. These two opposing ends of the spectrum together affect billions of people and nearly every country in the world, which bear severe human and economic costs.
Undernourishment: 805 million people are chronically undernourished worldwide. Undernourishment rates are highest among rural farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, who farm small plots of land and barely produce enough to feed their families or make a living. This poor nutrition inhibits health and well-being, and is particularly perilous in early childhood: Undernourishment in a child’s first two years leads to stunted physical and mental growth, and undernutrition is implicated in the deaths of 3.1 million children under five each year, or 45 percent of under-five mortality. The effects of poor nutrition are often irreversible and last a lifetime: adults who were undernourished as children earn 20 percent less than adults who were not. Those adults also are more likely to contract chronic diseases, and women who were undernourished as children face greater rates of maternal mortality and low birth weight.
Obesity: Conversely, 1.4 billion worldwide are overweight or obese. Obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for diet-related chronic diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes, and some forms of cancers. In 2008, such diseases accounted for 63 percent of all global deaths and are on track to be the leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. Health care costs and lost labor productivity as a result of obesity cost nations billions per year, inhibiting economic growth.  
And while undernourishment rates are slowly declining, global obesity is projected to skyrocket, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As a result, many nations must now face the dual burden of malnutrition as they confront both facets of malnutrition simultaneously.
Eating healthy foods can help prevent and treat malnutrition in all its forms.  But too often healthy foods are not available, affordable, safe, or appealing. In the coming weeks, The Chicago Council will explore how all parts of the food system—farmers and fishers, processors, food manufacturers, retailers, legislators, and consumers—can better support health while driving economic growth and protecting the environment.

That is all easier said than done. So how can we leverage our global food system to improve people’s health?  Join us in tackling this question over the next ten weeks. Tweet your ideas at @GlobalAgDev using #GlobalAg or post them on our Facebook page.  
References

Posted by at No comments:

U.N. Seeks Sweeping Power To Control Food, Water


Putting life's essentials under the direct control of perhaps the most corrupt organization on earth doesn't strike us as wise. But that's what a new U.N. report, "21 Issues for the 21st Century," would do.
It suggests "international protocols" and a "shared vision" for land and water use that would, essentially, end current national laws and treaties governing their use.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Just two months ago, the U.N. suggested a "minimum global tax," and the idea was immediately embraced by some in the Obama administration as a good idea. It's not.
Still, this utopian notion of "one-world government" dies hard. Even though the United Nations has been found to be financially corrupt and almost entirely ineffective, it continues to seek new, sweeping powers.
The 192 member-countries that make up the U.N. see these sweeping new powers to tax us, tell us what food to grow and whom to sell it to, and to give up our rights to our own water as a way to bring the mighty U.S. under the world's heel. They envy our wealth and clout.
President Obama has made it clear throughout his presidency that he doesn't see the U.S. as an exceptional nation, just one of many. That's where the problem begins, since it emboldens the bureaucrats and thieves who run the U.N. to come up with these kinds of ideas.
And guess what? We pay for all this. In 2010, we put up $7.7 billion for U.N. operations, and footed 22% of its total budget. Yet in all its actions, the U.N. seeks to reduce American influence and sway in the world.
In recent years, the U.N. has careened from scandal to scandal, from the illegal payola received by U.N. officials, to the Iraq oil embargo, to repeated scandals involving the U.N. "Peacekeepers," who have been implicated in a deadly outbreak of cholera in Haiti that killed more than 5,000 people and the rape and abuse of female and child refugees in Africa.
And that doesn't even include the insane anti-Israel bias of the U.N.'s voting members, who see pummeling the tiny Jewish state as a way to get back at the U.S.
But sure, let's give it control of the world's resources.
The more we think of this organization, the less we like it. Maybe it's time someone asked: Do we really even need the U.N.?
Posted by at No comments:

Dash’s Market launches online grocery shopping

Groceries can be purchased, then picked up or delivered

By Samantha Christmann | News Staff Reporter | @DiscountDivaSam
on February 24, 2015 - 7:33 PM
, updated February 24, 2015 at 9:01 PM

