Category: Nutrition

Regional spotlight: Food Equity in Pennsylvania

The following is a guest post by Mallory Hersh* about her work in food equity.

During the pandemic, I had more free time than expected, and began to cook to accommodate my father’s recently-diagnosed food allergies. A few successful dinners later, I was whipping up healthy treats and baked goods in my spare time and delivering them around the neighborhood. 

But as I became more involved in conversations about food–how to source organic ingredients; the best forums for recipe swaps–I became increasingly aware that not everyone had the same access that I did to the foods that I took for granted. In the U.S., more than 34 million people, including 9 million children, experience food insecurity, often lacking consistent access to nutritious meals. Looking to help make a difference, I got involved with my high school’s service club, specifically aiming to spend my time with local community fridges and food pantries. I was selected to be the liaison between my school and Weaver’s Way Community Fridge, a community fridge that was connected to a local grocery store in Ambler, Pennsylvania.

Continue reading “Regional spotlight: Food Equity in Pennsylvania” →

In Search of Greener GRAS: How Regulatory Policy has Created the American Diet and How to Fix it

by Trey Catanzaro*

If you ask most Americans what food additives they may “generally recognize as safe,” it is highly unlikely that they would answer “propyl paraben” or “beta hydroxy acid.” Rather, they may say vinegar, olive oil, or black pepper. In fact, when asked about what “generally recognized as safe” means, a national poll found that 77 percent of respondents thought that standard meant the FDA has evaluated the product and determined it to be safe. However, under current FDA regulations, a company may self-determine whether its product is “generally recognized as safe” under FDA guidelines, and then bring it to market without even notifying the FDA as to its existence. In other words, there are currently thousands of chemicals in everyday food that the FDA has no clue even exist. As succinctly stated by the former Deputy Commissioner for Food at the FDA, “[w]e simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.”

Most chemical additives enter the American food supply due to an exception in FDA pre-market review for ingredients that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). In legislation drafted in 1958 to address the rising issue of additives in food, Congress specifically exempted certain ingredients which were “generally recognized . . . to be safe under the conditions of [their] intended use” from the definition of additives. Therefore, anything determined to be GRAS would not be subject to pre-market review and approval by the FDA. At the time of passing the amendment, the reasoning for the GRAS exemption was so that ingredients that had long been used in foods without apparent harmful effects, such as salt, sugar and other familiar substances, would not have to undergo extensive testing to be used in food products. However, the GRAS exemption continued to expand, eventually permitting companies to self-determine whether their ingredient was GRAS, and giving them the choice of whether or not to notify the FDA of their GRAS determination.

Under the present iteration of the rule, companies’ GRAS determinations are filled with a litany of conflicts of interest. Rather than relying on peer-reviewed data, companies often convene panels of experts to make a GRAS determination. These panels are frequently made up of the same small group of individuals who have made a career out of GRAS panel participation. To put this in perspective, a comprehensive study looked at convened GRAS determination panels from the year 2015 to 2020, and, out of the 732 panel positions available, there were a mere 7 individuals who filled 339 (46%) of these positions. Their determinations of safety are often never sent to the FDA for review. Further, even if a GRAS determination is sent to the FDA for notification, which is not required, and valid concerns are raised about the safety of the product, this does not always preclude the product from coming to market. Companies have the ability to voluntarily withdraw their petitions should they foresee unfavorable results from the FDA’s review. Therefore, after receiving health concerns from the FDA based on its review of a GRAS notification, the company may then withdraw its notification and continue to market the product. The FDA will then issue a letter of withdrawal without acknowledging the safety concerns raised during the review.

Continue reading “In Search of Greener GRAS: How Regulatory Policy has Created the American Diet and How to Fix it” →

Restricted Access to the “First Food”: Dissecting Breastfeeding Injustices 

August was Breastfeeding Awareness Month. But as Chidera Anthony-Wise discusses below, this issue is critical year-round.

by Chidera Anthony-Wise*

Introduction 

The first food countless infants receive upon arrival into the world is breast milk. The health benefits of breastfeeding are remarkable for babies and mothers. Breast milk strengthens nervous system development and ocular ability of infants. Through breastfeeding, antibodies are introduced to infant immune systems, combatting various diseases. Conditions such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 1 diabetes, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) are less likely among babies that are breastfed. Similarly, lactation is associated with a reduced risk in ovarian and breast cancers and type 2 diabetes in nursing mothers. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is strongly recommended to exclusively breastfeed babies for the first 6 months of life and subsequently accompany solid foods with breastmilk for up to 2 years or beyond. Still, there are a plethora of challenges that hinder the adherence to this expert advice. 

Breast milk offers all the nutrients, proteins, and hydration a baby needs for those first 6 months. The release of breast milk is through a “supply and demand” mechanism. If a nursing mother does not have preexisting health conditions that would limit milk production, a full supply of breast milk is dependent on feeding frequency. The provision of formula milk can decrease breast milk supply due to reduced breastfeeding sessions. Despite the WHO recommendation, 2.7 million of the 3.6 million infants born annually in the United States consume formula milk by the age of three months. 

