Transcripts For CSPAN3 Consumer Federation Of America Hosts Food Policy Conference 20170417

At this. Lets look and see if the threat you have faced caused by the fear you identified. Very often, it is not, particularly when it faces the issues of undocumented immigrants. You can watch this on our companion network, cspan. The Consumer Federation of america held their annual food policy conference recently here in washington, d. C. Up next, a keynote address from congressman, jim mcgovern here in the u. S. And his suggestions on how to address it. A panel of experts discuss what they thought would be the food policy priorities of the Trump Administration and how they would contrast with past objectives of the obama and bush administration. My name is thomas kremion, the director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of america. I would like to welcome you and thank you p ffor attending our h annual, National Food policy conference. Today is also the second day of the jewish passover holiday. I would like to say, happy passover. As many of you know, Consumer Federation of america is an association of nearly 300 nonprofit consumer organizations. We were established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, education and advocacy. We focus on a lot of different Consumer Protection topics but particularly relevant to this conference, we do food safety, nutrition and agriculture policy. M so this Conference Provides an opportunity to hear from some of the key policymakers and players in the food policy world. It is an opportunity to explore food policy from a diverse range of perspectives. I hope you agree we have a really Great Program for this years conference. That program reflects the exemplary work of our Advisory Committee. I dont have a packet up here with me. If you look in your packet, you can see the listing of our Advisory Committee members. I would just like to say thank you. One of our ideas was to try Live Audience polls. I am going to test that out now. Look up at the screen behind me. We have our first Live Audience polling question, the least important question you can answer at this years conference. I think it will be interesting to see how we feel about that. There are two way that is you can participate in this Live Audience polling. You can get on your phones browser, your phone or laptop or tablet browser. And put in the whole ev. Com foodpolicy. Or you can text food policy to the number 22333. Write out foodpolicy in the message of the text. As you see, it must be a millennial, has already gotten on and answered. So we are going to try this out. Lets see if we get any yeses and let you experience with that. While you experiment with that, i do want to reflect a little bit on this being our 40th anniversary, National Food policy conference. What a Great Program we have this year. In a few minutes, congressman, jim mcgovern, will be talking with you later this afternoon. We are pleased to have dr. Susan main, director of the u. S. Food and Drug Administrations center for food safety and applied nutrition. Tomorrow well start the program with addressing chuck mcconnor. He is president and ceo and former acting secretary of agriculture and member of president trumps agriculture Advisory Committee. That will be followed by a conversation with estherdyson, who is an entrepreneur and Angel Investor and whose initiative is helping five communities to ship resources to producing Health Rather than trying to recover it. Part of that strategy has a lot to do with changes to the food supply. I think thats going to be very interesting. Lets check in on our poll. I have to interpret that as a lot of disenchanted albright isolationists. Or another interpretation. So i think we can close the door on this one. This vital question. I think we are continuing with our experiment. This will give us a better sense of our audience today. The food policy conference. We are proud to attract a very diverse mix of folks. You guys are head of the curve. Our interests tend to fall in these three categories. Well give you some time. I know i wouldnt have responded by now if it was me. I want to recognize some of the people that made this conference possible over the years. 40 years ago, ellen haas started this conference while she was with a group called the Community Nutrition institution. For many years after that, art jaeger kept it going. He also ran an awards ceremony called the golden care awards during the 90s, which i know was very popular. It has become a really beloved institution. A lot of folks that attend. O we have a mix of interests represented at the food policy conference. It r started as very nutrition focused. It is not surprising that a lot of us are most interested in nutrition. But we do have we have a large food safety contingent as well. I think that reflects in no small part the influence of carol tucker foreman, who ran the conference and played a big role in Consumer Federation of america for many years and had an outside effect on food policy generally but food safety in particular. So i should also hasten to add that a lot of our program for everyone in each of these interest groups. Dont feel bad if you are a food safety minorities. Get me off this stage, well move on to our final polling question. To test out all of the features of our platform. Use a number here. Dont right in. This is kind of a work cloud feature. It would not have occurred to me to say zero, because you are here now. I know that there is at least 113 out there. I believe it is 13. Im thinking of chris wall drdr for a lot of you, chris has been the face of the food policy conference for as long as you have attended before i took over for him last year. Chris had organized the food policy conference for 13 years. I know he has attended at least 13. He took a welldeserved break. I am really glad to have him back. I want to say thank you to chris for being such an invaluable member of our Advisory Committee. A lot of the program reflects his input. Even for that matt feer, whats your packet today. Back and forth with chris. He has been very generous with his time in sharing the wisdom he accrued over these years of lead t leading this event. Well be ironing out the kinks of the Live Audience following the next day and a half. Thank you for participating in that. Thank you for being here. Whatever you do, wherever you are from, this conference is a great opportunity to mingle and network with a Diverse Group of folks and thank you for joining us here. We hope you enjoy the program and the networking reception we have added at the end of today. Please make sure you hang around for that. If any of you are on twitter, you can follow us at cfa food policy. The for the conference is pound cfafpc 2017. A couple of points on logistics. We are in the ballroom, where we will be having lunch and where our networking reception will be at the end of the day. Two of the breakout locations are on this floor. The breakout rooms to the left, and our third breakout room is on the third floor where it says health club and pool on the elevator. Keep that in mind. Give yourself a little bit of time to get up there. You can take the stairs but it is a bit of an adventure. Restrooms are located out the door to my left. A map in your packets. If you get lost, you can also go to the Registration Table and we can help you. There is also a description of the panels if you are having trouble deciding. A few exhibit tables outside. The registration area to my right. We have exhibit tors from the union of concerned scientists. The National Association of county and city health officials, dupont. The interNational Food council. We also have a table for General Information if anyone has reports, brochures or handouts they would like to make to your fellow attend tees. I would like to take a minute to thank our sponsors. They are listed on the back of your printed program. We are very grateful to all our sponsors for their support. These companies and organizations really recognize the importance of supporting an event like this where we can foster an open and vigorous exchange of ideas. I would like to change this years underwriters and benefactors, cargill, interNational Food and dairy association, dupont, general mills, mars, a few charitable trusts and walmart. I would also like to thank Sally Squires and her team at food wellness. You have seen their excellent design work and the registration emails and colorful programs and brochure designs. Finally, special thanks to the cfa staff. They have put in an enormous amount of work to register all the participants, prepare the conference materials, deal with much of the logistical work to help make this conference happen. I would like to specially thank Anna Marie Lowery and the rest of the staff that are here today. I would like to thank all of you very much for being here and once again, welcome to the 2017 National Food policy conference. To kick off the program, i am thrilled to present our opening keynote speaker. He is a native of worcester, massachusetts, which he now represents in p congress. Since being elected in 1y50irk9s 96, he has been a leader on food policy issues and particularly outspoken on hunger issues. He has promised one hell of a fight to those proposing cuts in food aide and he counts dole interNational Food for educational and child nutrition program, a program that gained notoriety as a target for elimination in the Trump Administration proposed budget. He is the second ranking democrat on the house rules committee, a member of the house agriculture committee, the Ranking Member on the House Committee on agriculture, subcommittee on nutrition and cochair of the house hunger caucus among many other credentials since 2013 as part of his, , inhunger now campaign. He has given nearly weekly speeches focused on food and security in america on the u. S. Floor of the house of representatives. We are happy to have him talk about hunger and other food policy related issues with us today. Please welcome congressman, jim mcgovern. Good morning, everybody. I know it is not easy to get up early in the morning. The only thing worse is being the first speaker of the morning. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Consumer Federation and representatives from the consumer advocate organizations, Food Industry, nonprofits as well as governmental officials. We come together to have some important conversations about agriculture, food policy and nutrition. I welcome the opportunity to be here. I probably should state at the outset that sometimes people think because my last name is mcgovern, that i am related to George Mcgovern who was a senator from south dakota and ran for president in 1972 and while i worked as an intern in his office in the senate when i was in college and he became one of my dearest friends and a great inspiration, we are not related. I say that because when i was getting a coffee in the lob by, somebody in this room came up and told me they were longtime supporters of my dad. They seemed a little shocked when i said, thank you, my dad owns a liquor store in worcester, massachusetts and i hope you keep on supporting him. I thought i should just clear the air on that. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the issue of hunger and Food Insecurity in this country and around the world. I think it is an important issue. It is one of those issues that is maddening, because it is solvable. I tell people all the time hunger is a political condition. We have the money. We have the resources. We have the infrastructure. We have the brain power. We have everything but we dont have the political will. I have a tough time grasping why that is the case. We live in the richest country in the history of the world and we have 42 million americans who are hungry or food insecure in the United States of america. As a United States congressman, as a citizen of this country, im a shamed of that. I find that so unacceptable. It is unconscionable with all of our riches in this country, with all of our knowhow and all of our ingenuity, that is the reality. We talk about hunger. It is more than just about talking about people who dont have enough to eat. There are other issues related to it. There are Health Issues related to people who on a regular basis go without food. If you are a child who misses meals on a regular basis and you show up in school, you are less likely to be able to learn. You are more likely to have developmental challenges in your lifetime. If you are a pregnant mother and you cant get the adequate nutrition, that oftentimes results in the birth of an unhealthy baby. If you are a worker who on a regular basis goes without food, you are going to be less productive in the workplace. So there are all these avoidable costs that are associated with hunger. When we talk about it, i think we need to look at not just immediate problem but the impact it has on our country and on so many people that live in this country. I have had a blessed life. I am not talking about getting elected to congress. I dont know if that is a blessing or a curse some days. I have had a blessed life in the sense i have never had to worry about basic necessities. I have always had a home. I have always had shelter. I have always had enough to eat. Ive never been hungry. But i believe that those of us who are blessed, have blessed lives and a special obligation to make sure that we worry about and care about those who are having challenges. I think thats just decent thing to do. Whether it is in our communities or whether it is in congress, i think this is a matter of decency to address issues like hunger. I get frustrated in congress because while i think this issue should not be a partisan issue and for many years, it wasnt. George mcgovern and bob dole worked together in a bipartisan way during the 1970s to help strength be then our programs. We are on our way to eliminating hunger in this country. We begin to reverse some of the progress we make. Now, what i find is that this issue is become very polarizing. You are never going to find a member of congress who is going to tell you they are pro hunger. They will never say that to you. When you look at the voting records of some of my colleagues, i dont know how you could come to any other conclusion. Because what ends up happening is that they are chipping away at programs that provide the basic necessity of food to our children and to parents and to older people. When i look at the president s budget, we are told in that budget, there may be cuts to programs like wic, womens infants and children program, basic nutrition for pregnant mothers and Young Children after they are born. It is important. If we neglect that, we are going to have to pay in other ways down the line. I hate to talk about it in terms of the bottom line and dollars and cents. We should be moved to do something. It is our moral obligation. Because we want to prevent human suffering in this country. I get the feeling sometimes that thats not enough. I get to become friends after i was running, when i first got elected with john kenneth galbraith, the great economists and a great visionary. I remember him saying to me one time, ill ask you to go out and comfort the aflikted but in these days, that might be ac centric so i will ask you to go out and aflikt the comfortable. We have to aflikt some of the comfortable and get them to start responding in ways to make progress on issues like hunger. We have when we have these debates in congress, it is always about the fact that the people that need these programs get characterized as somehow lazy or somehow undeserving. Or they are poor because they want to be poor. Ive never met anybody who wants to be poor. Ive never met anybody who wants to be hungry. By the way, just so the facts are clear, when we talk about snap. The majority of people or snap are children. They are Senior Citizens or people disabled. Of those that can work, the majority work. Why isnt the question in washington how can it be that somebody who works is still so poor they need to rely on snap to put food on the table . Why are we talking about increasing wage ns ths in this y so people could earn a liveable wage and be able to put foods onned table aon the table and the kind of foods they want. The debate tends to demonize the most Vulnerable People in this country. It is frustrating. The perception in washington is so different from the reality all throughout this country. We talk about we want people to make better choices. We want people to make healthier choices. We all need to make healthier choices, not just people on snap. We have studies that show that knows of us that are able to afford our own food make lousy choices too. We need to have this better and more Effective National dialogue on nutrition. With regard to snap recipients, i serve on the nutrition subcommittee. I dont know how many hearings we have. I lost count up to 206789 we have had so many hearings. I have lost count. During one of the last hearings, somebody raised the issue, why dont theed people make better choices. The reason why, the average snap benefit is about 1 1. 40 per person per meal. I bought a starbucks on the way in here. That was more than 1. 40. That was a small one. The benefits we provide people are inat quut. What we should be talking about is making sure our social safety net is a safety net that, it provides people what they need to be able to put nutritious food on the table. We ought to be talking about increasing the benefit of snap, not talking about decreasing it or putting more hurdles in place to make it more difficult for people to obtain the benefit. We are having a debate about able bodied adults without dependants and whether or not they should get snap. Ablebodied adults without dependants are people that are eligible to be on snap for three months. If they dont have a job or if they are not in a Work Training program after three months, they can lose the benefit for three years. I athink thats ridiculous. People need food. There are some things you dont need. Food, you do need. We have some members of Congress Questioning whether or not people that are ablebodied adults ought to get three months to begin with. If i can prove to me being hungry makes you more likely to get a job or more sellable in the work place, im all ears. For a lot of these people, they live in rural areas where they dont have access to transportation or cant get to a job trapiining programs. They are some that have undiagnosed mental Health Issues, have dealt with Substance Abuse issues. We are now learning that a big chunk of these ablebodied adults without dependants are veterans coming back after serving our country halfway around the world having a difficult time getting reintegrated, exoffenders fall in that category. It used to be governors of state quo request waivers so that people wouldnt go without the benefit. Now, we have an effort toward banning any waivers when it comes to the able bodied adults without dependants community. I find that ridiculous, so wrong. In washington, we are supposed to be helping people and lifting people up, not demonizing, not putting them down, not making peoples life more miserable. Yet thats what, in effect, we are doing. Now we are talking about a new farm bill. You have seen the president s budget. Also, goes after meals on wheels, which is crazy. We had his budget director saying there is no evidence between some of these nutrition programs and better performance by students in school or Better Outcomes for people who receive it in terms of their health status. I will show him a gazillion studies that show you the benefits of Good Nutrition at every age and how important it is at every age to make sure people have access to Good Nutrition. Just because you say it doesnt mean it is true. I know we live in a place where alternative facts are kind of invogue but facts are facts are facts. Good nutrition benefits people in 1 million different ways. I would argue that Good Nutrition is the Cheapest Health care out there. My grandmother used to say to me when i was growing up, an apple a day keeps the doctor away. It used to annoy me. I wish she were still alive so i could say, you are right. Good, nutritious food, oftentimes results in good health. It prevents us from getting diseases like diabetes, owe obesity, heart and blood pressure. Maybe we should give doctors the ability to write out prescriptions for good, nutritious food that will be more benefit. We need to get our medical schools to focus more on nutrition. I wish during the Affordable Care act when we had that debate, nair was a bigger discussion on the importance of kn nutrition as a way to keep people healthy. I think that discussion needs to continue to build. The idea that we will take food away from people is something we can not stand for. In the last farm bill, the republicans in the house actually moved to cut the snap benefit by 40 billion. 40 billion. We had amendments on drug testing snap recipients. I dont see any amendments on asking that we drug test big heads of defense contract firms. Lets drug test all members of congress. That might explain why we are having these stupid discussions half the time. It makes absolutely no sense to me that these are the things we continue to talk about. He the bottom line is one of the nings th things that needs to change is that we need to insist when people do things like that, that there is a consequence. When i vote for gun control legislation, i get the nra calling my office and sending me letters and visiting me in my district. I know they are not going to vote for me. If i vote against a tax cut for a particular industry, nine times out of ten, they are sending their representative in to see me and telling me how bad i am and they want to support my opponent. I know there is a consequence. When members of Congress Vote to cut snap, there wasnt a consequence. I think what has to change in this country if we are going to change our priorities is that when people do things like that, they need to feel the pain. They are creating a lot of pain. They need to understand that if you are going to vote to make hunger worse in in country, we are going to let your constituents know and we are going is to make sure that you are held accountable at the ballot box. One thing the democrats and republicans have in common, we all want to get reelected. On the issues of hunger and food security,we need to elevate this issue. There need to be a consequence. The other thing i want to say, because we want to spend more time having a conversation about questions. Thomas thought it would be better and i would prefer it too. I hear myself talk all the time i would rather hear from all of you. The other thing we need to grapple with in addition to preventing any cuts for snap is the issue of food waste. We have 40 of what we produce in this country we dont eat. Oftentimes, it is thrown away. Ive visited supermarkets. They are probably calling security. I go and look in the dumpsters in the back of the supermarkets, perfectly good food being thrwne away. We need a policy on this. We have farmers that dont have the infrastructure or dont have the manpower or woman power to be able to capture food that they dont think would be you sellable at the food mark kits. We have to have an apple that looks like it came out of snow white. If there is a little bump, we dont want to buy it. Often times, those fruits and vegetables are discarded. Sometimes they are used for animal feed. In some places, they are used for composting. Sometimes, they are put in landfills, which is a bad idea. Lets see if we can recapture some perfectly good food for our schools, Senior Centers and food banks. We need to be thinking out of the box and creatively about how we put together this infrastructure to recapture the food on our farms, in our restaurants, in our supermarkets. Lets not waste it. My grandmother also used to say if i didnt eat all my food, that it is a sin. So i had the fear of god put in to me. I would always finish my food. She is right in a way, specially when the need is so great. I will just say one final thing. Thomas mentioned the Mcgovern Dole interNational Food for education. This is a Global School feeding program. What we have learned, in many of the poorest countries in the world, kids dont go to school because their parents have them working in the field or another capacity to be able to have enough to feed them. You introduce food and a nutritious meal in a School Setting in some of these poor countries, more kids go to school. Not just more kid but more girls. In some countries, education for girls is not a priority. You put a meal at that school, the parents will send their girls to school. Girls