Welcome!

Welcome to On Food Law, a food law and policy blog administered by the Food Law Lab at Harvard Law and the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy at UCLA Law.  This blog will be a forum for food law scholars, policymakers, media, the food industry, and the interested public to engage with and discuss research in and ideas about food law and policy.

Food is, at once, the most personal and the most political.  Food affects all of us and the law affects all of food.  The things we eat, from morning coffee to late night snack, come to us as they are as the result of an elaborate web of legal regulations.  On Food Law’s goal is to build an understanding of the law of food, and ultimately improve both the law and our food.

We hope to foster and amplify the conversation among the many stakeholders, including industry, activists, academics, and politicians. Our authors will include members of the Food Law Lab, Resnick Center, Harvard Law, and UCLA Law faculty, staff, and students, as well as other scholars, policymakers, and individuals with ideas that may affect the food system.  We will also cross post to other blogs and relevant publications.

We would like for this blog to be a place of thoughtful discussion, and although our default is no comments, we will consider opening specific posts to comments or publishing responses.  Please see our policies.

Finally, please join the discussion, share what you see here, and stay in touch.  Follow us on Twitter at @UCLAFoodLaw and @thefoodlawlab, or email us at resnickprogram@law.ucla.edu, info@foodlawlab.com, or winters@law.ucla.edu.

 

 

 

Featured post

Regeneration: Los Angeles Food Policy Council Discusses Healing and Transforming the Food System

Last week, the Los Angeles Food Policy Council (LAFPC) held a community networking event on the concept of regeneration, a broad idea that addresses healing and transforming our food system, and encompasses health, access, human rights, social justice, and animal welfare.  In its description of the event, the LAFPC wrote, “At LAFPC, we envision regeneration as a paradigm shift–one that goes beyond extraction, beyond inputs and outputs and even beyond sustainability. To be regenerative, our food systems need to not only feed people, but restore our planet. Regenerative food systems give birth to new opportunities for transforming our earth, our communities and the people who inhabit them.”

The program included talks by Clare Fox, the Executive Director of the L.A. Food Policy Council, and Gunnar Lovelace, the co-founder and co- CEO of Thrive Market, an online wholesale buying club for organic and natural foods, and “learning hubs,” which divided the attendees into small groups to discuss how regeneration resonated with various aspects of the food system.

The concept of regeneration goes beyond “organic,” “clean,” “natural,” and even beyond “sustainable,” and the conversation at the event ranged from how to indicate such a concept to consumers, to how to create incentives for big agriculture to embrace regeneration, and whether change would start at the individual or systemic level, or both.

To see more LAFPC events, see their website, here.

Proposition 12 – Humane v. Humane

This fall the California ballot will include an initiated state statute, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, or California Proposition 12.  This statute would ban the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet, repealing and replacing part of a 2008 California law that also addressed the humane treatment of animals.

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam provides an interesting perspective on Prop 12 in the blog post, below, which is cross-posted from her blog, Biobeef Blog.  Dr. Van Eenennaam is a Cooperative Extension Specialist in the field of Animal Genomics and Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at University of California, Davis.  I also recommend reading her series of three posts on this issue that she posted in January.  The first is linked here.

Proposition 12 – Humane vs. Humane

Back in January I wrote a blog entitled Proposition 2 déjà vu about a proposed  California ballot initiative entitled “The Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act”. Sure enough that initiative qualified for the 2018 ballot, despite the clear data on the impacts as detailed in my three blog posts on this issue (Six hens a layingEvidence-based animal welfare recommendationsProposition 2 déjà vu).

I am quaintly of the opinion that objective evidence should drive public policy, and not emotions, despite having lived in California for over 30 years. And as a public scientist I remain convinced that objective facts and data are the best way to inform policy.

However, ballot initiatives in California are basically a pay-to-play scorecard. If you have the money to get the requisite number of signatures (365,880 valid signatures), then your initiative will be on the ballot, facts be damned. And so it was with Proposition 12, a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)‐backed initiative addressing animal confinement, which has raised $5.37 million to date… And so now let’s cue the opposition funding which will no doubt be “big ag” or “corporate farming” or “evil egg” or “big chicken”, or a tearful segment of a mother on Dr. Oz, or a shockumentary on NetFlix…..but no – crickets (actually cage-free, mute crickets to be precise). As in no organized-opposition from those who grow your food, or research the best way to produce food sustainably (Hint: people who might know some things).