Continue reading “Restricted Access to the “First Food”: Dissecting Breastfeeding Injustices “ →

The Urgent Need to Update the Regulation of GM Crops

by Alice Carli*

Humans have been altering plants for upwards of 10,000 years through a wide variety of techniques for genetic modification. In the 20th century, scientists developed transgenic genetic engineering, which combines DNA from two or more sources to achieve a desired trait. This discovery fundamentally altered our ability to manipulate crops and opened a Pandora’s box of commercial possibilities and political conflicts. More recently, the advent of CRISPR and other precision gene editing technologies has resurfaced tensions around the role of genetically modified (“GM”) crops in our agricultural and food systems.

Despite these longstanding tensions, the U.S. has the world’s largest production of GM crops by acreage, and it is estimated that over 75% of processed foods on our supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.

At the same time, the country faces systemic sustainability challenges exacerbated by climate change and intensive monoculture farming. These include flooding, soil degradation, air and water pollution, and biodiversity collapse. Significant and holistic changes to U.S. agriculture are needed to tackle these problems.

If regulated effectively, GM crops have the potential to make U.S. agriculture more sustainable and climate resilient. When designed with climate-smart features, these crops can significantly enhance nutrient or photosynthesis efficiency, provide flood, drought, and disease resistance, and even improve soil carbon sequestration.

Continue reading “The Urgent Need to Update the Regulation of GM Crops” →

Food, community, and belonging: Our Seat at the Table

by Marin Milken*

[This is one in a series of occasional posts by Los Angeles high school students working with and studying food systems.]

Inspired by the meals I made for my family and friends during the pandemic, I founded Our Seat at the Table to engage with questions of food, community and belonging. Though there are various food-related initiatives that Our Seat will continue to tackle through its programming, I wanted our first endeavor to help with the widespread national issue of food insecurity. Food insecurity, in simplest terms, is when people neither have enough to eat, nor know where their next meal is coming from. The latest State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report indicates that in comparison to 2019, the number of people worldwide affected by hunger has risen by over 122 million. In the United States, food insecurity is addressed through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which aim supplement low-income families’ groceries, so that they can access the food that they need to be food secure. But key findings in a recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson foundation highlight and demonstrate that SNAP benefits don’t cover the cost of moderately priced meals in 78% of US counties. With this statistic in mind, it’s unlikely that SNAP benefits are able to cover the costs of healthier options, such as organic produce. Programs such as SNAP – and its inability to adequately address the food needs for so many in this country – highlight a large systemic gap between those who are food insecure and food secure, despite SNAP being touted as a successful safety net for those who are food insecure.

Continue reading “Food, community, and belonging: Our Seat at the Table” →

The Poisoning of the Gerber Generation:

How Public Nuisance Law Could Address Heavy Metals in Baby Food in the Face of Regulatory Failure

by Lillian Matchett*

A cheerful jingle plays as beaming babies flash across a white background.  These children are the “Gerber Generation,” the voiceover tells you, and they have some big news to share: the nutrition they get in their first five years of life can affect their health forever.   “Think about that,” they say.

Gerber launched its Gerber Generation campaign in 2010 in the face of increased attention on childhood obesity, focusing on the health and nutritional needs of young children at a vital point in their development.  Gerber was right: what a child consumes in the first few years of their life is critically important, but as it turned out, there were other substances in at least some of the Gerber Generation’s food that could have a profound and lasting impact on children’s health.  In 2021, Gerber was one of several companies exposed for selling baby food containing concerning levels of heavy metals—toxins which, even in small amounts, can cause severe and irreversible cognitive impairment and physical illness in young children.

In 2021, a congressional subcommittee issued two reports finding high levels of heavy metals—lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury—in commercial baby foods from seven major manufacturers.  Heavy metals were present in baby foods from all companies, often at concentrations many times than that allowed under existing regulations for other food products.  The reports also illuminated failures of industry self-regulation, revealing that companies largely do not test their final products and often do not adhere to their own internal standards. 

Predictably, a deluge of litigation followed the release of the Congressional Reports.  Despite well-documented findings of high heavy metal levels in baby food and the known effects those substances have on children, lawsuits have thus far been mostly unavailing, failing on issues of causation and standing, though many are still making their way through the courts.  Regulatory and legislative solutions have also fallen short.  The FDA and Congress attempted to address the issue, but the FDA’s response has been slow and unenforceable, while legislation lacks bipartisan support, and has stalled in committee. 

Continue reading “The Poisoning of the Gerber Generation:” →

Exploring the Legal and Policy Implications Behind ‘High on the Hog’: Intellectual Property and Cultural Erasure (Part 2 of 4)

In “High on the Hog” episode three, we learn the stories of Hercules Posey and James Hemings, the enslaved private chefs of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson respectively. They were widely known and widely praised, yet there are no written recipes attributed to either chef. In Stephen Satterfield’s conversation with Hatchet Hall chefs Brian Dunsmoor and Martin Draluck, the chefs hint at the idea that Martha Washington’s widely praised recipe books may in fact contain recipes developed by the enslaved Hercules. 

