Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Sugar in baby food: Why Nestlé needs to be held to account in Africa

News Feed
Thursday, April 25, 2024

As the Public Eye investigation revealed, one example of this is Nestlé's biscuit-flavored cereals for babies aged six months and older: in Senegal and South Africa they contain 6g of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is based, the same product has none. In South Africa, Nestlé promotes its wheat cereal Cerelac as a source of 12 essential vitamins and minerals under the theme "little bodies need big support". Yet all Cerelac products sold in this country contain high levels of added sugar. Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries. In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000. The World Health Organization has called for a ban on added sugar in products for babies and young children under three years of age.     Why is extra sugar particularly unhealthy for babies? Adding sugar make the foods delicious and, some argue, addictive. The same goes for adding salt and fat to products.   Children shouldn't eat any added sugar before they turn two. Studies show that adding sugar to any food for babies or small children predisposes them to having a sweet tooth. They start preferring sweet things, which is harmful in their diets throughout their lives. Unnecessary sugar contributes to obesity, which has major health effects such as diabetes, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, cancer and joint problems among others. The rate of overweight children in South Africa is 13%, twice the global average of 6.1%. These extra sugars, fats and salt are harmful to our health throughout our lifetime, but especially to babies as they are still building their bodies. Children eat relatively small amounts of food at this stage. To ensure healthy nutrition, the food they eat must be high in nutrients.   How do multinationals influence health policies? Companies commonly influence public health through lobbying and party donations. This gives politicians and political parties an incentive to align decisions with commercial agendas. Low- and middle-income countries often have to address potential trade-offs:  potential economic growth from an expanding commercial base and potential harms from the same commercial forces.   Research into how South African food companies, particularly large transnationals, go about shaping public health policy in their favour found 107 examples of food industry practices designed to influence public health policy. In many cases companies promise financial support in areas such as funding research. In 2023 a South African food security research centre attached to a university signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé signaling their intent to "forge a transformative partnership" to shape "the future of food and nutrition research and education" and transform "Africa's food systems".   What happens in high-income countries? Most high-income countries have clear guidelines about baby foods. One example is the EU directive on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children. Another is the  Swiss Nutrition Policy, which sets out clear guidelines on healthy eating and advertising aimed at children. The global food system is coming under scrutiny not just for health reasons but for the humane treatment of animals, genetically engineered foods, and social and environmental justice.   What should governments in developing countries be doing? South Africa already has limits on salt content  but we need limits on added sugar and oil.   Taxing baby foods as we do sugary beverages is another way of discouraging these harmful additions. We need to make sure that consumers are aware of what's in their food by having large front-of-package warning labels. Take yogurt: many people assume it is healthy, but there is lots of added sugar in many brands. Consumers should be calling for front-of-pack labels that the Department of Health has proposed so that parents can easily identify unhealthy foods.   Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor in the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

"In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000"

As the Public Eye investigation revealed, one example of this is Nestlé's biscuit-flavored cereals for babies aged six months and older: in Senegal and South Africa they contain 6g of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is based, the same product has none.

In South Africa, Nestlé promotes its wheat cereal Cerelac as a source of 12 essential vitamins and minerals under the theme "little bodies need big support". Yet all Cerelac products sold in this country contain high levels of added sugar.

Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries. In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000.

The World Health Organization has called for a ban on added sugar in products for babies and young children under three years of age.  

 

Why is extra sugar particularly unhealthy for babies?

Adding sugar make the foods delicious and, some argue, addictive. The same goes for adding salt and fat to products.  

Children shouldn't eat any added sugar before they turn two. Studies show that adding sugar to any food for babies or small children predisposes them to having a sweet tooth. They start preferring sweet things, which is harmful in their diets throughout their lives.

Unnecessary sugar contributes to obesity, which has major health effects such as diabetes, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, cancer and joint problems among others.

The rate of overweight children in South Africa is 13%, twice the global average of 6.1%.

These extra sugars, fats and salt are harmful to our health throughout our lifetime, but especially to babies as they are still building their bodies.

Children eat relatively small amounts of food at this stage. To ensure healthy nutrition, the food they eat must be high in nutrients.

 

How do multinationals influence health policies?

Companies commonly influence public health through lobbying and party donations. This gives politicians and political parties an incentive to align decisions with commercial agendas.

Low- and middle-income countries often have to address potential trade-offs:  potential economic growth from an expanding commercial base and potential harms from the same commercial forces.  

Research into how South African food companies, particularly large transnationals, go about shaping public health policy in their favour found 107 examples of food industry practices designed to influence public health policy.

In many cases companies promise financial support in areas such as funding research. In 2023 a South African food security research centre attached to a university signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé signaling their intent to "forge a transformative partnership" to shape "the future of food and nutrition research and education" and transform "Africa's food systems".

 

What happens in high-income countries?

Most high-income countries have clear guidelines about baby foods. One example is the EU directive on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children.

Another is the  Swiss Nutrition Policy, which sets out clear guidelines on healthy eating and advertising aimed at children.