Wait – what? Agriculture and scientists have had enough. We know science and facts are useless (see my previous 3 blogs re this initiative and almost all of the outreach work I have ever done in agricultural science), and there just is no point in fighting initiatives funded by wealthy animal activist industry groups who use persuasive arguments based entirely on emotion while conveniently failing to mention the multiple trade-offs and unintended consequences associated with their proposed course of action. And so the usual adversaries of demonstrably bad agricultural policy i.e. “big ag”, known as farmers by the general public, and “tobacco scientists”,  known as public university faculty and researchers to most, have thrown in the towel.

And I understand that response. It is exhausting trying to fight these large, well-funded activist groups who will stop at nothing to get their way – facts and scientific consensus be damned, and it can be a lucrative pastime. Ask those trying to fight the anti-vaxxers, or the anti-GMO industry. Slowly I see my animal scientist colleagues quietly retreating into the “spiral of silence” – a tranquil place where no one fabricates facts, and where pure science can be carried out peacefully sans messy public confrontations – sometimes referred to as “the ivory tower.”

Last time UC Davis got involved in this discussion by providing objective facts regarding Proposition 2 “Treatment of Farm Animals” over a decade ago in 2008, it cost the taxpayers more than a million dollars in a lawsuit with HSUS – money that did not go to educating our students or carrying out research, and the lawsuit about wore out one of my faculty colleagues. Likely UC administration is happy we are playing dead this time around on Proposition 12 too.

And who can blame the University? It is not fun to be in the middle of a politicized, scientific controversy. However, if professionals in the field are unwilling to stand up for objective data and evidence-based decisions, who will? And that is where this discussion gets interesting.

Who is opposing Proposition 12 – if not industry or subject-matter experts? The Humane Farming Association (HFA), an animal cruelty organization that opposes the proposition on the grounds that it legalizes for several more years some practices HFA opposes. So Proposition 12 does not move fast enough for the Humane Farming Association.

Say again? With a modest $550,000, a committee backed entirely by the Humane Farming Association, is the sole funder of opposition to Proposition 12, the “The Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals”. And here is where it gets good. Who doesn’t like a little Humane vs Humane mud wrestling?

Bradley Miller, spokesperson for HFA’s Californian’s Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud “Stop the Rotten Egg Initiative” stated of rival HSUS

The Humane Society of the United States [HSUS] is once again deceiving voters, flip-flopping on the issue of cages, and perpetuating the suffering of egg-laying hens”                                            HFA

There is a video made by HFA (below and can be accessed here) summarizing their version of the June 19, 2018 California State Legislature hearing regarding Proposition 12 which contains some interesting conflict-of-interest footage, including some questioning as to how much money HSUS was making from Proposition 12 (Spoiler alert: HSUS does not have those numbers).

https://player.vimeo.com/video/277511154?app_id=122963

According to HFA, HSUS ended up collecting 664,000 signatures for the ballot, but less than a quarter (164,000) of those were collected by volunteers, the remaining signatures were collected by HSUS paid-“bounty-hunter” signature gatherers, like the one I met at the CA Davis market in January, telling me that Proposition 12 would remove non-existent “veal-crates”, and sow “gestation crates” from California production systems. This video is worth a listen, as Miller suggests the major opposition to Proposition 12 will be the humane farming associations.