who go to school are less likely to get married at an early anyone, are less likely to have as many kids. Here is the other benefit. Boys and girls who go to school learn how to read and learn how to write, become literate and could be the future leaders of these countries. These developing countries are not going to develop with an illiterate population. When i saw Donald Trumps budget and he zeroed out the Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program, i was flapper gasted. That is the best of america. The food served in these schools, some of it is produced here. We dont want to disrupt markets. Where you can buy food locally, you support markets locally. That is to me what helps what i believe this country is all about. Ill tell you one story. I visited the Mcgovern Dole School Feeding program many years ago in a community which was a displaced persecuted community in columbia. This young mother, and the u. S. Ambassador at the time introduced me to her 11yearold son. Every day in this slum, one of the armed actors comes through. One day it is the gorillas and the next day right wing paramilitaries and they ask me, this 11yearold boys mother to give me son over to them. They say to me if you do, we will give him something you cannot do. We will give him food. I have come so close to giving up my 11yearold boy to one of these armed groups but now i dont have to, because of what the people of the United States have provided. We talk about National Security. Mr. Trump says the National Security needs the budget. The term National Security, the definition needs to be expanded. It needs to mean more than just number of weapons we have in our nuclear arsinal. It needs to mean more than the number of military bases we have around the world. It need to mean things like combatting extreme poverty and hunger around the world. It needs to make sure every Single Person in the United States of america has access to good, nutritious food and is not food insecure. Food ought to be viewed as a fundamental right for every human being on this planet. It ought to me it ought to mean our job, our infrastructure. This is the time that likeminded people need to come together and steer this discussion. If not, you are going to see budgets pass that are heavy on increased military expenditures and Everything Else gets cut. This is a time to engage. If not, you are going to see a farm bill. Maybe you are going to see cuts in snap or more hurdles to get food on their table. This is the time to engage. Our child nutrition programs, our School Feeding programs, our programs for our elderly are under attack. We are even having a debate in washington about lowering nutritional standards in school. P i mean, honest to god, it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Sometimes there is a disconnect between what is talked about in washington and what goes on back home. Somebody had said to me one time na kids dont like to eat apples. They throw them away at lunch. So i went to the school where they told me they were doing that. I said to the kid, how many of you like apples . Everybody raised their kid. How many dont like apples . One kid raised his hand. I said, well, im being told you throw away your apples. Can someone tell me why you throw away the apples. A kid raises his hand and says, by the time i get through the line to get my lunch, i have about ten minutes to eat. So i eat my sandwich really quickly and take a bite of the apple. I cant bring it to class, because they tell me it is disruptive and i throw it away. I said, if you had three or four minutes more to eat your lunch, would you eat the apple . Absolutely. I visited a school with George Mcgovern when he was still alive in a town in my district where in was before the upgrade in the nutritional standards in the School Feeding programs. I had the sloppiest of the sloppy jocz y sloppy joes you could ever see. Soggy french fries. There was an apple and this was a group of second or third graders. The person overseeing the meal says these kids wont eat the apples. So George Mcgovern said, you have a knife. He cut the apple up in little pieces and brought it around. All the kids ate the apple. He said, wow, thats amazing. Some of these kids are losing their teeth. It hurts to bite into an apple. You have to know your audience. Those are the kind of things that are so readily understandable when you are working in the field, when you are in schools, when you are working closely on these programs. They are always not so clear here in washington i am sad to say. So it is important you engage all of us in the coming weeks and months so that we continue to try to move forward and not go backwards. It is too important. I will finally finish with this. Some people say im a bleeding heart. Honestly, my heart does bleed for people that i bump into who are hungry. When you see a child who is hungry, it breaks your heart. When you see a Senior Citizen who m is regularly going withou food because they are trying to afford their prescription drugs and their food, it breaks your heart. We can fix it. I believe we can end hunger in our lifetime, not only here in this country but around the world. We just need to have the political will. Thank you for having me here. Were going to do some q and a. Representative mcgovern is going to stay with us. We have two microphones. Come up and fire away. We have about 15 minutes for q and afrnlts. The intellectual heft will increase once im off the staple. Do we have any questions on this or anything else . Tell me who you are. If it is a tough question, ill yield to thomas. Im scott mcclara with Johns Hopkins ar hopkins, a student there. Thanks for the talk. It was great. In your debate with colleagues on the other side of this, have you found any arguments or types of arguments, if not convincing, at least shifting the tone of the conversation . I have had a lot of what i have found that works with some of my skeptical colleagues is stories. We constantly are handing people pages of statistics and data, which is important. We need statistics and data. But sometimes i think members of congress have lost their human ability to feel what that means. When i say 42 Million People are hungry in this country, it is kind of hard to wrap your arms around that or feel the magnitude of that. I talk about an individual story, an individual child i met or an individual Senior Citizen i met when i went on a meals on wheels tour. It begins to change things. A lot of the offtherecord conversations im having with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the conversations are now kind of turning to, look, i get it. We have to do something. What request we cut . What can we reform . So we can say we cut and reformed something. Im trying to say, well, there is no place to cut. 1. 40 per person per meal, what are you going to do, cut it down to 1. 20 . The problem is this. For many years, we have allowed this perception to grow that the population who benefits from our nutrition programs are somehow undeserving or somehow their whole goal in life is to be poor enough to be able to be on snap or when there is abuse of the program and sometimes there is but it is so miniscule compared to any other government program, we exaggerate it. We find that you are abugs tsine program, everybody must be. That has been reinforced on talk radio. It is reinforced on fox news and on speech on the floor. I think there is a base out there that has bought into that. I think one of the challenges we have right now is getting members of congress to be able to go back to that particular base and say, hey, wait a minute. I actually looked at this. Some of these perceptions are wrong. And to take a stand based on that. I dont think the situation is hopeless. I do think we have a hell of a fight ahead of us. I think we can win some of these fights. P there is a very interesting coalition of people who are coming in. We have farmers. We have people in industry. We have people in the medical profession. We have players. We have chefs coming up and advocating on these programs. I think stories, real life stories, i so this is sort of a followup. Im director of the National Center for children and poverty. So you talked about what you can do with your colleagues. But you also mention building the will for the kind of change we need. We talk about what the public believes, this undeserving, criminally inclined, reproductively prodigious, we want to be poor. Are the same kind of stories helpful there . Because it really is the public who makes the difference for representatives like you. Absolutely. Let me give you an example. I met with a group of doctors recently who were talking about this issue. And i said, you know, they handed me a nice report they did, i said, this is great. What i suggest they represented different parts of the country. I said, go back to your home state, go back to your congressional district. Bring in some of the beneficiaries of these nutrition programs. Go visit your local representatives and maybe do a little press conference, not a threatening program, simply here is the program, here is the benefit, here is why its so important, and this is why were asking congressman or congresswoman so and so to support it, just to set the stage and to raise local public awareness. Because if theyre going to vote to cut these programs, you want that same group to go back and do the same thing. There needs to be an increase in the level of political activism on this issue. We need to step it up. Because if not, i think were in danger of going backwards. I said to a group of faithbased leaders who came in to see me, who did a bunch of visits, priests, ministers, rabbis. They had visited one member of congress who i know has been particularly difficult to deal with on these issues. And i said, how did the meeting go . They said, good, you know, we made our case, and we said that were going to pray for him and, you know, we hope for the best. And i said, then what happened . Then we said goodbye. I said, well, you know, i mean, im probably not the one to say this, but, you know, every once in a while, you can say go to hell if youre going to do bad things, because there needs to be some meaningful pushback when people try to, again, make hunger worse in this country. Look, ill consider it a victory on this next farm bill if we dont make hunger worse in this country. I want to eliminate it. But i understand the political realities, right . But lets not make it worse. Lets not increase it. How hard can that be . How difficult is that to explain back home . And yet that is going to be, you know, a tough goal to achieve. My question is about food deserts. There is native American Indians and other groups of people who are isolated from nutrition and are basically buying out of grocery stores. In the case of native American Indians, there are some tribes, at the age of 18 many of them are developing diabetes because of that. It seems to me there should be partnerships between government and industry to solve this. Weve got amazon and walmart shipping food. Why not government partner with industry to send nutrition into these areas to seniors who are shut in, and other people who are isolated from Good Nutrition . We absolutely should. Theres no reason why we shouldnt. When it comes to food deserts, i visited some of the stores that people purchase their food in in these food deserts. Theyre small, they dont have refrigeration. They dont have the space to add in more nutritious options. We ought to find a way to incentivize or provide funding to help these local businesses expand so that food can be there. Any kind of out of the box Public Private partnership to get better nutrition to people, im all for. And, you know, i always tell people, the biggest struggles with regard to Food Insecurity, i mean, we have some serious issues in urban areas, but its those rural areas where transportation is difficult, where there arent many places to be able to get food. And but we absolutely should. So that may cost some money up front. But i would argue with you, every step we take in the direction of better nutrition, you are going to Lower Health Care costs. I mean, its like dramatically i mean, this is a winwinwinwin. And i think, you know, part of the problem in washington is the way we do our budgeting, you know, on the issue of hunger and Food Insecurity, its