Dash’s Market is the first supermarket in Western New York to offer online grocery shopping with in-store pickup or home delivery, jumping on a national trend many believe holds the future of grocery retailing. Dash’s rolled out initial testing of the in-store pickup service earlier this week and will make delivery and pickup widely available to the public in April.
“Online grocery shopping is a small percentage of the food business, but just like any other online business, it’s going to grow, grow, grow, and we had the opportunity to be the first in,” said Mark Mahoney, Dash’s director of operations.
The concept is already in full swing in other parts of the country.
Online grocery shopping is expected to become a $17.2 billion industry by 2019, according to a report from research company IBISWorld, with revenue expected to climb by as much as 16.9 percent in 2015 alone. Millennial shoppers as well as a declining unemployment rate are driving the growth.
“Greater disposable income and less leisure time will lead many consumers to see the value in paying more for online groceries to be delivered directly to their homes,” the report said.
Both of Western New York’s largest grocery retailers have also been considering the concept.
Wegmans began piloting a “Personal Shopping” curbside pickup program at its Pittsford store a year ago, which is going “very well,” according to spokeswoman Michele Mehaffy. The company is improving its technology and streamlining its shopping, storage, loading and payment processes to make them more efficient. It has no plans to expand service to other stores any time soon, and is not planning to offer grocery delivery. The Rochester-based grocer charges $10 plus 25 cents per item for curbside pickup orders.
Tops Markets is considering both pickup and delivery. TheAmherst-based company is researching its options, studying the processes and looking into vendor partners.
“We’re always listening to shoppers, so we’re evaluating consumer demand as well as transportation logistics along with other factors to make sure that when we start the process, we’re implementing a meaningful service for our neighbors and executing it flawlessly,” said Katie McKenna, Tops spokeswoman.
Dash’s Delivery is available within an 89-mile radius that comprises all four of its store locations, in Clarence, East Amherst, Town of Tonawanda and on Hertel Avenue.
The service is expected to be popular with busy professionals, working parents, senior citizens, people with mobility issues and 16- to 25-year-olds who grew up shopping online, according to Burt Flickinger III, managing director at retail analysis firm Strategic Resource Group.
Dash’s Markets partnered with Ithaca-based software company Rosie, which provides the technology, teaches grocers how to implement the program and provides customized marketing. Users download the Rosie Smartphone application or visit www.RosieApp.com, click on the items they want to buy, pay online with a credit or debit card, then submit their shopping list to Dash’s, where the products are pulled off the shelf, bagged and set aside. Customers can place orders online any time and schedule a one-hour window to pick up or have groceries delivered between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. daily.
For delivery, someone must be present to accept the order.
Customers picking up orders will enter the store, hand over their confirmation number, and grab their bags.
Of course, there is a premium for that convenience. Grocery pickup costs a flat fee of $2.99, and each individual item bears a variable percentage price markup. A gallon of Upstate Farms whole milk, for example, costs $4.29 when ordered online, but costs just $3.99 when you take it off the shelf yourself. For delivery, there is a flat fee of $4.99, plus the driver’s tip. Rosie does not accept coupons, but all of Dash’s sale prices will be honored when ordered online.
The added costs associated with click-and-collect are necessary to pay for the labor-intensive practice of pulling customers’ items and paying for the software system that coordinates the orders. The retailer tends not to profit on handling costs, but breaks even, Flickinger said.
Though ordering groceries online is more expensive for consumers, there are plenty of shoppers who say the cost is well worth the convenience.
Jamie Brose of Sloan, a mother of five who dreads grocery shopping, thinks it’s “a great idea.” For her, a trip to the supermarket is not just a matter of gliding through the store selecting items – it involves wrangling the kids, turning down requests for treats and policing the cart to make sure extras don’t get thrown in.
“And with the weather we have had lately, it would be nice to just order what I need and have my husband pick it up on his way home,” Brose said.
There are other benefits, too. A California-based customer recently called the store for help getting groceries to his elderly mother who normally shops at Dash’s Clarence store. Dash’s let the customer use its online ordering system, and minutes later it had an $85 grocery order, which the store delivered.
“Convenience is part of what we do and this is an extension of it,” said Joe Dash, owner.
Posted by at No comments:

New Dietary Guidelines Have the Food Industry in a Tizzy


  • February 26, 2015
Reactions
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
 Your Reaction?
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
If the government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee had its way, we’d be having a lot more “meatless Mondays,” and upping our intake of coffee and scrambled eggs. At least that’s one of the major takeaways from the revised 2015 dietary guidelines submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has leaders from several major food industries steaming.
While the report itself is absolutely packed with information both new and old (and is a whopping 571 pages long), there are a handful of new suggestions and recommendations that are surprising, and others that aren’t sitting well with big business. In a nutshell, the advisory committee has given its blessing to coffee — stating that having between three and five cups per day is perfectly healthy — and cholesterol, interestingly enough, which is no longer listed as a “nutrient of concern.”
The committee also suggests taxing sugar-packed foods and drinks, including things like soda and candy, which naturally isn’t sitting well with the manufacturers of those items. The other big recommendation from the report is that Americans cut down on their intake of meat. Particularly, a slow-down on the consumption of red and processed meats is proposed, and not only for the health benefits, but also to lessen the environmental impact of livestock production.
“For decades, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have been at the core of our efforts to promote the health and well-being of American families,” said Secretaries Burwell of HHS and Vilsack of the USDA in a joint statement.  “Now that the advisory committee has completed its recommendations, HHS and USDA will review this advisory report, along with comments from the public — including other experts — and input from other federal agencies as we begin the process of updating the guidelines.”
It’s important to keep in mind that these are only suggestions on the part of the advisory committee, and that the full dietary guidelines won’t actually be published until later in the year. This hasn’t stopped the food industry from starting its offensive, however.
The meat industry was among the first to criticize the new guideline suggestions, with the North American Meat Institute’s CEO Barry Carpenter saying that the advisory committee had ignored recent scientific studies into meat’s positive contributions to nutrition, and that the committee had engaged in a “foray into the murky waters of sustainability” that were “well beyond its scope and expertise.” This comes by way of Food Navigator-USA, which also reports that Carpenter called the advisory’s ideas “nonsensical” and “contradictory.”
Obviously, some feathers have been ruffled. The American Beverage Association reacted to the prospect of an additional tax being levied on soft drinks, which was — simply put — predictable.  “The Committee’s efforts went beyond its charge and authority to develop dietary recommendations based on scientific evidence by advocating for public policies such as taxes and restrictions on foods and beverages,” the ABA said in a press release. “The Committee does not have the authority to make such recommendations, nor the scientific evidence or expertise to back up its recommendations.”
Protests from big business groups notwithstanding, there are reasons to take these guideline recommendations with a grain of salt. As Vox points out, while these guidelines may have the country’s best nutritional interests in mind, the science behind actual health impact is often self-reported and flawed. In addition to that, there is ample opportunity for these kind of government suggestions to be influenced by lobbyists. With those important points in mind, it’s easy to see why Americans, and not just giant trade industries, may look at these prospective guidelines with a skeptical eye.
Still, it’s hard to deny that there are some basic, logical truths behind a good portion of the new recommendations the Committee is pushing. Most people probably wouldn’t argue that cutting soda and sugary soft drinks — which offer little to no nutritional value — would be a good thing. As for meat, the Committee does not recommend cutting it out altogether. But there are still plenty of issues with the meat industry that need to be addressed, including the environmental impact and links to chronic illnesses like heart disease.
What will be interesting to see is if these recommendations make it to the final cut, or if industry lobbyists can successfully carve the parts out that they don’t like. The Committee has certainly stirred the pot, and now the food industry is primed to counter.
Posted by at No comments:

5 industry winners, losers in the food guideline report

By  | February 19, 2015
A federal panel came out with its long-awaited dietary guidelines reportThursday, and although this won't be the final say before new guidelines are adopted, the effects still could cascade through the food industry for years to come. Here's a quick look at five industry winners and losers in the report:

WINNER: The egg industry

As long expected, the report drops the previous recommendation that people consume no more than 300 milligrams a day of cholesterol, but the science linking cholesterol-heavy food and actual human blood cholesterol levels isn't strong.
Whole eggs average 187 milligrams of cholesterol, so two eggs in the morning already broke the previous suggested cholesterol limit. But they're also loaded with nutrition and are one of the cheapest available sources of protein.
"There's virtually no association" between cholesterol consumption and blood cholesterol levels, Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, told Time recently. The report backs up that statement.
"Available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol," the report states.

LOSER: Refined foods industries

Sugar, processed grains and processed meat products all got called out in the guidelines, which is hardly a surprise. In short, eggs got a break in the report, but bacon did not.
"For conclusions with moderate to strong evidence, higher intake of red and processed meats was identified as detrimental compared to lower intake. Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages as well as refined grains was identified as detrimental in almost all conclusion statements with moderate to strong evidence," the report states.

WINNER: Fruit and vegetable growers

Again, no surprise there. What's interesting, though, is that the report is subtle enough to note that foods that might be good for some might not be good for all — but veggies and fruits got a big thumbs up all across the board.
"Vegetables and fruit are the only characteristics of the diet that were consistently identified in every conclusion statement across the health outcomes," the report states.