Miller further stated on the HFA “Stop the Rotten Egg” page:

Prop 12 is now just a publicity stunt in search of a lawsuit. Not only does this come at taxpayer expense, HSUS’s reckless exploitation of California’s ballot measure system is putting in grave danger a wide array of existing consumer, animal, and environmental protection lawsOf the initiatives appearing on the November ballot, Proposition 12 is the dirtiest of the dozenWe’re confident that California voters won’t get fooled again and that this fraudulent initiative will be decisively rejected.”                                                                                                                                 HFA

And then there is a quote from Friends of Animals (FoA) on the HFA “Stop the Rotten Egg” page,

“This initiative should be fiercely opposed by everyone who cares about farm animal suffering. HSUS’s collusion with the egg industry is disturbing. From legalizing battery cages to allowing as little as one square foot of space per hen — this initiative would be a disaster for millions of egg-laying hens who would still be left suffering in battery cages throughout California.”                     FoA

And yet another quote from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on the HFA “Stop the Rotten Egg” page

Beware! This initiative is being painted in rosy terms, but don’t be fooled… What it would actually do is allow farms to keep egg-laying hens in cages until 2022, at which time factory farms would still be able to confine uncaged hens to massive, crowded sheds with only 1 square foot of space per bird.”                                                                                                                                                        PETA

And finally this from Animals 24/7 on the HFA “Stop the Rotten Egg” page

“Time and again HFA has accurately identified fatal flaws in legislation advanced by HSUS.”    Animals 24/7

So what is a voter to do? Be guided by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Humane Farming Association (HFA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Friends of Animals (FoA), or Animals 24/7? Some of the above, none of the above, one of the above? Who is representing animal welfare, and how can you tell? You could try asking the scientific community who have spent their careers researching these questions, or farmers who happen to know a thing or two about farming – but that does not seem to be a popular route.

In the absence of objective, evidence-based measurements – there is just a “blob” of emotions, competing world-views, and fund-raising agendas. And that is not a great foundation upon which to base decisions around animal agriculture or public policy. Case in point: Proposition 2 from 2008 (see what that did to California farmers: Six hens a laying).

So it seems some cracks are appearing in the humpty dumpty coalition of “animal-themed corporations” also known as the “humane community”.  And perhaps nowhere is this rift more bizarrely illustrated than in this “Stop the Rotten Egg” page  animated video, “Proposition 12: California’s Caged Chickens Say NO!”.

For anyone that has ever met the former President and CEO of HSUS, Wayne Pecelle, who resigned February 2018 in a #MeToo moment  after a number of women accused him of sexual harassment,  the big-toothed male lead featured in this animated video is a thinly disguised provocation from one humane society (HFA) whose operations are based on the West Coast in California to another (HSUS) based on the East Coast in Maryland. Ironically the largest egg producing state in the US by far is Iowa.

On an unrelated note, buried in the fine print of Proposition 12, are the following strikeouts (and additions) that remove the scientific and agricultural research exemptions that were previously written into SECTION 5. SECTION 25992 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (line A below).

The proposed Proposition 12 language includes the following exemptions:

“This Chapter will not apply:

(a) During scientific or agricultural medical research.”

In other words, scientific and agricultural research animals at universities and other research facilities are subject to the provisions of the initiative – just like all of the farm animls. The implications of this change to the research exemption on things such as teaching, scientific or agricultural research, especially for genetic and nutrition research (we need individual cages to collect observations or phenotypes on each animal, and to record which egg comes from which hen), may well not be discovered until after the ballot votes are cast when agriculturalists and scientists go to perform specialized research on calves, pigs, or poultry.

It may be that those university researchers retreating to the “spiral of silence” to avoid the discomfort of a heated public discussion of Proposition 12, will eventually find their research projects thwarted by the inevitable passage of the initiative (I may have quaint opinions on how objective evidence should drive public policy, but I am a realist living in California). Yet another casualty of public policy based on emotion and propaganda, rather than informed by objective evidence and science-based recommendations.

As Mr. Miller, spokesperson for HFA’s Californian’s Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, ironically lamented during his testimony before the California State Legislature, including the words “farm animal” and “protection” in a ballot initiative in California is enough to get it passed, irrespective of how the text reads, and what the ultimate impacts of its passage will be on the welfare of animals, and the people of California.

The Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy

It’s official.  The Resnick Program is now the Resnick Center!  Lynda and Stewart Resnick have donated an additional $2.375 million to UCLA School of Law to strengthen the research and educational resources of the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy.

From the announcement: “‘Families must have accurate and honest information about their food so that they can prepare healthy meals,’ Stewart Resnick said. ‘UCLA and the Resnick Center are undertaking groundbreaking work to improve the incredibly complex modern food system, and Lynda and I want to see that effort grow in impact for decades to come.'”

