It is my great pleasure to introduce a conversation to set to celebrate a great new exhibit called whats cooking on uncle sam . There are great artifacts that they wrote to president Theodore Roosevelt that gave rise to the first fda has recipes from president eisenhower it is a fascinating history of food regulation we have to leading experts of government and food and health that is seemingly a symbol of the topic the first is the great the to manual from the chair of medical ethics code policy at university of pennsylvania and a phenomenal chef it got rave reviews from the Washington Post and members of the Supreme Court and is now on the james beard nominating committee. To be a great ship it just a great chef and a great friend joined by a professor of law at harvard is the director and founder of the food wall lab working on a book. We could not have done better. This conversation will be moderated by michael who is our new visiting scholar at the National Constitution center and is a superb president ial historian and one of the commentators in the country and i am thrilled to oversee this content. Ladies and gentleman please join me to welcome our guests to the show. [applause] thank you for coming we appreciated as a great honor to be here tonight for scholars to sure there expertise we cannot share food tonight that perhaps we can talk about the quality of food invited governor regulates today and the issues that are rising with food regulation so lets jump to jacob and talk about why the federal government is a ball to regulate food . To start because it has almost always been involved if you go back to read the of bible and that roman times it had lots of food lot. The basic problems are food purity and food basic that food purity problem is essentially a by putting in my body do i get what i see and how do i know that . Is the milk or water or Something Else or poisonous it is hard to tell that is true for almost all foods. So we have ways to adjust that to label in safety and production programs so much of what the federal government is doing is trying to fix that problem that food purity problem and the food safety problem. That gets us off and running. But the most pressing issue in our food regulation . Obesity has to be at the top worried about National Health policy it is number 12 and three with diabetes alone we spend 250 billion worried how the government is involved to promote or not promote certain froudes foods with those subsidies and issues through food stamps and wic its wit with the National Food Lunch Program especially but children meet with labeling laws should be changed the label . We have what is somewhat complicated certainly trying to push for labeling with regulation and with the Affordable Care act a requirement for work their new labeling by any establishment with 20 outlets or more and again that changes are have an impact so there is a lot of different ways the government does intersect with what we eat in demonstrably it has a big impact what children eat if nothing else. What is the way the government could do well to make sure they eat more nutritious food . One is making people aware betted send informational problem and an access problem and my friends in the Public Health outside of the communities and say they have no idea. And allowing us to make choice but even if you have that information wherever one is it will not matter much. With the healthy and nutritious food. In there is a of a lingering question that even if you have the information if your palate tastes is udall wanted them have a different kind of problem. One of my great frustrations is how much we can say we give them the information and they will act on it. Behavioral economics tells us that is junk and it is junk food because that is never enough to get people to switch. You notice in your life but people who smoke know more about the poor health the fax bin you do. They have gotten that information in their year we have a lead a lot of data about that so that is a very big step and typically it is necessary but almost never sufficient and over and over again to pass regulations and laws that our easy. You gave reaffirmation but you made a great point. And that is what the palette is educated to. Said to think creatively with information i think it is never sufficient. To say that these foods are bad but obviously that is a deep American Value but if we have to combat obesity is not effective. Is cost and also an issue . With help the food cost more per curve that is correct, how do we lower the cost because it influences choice as well . The last steady that i saw it cost 1 to spend more today person that is 500 per year may be a little more. Is that a lot or a little . But for many families it isnt that much. It cost 1. 50 more per year to each a healthy diet. I am not sure that is the case with those held the effects it is hard to imagine where theyd like us healthier diet paper for a less healthy food and no less hope the guy for any number of reasons. When we think of the government diet or marketplace it is worth thinking about the palette created its young people by the policies that we have to produce certain kinds of food to expose young kids. Those School Lunches is an opportunity it could be on the basis of imperfect information. Under the Obama Administration we did change the formula on School Lunches to make them more nutritious with more vegetables and fruits and that is very important. We have data that kids are eating more vegetables theyre taking more we dont know if they are eating more. [laughter] but that has some positive impact and in the past those exposed to the federal Lunch Program were more obese than their peers it is hard to control for all the variables with a different households but in the past remember a lot what went into the school lunch was determined by the farmers not those responsible for nutrition but the department of agriculture that tells you what about the priorities for that. Because of the effort to change it we have a more focused formulation. Has we have gone as far as we should . Probably not. Theyre remit the mayor bloomberg wanted to stop the use of food stamps for sodas. I that that was perfectly acceptable and it would have been a test how much they can contribute to obesity so we do have a lot of play in the government of allowing people to buy with withstands with an influence on what they can consume we pay for that coming in and going out so to shape them more and not just with caloric intake. Do you agree or is there another way . And i think and have gotten better. Some of those actions with the different food groups there