not one committee. Its multiple committees. And the administration is not one agency, its multiple agencies. Sometimes the coordination isnt there. I tried unsuccessfully for eight years to get president obama to do a white house conference on food, nutrition and hunger. I thought the idea of bringing the best minds together, locking them in a room and saying, youre not getting out until we actually have a comprehensive, holistic plan to fix this problem, to solve it, and then go out there and hold people to account to implement it, i thought that would have been a good step for us to take. It didnt happen. You know, i dont i dont know whether i want this administration to do that or not. The point of the matter is, we actually need a plan. And when you go to war, you have a plan. Although i dont think we have a plan in syria. But let me put that aside. But the bottom line is, youre not going to be successful unless you have a plan. Esther dyson. Im speaking tomorrow, but im thrilled to be able to suggest this to you personally. You can call them food swamps, because theres food but its bad. Second, why not create within congress a school food day where everybody goes home to his or her constituency, finds one of the poorer schools, and has to eat lunch with the kids . I think thats a good idea. The School Nutrition association, which is here, i wish i had talked to you beforehand, i could have suggested that to them. I think thats a good idea. Look, you can get elected to congress and never visit a school meal program. You can get elected to congress and never go on a meals on wheels visit or talk to anyone who benefits from it. You can get elected to congress and never talk to anybody on s. N. A. P. You know . I mean, and i think, you know, the assumption that because you get elected to congress, that you know everything, is just wrong. I hate to burst your bubble here, but intelligence is not always a prerequisite for getting elected to congress. And the way you combat ignorance is we need people locally to bring us in. You know, invite us to the schools. Invite us to the food banks, invite us to a meals on wheels visit, invite us to a hospital emergency room where, you know, theyre noticing an uptick in hunger and Food Insecurity related illnesses. I met a woman a few years ago, elderly woman who was in the hospital emergency room because she was taking her medication on an empty stomach, when the medication said take with food, but she didnt have the money. And so, you know, i think those are the i think that would be a great idea. I really do. So my name is leila soldan, in the evenings, because i do have a day job, im at george mason. You spoke about the need for a food based policy. How do you envision that happening . Because i thought that would make a nice paper for a class project. Well, you know, i mean, look. I mean, what i have when i get onto the agriculture committee, i represented primarily an urban and suburban district. I got redistricted and now i have a lot of rural areas in massachusetts too, lots of farms. Ive come to understand the connections here that i think i all already know, that everybody is related here. We need to support our farmers. We need to make sure that we have a 50state farm policy. We need Sustainable Agriculture in every state in this country. Its important. Its a security issue. Its a food safety issue. Its also a nutrition issue. We need you know, we need to better integrate nutrition in our educational systems. I mean, learning about Good Nutrition at an early age and developing those good habits at an early age is easier to ensure that youre going to follow it than developing better nutritional habits at my age. Its tough to change. Understanding that everybody has a you know, has a role to play in this issue. You know, not just elected official, but community leaders. This is a local issue as well. Our hospitals. And i mean, theres a veterans component to this too. A military component, because now were getting complaints from the military that the people that were sending to be who want to join the armed forces are way overweight. There was a time when it was the opposite. But i think these discussions are happening, one of the reasons why i wanted this white house conference is, i needed somebody, you know, who has the authority to kind of, you know, put all this together, to put the pieces together. To connect all the dots. There are a lot of think tanks and people in this room who are doing that. But i mean, i think we need to have that kind of approach. Hi, janine hannigan. With abbott nutrition. Nutrition is my background, nutrition and Public Health. I just wanted to say thank you for your efforts, because im a Firm Believer that nutrition can be medicine or can be poison, including the lack thereof or only the presence of nonnutrient dense food. I just wanted to say thank you very much for your efforts. Well, thank you very much. And i appreciate all of you being here, and thank you for your work. [ applause ] great stuff. I feel inspired. So we are just in time for our next i would like to invite the speakers for our next panel to come to the stage, and well get set up here. I see our moderator is vigorously networking. So i would name tags. I would like to introduce you to our moderator of the first panel of the morning. Scott faber is getting situated here. Scott is a familiar face in food policy circles. Im sure many of you have a history with him. He current works for the Environmental Working Group as Vice President of government affairs. And in that capacity, many consumer and Environmental Public Health advocates, myself included, know him as a leader on issues like gmo labeling and Regulatory Reform. Other members of the audience will recognize scott from his time at the grocery manufacturers association. As it happens, when scott was at gma, they were our partner for the food policy conference. Then he left and cfa was on its own. Cant be a coincidence. Without further ado, scott faber. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, thomas. [ applause ] all right. Thank you all. What a terrific allstar panel. And its always an honor to share the stage with my hero, jim mcgovern. So ill just probably a group that needs no introduction, but ill quickly do introductions, then well ask each of our speakers to spend a couple of minutes talking about what this administrations food policy priorities should be. Just going down the line here, we have rick frank, founding principal attorney of olson frank. Michael jacobson, founder and president of center for science in the Public Interest. Joe levitt, a partner at hogan lovells. And the former director of sissan. Susan pitman, founder and president of food minds. Why dont we go straight down the line here. Tell us what you think this administrations food policy priorities should be. Then well get you guys involved with some live polling and you can help us answer that question as well. Thanks so much. My name is rick frank. Ive been here about 40 years. I was at the first National Food policy conference, which was called the golden carrots, for those of you who remember ellen hass. The swinging pendulum, the inevitable correction to eight years of barack obama. What im going to say you may not like. Its not my opinion of what i want to happen. Its my explanation for why its going to happen. The Obama Administration was dedicated to sound science except when that wasnt convenient. Frequently, policy emanated from the president of the United States, the first lady of the United States. And even on occasion, the chef of the United States. How about an example. Dietary guidelines. Handpicked Advisory Committee. In 2010, fairly balanced, did a good job. 2015, there were no industry people on the dietary guidelines Advisory Committee. This was stacked and packed with a highly liberal agenda. What did we get out of it . We got recommendations from the Advisory Committee far outside anything we had seen in the dietary guidelines. Sustainability, not a bad thing, but certainly not within the dietary guidelines. How about a recommendation for state soda taxes . Does that really need to show up in the dietary guidelines . The answer is no. We also got six years of a war on sugar. Im old enough to remember the war on fat. The war on salt. The war on eggs. And we now have the war on sugar. And this was done in a way that i have never seen. Maybe joe can comment on this. But this was done with mediocre science at best, no iom report at all looking at the science, with a procedure that happened so quickly, you could hardly blink. Why . They wanted to get it done before the next administration. So it wouldnt fall within that sixmonth period before the end of the administration. Its probably going to go into effect. When, well talk about today. But its a lousy rule. Not necessarily for its outcome, but the procedure that it established to set up a drv for added sugar as opposed to total sugar is totally unique, unprecedented, and was a war from the first ladys office. So the pendulum is going to swing back to the right. Whether we like it or not. Thats whats going to happen. Less regulation, less activism, less funding. Look at the key players. Youve got trump, price, perdue, and gottlieb. I dont think the people in this room should have a whole lot of heart looking forward to the next four years. And you had a whole lot of fun the last eight. Fsma, i think youre probably okay with fsma. I think thats general support among everybody for food safety. Menu labeling, maybe okay, maybe not okay, probably okay, generally a wide support. Biotech, for the first time strong support. You didnt see much of that coming out of obama. Deregulatory environment could roll back some stuff. There is going to definitely be an increase in state and local activity. Why . Because it will be somewhat of an abdication from washington. When that happens, mike goes to the states and local governments, which is a good idea, and those are the percolators of new ideas. Class action suits will continue. The only other matters that i will mention that could impact all of this are import tariffs and the hiring freeze. Conclusion, shift back to less robust, less activist regulatory philosophy. And i think this is a natural and inevitable consequence of eight years of barack obama. Thanks. Now another shrinking violet. Well, i disagree with everything rick just said. [ laughter ] on the first half, about all the reasons and that kind of stuff. But i do agree with his view about whats going to happen, that its between the Trump Administration and congress, this is a disaster for anybody who cares about health, the environment, civil rights, and on and on down the list. Scott, you asked what should the policies be of the Trump Administration, and i guess congress. And thats kind of an irrelevant question. Theyre going to be whatever, you know you dont want to look down that hole. But i think what they will be is what rick was suggesting that its going to be, deregulatory, not addressing public Health Issues, and i dont know, we focus mostly on the fda, and i dont know what theyre going to undo, but a big thing is the budget, where trumps skinny budget proposed roughly a billiondollar reduction in fdas budget, for the fda. And that will be devastating. The fda will be paralyzed. It wont be able to do any kind of enforcement, initiate new regulations, and so on. Even if they had full funding, there are very important things that the fda is in the midst of or on the drawing board that wont get done. One of the most worrisome is the fdas proposed sodium targets. If we could reduce sodium is mostly from salt, and its familiar to everybody, Familiarity Breeds disinterest. People dont understand how dangerous high levels of sodium in the american diet are. That if we could reduce sodium consumption by 50 , that would save close to 100,000 lives a year. Just extraordinary. Far more damage than practically Everything Else in the food supply put together. The fda might just let those proposed targets languish or could rescind them. They have never been very aggressive at all. That category of ingredients called generally recognized as safe. Which used to be things like vinegar and citric acid and totally safe substances. Now the food the Chemical Industry crams Everything Possible into that grass category instead of going through the food