“Michael Roberts, the founding executive director of the Resnick Center, said the Resnicks’ generosity will allow scholars to take a longer-term approach to work in food law and will enhance opportunities for students.”

This exciting gift will allow the Resnick Center to continue to engage in research, teaching, and advocacy to improve the food system for years to come.

 

Los Angeles Food Policy Tracker 2018

I am excited to share that the Resnick Program and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council have published the third Los Angeles Food Policy Tracker, compiled by Ellison Griep, who spent the summer working with both the Resnick Program and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council.

The Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council actively follow Los Angeles food policy actions. In the Los Angeles Food Policy Tracker 2018, substantial policy actions undertaken at both the City and County level are identified. Specifically, the tracker documents policies that were adopted, administratively closed, or are currently pending during the time period from January 1, 2017 to July 1, 2018.

We hope this valuable resource is a useful tool for the Los Angeles food community, and for the food community more broadly.

Jonathan Gold

The stupendous, and entirely unique restaurant critic/food writer Jonathan Gold died last weekend.  Like for so many others, Gold’s reviews helped me to explore and engage with the vast and incredibly complex city of Los Angeles when I moved here two years ago.  Gold’s writing illustrates how food connects people to each other and to place, much as does Bourdain’s, and his death too is an enormous loss.

Here’s a piece of his from 1998 about the year he tried to eat at every restaurant on Pico Blvd.

 

Food Law in the United States translated into Chinese

by Michael T. Roberts

I was pleased recently to approve a book cover sent to me by my colleagues at East China University of Science and Technology (ECUST) for my treatise, Food Law in the United States, (Cambridge University Press 2016), which has been translated into Chinese. The translation had been previously celebrated in a ribbon-cutting event hosted by ECUST and other colleagues in Shanghai during Spring Break in March. This event was followed by a very lovely reception by colleagues and friends to celebrate the nuptials between Nancy Walker (Professor of Education, University of La Verne) and me last December. We were honored by gracious speeches, gifts, and well wishes. We were especially honored that Mr. Xu Jihghe, General Counsel to FDA and good friend, wished us congratulations via Skype from Beijing.

MTR.Book CoverMTR.book

My journey into food law in China has been a long and incredibly rewarding experience, punctuated by teaching and outreach. I began teaching food law in China a decade ago when I was practicing law in Washington D.C.  Since then, thanks to academic appointments with ECUST, Renmin University School of Law, and Michigan State University School of Law, I have been fortunate to delve into China food law as an instructor. The outreach includes a series of food-law roundtables and conferences in China many of which have been sponsored by the UCLA Resnick Program on a variety of issues. I was pleased last year to join Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center in a series of roundtables at law schools in China to address the regulation of food safety on the farm.

All of these experiences have given me a unique perspective on the development of food law in China over the last decade and has engendered an appreciation for the role of law – no matter the legal or political system – in adapting to changing social conditions and improving the quality of living for all citizens. From where I sit, I am optimistic that China will continue to improve its food governance, notwithstanding the tremendous challenges facing China in the regulation of its food supply. I also remain cautiously optimistic and hopeful that the spirit of cooperation between the United States and China on food regulation that really took hold after the melamine scandals of 2007-08, involving pet food and infant formula, will rise above the recent political rancor coming from Washington D.C.

 

MSU Global Food Law Current Issues Conference

by Diana Winters

I was lucky over the last few days to attend and present at the MSU College of Law Global Food Law Program’s fantastic Global Food Law Current Issues Conference. At the conference there was a mix of academics, practitioners, scientists, and industry representatives, and a truly global focus. Wednesday’s discussions of dietary supplement labeling, developments in organic foods, issues regarding animal food labeling were fascinating, and the keynote on food litigation by Bill Marler, was, for a food law aficionado, a dream come true. Thursday’s talk on professional consumers in China and their effect on food safety provided an opportunity to reflect on the absence of a citizen suit provision in the FDCA, and the discussion of new technologies in product supply chains was a chance to engage with blockchain, 3D printing, and other fun stuff. These are only a few highlights of the conference, which also included discussions of intellectual property, food security, and innovation in the food space, as well as opportunities to explore the food and environment of greater Lansing, Michigan. Note: if you find yourself in East Lansing, don’t miss the Zaha Hadid designed Broad Museum of Art—a short walk from campus (picture above).