is some controversy but it is a remarkable captive audience. It is amazing. There there eight hours a day or six hours a day manages about 30 million meals. So that is that mass a portion of the population we can decide if they shed eat less or only vegetables but that is the big two will the federal government has. The last couple of decades is the rise of competitive foods. With a competing with . The school lunch that is provided and historically that it sugar and candy and branded fast foods and lo and behold petes the and burgers and fries the cafeteria workers say they dont want to help your option. That is shocking. So that is Getting Better and they also have to meet the federal standard is pretty late in the process and what is important again as you ever a sure own children but what you feed them as kids, they dont go through radical changes in their food preferences. So all those who sell soda know this. They dont implicate kids to drink their soda or eat their serial. So it is a formative moment with the food preferences i totally agree. And to structure those meals. That we could all be known the fact that we have made some important strides we have strived competitively and everyone is aware. Of the Major National leader both to get that beverages out of the school to make a big difference of the obesity rates. Because of major leadership in the city. In to make a difference what is in school but we dont have to wait generations or years to see that. Koch. Will reduce subsidies come into play . Given to factory farms farms, producers to what extent is that a problem . We had a farm bill in the 30s and it started after the depression as a Price Support Program there was a big catastrophe so they paid people not to grow that reduced supply it was too much the government would buy it then never betty is very happy in that worked for a while that there was the coalition in the farm program. Figure bin carol coalition and then to key price as high a the more acres you planted the more money that you got. The means the government is at risk and not the former that makes prices go down. But those who really like localizes will use those commodities of lot of the ethanol industry. So that is a new coalition. And that is renewed every five years. Did call the cops would be planted. Obviously the soy farmers wont like that. So those are specialty crops. To have more fruits and vegetables than they should favor those. Based on the expertise with the common perception so if they had taken captive the fda are they in the drivers seat to the sale of their products . I dont know captives but talk about regulatory capture all the time. But to understand the mindset of the of federal bureaucrat. It all mean that in a negative way that people are working incredibly hard with another period the government will shut down and then not get a paycheck. If its a little stressful and what ends up happening is people wanting to do the right thing is where is my criticism and fire . So what you end up doing is trying to go the fine line and in that industry is more interested in what happens in a regulatory standpoint than consumers. Somebody is taking care of it. They are worried that my chicken will be clean or the fish that is labeled but they have a lot at stake so they can push their agenda a bureaucrat was to the right thing by a consumers and producers you think were were the most criticism come from their producers are very good at criticism. That is what ends up being very powerful it is some it is hard to tell the big money makers of this country know. I view the glass as half will we have had a major conversation banks to the first lady and the recognition. We have thought about sugar sweetened or corn syrup beverages but the drinking of those has gone down over the last 20 years and coke is in real trouble because of that domestically they are shifting to Water Companies fanti companies. In my mind that is good news sugar sweet beverages are not a good thing to switch to help the items. Moving off of junk food in cereals are another. It has gone way down you hope it is more highprotein but these are positive trends that people will change their diet and meet is a funny thing on the one hand you want people to eat healthy but also with dairy because most things are okay with moderation. But what were not talking about the is talking about what we are like genetically modified organisms is that something we should be talking about . If. That isnt quite right there are some water loud voices as vermont past the first labeling law in the country and theres questions of this constitutional to be upheld. Bettis Similar Initiative failed in california and flight think those questions are being asked at the federal level but they can preempt those laws and to stop though labeling that is a fairly big and local push. So my read eight of the of literature to show there is a concrete physical harm from consuming gmos products. Of low producing environmental harm so if you think about monsanto it is a genetically modified seed the implant next to a the roundup herbicide that makes farming efficient and the concern is that over a couple of concern years they will be super weeds so it will outlast that enacts a that next ratchet up were not scheerer has the facts but people are anxious about it. If you ask them why they have no idea. Is a common reaction of the year and concern and dont think the science is there but we will study this. With the help finding there is a study there is no reason to think there is any problem in the environmental factors are a little more and known. To get the consumers all the information and dont want them to make choices upon the idea that most of us feel queasy about it. Then we would make a choice on that basis even though it makes no difference to us. Ic that they object suddenly on First Amendment grounds just dont regulate. And in this case personally the American Public is a lot more rational than the european public. Gmos you would think they are the black plague. I am not joking. That is something most people dont appreciate it if they have those seats they cannot sell you any of the products and it creates a real problem because the europeans are stringent about any contamination. So this is it what you would think about to restrict the access to markets might think the europeans have gone overboard in my own personal view and we are a little more sober about it but if we have more states then you will see a push for legislation because this industry dates different laws they prefer one national law to go to the lowest common denominator. As part of the conversation of a