This recent piece in the the New York Times, about the “challenge” of “going vegan,” perfectly encapsulates the problematic way in which we tend to discuss food and nutrition. First, the article frames the eschewing of all animal products as a “challenge.” Loaded lens, anyone? Transitioning from omnivorism to veganism is certainly an adjustment, but if done over the course of several months or even a year, it is certainly easier than attempting it cold turkey or via a “30 day challenge.” And, after a while of eating in that manner, it becomes “the norm.” Riding a bicycle was surely a challenge to most people the first few times, but it eventually becomes an action that feels like second nature.

The article also repeats a familiar, yet inaccurate, idea: that one either is “a vegan” or eats an entire cow in one sitting. This is particularly troubling because it inevitably forces people to “take sides” (i.e.: “vegan is the only way to health” and “veganism is unhealthy”). All this mud-slinging detracts from a more important conversation: Americans need to eat more plant-based foods, less processed food, and be more mindful of where their food comes from, how it is grown, how those who grow it are treated, and how dietary choices affect the environment.

These days, dietary tribalism is rampant. You have, just to name a few, the Paleo folks, the vegans, the raw vegans, the low-carbers, and the fruitarians. While there is certainly something productive and empowering about engaging and connecting with like-minded individuals, these groups often turn into echo chambers where everyone tends to agree with everyone else and, occasionally, point out how “the other group” has it all wrong. Meanwhile, Big Food continues churning out highly processed junk, children as young as four years of age are developing Type 2 diabetes, genetically modified crops are seemingly everywhere, and food injustice issues are only worsening.

In all our “no, but I have THIS mountain of research to back me up” statements, we easily overlook one critical unifying point — we all are seeking out the same goal: health.

Regardless of our views on tofu, raw milk, and coconut oil, most of us who are passionate about nutrition and wellness are not happy with the Standard American Diet (SAD) or the fact that highly processed and minimally nutritious “foods” are the norm. The fact that millions of Americans have minimal access to fresh and healthful foods angers us.  We don’t want “kid food” pumped with artificial dyes. We can’t believe it takes more than 30 ingredients to make a Dunkin’ Donuts blueberry cake donut. We are appalled at what the average elementary school student is fed in the cafeteria. We are terrified of Monsanto’s ever-tightening vice grip on global agriculture.

Of course we are going to have different opinions. I certainly don’t agree with the school of thought that considers fiber meaningless, that thinks fruit should only be eaten on its own prior to noon, that argues humans must eat meat, or that thinks whole grains and beans should be avoided because they are “a poison.” As a nutrition professional, I have a need to set the record straight when I see basic nutrition information grossly distorted, or if a food company attempts to pass off highly processed junk as a “better for you” product simply because sugar is replaced with aspartame.

However, the back-and-forth mud-slinging between members of different “dietary tribes” troubles me most. I often imagine all the power that could be harnessed if we stopped and joined forces on some key issues: getting food dyes and trans fat out of our food supply, demanding that the presence of genetically modified organisms and artificial hormones be at the very least labeled on food items, reducing the presence of nutritionally empty foods in schools, facilitating access to healthy foods in “food deserts,” constructing a healthier food system (from farmworker to field to table).

The past few weeks have seen the “pink slime” debacle, the “arsenic in chicken feed” horror, and various food recalls (sushi tuna “scrape” being the latest). Meanwhile, a new study suggests that unhealthy diets may interfere with the body’s ability to eliminate toxic chemicals, which the researchers postulate might be a factor in the increased rates of autism. These are the issues that should awaken us from our dietary bubbles and get us thinking about the bigger picture.

Coalition politics are often times the key to paradigm shifts. It is possible to disagree with someone on nutrition issues and still have some common goals. Who, after all, can claim to be against a better food system? Now, more than ever, the grass-fed beef advocates and the fans of tempeh need to understand they actually can sit at the same table.

——————

Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, is a Seattle-based dietitian who approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework.

This ammonia-treated scrap meat — the same one some fast food giants recently phased out  — has been widely used since the early 1990s, is reportedly present in 70 percent of all ground beef products, and is a staple in school cafeterias (seven million pounds (!) are expected to be served in school lunches across the country over the next few months).

The story essentially writes itself. When fast food companies, infamous for cutting corners at any cost, turn their noses up at a questionably safe ingredient that ends up on the lunch trays of schoolchildren, headlines are to be expected — and rightfully so.

The meat industry has responded via a new website: the awkwardly-titled Pink Slime Is A Myth (I have yet to comprehend how something real and tangible can be labeled a myth).

While I do not dismiss the recent grassroots efforts that have gained significant strength via a petition to get pink slime out of school cafeterias, I worry that the focus on it detracts from bigger and more important food system issues, and provides the meat industry with a convenient distraction and an easily fixable problem that can effortlessly be spun into a public-relations success.