 

The value of a conference that provides a space for academics, practitioners, and scientists to meet and mingle is immense, and I’m so glad I went.

Nutrition Education in the 2018 Farm Bill

by Julia McCarthy

 

The House Committee on Agriculture recently failed to pass its version of the farm bill, legislation that sets farm and food policy every five years. Despite obesity rates looming at all-time highs, H.R. 2 Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 proposed to weaken the very programs we know improve diets—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed), and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Assistance Program (EFNEP).[1] The changes H.R. 2 proposed would have disrupted local nutrition education services, affecting already vulnerable individuals. Understanding how these changes would have harmed public health and public health infrastructure could prevent the Senate from including these misguided provisions in its version of the farm bill.

Protecting SNAP is and should be advocates’ priority. Preserving programs that enhance food assistance and promote healthy eating is also crucial to our nation’s health. Program participants, media, and advocates have articulately denounced cuts to SNAP.[2] Less has been written about the concerning changes being proposed to our nation’s largest nutrition education program. Below, I explain what the term “nutrition education” means, how the farm bill affects nutrition education, and why the proposed changes are problematic. I also suggest several ways to provide stronger, more effective support for nutrition education.

What is Nutrition Education?

Nutrition promotion; obesity prevention; consumer education; food literacy; food policy, systems, and environmental change—these are just a few of the many names people use to describe nutrition education. Nutrition education has so many names because, as the widely-accepted definition for the term explains, it involves “any combination of educational strategies accompanied by environmental supports” that provide people with the motivation, skills, and knowledge to eat well.[3] Cooking demonstrations, gardening lessons, school wellness policy support, healthy retail projects, and recipe distribution are all examples of nutrition education for which the farm bill provides funding.[4]

In fact, there are at least 26 initiatives that can support nutrition education included in the farm bill. For some initiatives, nutrition education is both the main focus and required. SNAP-Ed, which funds direct education for low-income individuals as well as policy, systems, and environment changes in schools, stores, and other community locations, is an example.[5]

Other initiatives have a main focus distinct from nutrition education, such as providing food, but still require such education. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides low-income seniors food and resources such as recipes, is an example of this second type of initiative.[6]

Others still have a broader main focus—such as increasing fruit and vegetable sales—and allow, but do not require nutrition education. The Specialty Crop Block Grant, which states have used to support farm to school programs, is an example of this third kind of initiative.[7] See Table 1 below for a full list of nutrition education initiatives in the farm bill.

Table 1: Nutrition Education in the Farm Bill[8]

McCarthy.table

How the 2018 House Bill Would Have Affected Nutrition Education

The House Bill would have altered the structure of many of these initiatives, but most importantly, it would have combined the two largest nutrition education programs, SNAP-Ed and EFNEP. To combine the programs, H.R. 2 reallocated responsibility for SNAP-Ed from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency currently responsible for EFNEP. The bill repealed EFNEP, but maintained funding for the combined program at a level similar to current funding and added $65 million in annual discretionary funding.

At the state level, H.R. 2 shifted primary administrative responsibilities for SNAP-Ed away from state agencies to land grant universities (LGUs). The bill also altered states’ funding formula, basing future funding only on a jurisdiction’s current SNAP population, and not in any part on historical funding levels. Ultimately, merging SNAP-Ed and EFNEP as proposed would have created potential problems while failing to measurably improve either program:

  • Taking SNAP out of SNAP-Ed—Naming NIFA, rather than FNS as the administering agency for SNAP-Ed, would decouple the program from SNAP and other FNS low-income nutrition education programs. At the federal level and through regional offices, FNS coordinates numerous nutrition education initiatives such as SNAP-Ed, Team Nutrition, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Moving SNAP-Ed to NIFA, a research focused sub-agency, would create inefficiencies, not improve coordination.
  • Shifting Administrative Responsibilities to Land Grand UniversitiesGiving LGUs primary administrative responsibility for SNAP-Ed is also problematic. LGUs are one of several important agencies that administer SNAP-Ed; health departments and community-based nonprofits also administer the program. If LGUs were solely responsible for administering SNAP-Ed funds, they could choose not to share funds with other agencies, impacting the diversity and reach of organizations that implement the program.