negative Environmental Impact but is thought by the u. N. And produced it is harmful to the environment. Would you agree and should that become part of the conversation . I agree and i am on record to say that is a big admirer mental issue. There is no question that the that farming is a quirky area in the regulation we regulate some stuff and not others with the next frontier of the environmental law. But we havent spoken about is antibiotics. To worry about the cows and chickens and though water supply the needs of arrear all recipients not just hormones. Part of the problem the data isnt great but other countries have he eliminated the use of antibiotics of meat production here is a big issue i think it was perdue to get those of antibiotics and now you see a lot of companies though antibiotics production that i think will drive a much bigger segment to respond to what consumers wonder what they think they want. Finally we are having a pretty positive impact between your diet and your health you can see even if they dont cook well but demanding of their restaurants to a better job. Having a conference on friday of antibiotics in food if you want more reformation much for that conference. And finally. Finally we are achieving a long process. And there is a lot of preparation in the 70s with some cause for concern and started a process it was halted over a period of decades. But now the fda has issued a voluntary guideline to reduce the use of antibiotics part of that has been driven by the public and the industry itself. And its been a long process itself. So people said ago to my producer we cant get there but not immediately so whether it is no antibiotics or therapeutic purposes is a lot of detail, the. So continuing us a discussion of unhealthy food High Fructose Corn Syrup is a Serious Health issue why cant it be labeled natural . I dont have a problem with the not allowing that or food is horrible with no benefit to take it out of the food is green weaken we have to allow it to be in the food. If it causes harm than it is not safe we should not pretend that it is. An example of a general class of problems in the federal government the non specification of the use of label consumers think different things. If you describe a can of tomatoes as fresh what does that mean . High fructose corn syrup is all natural . Are again it is clear. But the their terms are not. Some lives there is guidance or an Industry Group for what people think it means that is part of the of food purity problem. They have taken over every word that they can control to use it to sell. So it is no surprise the work and it got a definitive label but its not clearly specified and they will use that and that is what they are paid for. Isnt a surprise without clear definitions. One of the questions is if you took tipoff to say you cannot use natural with corn syrup you can for shirker are we any better off . I am not sure that is a positive change just because it is cheaper and it appears to have adverse effects in an terms of obesity but frankly we should try to minimize that anyway. Otherwise that is the unlawful or if it is deemed to be that is illegal and the ftc will have to go to court to deal with that that that is the case if it is fraudulent it is a different question. With those attacks of Healthy Eating and obesity . I dont know but i am being honest. Makes no sense otherwise we are against it. You would have thought it was one of the things that is nonpartisan. There isnt a lot of disagreement with of the most interesting things from Madison Wisconsin with pitchers from the historical society. These and not pitchers from the 20s but the 60s and 70s. Every kid they are scrawny. There were just much, much skinnier back and the caloric intake was lower and theyre playing constantly outside. Almost all of these stories or baseball or basketball. It is undeniable with huge economic threats to the country and lots of other items but it seems a less we are ideological there is no reason to oppose that. If we do want to support our Small Farmers but i am not 100 percent sure with that mentality. The only thing i might add other raw regulation of food and of government get out of my kitchen i think that is wrong because they think it is already heavily regulated in the end the government will status will hold saying is constrained so even at that point for some reason that is confusion so tell me which one to eat i just dont make that makes a lot of sense. Expose to the point there is no society ever to have regulation of Food Division is so central no society has never regulated food even libertarians want to note that it is pure so there is no way to get to that neutral stand point that it is not possible or even a conceptual. Speaking of the need to rebut warning labels on foods . , because presumably they are addictive . [laughter] 70 of chocolate is high predictive and good for you i dont think that is fair. [laughter] i am in favor of labeling and the like disclosure in general. But for each individual person with a different set of things that day care about and then there is a laundry list of characteristics are features where was it produced . Blast your or this year how did they get here . All the things he may care about but then we have to choose among them otherwise it is completely overwhelming and useless. Isnt it likely is that so much of what happens is substitutes for quality in their view. On not an expert that it could have the same ingredients so why would i end up with this water as opposed to another . If that works its way into the calculation. It does a lot. So running surveys some that have the percentage of daily sugar allowance. So on the basis of the brand and the label and the ingredients. Is a help the . Does it cost a lot . We still piece that out the pages care about taste and cost. I spend a large part of my time so there is a lot of reasons to think the small fraction of shoppers but it is hard to read you dont add up everything they you eat see work for the tertiary Manufacturers Association with the hope the fda could step in. You can see how much voluntarily. But this contentious. Calories, sugar, fat, calori es, there is a lot of information that depends on your main objective. In those ought to be included. But then to be very fearful of the other summary measure that also is hard to figure out what is dependent upon what we need to adhere to but it is so high on the national level. Again about labeling labeling, because that is our theme given the perils of excessive sugar intake wire there no recommended daily allowance it does carbohydrates but why not sugar . It is also described