The global food system is coming under scrutiny not just for health reasons but for the humane treatment of animals, genetically engineered foods, and social and environmental justice.

 

What should governments in developing countries be doing?

South Africa already has limits on salt content  but we need limits on added sugar and oil.  

Taxing baby foods as we do sugary beverages is another way of discouraging these harmful additions.

We need to make sure that consumers are aware of what's in their food by having large front-of-package warning labels. Take yogurt: many people assume it is healthy, but there is lots of added sugar in many brands.

Consumers should be calling for front-of-pack labels that the Department of Health has proposed so that parents can easily identify unhealthy foods.

 

Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor in the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand

 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Meds Like Ozempic Are Causing Folks to Waste More Food

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Nov. 22, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- America's kitchen trash bins are receiving more unwanted food as...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Nov. 22, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- America's kitchen trash bins are receiving more unwanted food as appetites falter among people taking GLP-1 weight-loss meds, a new study shows.GLP-1s like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound all work by making food less desirable, and it's showing up in more food wasted at dinner tables, said a team led by Brian Roe, of Ohio State University.The study surveyed 505 new GLP-1 users. It found 25% agreeing that they had wasted more food since taking the drugs, compared to 61% who disagreed. There was some good news, however: Food wastage appears to decline as people adjust to their GLP-1 medication.“The fact that food waste appears to decrease as patients acclimate to the medication suggests there may be a fairly simple remedy -- advising patients new to these medications about the possibility of discarding food as their diets change, which could reduce food waste and lower their spending," said Roe, a professor in the department of agricultural, environmental and development economics.According to the researchers, 6% of all U.S. adults were taking a GLP-1 medications as of spring of 2024. The medicines act on a hormone in the small intestine to help lower blood sugar, slow stomach emptying and signal fullness in the brain.In this study, almost 70% of respondents were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and nearly a quarter were taking tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound).Many were relatively new to the drugs: Only a quarter had been using them for more than a year.Everyone was asked to agree or disagree with the statement, "Since beginning this medication, I have found I waste more of the food that I purchase."About a quarter agreed that they were wasting more food, and that rate rose to 30% among people who'd only been taking the medication for 90 days or less.Nausea was a leading cause of folks tossing out food, the study found. However, it also appeared that certain food types were looked on less favorably once people commenced GLP-1 therapy.According to the research, people tended to shy away from alcohol, pasta and other carbohydrates, fried foods, sweets and dairy once they began taking a GLP-1, added more produce, protein, fish and healthy fats to their diets instead.Once vegetable consumption began to rise, food wastage started to fall, the study found. According to the researchers, veggies have long been the most commonly wasted food group in the United States.People who'd been taking a GLP-1 for at least one year lost an average 20% of their starting body weight, the study found.The new study was published recently in the journal Nutrients.Will changing food habits also shrink grocery bills for people taking Ozempic and its kin?Maybe, said Roe, and a study looking at the household finances of GLP-1 users is planned.“People taking these medications in all likelihood will be spending less on food, but whether there is a chance to offset the cost of the drug through reduction in food spending remains to be seen,” he said in a university news release.SOURCE: The Ohio State University, news release, Nov. 21, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Give Beans a Chance

The unglamorous food has the potential to remake American diets, but it has an image problem.

This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic’s archives to contextualize the present, surface delightful treasures, and examine the American idea.I love a good bean: tossed with vinaigrette in a salad, spooned over pasta, served on a plate with rice and corn. The bean is a powerful little food, all the more for its shapeshifting capacities. Many people can appreciate that these legumes are cheap and healthy, but they still fall short of widespread adoration or even respect.Yet, over the decades, Atlantic writers have turned to the bean’s revolutionary potential again and again. The humble bean, small, unglamorous, packed with protein, has been a source of inspiration for those seeking to remake the food system, fight climate change, and add some better flavors into American homes. In a 1975 article loftily titled “A Bean to Feed the World?” the historian Richard Rhodes made the case for centering the soybean in the American diet. “We continue to sing of amber waves of grain, not dusty pods of beans,” he bemoans in the opening line.Noting that the soybean was, at the time, the No. 1 cash crop in the country, Rhodes argues that Americans should be eating it as a source of protein on its own, rather than feeding it to the farm animals that then became dinner. “Conversion of soybeans to food for humans is worth looking at,” he writes. (The soybean, a cousin of the lentil and black bean, has about 30 grams of protein per cup.) Alas, soybeans remain primarily the provenance of livestock today, with the exception of the small percentage used to make popular foods such as tofu.In 2017, James Hamblin made the urgent climate case for replacing beef with legumes in Americans’ diets, given that cows are among the top agricultural sources of greenhouse gasses worldwide and take up great swaths of arable land. Hamblin explained that by swapping beans for beef, the U.S. could “achieve somewhere between 46 and 74 percent of the reductions needed” to meet the 2020 greenhouse-gas-emission goals set out by President Barack Obama in 2009. (Americans have not wholesale rejected beef in favor of beans, but, in large part because the pandemic slowed travel and economic activity, we did end up meeting those climate goals.)Part of the problem with beans is that they are not that attractive a food. In a 1992 article, the food writer Corby Kummer acknowledges the “insipid” nature of beans before walking readers through some ways to prepare tasty—and easily digestible—bean-based dishes. But for the horticultural writer Richardson Wright, the bean’s humility is what makes it heroic. During World War II, he wrote that “the coincidence of Saturday night and baked beans was of divine provenance, and with the ardor of the freshly converted, I insisted that we practice.” In a time of loss, a pot of beans—which he calls “farinaceous catechumens,” likening them to starchy bodies readied for baptism—can mean everything. The quasi-religious tone of his Proustian meditation on beans is moving; still, his dietary choice was borne out of desperation and limited rations.The image of beans as a backup when you don’t have, or can’t afford, anything better has proven hard to shake. Even as vegetarian diets are on the rise and Americans recognize the environmental impact of beef, eating meat remains an intractable part of American life. For all the trendiness of brothy beans and Rancho Gordo subscriptions in recent years, many Americans still haven’t made legumes central to their diets. One estimate found that, as of 2019, the average American ate approximately 55 pounds of chicken a year compared with roughly 2.5 pounds of cooked black beans (American bean consumption is low compared to many other countries). Still, there are reasons to hope: Americans have embraced hummus, which is made of chickpeas. Chic New York restaurants are serving bean-based dishes. And a climate campaign with ties to the United Nations is pushing to double global bean consumption by 2028. Though the bean may not be the flashiest ingredient, it is persistent—and it may even shape a better world in its image.