At its core, the pink slime controversy is a case of “same script, different cast”. It is no different from ingredient obsessions that led to trans-fat free chips and sugar-loaded products “free of high fructose corn syrup”.

Undoubtedly, phasing out trans fats is a formidable public health step. However, the absence of trans fats does not intrinsically make chips “more nutritious” or “healthy”, simply “less worse”.

In the same way that soda made with cane sugar in lieu of high fructose corn syrup is not a healthful beverage, there needs to be a clear message that “slime-free” ground beef is by no means the golden standard, especially when an ever-growing body of research continues to highlight the harmful effects of red meat consumption (the latest: it “contributes substantially to premature death”).

We can’t forget that the majority of ground beef in the United States, even if free of said “slime”, comes from animals (35 million beef cattle, to be exact) that are treated miserably, is processed by employees under horrible working conditions, and severely damages the environment. And, of course, there are also the rampant recalls and food safety concerns.

It’s also important to remember that other important puzzle piece: agricultural policy that makes ground beef cheap and, therefore, ubiquitous. The United States is the number one exporter of beef, and the average American consumes 58 pounds of it each year (a figure that has been on a steady decline, but is nevertheless one of the highest in the world).

I do not bemoan public interest in school lunch issues and sketchy additives, but it is crucial to not lose sight of the big picture — “pink slime” is one of many symptoms of a broken food system. Even if the meat industry were to announce the end of ammonia-treated beef, they should continue to be held accountable for a multitude of atrocious practices as well as a food product that poses various health risks.

Slime or no slime, red meat should be a rarity in school cafeterias.

———————–

Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, is a Seattle-based dietitian who approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework. He also takes a strong interest in food politics, nutrition policy, and deceptive food industry marketing tactics. This commentary, “Beyond Pink Slime,” first appeared March 13, 2012 on his website, small bites.

Upon hearing this latest bit of news, I got in touch with Dr. David Wallinga, a renowned expert in the link between the ubiquity of antibiotics in animal feed and increased human resistance to these drugs. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Wallinga at the American Dietetic Association annual conference this past October, where he was part of a point-counterpoint panel on that very issue.

I wanted to get his thoughts on the FDA decision, as well as on the public health threats posed by antibiotics in cattle feed. His responses below:

As someone whose work focuses on issues of antibiotic use in animal feed, how surprised — if at all — were you by the FDA’s decision …  to withdraw their proposals to limit the use of non-therapeutic penicillin and tetracycline, and instead rely on voluntary guidelines to industry?

I was not very surprised. For some time, both privately and publicly, the FDA has admitted that they consider it too hard to act proactively on their congressional mandate to protect public health. Instead, their chosen path time and again has been to ask the regulated industries to voluntarily act, which of course they have every incentive – financial and otherwise – to not do.

The FDA first went on record with concerns about a possible link between antibiotics in animal feed and human antibiotic resistance in 1977.  Why has there been such little action since?

The FDA proposal in 1977 was not acted upon because Congress shut the FDA down. It’s fair to say that FDA has acted afraid of its own shadow ever since. It certainly doesn’t help that the FDA relies upon the industries that it is supposed to regulate for much of the budget that it relies upon to pay staff and to operate. Could one design a regulatory agency more emasculated or incapable of protecting the public? I think you would be hard pressed.

What do you consider to be the most flawed arguments in favor of administering antibiotics in cattle feed?

Just about all of them, based upon what every microbiologist knows about bacteria and their tendency to get more resistant the more exposed they are to antibiotics. The industry arguments really haven’t a leg to stand on, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

(Note: One statement Dr. Wallinga made at the point-counterpoint panel that has stuck with me: antibiotics for animal feed were approved decades ago, when their impact on human gut flora wasn’t a requirement for approval. The public health community has since pointed out some troubling implications).

For those who may not be aware, can you provide an overview of the link between antibiotics in animal feed and “superbugs”?  Also, given the recent FDA decision, how much worse do you think this situation can get?

Well to answer the latter question first, it can get worse by more people dying of resistant infections even more quickly. We know that is already happening, and the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture has speeded that process. But deaths and expensive illness from resistant infections are likely to get much worse before — or if — they get better.The linkages between use and resistant infections goes something like this:

– Antibiotic use drives resistance.

– 80% of antibiotic use occurs in agriculture; about three-quarters of this use is thought to be via the addition of antibiotics to animal feed for animals that aren’t yet sick.

– Over half the latter is thought to be in the form of antibiotics that are “medically important” meaning they are identical or nearly so to drugs also used in human medicine — meaning, classes of antibiotics like penicillins and tetracyclines.