Even if LGUs were to share funding, sub-contracting would be difficult; LGUs typically do not have contract managers the way state social services and health departments do. Many LGUs would need to create new administrative systems to manage SNAP-Ed, though this infrastructure already exists in other state agencies. And, realistically, LGUs would have trouble spending less than 10% of grant funds on administration, as the bill required.

  • Altering SNAP-Ed’s Funding Formula—R. 2 did maintain mandatory funding for the proposed, combined program, but too abruptly changed how states provide SNAP-Ed. The proposed changes to the funding formula could leave many struggling to provide public health services. The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act established a stepped-down formula that considers a state’s funding history and incrementally introduces pro rata distribution based on its current SNAP population.[9] A sudden shift that considers only current SNAP participation would hurt states with a strong record of matching federal funds, as well as less-populated states. Changes to SNAP-Ed funding, when paired with recent cuts to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants for diet-related disease control, would leave some states reeling with very little funding for nutrition education and obesity prevention.

Nutrition Education Recommendations for the 2018 Farm Bill

Nutrition education helps to prevent obesity and encourages individuals to eat healthy foods American farmers grow.[10] The 2018 Farm Bill should ensure not only that these programs receive adequate funding, but that they are structured to succeed. The Senate bill should:

  • Preserve SNAP-Ed and EFNEP’s Strengths—Combining SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, as the House Bill proposed, may be politically inevitable. Whatever form farm bill nutrition education takes should maintain the funding and flexibility of SNAP-Ed and the efficacy and peer-education emphasis of EFNEP.

With SNAP-Ed, state agencies receive more than $414 million a year to contract with land grant universities, local health departments, and community-based organizations.[11] These groups empower people to eat well through social marketing, direct education, and policy, systems, and environment changes consistent with current public health practices.

EFNEP, though funded at only $67 million a year, has a great return on investment; for every $1 spent, EFNEP saves $10 in future health care costs.[12] EFNEP also has the advantage of hiring peer educators.[13] The program not only provides low-income community members with jobs, but its instructors understand the challenges and strengths of the communities in which they work.

  • Maintain FNS as the SNAP-Ed Administrator—FNS’s structure ensures that people can access and afford nutrition assistance programs, driving demand for nutritious foods through nutrition education. FNS should consult with NIFA on program administration and maintain control of SNAP-Ed.
  • Gradually Adjust SNAP-Ed Funding Based on States’ SNAP Population—Currently, USDA allocates 50% of a state’s funding based on its SNAP population, and 50% based on historical match.[14] Instead of immediately altering states’ funding, USDA should adjust funding by 10% each year until 100% of funding is based on SNAP populations. This will allow states to better plan for the program going forward.

 

[1] 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq.; §§ 2036a et seq.; §§ 3175 et seq.

[2] See e.g. Ed Bolen et al., House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill Would Increase Food Insecurity and Hardship, Center on Budget & Pol’y Priorities (April 25, 2018), https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/house-agriculture-committees-farm-bill-would-increase-food-insecurity-and.

[3] Isobel Contento, Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory and Practice (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett 2015).

[4] Julia McCarthy, Claire Uno, Pam Koch, & Isobel Contento, Empowered Eaters: A Road Map for Stronger New York State Nutrition Education Policies and Programs, 31 (Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Educ. & Pol’y, Program in Nutrition at Tchr. College, Columbia U. 2018), http://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/media-library-2014/centers/tisch-center/Empowered-Eaters-STATE-FINAL.pdf.

[5] 7 U.S.C. §§ 2036a et seq.

[6] 7 U.S.C. §§ 612c et seq.

[7] 7 C.F.R. §§ 1291 et seq.

[8] McCarthy, supra note 4.

[9] Pub. L. 111-296 § 241(d) codified in 7 U.S.C. § 2036a(d)(2).