additive route. I dont think this fda is going to revise the grass category. In how it regulates them. Something on f. D. A. s agenda is on the package labelling to have simple nutrition symbols, like a smiley face or a green dot on the Healthy Foods and either nothing or a red dot on the unHealthy Foods, or ratings from 1 to 100. There are lots of schemes around. I cant imagine this administration moving along on that front. The Food Industry is largely opposed to that. So where things going to happen for many of us in this room . Well, first, i think a lot of us will be fighting everything we can for what congress is proposing and the administration will probably push for. I hope well see a lot more grassroots be activism in cities and states putting pushing for gardens and cooking classes in schools. And have getting different labelling laws adopted. Many National Groups will be looking at the state level as rick suggested. We have a bill in the California Legislature that would require warning notices on dyed foods with foods dyed with yellow 5 and so on that affect kids behavior. And also more litigation that the number of i dont know the exact figures. Maybe you know, rick. The number of class actions against Food Companies has skyrocketed probably gone up tenfold in the last ten years. And thats going to continue. When the federal government doesnt enforce, keep the Food Industry under control, theyre going to try everything they can to trick us into buying their products. Class actions are at least part of the answer. So it may be from some perspective it will be an exciting and certainly next four years it will be certainly interesting. I know many lobbyists that will be very busy up on capitol hill and in the agencies. But i retain a little bit of optimism that well be able to make progress. Thank you very much. Im going to take a different tact. As scott mentioned, i worked at fda. For those that dont remember me, im an old guy by now, i worked there for 25 years. I started there in 1978 which meant i lived through every president ial transition since the one from carter to reagan. And each one of them has its unique aspects. But each one of them also had a lot of commonalities. I was assistant director from the last time we went from democrat to republican from the Clinton Administration to the george w. Bush administration. So i came up with three points that i think should be the highest priorities. Number one, really the highest priority is the value and embrace the f. D. A. s mission as the leading Consumer Protection and Public Health agency in america, an agency that literally affects every single american, every single day. The importance of fda to america cannot be understated. Number two, taking it on correctly starts with leadership. I think Scott Gottlieb is an excellent choice to head up the fda. He served in fda. He understands the mission of the fda. He was a protege of mark mcclellan, who has always been a strong supporter of the fda. And i think the experience is going to let this fda commissioner kind of hit the ground running. I work for every fda commissioner over 20 years. And when a new commissioner comes in that has never known the fda, especially on the fda from the inside, its a long learning curve. So this is somebody who is going to be able to start much more rapidly. Im very optimistic about that selection in todays time. Also, i want to take a moment to recognize steve austra who has been acting commissioner. Actually his second time in that stinlt. Im hoping that, you know, that distinguished background will carry him over to be one of Scott Gottliebs chief advisors when we move forward. And fooinally, this has been mentioned already. Kias funding. The fda is unlike most federal agencies and almost all the money goes to paying people who work there. So when budget cuts come, head count drops. All of fda does starts with the people that work there. The alliance for stronger fda has been in place now for over a decade. Bipartisan has been very successful in making the impression on key appropriators that the fda budget is something that is very important to preserve and even grow when possible. I think that history again is going to be very important as we go forward. I think its a three part play, mission, leadership, funding that can all lead to good things. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Good to be here. So the last comment on this panel before we get to conversation. I just want to say minor spoiler alert. You may hear something that you already heard from the panelists or from representative mcgovern player prior to this. Im just going to go through the remarks anyway and add to the conversation. I think its fair to say that, you know, u. S. Politics is really elevated to a new level of divis divisiveness. In the heated conversations, food policy really has taken a backseat. And every conversation that ive had in d. C. Trying to anticipate whats going to happen, i think the main point of the conversation has been we dont really know yet. Theres been no telescoping exactly on whats going to happen. We can get a sense now that were beginning to see some people put into positions. But again, as the conversation and i think what was raised earlier, food policy itself and all the various issues have not yet elevated to the national conversation. Food and how its grown has an enormous impact on the security of america. Theres been a lot of speculation on what might happen. We heard a little bit of it here today already. I do think we can expects to see many functions of food and nutrition policy be reviewed and analyzed based on costs and needs. And this may lead to changes in standards and funding and requirements for National Food assistance programs. Trump has a vision to support jobs and american agriculture. Growth through exports. He made immigration a major part of his efforts which impact farm labor that we have yet to be determined. While we can expect federal regulation ands policies to delay or stall, i think its entirely possible, as has been mentioned already on this panel, that local and state governments will take matters into their own hands and pursue actions at the state and local levels, such as what were seeing on soda taxes and sodium targets and warning labels and gardens and other opportunities. So i think well see increasing activities and best practices among Community Groups and local food policies and advocates to be successfully replicated across the country. I fully expect to see that. So, you know, we know food policy plays an Important Role in ensuring access to safe healthy food, especially for vulnerable populations such as mothers and infants. And low income individuals and families and their communities. So i just want to reiterate, the biggest priority should than we should have an conversation around the issues and elevated to the National Level and everybody in this room, you know, becoming engaged and reactivated on the issues to be sure that what we gain isnt lost but that where there is opportunity to make improvements, we look at those opportunities, as well. It is important, i mean every american eats at least three times a day for the most part. One in two babies in the United States is affected by wic. Ag and food sectors are the most significant sources of labor providing about 11 of u. S. Employment and making up a significant portion of the gdp. These are all issues that are important. And food is central to our collective quality of life and diet is a key driver of health, promotion and disease prevention. So i think its fair to say that improvement in health of americans will help keep our country secure and prosperous. Not just for this generation, but for future generations. So we discuss understood president obama, we saw a lot of significant changes to food policies. And while we can expect a typical pendulum shift in this purnlt administration, i current administration, some things im observing is that trump is intent on doing that which is opposite what president obama did, and we can expect to see relaxation of and potential reversal of obama era policies, depending on how we all act around the issues. So again, i think just making sure that were looking at best practices and opportunities to engage continue to engage in the conversation and pursue opportunities and interests that we think need to be continued but also thinking about where we may want to see improvements. I think if just again, just to close it out f trump wants to employ a americafirst policy, then food nutrition policy and all the important sectors it impacts from consumers who has been to be eaters and farmers and food workers and nurses and doctors and taxpayers to the ag and Food Industry should be priority issues. And Healthy Eating and access to food nutrition can be a bipartisan effort. I think given some of the early signals coming out of the administration in terms of how things will be done, i think we probably shouldnt be encumbered by past approaches as a blueprint on how to approach whats going on, moving forward. It may be an opportunity to forge new ways to thinking of ways to Work Together and share values and opportunities. Thank you. Thank you to our panel. Were going to start weve asked our experts to opine on what they think the food policy priorities should be for the administration. Now were going to ask your help and so thomas is going to help me make sure this works. So were going to ask you to answer the question which of these should be the administrations biggest food policy priority . And weve given you a sample and thomas will explain how can you help respond. Another category. Sorry. Thats all right. So you can either text the letter or can you go on a browser and some of these things you have to do on a browser. So if you want to go ahead and experiment with that, but it looks like yeah. I think they figured it out. You have another ten seconds to text your answers. All right. Great. Hunger, food safety, nutrition, Adequate Funding for fda and usda. All right. So one area that theres probably a lot of agreement around even in this panel is the need to continue to implement the food safety modernization act and so ill throw the first question to joe. How can this administration continue to make progress on food safety and maybe also what challenges will they face as they continue to implement this . Thank you. When mike taylor was at fda and shepherded all the fsma regulations through, he held a kind of bi dual priority approach. One, a high bar for food safety. Two regulation thats were workable for the Food Industry. It want practical, it wasnt going to happen. But if it didnt achieve a good result, it wasnt worth it. I think he had that exactly right. So i think fdas First Mission is to carry through that vision into implementation. With inspections that are both skilled and evenhanded. Looking at the food Safety System as a whole. Not picking on little things, but picking on big things that matter. I think that the inspections will be important. Fda cannot do that alone. Enlarging the role of the states which again mike was a strong advocate of. It does need funding. Thats part of the funding picture. It enlarges the scope by many fold. And so its a really lost opportunity if not done. It does require funding. I think thats key. Ask one of the things that was not completed in the last administration, there is a whole series of guidance documents. To implement the fda regulations. I think everybody is hopeful that those will emerge. They kind of fill out the picture. And just a follow up question. Maybe can you help folks understand how budget cuts to fda might ultimately interfere with the ability of the agency to meet that inspection mandate, develop those guidance documents. Okay, well, as i said. The way the fda budget works is almost all money goes to pay role. Its not like nih which is very important agency, but a lot of money there goes outside. Which is also important. But it doesnt affect the people inside working. If the inspectors are fda employees and theres fewer of them, theyre going to do fewer inspections. I think the big bumpup is going to be, again, supporting the state involvement. The fda has smartly started to slowly training its own folks, training state folks along the way so there is alignment. At one point there was concern on whether the state inspectors would