– Over time, superbugs have gotten more lethal because they are not only getting resistant to more drugs, but also that resistance is physically linked. That means smart superbugs can “teach” other bugs to be resistant to multiple drugs very quickly by transfering the genes or gene-based information that makes them multidrug resistant in one fell swoop. Because of the huge use of antibiotics in farm environments, we are creating reservoirs of these superresistant bugs around farms, among farmworkers and in the food supply. The creation and rapid spread of more lethal and more resistant strains of superbugs is accelerating far, far quicker than the almost non-existent creation of novel new antibiotics. This is a recipe for disaster as doctors are literally running out of antibiotics to try and use in patients infected with harder and harder-to-treat bacteria.

——————————

Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, is a Seattle-based dietitian who approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework. He also takes a strong interest in food politics, nutrition policy, and deceptive food industry marketing tactics. A version of “Speaking With … Dr. David Wallinga” was first posted Dec. 28 on his website, small bites.

David Wallinga, M.D., M.P.A., is Senior Advisor in Science, Food and Health, at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

After the now-infamous Froot Loops “Smart Choices” fiasco of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration publicly announced its desire to partner with the food industry, nutrition experts, and the Institute of Medicine:

“to develop an optimal, common approach to nutrition-related front of package labeling that Americans can trust and use to build better diets and improve their health.”

Released in November 2010, the new guidelines simply took selected information from the Nutrition Facts label (e.g., calories, fat grams) and repeated it on the front.

In our article, we argue that despite claims that this “new” front-of-package labeling is meant to help Americans select healthier foods:

“It merely repeats what is already stated on the Nutrition Facts label of all packaged foods, does not address the most important causes of obesity and chronic disease, and allows food companies to reformulate products in such a way that they still deliver minimal nutrition and questionable ingredients.”

Suggestions to only list “nutrients of concern” – calories, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium – are also misguided and miss the bigger picture. After all, a low-sodium, free of trans fats but still highly refined chip or cookie, would be low in “nutrients of concern” but is nevertheless a marginally nutritious snack.

Moreover, obesity is far from the only health concern. Many Americans who are at a “healthy weight” do not consume the necessary amounts of many nutrients, most of which (i.e.: magnesium and potassium) are not found in highly processed foods.

Supporters for FOP labeling argue that it will force food companies to reformulate products, thereby improving the nutritional quality of commonly-consumed foods. However, this argument is flawed for many reasons, as we argue in the commentary.

– Re-formulation of processed foods is reactive, and does not necessarily yield a more healthful product.

– Replacing trans-fats with oils that high in omega-6 fatty acids (I.e.: corn oil, cottonseed oil) is a slightly better alternative, but not a healthful solution.

– Lowering sugar grams via the inclusion of artificial sweeteners does not promote good nutrition.

– Lowering milligrams of sodium in products that are already low in minerals essential for the regulation of blood pressure (mainly potassium and magnesium) is a moot point, particularly since plenty of nutrition research has demonstrated that increasing potassium intake – a mineral found in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes – is more effective than sodium reduction.

– Many processed foods bump up fiber grams by adding isolated fibers like inulin. While these fibers can ease digestion, they are not equivalent to a whole grain food, which offers minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants not found in these isolated fibers.

– Re-formulation provides a free advertising boost to food companies. A sugary cereal that decreases sugar grams per serving by one can now place a “Now with less sugar!’ claim on the front of their packaging, while products that are already – and always have been – healthful don’t get that advantage.

This past January, the Government Accountability Office added a voice of reason to the discussion with its report, Food Labeling: FDA Needs to Reassess Its Approach to Protecting Consumers from False or Misleading Claims, which successfully argued that FOP labeling confuses consumers and is ripe for food industry deception.

Weeks later, the Grocery Manufacturers Association – comprised of more than 300 food companies, including Cargill, Coca-Cola, and General Mills – along with another Big Food lobbying group – the Food Marketing Institute — released their own FOP labeling system (described as “monumental and historic”), called “Nutrition Keys.”

All products that participate in the Nutrition Keys system will display calories, saturated fat, sodium, and total sugars per serving – both in numerical and percentage form – as well as two “nutrients to encourage,” which can include fiber, potassium, vitamin A and, oddly enough, protein (the average American consumes more than sufficient amounts).

Despite the Nutrition Keys rehashing information already found on the Nutrition Facts label, a $50 million “consumer education campaign” is planned.

Since we submitted our article, the food industry has retooled its attempt to preempt the FDA, now calling its voluntary program, “Facts up Front.” Whatever its moniker, it’s not helpful and only serves industry interests.

Much like the “diet wars”, the debate over different FOP labeling systems distracts from more substantial issues that could address the root causes of our current epidemic of diet-related disease. America’s health would be better supported by more effective agricultural policies and curbing aggressive marketing than by the repetition of nutrition information on boxes of highly processed and minimally nutritious foods.

The full text version of the article is available for a fee. You can also read a short preview at no charge.

——————————-

Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, is a Seattle-based dietitian who approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework. He also takes a strong interest in food politics, nutrition policy, and deceptive food industry marketing tactics. “Front of Package Labeling: An Exercise in Futility?” was first posted Dec. 12 on his website, small bites.