[10] See e.g. M. Vine et al. Expanding the Role of Primary Care in the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood Obesity: A Review of Clinic and Community-Based Recommendations and Interventions, J. Obesity (2013);

  1. Prelip et al., Evaluation of a School-Based Multicomponent Nutrition Education Program to Improve Young Children’s Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, 44(4) J. Nutrition Educ. & Behav. 310-318 (2012).

[11] U.S. Dep’t Agric., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) Budget Allocation for Fiscal Year 1992 to 2017 (2017), available at https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/snap/Guidance/SNAP-EdBudgetAllocationFY1992-2017.pdf.

[12] U.S. Dep’t Agric., Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) FY 2018 Request for Applications, (Aug. 8, 2018), available at https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/FY18-EFNEP-Modification-882017.pdf; Jamie Dollahite et al., An Economic Evaluation of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, 40 J. Nutrition Educ. & Behav. 134-143 (2008).

[13] 7 U.S.C. § 3175(c).

[14] 7 U.S.C. § 2036a(d)(2).

 

Julia McCarthy is a Senior Nutrition Policy Associate at CSPI, focusing on healthy retail policies. Prior to joining CSPI, she was a policy analyst at the Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education, and Policy. McCarthy has worked as a legal fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. She attended Georgetown University and has a law degree from New York University where she was a Root-Tilden-Kern scholar.

Consume This! Hop To It

I found the following blog post about researching the history of hops, originally posted on the Consumers & Consumption blog, fascinating.

-Diana

 

by Jennifer Jordan

I have a stack of library books to my left, and in front of me is a hard drive full of documents and reading notes, and the powerful (if also problematic) search engine that’s easy to take for granted. I am in the middle of writing a book about hops, whose history illuminates labor relations, racial and ethnic formations, gender and family structures, ecologies, riverways, trade routes, and changing tastes and landscapes. Because all of my research subjects were long ago laid in their graves or cremated on their pyres (my time period is roughly the 12th century to the early 20th), I look for traces of their thoughts and actions, tastes and habits in vast quantities of library books, digitized archives, oral histories, photographs and maps, handwritten ledgers and old newspapers, and other sources of varying degrees of inscrutability. Once in a while I’ll venture out to talk to a farmer or brewer, grateful for all-wheel drive as I wind my way down ever-narrower and icier country roads to one of Wisconsin’s new hop yards.

Jordan2

But more often I’m poring over texts both digital and analog. One of the most powerful tools I use is Google Books—the ability to electronically search so many full text documents is quite remarkable for someone who started her writing life with a typewriter and a card catalog. Even when the search only yields a snippet of a page, I can then order the actual book through interlibrary loan. In other cases the whole book unfolds before me on the screen, with the relevant pages so helpfully illuminated. The ability to thoroughly search within the bodies of obscure agricultural manuals, city registries, and decades-old ethnographic surveys with a couple of keystrokes radically alters the process of this kind of research. Here, for example, I followed a lead from another source that had suggested a man named “Kiewert” might have been a Milwaukee hop dealer–and there he is.

Jordan3

The ease of access to so much of this material, however, can mean that I’m sometimes startled to discover that really valuable sources are deeply analog. My university library happens to hold the Blatz and Pabst brewery papers in its archive, so just steps away from my office I can descend into archival reverie (and sometimes drudgery). The leather binding rots all over my hands with a stinging dust, as the archivist slides a pillow underneath the enormous book to take the pressure off its 150-year-old spine. I search through these ledgers, page by page, to find out where Blatz and Pabst and others were buying their hops. It turns out, not surprisingly, that they were buying almost entirely from dealers rather than farmers. Here Kiewert appears in real life (if also with a slightly different spelling), but now I also know where his building was, and where he lived.