as poison some time. Data and knowing the reason not to provide that information. There is a political story why we dont and that is true i think politics should be absent absent but it is not absent from politics. Fact they have been involved in the industry many years and those with a lot of sugar dont want that on the label because it is incredible how much sugar is in the products. I know this antiqued this yet every day i am amazed how much is on the product. This is a real problem. You know, where we are headed. [laughter] there other ways to convey that information in the what i have begun thinking about is the what realm of the glycine index of how foods effect of body to have a high glucose law will end then to crash to affect the insulin of the type two diabetes that as a guide that of control this would have been a very useful label for those are not diabetic to avoid for the long term of of i place in the index i just learned broccoli is zero. That is one way to get that sugar element with regular folks like us laura the millions and millions. Next question. And then to increase the cost of food. It is true weirded estimating the cost of those regulations trying to figure out the cost them the benefit of the regulations some people think those studies are terrific to think it will cost us more to do than the Health Benefits is a question to ask. So those are pretty modest usually. To restructure the economy is a big cost but to drive that food costs that. One of the problems they have you want good eggs healthy, cage free with no antibiotics. So there is free range and if you can do those things then he can be priced as those to our to recover those costs they should be able to. And it might work out okay. Because very Huge Population there is a nutrition problem but to get our head around the fact the 1930s 20 percent of the Household Budget went to food but the a. D. It to slightly raise the cost of food to say it will have an adverse effect the really for the vast majority of americans it could be a good thing. Maybe it will shift consumption in it might actually be a good thing and not a bad thing so i am a little hesitant to say just raised the food prices. The we tend to like stuff for a low price. High quality of our less for the same price that is a tradeoff with high quality food because you dont need 20000 calories a day 2000 does just fine. Maybe Higher Quality is a better deal. We would have less diabetes six genera. And other countries the serving sizes bigger but it is just smaller over there. Also link that up with the opportunity to walk talk about the al less obesity but the extent to to which of advertising so what about regularly advertising to children . Of battle starts over that as you might imagine a lot of big media interest. To have positive changes it is a tough road in part because segmenting about market watching much more than a saturday morning cartoons. There will be a lot of spillover. I now think that is the be all and end all to change kids diets but the shrike the shrek experiment they put it on the onion the kids wanted the onion. [laughter] there are things we can do to make them desire vegetables. To be more creative when it comes to kids once we give them their taste buds it is very hard. My new years resolution was no added sugar. And no added candy. Ion 10 months into it but it took a long time to change my taste buds. And candy is so ubiquitous it is the force of will in the center of my office there are too big jars of m ms. Every time it is hard to break that. But that is something we have to do for our kids and ourselves. You can create local farms and patronize them, so i think it is important, on the other hand we have to recognize we are not growing raspberries and winter in pennsylvania. So, theres a limit to how much that is going to affect, and similarly you want people to eat more fish, less meek kind of thing. In the midwest the midwest is not going to be local. Youre going to have to imported from the coast. So, im a big advocate. I sit on the board of a Farmers Market organization in d. C. , the main mission is to try to promote opportunity for local farmers and i love what we can do here in philadelphia. We have have a huge number of local farmers around. Theyre going to be limits to how develop that can be if we also want to maintain a nice healthy balanced diet across the full year. I agree with all that, ill just add one thing that can be done at scale in some areas. Its to pair local farms with schools. Its something that is happening in philadelphia, thats a nice local move, its good for the local farmers and products and give for the schools. I think in the community to. I will say that one of the big hitches for local is the distribution. You have the farmer here, you have have the demand in a city, and the distributors, cisco, and the other ones aramark, they cant do local. Its just not a big enough volume. Volume. To get that Distribution System working correctly so you can actually get efficiently from the farmers to the markets in urban areas, that is something that i think is a big challenge for most of these Global People who grow local thanks. I know a lot of people are trying to solve that problem now. So time is at an end but i want to ask each of you again some what of an open question. And you can take it whatever direction you want. We talk about federal regulation. Theres also state and local regulation. Im wondering to what extent there is room left in that realm and what would be the better policy to take us in the direction you both talked about tonight in terms of state and local regulations . I think there is still room and there is a state that has been regulate have elated at the state of local level and federally for long time. By and large thats appropriate. I think i think some of things we are talking about is likely to have the feature whether the state push and then it gets federalize. I think part of the Food Industry where theres National Presence that is just going to repeat over and over. My hunch is therell there will be a push for more federal regulation and less state regulation. I think that is okay, we get up some of the stuff that we would originally get, just the local character of food. In the end, we are now in interconnected country and i do not think we will have situation where will we have a checkerboard of very serious regulations for very long. It is very hard for industry to work under those conditions and they end up pushing for national regulation. What you hope is in that process we dont go to the lowest common denominator
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.