LOSER: Beef and pork producers

Excessive red meat consumption again got listed as an issue in the report, and processed meat also took a hit (as previously mentioned), but meat producers also are chapped that the potential benefits of lean meat did not get a bigger spotlight.
"We appreciate the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s (DGAC) recognition of the important role that lean meat can play in a healthy balanced diet, but lean meat’s relegation to a footnote ignores the countless studies and data that the Committee reviewed for the last two years that showed unequivocally that meat and poultry are among the most nutrient dense foods available," North American Meat Institute President and CEO Barry Carpenter said in a statement.
"Nutrient-dense lean meat is a headline, not a footnote," he said.

WINNER/LOSER: Distillers, brewers and winemakers

The report states that alcohol is in the group of foods that "were identified as beneficial characteristics of the diet for some, but not all, outcomes." That's similar to the guidelines adopted five years ago. But lest you think that you should start drinking a bit for the health benefits, the survey notes that even moderate drinking can lead to a host of unintended consequences.
"It is not recommended that anyone begin drinking or drink more frequently on the basis of potential health benefits, because moderate alcohol intake also is associated with increased risk of violence, drowning, and injuries from falls and motor vehicle crashes," the survey states. Those are perhaps not the concerns you might associate with food guidelines.
Top Image Credit: Flickr; U.S. Department of Agriculture
Posted by at No comments:

The War on Genetically-Modified-Food Critics: Et tu, National Geographic?

The consensus on the safety of GM food is perfectly clear: there is no consensus.

Since when is the safety of genetically modified food considered “settled science” on a par with the reality of evolution? That was the question that jumped to mind when I saw the cover of the March 2015 National Geographic and the lead article, “Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?”
The cover title: “The War on Science.” The image: a movie set of a fake moon landing. Superimposed: a list of irrational battles being waged by “science doubters” against an implied scientific consensus:
“Climate change does not exist.”
“Evolution never happened.”
“The moon landing was faked.”
“Vaccinations can lead to autism.”
“Genetically modified food is evil.” WHAT?
Genetically modified food is evil? First of all, what business does “evil” have in an article about scientific consensus? Sure, some people think GMOs are evil. But isn’t the controversy about whether genetically modified food is safe?
More important, what was such an item doing on a list of issues on which the vast majority of scientists would indeed have consensus? How in the world does author Joel Achenbach define “scientific consensus?” How about 95 percent of the peer-reviewed literature, as in the case of climate change? Near 100 percent, as in the case of the lack of any link between autism and vaccines, or on evolution, or the reality of the moon landing?
There is no such consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”
In other words, those studies are tainted by the same conflict of interest that the article itself denounced in the case of anti-climate-change research commissioned by oil companies. The only consensus that GM food is safe is among industry-funded researchers.
So why would the respected National Geographic make such a scientific error? And why would respected Washington Post science writer Joel Achenbach include GM safety on his list of “settled” science?
Product placement for GMOs
Call it product placement. You know, the nearly subliminal advertising technique in which Coca Cola pays a movie producer to have the characters all drink Coke. Biotechnology companies and their powerful advocates, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are succeeding in a well-planned campaign to get GM safety declared “settled science.”
The article itself hardly touches the GM controversy or the science. It focuses on the interesting and important question of how people, including scientists, interpret scientific evidence in a way tainted by “confirmation bias,” the tendency to more readily believe evidence that confirms one’s existing beliefs. Achenbach could have added science writers to the list. And magazine editors.
Achenbach focuses on climate change and evolution and vaccines, mainly. GMOs? In what amounts to a throw-away paragraph, after he’s made justifiable fun of anti-fluoride scare-mongering, he writes:
“We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because, the experts point out, there’s no evidence that it isn’t and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists running amok—and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, they talk about Frankenfood.”
What? “The experts point out?” Some do, some don’t. “There’s no evidence that it isn’t” safe to eat GMOs? What kind of science is that? Many experts would disagree, and they would certainly object to a safety standard for a new technology that is content with the epidemiologically shabby construct that if there’s no evidence something isn’t safe, it must be safe.
Thalidomide, anyone, with a pinch of DDT? What’s going on here?
Are we “depolarized” yet?
What we’re seeing is a concerted campaign to do exactly what National Geographic has knowingly or unknowingly done: paint GMO critics as anti-science while offering no serious discussion of the scientific controversy that still rages.
An indicator was a quiet announcement in the press last summer that the Gates Foundation had awarded a US$5.6 million grant to Cornell University to “depolarize” the debate over GM foods. That’s their word. The grant founded a new institute, the Cornell Alliance for Science.
“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” said project leader Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS).
Got it? The Gates Foundation is paying biotech scientists and advocates at Cornell to help them convince the ignorant and brainwashed public, who “may not be well informed,” that they are ignorant and brainwashed.
“Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields,” added Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS.
It’s kind of like depolarizing an armed conflict by giving one side more weapons.
So what you’re seeing in National Geographic is the product of improved “agricultural biotechnology communications.”
And not just there. In the last year we’ve seen the New Yorker’s slimy takedown of anti-GMO campaigner Vandana Shiva, and prominent opinion pieces by scientists, researchers, and journalists painting GMO critics as anti-science, the food policy equivalents of climate deniers and creationists.
I saw the PR machine in action in Des Moines in 2013 at the World Food Prize awards, which went that year to three biotech scientists, one from Monsanto. (It was of course pure coincidence that Monsanto had underwritten the renovation of the beautiful old building that houses the World Food Prize empire.)
At a panel discussion there the audience got heavily depolarized. Ann Glover, a European Science Advisor and designated GM bulldog, actually called anyone who still questioned the safety of GM crops “brainwashed.” Journalist Mark Lynas, who has made a career of such demonization, added his own insults.
I was sitting next to former World Food Prize winner Hans Herren, who won the prize in the 1990s for his innovative, cost-effective biological pest-control campaign that saved the African cassava crop. Brainwashed?
The consensus: There is no consensus
The consensus on the safety of GM food is perfectly clear: there is no consensus. That’s what the independent peer-reviewed literature says. And that’s what the National Geographic’s beautiful exhibit on its food series, in its Washington headquarters, says: the “long-term health and ecological consequences are unknown.“ And that is an accurate statement of the consensus, or the lack of it.
The paid shills for the petroleum industry undermined a growing consensus on climate change that was inconvenient for industry, backed by a well-funded PR campaign sowing doubt about that scientific consensus. In this case, the biotechnology industry and its allies are declaring a consensus where there is none in order to silence their critics.
The debate is over what level of precaution we should apply before allowing the large-scale commercialization of this new technology. And anyone stating that there is a scientific consensus on GM safety is coming down squarely against precaution. Reasonable people disagree, and that does not make them “science doubters.”
Are you feeling depolarized yet?
Posted by at No comments:

Britains Supermarket Revolution


Britain’s Supermarket Revolution review: “We’re beginning to shop around, shop smaller, shop more smartly”
The days of the Big Shop and the big shop are numbered – and it’s thanks to the web and the Germans

 Happy shoppers … Aldi’s rise is documented in Britain’s Supermarket Revolution. Photograph: Rex/Business Visual
I’ve never liked seeing empty shops, it makes me sad. Empty restaurants, too. But not so much when the empty shop is Tesco, which is closing down some current stores and mothballing new ones before they’ve even opened. The people who worked (or were due to start work) there have my sympathy, of course, but I don’t feel sorry for Tesco itself, especially after hearing about some of its practices in Britain’s Supermarket Revolution (BBC2).
Take “supplier income”, for example, which basically means charging people to stock their goods. That’s what happened to Jonathan, whose plastic squid bath toys used to be stocked by (and sold very well in) Tesco. One day, they told Jonathan that if he wanted that to continue, he would have to forego the £42,000 they owed him. He quite rightly told them to stuff it – and that was the end of the relationship. And the end of Jonathan’s business.
Now it’s not going so well for the big four: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons. But things are especially bad for Tesco. Who’s to blame? We are. The big weekly shop, probably at an out-of-town hypermarket, is approaching its sell-by date. We’re beginning to shop around, shop smaller, shop more smartly. More of us are shopping at Aldi and Lidl, where there’s less choice, but more for our money. And that’s what we want, especially now. More efficiency too. Some of Aldi and Lidl’s time-saving tactics – putting barcodes all over everything to speed up scanning and separating paying from bagging – might seem simple, but we didn’t think of them. We want to shop less in shops and more on the internet.
There’s lots of interesting stuff in Cherry Healey’s little documentary, some of which I knew, some I didn’t. The standout fact for me is that the typical online delivery costs the big four around £15. They’ve got to do it to keep up with Ocado, but that’s an awful lot more than we pay for the service.
Quick, shop online everyone, now, before they catch up. Take ’em down. 


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)