Jordan4

The combination of Google Books and old ledgers helped me realize the centrality of hop dealers to both the production and consumption of beer in the 19th century (and far beyond Wisconsin). According to the census searches I’ve done so far, they are all white men, some of whom started out as hop farmers themselves, and many of whom became prosperous traders in other people’s hops. These dealers command time and space with railways, telegraph wires, and the well-packed hop bales piled into train cars, horse-drawn carts, schooners and later steam ships, speeding to the marketplace that promises the best prices. Sometimes there was a glut, and the hops would languish in rural barns (one farmer lost thousands of pounds of dried hops when his barn burned down) or urban warehouses in Milwaukee or lower Manhattan or Liverpool. This was a brisk international trade, made possible by the same smoothing out of uneven land with railroad tracks that William Cronon describes in the rise of Chicago to a metropolis. That trade, in turn, relied on tens of thousands of children, women, and men picking hops in the brief window of ripeness in August and early September.

As I move through these documents, both physical and virtual, individual personalities and biographies emerge for both Wisconsin and California (14th century Germany is a whole other ballgame). I have a growing database of hop farmers and hop dealers—and a very scanty collection of the names of hop pickers, despite the fact that they vastly outnumbered the dealers and farmers. Before mechanized harvesters appeared in the early 20th century, the hop harvest required a sudden and massive influx of laborers to pick the hops by hand. In Wisconsin in the hop boom of the 1860s, this labor force consisted largely of young white women. In California, in the second half of the 19th century, hop pickers reflected the broader racialized, classed, and gendered labor pool in the state. Depending on the time and place, the quickly ripening hops were picked by Chinese men, Japanese men, Native American families, and white families. Despite their greater number, the people who swiftly harvested these sticky, perishable blossoms have, so far, appeared less frequently in search engines and the holdings of historical societies than the property owners. That said, clues do emerge here and there. Annie Burke (1876-1960), for example, was a Makahmo-speaking Pomo basket weaver, who also picked hops in her younger years in Hopland, California.[i] Here is a picture of her gravestone, with abalone shells laid before it, and a photograph of Annie with several baskets: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/123821853 There is also John Rooney (1844-1917), who was born in Ireland, but moved to Wisconsin with his family as a child. He was a hop picker and later a hop farmer, and also had two sisters (probably Margaret and Ann, the oldest) who picked hops in Loganville, Wisconsin during the Civil War.[ii] Digitized historical census data has proven extremely useful in piecing together the shapes and paths of families, including the wives and daughters performing unpaid labor for and with the hop farmers, as well as the paid hop harvesters, and the smaller number of people hired to string the hops as they start to wind up their poles.

Jordan5

The hop is an odd consumable. It has very little value outside of beer-making, at least today. Only edible as a young shoot, it was enjoyed in that form by many Romans, long before the hop blossom had found its way into brew kettles. Only in the 9th century is there more convincing archaeological and archival evidence associating hops with brewing. By the 19th century, just about any commercial brewing in the US and Europe would have used some quantity of hops. If you are not a beer drinker, chances are pretty good that hops play no role in your life. If you are a beer drinker, hops are absolutely essential to the flavor you experience, whether you are drinking a watery American lager, a citrusy IPA, or a barrel-aged imperial stout. In other words, hops have long been grown for one use only—beer, where they lend bitterness and a range of aromas (depending in part on the variety and quantity of hop), as well as antimicrobial properties. The tastes of beer drinkers, whether in the 12th century, 19th century, or today, have translated into specific types of agricultural landscapes and labor patterns. Hops have long, hungry root systems that seek out deep, alluvial soils when they grow wild, as they have done for millennia across Europe, Asia, and North America. Cultivated hops are also often planted in river plains, capturing the nutrients those rivers have laid down over millennia of flowing water and seasonal flooding. The tending of these plants, and the satisfying of the thirsts of legions of beer drinkers, leaves its mark unevenly and sometimes inscrutably in landscapes and archives alike.

 

[i] Herbert W. Luthin, ed. Surviving Through the Days: A California Indian Reader: Translations of Native California Stories and Songs. Berkeley: UC Press, 2002, p. 313.

[ii] John Rooney, in Harry Ellsworth Cole, A Standard History of Sauk County, Wisconsin, Volume 1. Sauk County, Wisconsin: Lewis Publishing Company, 1918, pp 96-97.

 

Jennifer Jordan is professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. She is the author of Structures of Memory: Understanding Urban Change in Berlin and Beyondand Edible Memory: The Lure of Heirloom Tomatoes and Other Forgotten Foods.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