be as rigorous as the federal. So i think theyve got a plan to do that. But they also need money to do that. And so i think its a question of followthrough. Look, it took i mean, scott needs to be acknowledged for his role here. While at gma. Hes really one of the key cogs in the fsma development role. Five years at least to get the Inspection System down. But were building capacity throughout. And so each step of the way enhancements are being made. Mike or rick, do you want to add anything . Is this an area where there might be bipartisan agreement where the fda should have the resources to fully implement fsma . If you mean bipartisan among industry and consumers, i think, yes. Democrats and republicans, i think, no. And its really budget, budget, budget. Budget, budget, budget, and what is the administrations attitude . Will it be strong enforcement, or come on, joe, you can do better not you. You can do a better job next time. Well let tainted peanuts from produce georgia go through. Rick . Very briefly. I think theres no question but that nothing has changed in the past 20 years. What are the top three priorities for food safety, food safety, and what dont you understand about food safety . I dont think that will change. In terms of what mike said, history suggests 180degree different. Republicans enforce democrats regulate. So there wont be a lot of new regulations. But youll see a fair amount of enforcement. Because this early, thats what republicans do. So speaking of regulations, this morning cspi and other groups released a letter urging Food Companies and retailers to oppose the regulatory accountability act. This is the bill thats passed the house that would require formal rulemaking and congressional approval for all major rules and major guidances. And so i wonder if mike you could talk a little bit more about what you see what Regulatory Reform might mean for implementing laws like fisma and other food safety laws and rules. Its a 48page single space bill. For fun, i urge everybody to try to read it. Its a complicated system of bureaucratic hurdles that would have to be overcome to adopt regulations. It is basically paralyzing the government. Its not just food, its across every regulatory front that government has. You know, mind safety, employment discrimination. So it flew through the house. And now its before the senate. Hopefully the senate will tone it down a little bit and trump will sign that bill. I dont know if the democrats would filibuster. So ewg, cspi and a bunch of other organizations are urging industry to oppose it. Even though industry is a member of some of the trade associations that are supported. Like the chamber of commerce that are supporting the regulatory accountability act. And, you know, i was thinking about id like to amend what i said in the beginning. About consumer the Public Interest side and the government side. There are two a couple of driving forces here. That are going on that are kind of the inexorable driving forces. One is Scientific Research showing that something is good, something is bad, something is safe for workers, something not safe. And that is a continuing pressure. And an anti Regulatory Administration may be able to resist that for a while. But at some point the dam is going to break and people are going to understand what that there is a real problem that has to be dealt with. Keep that in mind. That thats a major kind of a silent force. And a second thing is that what we have seen in the last, i dont know, 20 years, maybe, is a more progressive Food Industry. Sometimes with the little companies, the natural Food Companies, whole foods, thriving in a by catering to people who are more concerned about Public Health and the environment. And were seeing big Food Companies sometimes doing progressive things. And i mentioned mars, necessarily, unilever, a few others. And all the Big Companies have bought little companies. General mills bought cascadian farm and kelloggs bought cashy and campbell bought gold house farms. I see somebody from mars here. Mars is very supportive of things like nutrition facts labelling and sodium guidelines and added sugars labelling. And so were seeing kind of a bu bulkization. Stl are more Progressive Companies. Some companies are willing to admit this is the 21st century and are willing to stick their necks out a little bit and do more progressive things. And there this administration will resist a lot of those things. You mentioned Scott Gottlieb. The only thing he said about food is well maybe we should delay nutrition facts labelling. By i dont know how many years. But hopefully some of the more Progressive Companies and Public Interest groups will be supporting doing the right thing. So susan im sorry, did you want to add thing . I want to add one thing. Having worked for both democrat and Republican Administrations, about equal for my tenure at the fda. You know, each has opportunities. I think one opportunity, i think of something michael just said though, he may not be expected to be to. I think its the administration will want to spur innovation. And the innovation track right now is something that i think is moving in a direction that a lot of people can support. Consumers are kind of demanding a change in food supply. And companies are responding to that. But we need a regulated environment that accept thats and embrace thats and nurtures that. And i think thats something that this administration could very well embrace. And so susan, what are some examples of things this administration could do to support innovation that would help support healthier diets . I mean, i think exactly what was just said. I think when you think about at least, again, thinking about how ive been looking at the situation is, you know, how do you marry up the shared values or intersecting agendas, right . So its an administration that is interested in innovation and helping the industry and also says that theyre interested in helping the american consumers. So how do you marry up the Public Health goals with the interests of the industry . I would agree that weve got Many Companies that have stepped forward and taking some really great opportunities to develop programs that have done just that. Have really looked at, okay, heres the opportunity that we need or that the public environment. But we have business objectives as a company, so lets figure out how to marry those pieces up. To build on what michael said, as well, around consumers sort of looking at really demanding different choices. I think food minds as done a survey called food temperance in america. We have done it for a couple of years. I think last september we did our fourth wave. Right before the election. So its a little outdated. I think what was interesting to us is that early in our survey in the early years we wanted to look at what do people think about Government Intervention with creating healthier environment for making food choices or, you know, do people like this primary shoppers . And we looked at along the political lines, democrats versus republicans. And what you would expect is that republicans wanted more onus to be put on individual choice. Democrats wanted more of the onus to be put on other factors, other segments of society around them. That was in the beginning. When we did our most recent wave, we did see more converging of both democrats and republicans supporting the idea of creating healthier environments through outside sectors or other opportunities. So i think there is so to be sure, republicans still are interested in, you know, more favorable towards individual choice. Theyre moving more towards a line of seeing what the opportunities are for creating programs and policies. That help them make different choices. So fda has been taking comments on the definition of words like natural and words like healthy. Is that an area where industry might support finally drawing a clear line around what those words mean . And also, an opportunity to provide consumers more clarity about how theyre using their food dollars . There is an opportunity toer to evolve along what the current science is telling us, and also an opportunity to evolve around how consumers are perceiving foods in their diets. I do think thats one area where its going to be challenging, given all the various aspects thats going into it. I dont know how fast that will happen. But i do think that may be one area where there would be an opportunity for industry to continue to be you know, calling their foods healthy. But giving consumers what they need from from the you know, a label standpoint and looking at how to develop that and evolve that with the science. Should fda define natural . No. In a word. Why not . Its kind of an amorphous term that has gone to its lowest comment denominator in many ways. And im not sure you could lift it up to a new standard. A woman worked at the ftc, in the bowels of the ftc. She was writing a definition of natural. And she was on page of about 650 of the federal register for how the ftc was going to prescribe this. And it never saw the light of day. And it probably shouldnt have. Because it was too much. And class action lawyers, which mike seems to favor, theyre part of them are useful, and many of them are parasites. What they do is file a lawsuit and then negotiate a settlement for themselves. Theyre not really trying to make law here. They rarely go after a big company that is capable of fighting what theyre doing. Its a way to raise money. Thats about it. We have defended many of them. Its amazing how willing they are to roll over. So i dont think they will define those things. One point on mike and we said hr5 . Yes. Hr5 strikes me as the pendulum maybe swinging too far to the right. That is the beauty of washington, d. C. Obama will take it too far to the left with a bunch of executive orders and science be dammed if the first lady wants to vilify sugar. Then the republicans not to be outdone will try to get legislation which makes it impossible to regulate. That doesnt make sense either. If you look right now, who is running omd, and who is running oira . Do you really think there will be progressive regulations the next four years . The answer is a resounding no. Its not going to happen, because politically it wont happen. But washington should go back and forth. We should test these ideas. And we should be people really shouldnt be mice in a laboratory. But we should test things to see what works. And i think that type of legislation, my personal view, not representing a client, is it goes too far. I dont think you need go that far. I think its an overreaction to all of the executive orders and pushthrough regulations that we saw in the last year of the Obama Administration. Joe . Did you want to answer . I think one thing to keep an eye on is that there are there is a lot of very general across the board both rhetoric legislation like was just discussed and so forth. But the fda food program, at least so far, has kind of been below the radar screen. Its not in the crosshairs like Immigration Reform or things like that. And i think, therefore, you know, it sets the groundwork for sensible policy moving forward, including areas where the Prior Administration was not able to do anything. I think i might differ on natural. Not that i think would be easy. And not that i think any resolution would be widely applauded. Because you cant satisfy everybody on that one, i guarantee you. One thing it would do is put an end to all of that class action litigation which i will tell you is an enormous diversion ens. Its good for the lawyers. By its an enormous diversion. Companies only have so much resource, like anything else. Id rather see that money in food safety and innovation than defending and settling lawsuits over marketing claim like natural. So maybe its worth it for the greater good, to kind of get something of that on the books behind us. So another labelling question. Gma has sent a letter urging fda to delay the implementation date of the update to the Nutrition Facts Panel until 2021. Maybe just going down the line here. Should we delay implementation of the Nutrition Facts Panel and and should we delay it to sync up to implementation of the new nfp with the requirements of the new gmo disclosure law . Yes, in a word. And i would go one step further. I would ask for their tl to be a study during that period of time on