Dishes like macaroni and cheese have become an American staple, yet most Americans are unaware that the dish was perfected and popularized by Hemings. Black Americans have long been culinary pioneers in this country and have shaped American cuisine at large. The erasure of Black American’s culinary contributions diminishes Black people’s role in America’s cultural tapestry and perpetuates the idea that Black cuisine is isolated from American cuisine at large. 

Furthermore, cultural erasure of Black culinary traditions is a significant risk because Black communities historically have faced limited access to resources and opportunities in the food industry. Unequal access to capital and credit have likely hindered the ability of Black chefs, restaurateurs, and food entrepreneurs to establish and grow their businesses. The lack of representation and access further perpetuates the erasure of Black culture within the food industry and hampers the promotion and preservation of Black culinary traditions.

Continue reading “Exploring the Legal and Policy Implications Behind ‘High on the Hog’: Intellectual Property and Cultural Erasure (Part 2 of 4)” →

A Science and Policy Interface in Global Food Governance:

 The High Level Panel of Experts of the World Committee of Food Security

by Hilal Elver*

Global food insecurity is a highly complicated, persistent, and multi-dimensional issue that involves multiple sectors, various players, and policy domains (McKeon 2021). It appears in various ways in the different regions of the world, and it has a vast variety of interdependent underlying structural causes that are also linked to other global issues. In times of massive crises, the international community focuses on establishing effective food governance (McKeon 2015).  The sudden spike of food prices in 2007-2008 created major political uprisings in many developing countries. At that time, improving global food governance became a central focus of international discussions. As a result, in 2009, the Committee of the World Food Security (CFS) (originally created in 1974 as a UN intergovernmental body) was reformed and renewed to serve as a forum for review and follow up for food security policies. Since then, CFS is widely seen as the “foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform”for food security and nutrition globally.

Continue reading “A Science and Policy Interface in Global Food Governance:“ →

Dr. Sara Bleich, Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, appears on Repast

Repast is the food law and policy podcast produced by the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy. Each month Michael Roberts and Diana Winters interview a thought leader in the field of food law and policy to discuss past achievements, current developments, and future challenges. You can find Repast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This month , Michael and Diana talk with a very special guest–Dr. Sara Bleich, the Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.   Dr. Bleich is leading the department’s work to counter food and nutrition insecurity in the United States.  In this episode, Dr. Bleich discusses the USDA’s Actions on Nutrition Security, the difference between food security and nutrition security, health equity, structural racism, the upcoming historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, and much more.

Dr. Sara Bleich is on leave from her tenured position as a Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.  She is a well-regarded public health policy expert specializing in food and nutrition policy and the author of more than 150 peer-reviewed publications. Her research centers on food insecurity, as well as racial injustice within the social safety net. Dr. Bleich holds a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University and a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from Columbia University.

In the first year of the Biden administration, Dr. Bleich served as Senior Advisor for COVID-19 in the Office of the Secretary. In January 2022, she transitioned to her new role as the first Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA.  She will elaborate more on this role today.  From 2015-2016, she served as a White House Fellow in the Obama Administration, where she worked in USDA as a Senior Policy Advisor for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services and with the First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Initiative. 

Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.

Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.

For more on the USDA’s Actions on Nutrition Security, see here.

See here for Secretary Vilsack’s address on the USDA’s Actions on Nutrition Security.

See here for the USDA’s new blog series on nutrition security.

Look here for information about the upcoming White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.

ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS DURING ARMED CONFLICT: NORMATIVE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Protection of Right to Food and Environment in Times of Armed Conflict

by Hilal Elver*

The following is the keynote address given by Hilal Elver to the Geneva Academy on June 8, 2022. Footnotes at end of article.

Internal and international armed conflicts are one of the major reasons for increased food insecurity and malnutrition. Despite well-established norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law protecting the right to food, hunger and  malnutrition, as well as famine has skyrocketed in last few years. There is a shocking failure in addressing criminal acts of deliberate starvation and other severe violations of a fundamental human right: the “right to food.” This non-compliance by States and other political actors as well as the reluctance to implement existing international norms to protect human rights and the environment in times of war is a critical failure of international community.

Most recently, the war in Ukraine has elevated catastrophic hunger and malnutrition levels to the top of the global agenda. The war has raised awareness of ongoing widespread hunger and malnutrition even beyond Ukraine, as the parties to the conflict are the major players of global agricultural trade.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights specifically recognizes “the fundamental right of everyone to be from hunger,” which further imposes an obligation on States to ensure “the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level” of this right under all circumstances, including the times of war. Freedom from hunger is accepted as part of customary international law, rendering it binding for all states regardless of whether they are party to the Covenant. States cannot put aside or postpone the realization of this core component of the body of economic and social rights. According to their international legal obligations, States must continue to take deliberate and targeted steps using all appropriate means to fulfill these rights, even in times of conflict.  Yet, 60% of the people suffering from hunger and malnutrition globally live in conflict-ridden places, mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

Continue reading “ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS DURING ARMED CONFLICT: NORMATIVE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK” →

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