whether or not fdas adoption of the added sugar provisions was done procedurally and in an appropriate way. Im not saying it wasnt. Im saying it was rammed through. And for anyone who has a different nutrient, if this is the way that it can be done politically, then everything is at risk. Mikes nutrient of the month could immediately have added sodium. Percent dv sodium. They cannot happen that quickly. They should be more thoughtful. The one outside concern about marrying up the two issues is god knows what we will see gmo. Final regulation. I know congress set a date. Congress sets lots of dates. Theyre not always followed. But, yes, i do think we should only have one label change. Its about a billion dollars per change. That billion dollars is passed on to consumers who need to buy food. So if you only have one its 1 billion. If you have two, its 2 billion. Mike . The nutrition facts deadlines for Big Companies, july 2018, should be kept. For Smaller Companies july 2019. Should be kept. Companies can do it. Theyre facing some time pressure, sure. But they could do it so that the public could reap the benefits of having those better labels. Indicating, you know, in big print, calories. Having the added sugars with the percent dv. And the added sugars line went through notice and common rulemaking. Tons of comments. There is an enormous amount of Scientific Research that has accumulated in the past 15 years documenting the harm from added sugars. And the innocence of naturally hurting sugars because they come in fruits and vegetables. And youre right about the linking it to gmo labelling. Means delaying it, perhaps, for ever. Because we have no idea if the gmo labelling is going to happen, moum years its going to take to develop regulations. So, yes, lets get the labels and moving. Its nice to see some of the labels in the marketplace already. And i think the companies are proceeding on the assumption that theyre going to have to provide labels by july 2018. And hopefully it will be a fait fait de compli. Accompli. Joe . I think, number one, if i understand the gma letter correctly, the gma asked for delay but did not ask for a change. Correct. Just to be clear. Yes. I think probably number one, im in favor of an extension. I think number one, the fda probably was a little unrealistic when it first set the two year deadline. I remember back in nlea and theres tons more labels out there. And its like going through a funnel. There is only so many places that change labels. And, yeah, some are going to be first. A lot are going to be last. And companies are really fearful. And they were from the beginning. Long before the change in the administration. I think the gmo labelling, i think it ought to put pressure on usda to do it. You know . Scott used to talk about just label. Well, lets just label it. Lets just do it. Lets just get that reg out and its okay to sync them up. One shouldnt wait for the other. One should be accelerated so the two can come together in a reasonable time. Because the cost is very significant. Susan . I think a delay is reasonable and inevitable also but i think with a time frame makes sense. Ive had an opportunity to work with some companies on some of the labels changes and what they have to be looking at. Theres a lot that goes into it as many Company Representatives in this room might attest to. But i do think that, you know, so i think and i know, you know, theres a lot of money put behind the labelling changes. And i think that companies that are willing to move faster and get something out in the marketplace, have an opportunity to be leaders. And opportunity to, you know, do something different. But i agree, i think the gma letter to my knowledge or my read is they have asked for a delay and not a change. I think thats reasonable to make sure its done right. But with a time frame. So we wanted to ask you what you thought about this question. So were going to put another poll up here. It should be the third poll. Lets go to the next one. There we go. Okay. Do you think fda and usda should align the deadline for the Nutrition Facts Panel update with a deadline for exposing gmo ingredients . Lets see who is great. All right. And while youre doing that, weve got about 15 or 20 more minutes, right, thomas . So why dont we invite folks to we have an amazing panel with great knowledge. Invite folks to come to the microphones and ask your questions. We would love to get you involved in the conversation as well. Sir . [ inaudible question ] how about one and then we will go to the who are you, and who are you with . Im mike barns [ inaudible ] one of the things i wanted to comment is about the labelling issue that we have right here. Industry has its own initiative. Because of what youve been talking about, the consumer demand and consumers are asking for transparency. That is called smart labelling. And the idea is that the upc code will be able to access a database where the consumers can get a lot more information that can actually be put on a label. Any comments about that . Could actually be put on a label. Any comments about that . Let me ask, mike, do you want talk about using Digital Solutions in lieu of or in addition to whats on the pack . Well, its nice have more information. And the web can provide endless information. I dont think that many people are going to use their smart phones to check out the upc label or the qr code. You know, just too much of a nuisance for information that people are just not very interested in. Does anybody want to answer the question of the role of digital to supplement whats on the package . I think over time it will become more and more useful. I think studies have found that people who care most and will be impacted by Nutrition Information read it and people who dont really care arent impacted by it. Then you have things like total sugars, added sugars, total carbohydrates. And f. D. A. s own study showed that 35 of the respondents were very confused. If that were the ftc, they would bring a case against you. The fda, no problem. Were moving forward. So we should have electronic. Should it be the only vehicle . In lieu of the label . Maybe over time can you phase that in. Im a consulting attorney doing Public Health law in the boston area. And im really concerned about the privatization of law and really pushing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine through adoption of volunteer codes of conduct or codes of conduct regulatory frame works that are basically made out of a clock by private organizations. And then incorporated by reference. I wonder if that is really going to accelerate rulemaking that creates safe harbors where folks can adopt a comprehensive set of regulation thats arent actually on the federal books. There is very little enforcement arent certificate,s that result in label claims s that something should ab dressed, there should be more oversight of . You are concerned about that . The nad of the Better Business bureau has been around for 50 years. And they do a darn good job of policing that area. I think they discontinue the ad program. But it is a private mechanism to, if you will, police advertising. I think the bigger concern there, it is more of a philosophy. Its a guideline. I know its an executive order. So its a rule. I think its going to slow down all rulemaking as a general matter. There is a number of guidance thats havent been finalized. People really cant start printing the labels until theyre finished. And the question is how quickly will fda be able to finish the guidance, get it through omd and then get it back out . So there will be a political fife sofkal barrie we are that two for one. Im not sure it will be a two for one actually. And ill just add a footnote which is hr5 requires formal rulemaking and would require formal rulemaking for major guidances which the Food Companies in this room will depend on whether its to implement fisma or updates in the Nutrition Facts Panel and so on. I think thats another example of a very broad ranging policy and how ate pliz to the food and Drug Administration program. The guidance issue is up for negotiation. And the fda had a renaissance over the last eight years. All the fisma regulations, the Nutrition Facts Panel regulation which i believe will go forward with every timetable. So much of washington, you get the hid line from the new regulation but you get the impact from the implementation. So if this is a period where they spend more time with implementation of the huge regtd torre agenda just rolled out, id say thats a good thing. Thank you. Im with highway balance fitness and nutrition. So my question is as being a representative of a microgroup that is impacted greatly by food policy and nutrition, and despite the criticism of michelle obama, what they did do is create a consciousness concerning health and wellness that created a movement. How do we get capable women as the final Decision Makers with policies concerning nutrition and health and wellness . Id start with the current one, susan main who is director of the food safety applied nutrition at the fda. Likewise. Yeah, i mean, again, just continuing to work with women on the hill and in other venues that can help to lead the charge on these conversations. I think the activists or the advocacy efforts in the room, by organizations represented in the room, just making sure were having those conversations with the individuals who are in the leadership positions to make decisions or help make decisions. And i think as susan said, there are most of the major leadership positions within fda and usda have not been filled. So i think well see. But i certainly agree with your point that no one has done more to to change the way americans think about food in the last decade or more than mrs. Obama. And its hard to imagine someone playing that role because she played so well and sh h. Such an had such an enormous ability to reach people in a way that wasnt perceived as lecturing them or making them feel they were told what to eat, but just encouraging them to rethink some of their assumptions about diet. I mean shes still going to be continuing on the issues. I think that even though she may not play as well to this administration and others, she still has a lot of sway with organizations and groups that can have influence. I dont think we should assume that a having a woman in place will automatically mean a smart policy. Should we have sarah palin . Michelle bachmann . Betsy devos . You know, numerous other people. Theyre political philosophies. Michelle obama had a progressive philosophy. And i think inevitably, a larger thing going on in society us guys are 15yearold successors are playing with their smart phones and play stations and its women who are getting into medical schools and law schools. I think theyre now a majority in both. And thats going to percolate up. And women will be having a much, much greater role in society than he had have had in the past because of their efforts and because of mens just playing around. Can i just comment . I should stop video gaming. Sorry. You want to add something . I had a point. The point was simply that, you know, good policy is not either obviously a female or a male issue. Nor it is necessarily a republican or a democratic issue. Consumers can do more good for the Long Term Health by making sound dietary choices than anything else. Thats because he was health care economist. He was looking at the money. Looking at the budget on Health Care Costs. And saying that Health Care Costs can be brought down if people eat better. And so again, theres opportunities in any administration if you think about it the right way. Sir . Hi, im a doctoral student in Public Health, but i was a food scientist for blue almonds and we were concerned not so much with the actual labeling, but with distribution we couldnt make a label just for one state. We sort of had to make it for whole blocks. Both susan and michael mentioned potentially an increase in state level labelling initiatives. How would you address concerns that maybe states would make mutually exclusive or conflicting labels but also allowing for that as sort of a source of innovation . Well, i think thats whats going to happen. And then that might spur some activity then at the National Level. I think that i mean maybe take gmo labelling as an example of how state level activities its challenging for companies to implement at the state level. So then it got punted back up. And so maybe well see similar type of pattern happening. It remains to be seen. That type of activity has good results and bad results. Good result, before we had nutritional labelling, cspi and mike basically went after claims that even Oatmeal Companies were making and they did it in texas and california. And there were enough cases and enough state rules that ultimately industry came to washington and said enough. Well agree to nutrition labeling. Well agree to standards for claims but give us one set. Congratulations, that was really well done. I dont think gmos was really well done. Gmos was really what i call the precautionary example. Guilty until proven innocent. And its almost impossible to prove something innocent exception over a long period of time. And if you get voters in one state or legislature in one state trying to impose Something Like that, industry may ultimately say enough, please. But a mandatory gmo rule is not a good idea at this point in time. It vilifies something that is probably very good for the public and the world. And that is not a good model for regulating. So one response to that conceivably would be federal preemption that we have with the nlea and we have for claims, possibly federal preemption that goes beyond that for things like gmos, or god forbid california prop 65. But that type of regulation that goes to the state sometimes works and sometimes in my opinion can be very dangerous. And i would just add thats not something i would advocate for. I think its important to Pay Attention to and see whats happening and be engaged in a dialogue as somebody who was representative of industry and knows the challenges that can happen if thats, you know, if these changes are happening. Its different changes are happening at state and local levels. Did you want to add something . Just, well, as a strategy, i think its a very valuable one. It was effective where we saw new york city doing a first regulation requiring just calories and then philadelphia and seattle required not just calories, calories and menu boards but on printed menus, calories, carbs, saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat. And that got restaurants clambering for federal regulations that would preempt these state differences. But getting those disparate laws at the local level or state level, you know, down there in the laboratory of democracy, was ultimately very powerful way of bringing industry to the table and agreeing on something good. Rick, you mentioned menu labeling in your introduction, which, of course, is required as a under a provision in the Affordable Care act. And turns out who knew the Affordable Care act would be so hard to replace. Putting that aside. Why did you think that sort of, as you put it, well see, as opposed to something that will happen . Because i think the vast majority of impacted players, whether it be the fast food chains or the casual dining locations, they are ready to do it. I represent three large players in that space. And when i saw there was an opportunity to possibly delay, i didnt recommend you should urge delay, but its my job to say theres an opportunity here, and they went three for three saying, were ready to do this. Lets go ahead and do it. So i think it will happen for that reason. And a lot of these things mike was saying how progressive some parts of the Food Industry have been getting. Thats a competitive issue. If you can wear a white hat and have mike support you, then you may support what he wants. If your product that youre selling isnt so white hat if, the nutrition profile is not as positive, you may oppose it. So im not sure its necessarily because youre a good person and youre concerned, its what you have to sell. But its interesting that mars and pepsi, and nestle have been three companies that are pretty supportive of certain nutrition measures, and they dont exactly cater to the health food market. I think thats where it was a strategy, right, probably, to think about we know these are macro issues in the world, and how do we as a responsible company again, im not suggesting that this is exactly what happened, but i think its looking at where can we find intersecting agendas and put together programs and opportunities that will benefit both the company, but also address some of the issues that are happening. Strategically, confection is a snack excuse me, a treat, not a snack. It is important to characterize it that way. I think the philosophy of the confectionary industry is were a treat, which addressed properly is fine in an overall diet. Pepsi situation, they have a wide variety of offerings, anything from water to sugarfree to juice to, you know, their mainline pepsi, so they are diversified enough that they can support just about anything. Because they have a product to meet that. So youre seeing the maturing and the growth of industry to be able to do that. Coming back to something that mark used to say, he really wanted Food Companies competing on the basis of nutrition, and i think we are seeing that. And again, i think nurturing innovation, fostering that competition with todays Consumer Needs and demands is going to move everything in a good direction. Sir . Good morning, im from john hopkins university. And my question is about food safety. It seems to me that the panel is optimistic about food safety regulation, implementation, and enforcement, rather than creating new regulation. Id like to understand why you are so optimistic given that the announcements about water safety are somewhat concerning. For example, we know that usda budgets cuts will effect the water and waste water loan and Grant Programs which will affect the weather quality in Rural Communities and with respect to the epa, we know that cuts under enforcement capacities that will also probably affect Water Quality inspections, for example. So why do you think that food safety will not be affected by the same type of policies . I think its because that law was developed in a very inclusive way. It had both consumer and industry support. And it was implemented and the regulation developed in the same way. So they come up perfect, Water Quality is still something thats an issue. Fresh produce, fda signalled a willingness to kind of look at that. But again, i think it comes down to, you know, if i was to draw the map on Regulatory Reform, it would be based on inclusiveness and workability tied to high standards. Thats been a winning formula on fisma. And when people arent complaining, you dont get that backlash. And while were on that subject, produce remains the leading source of food borne illness. The safety rule is set to go into effect soon. Maybe its a question for joe and mike, do you foresee any challenges in implementing that rule . Farmers will have to start for the benefit of everyone, farmers will have to stas Start Testing their Irrigation Water to ensure that their water is meeting certain standards. You know, my crystal ball is murky. Much like the Irrigation Water. Yeah. A lot of it is budget. Is there going to be any enforcement, any pressure on farmers to do that . I think you have to take the longterm picture on the fresh produce. You have an enormous industry never before regulated by the fda. The fda is going to have to enlist an enormous amount of state power to oversee it. Rome is not built in a day, neither will the produce rule be implemented, but you have to think of it a decade from now. This is the time to think about implementation of the initiatives not taken and put the same vigor into implementation that was done in developing the rules in the first place. And will they need to be tweaked along the way, tweak them along the way. Why not . Why not make things better . So, we just have a few more minutes left. I had two more questions. One we have not really touched on, but states are now beginning to get active around the questions of Food Additives and food chemicals. There are some state bills introduced to ban chemicals in food packaging. Where do you see that heading, mike . I think it will be a burgeoning area of interest in progressive states like california, vermont. Theyll see that the food and Drug Administration or epa isnt doing its job, and that they can step in to protect their consumers. And some of the some of their actions might just have local impact, others will have national impact. Maybe some of that will spur the congress or Regulatory Agency to be more aggressive nationally. Well see. And is that an area, rick or joe, where theres some chance the Food Industry might say rather than fighting and perhaps losing these fights in states like california and vermont, it might make sense to come up with a system of review that would reassure consumers . I think definitely yes. This is one area, whether it be grass or food additive, where if the federal government has acted, that will be a barrier to the state doing very much. So it if theres a particular heavy metal or something thats showing up in a product and california decides to take action against it, i think you may see the industry, if they have similar concerns, going to fda and saying lets establish what are the known background levels and what are safe levels. So theyll go to the fda and ask them to do that. One overarching thought, and maybe my final for this group, would be dont view these next four years or eight or whatever it may be necessarily as depressing and horrible. View it as an opportunity. Dont yell and scream about everything that the president , the hhs secretary, the usda secretary, and the fda commissioner do. Pick and choose your fights. And lets go back to sound science. If sound science not evolving science, not fringe science, but if found science should be the rule, then make the republicans make this Administration Live with sound science. Try and get them to stay in the middle on that. I think you saw some deviations in the last two years of obama, which is going to cause that reaction, the pendulum swinging. Lets get that pendulum back to the middle where science rules, not politics. And im sure youll agree with me that epa should revoke the tolerances for if thats what the science suggests. I know nothing about that. My crystal ball is foggy. So we have just a few minutes left. Maybe ask mike and joe and susan to also add some parting thoughts for our group. Well, i hate to disagree with rick, but we have to fight on everything. This administration and this congress are, face it, a total disaster from a Public Interest perspective. And there are a lot of different people. Well have some will have a concern about this issue or that issue, but we need to try to cover all the issues from different directions, politically and with litigation to stop crazy roll backs that are unfounded. So, keep fighting. Joe . Well, i think, again, having lived through many changes of administration in both directions, i think every time period has its own opportunities, and i would urge people to both look for those and rally around those, and, again, use this as a time to solidify gains made and implement them well. You know, the old song every hands a winner, every hands a loser. You know, take the hand and play it right. Susan . I would say that like i stated early on, i think that it is again, i think that remains to be seen. And i think that the recommendation also is to think about this as not a traditional Republican Administration in many ways. I think again, i dont know whats going to happen. My crystal ball is murky, as well, but i think that take it as an opportunity to think about new ways of addressing some of the issues that are important to everybody in this room, whether no matter what side of the aisle youre on and no matter where youre coming from as an organization, think about the opportunities to create a path forward that will, you know, not kumbaya for everybody, but that will be beneficial for more people than fewer people. Representative mcgovern stated during his presentation that now is the time to really rally together and make sure our voices are heard, and i think thats good advice. Please join me in thanking our panel. All right, so, thank you for the kind invitation. Its my real pleasure to be here. Thank you to cfaa for inviting me to come. I was asked to give an update on some of the activities that weve been doing at the