Are Americans more obese than ever?

Obesity affects more Americans than ever. Fast food is one of the main culprits.

Fast food occupies a unique spot in the proverbial gut of America. It’s irresistibly convenient when the fridge is empty —and even when it’s full — it seduces us with consistency, incredible flavors and decent prices.While it all comes with a generous serving of guilt since we kinda know it’s bad for us, Americans can’t help themselves. Americans spent a record $490 billion on fast food in 2023, up from post-pandemic levels. Despite this, surveys consistently show that many harbor deep concerns about its nutritional value, environmental impact and the ethics of its production.This love-hate tension is all part of fast food’s complex place in our lives. A report published Thursday in the journal The Lancet revealed that 75% of Americans are now overweight or obese. While fast food is not solely to blame for that, it does raise questions about the wide availability and nutritional value of ultra-processed foods.But solving an obesity crisis is not as simple as telling people to avoid it. Not everyone who consumes fast food does it because they want to. Many Americans face challenges accessing fresh fruits and vegetables, while an increase in sedentary lifestyles due to modern working practices is not yet fully understood, according to the report. Then there are social factors that limit food choices, like food insecurity, transportation, income, employment, race, educational level and whether you’re a single parent.Attempts to address the issue are not working, noted the report’s authors.“Existing policies have failed to address overweight and obesity,” they wrote. “Without major reform, the forecasted trends will be devastating at the individual and population level, and the associated disease burden and economic costs will continue to escalate.”Obesity will result in up to $9.1 trillion in excess medical expenditures over the next 10 years, according to a June 2024 report by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee.It’s unclear if this crisis is a priority for the Trump administration, given the incoming president’s well-known love of, and brief employment at, McDonald’s. He’s also a fan of deregulation.While that chaos shakes out, let’s look at some of the leading fast-food ingredients and who let them be there.Sodium overloadThe average fast-food meal contains an alarming amount of sodium. For example, a single serving of McDonald’s fries has 230 milligrams, while a Burger King Whopper packs 911 milligrams, nearly half the recommended daily intake for adults. Consuming this much salt not only raises blood pressure but also puts us at higher risk for heart disease and stroke.Sugar and high fructose corn syrupSugary drinks and desserts dominate fast food menus. A small Wendy’s Frosty cup contains 46 grams of sugar, well above the 25-37 grams per day suggested by the American Heart Association. High-fructose corn syrup, a cheaper alternative to cane sugar, appears in sodas, sauces, and even burger buns. This ingredient has been linked to obesity and metabolic disorders.Questionable meatsWhen fast food chains claim their burgers are made with 100% beef, they’re technically correct. But that label often masks the use of unsellable cuts of meat—trimmings, connective tissue, and fat—ground together into patties. Chicken nuggets, another fast food staple, often contain a mixture of mechanically separated meat, starches, sugar, preservatives, hydrogenated oils and artificial flavorings.Artificial colorings and additivesEver wondered why fast food looks so vibrant? That’s often thanks to chemical colorings like Red 40 and Yellow 5, which have been linked to behavioral issues in children. Even “natural” options like Subway’s multigrain bread once included preservatives like azodicarbonamide—a chemical also used in yoga mats. Subway removed it after public pressure.Who Let This Happen?The fast food industry didn’t become a dietary minefield by accident. Decades of lobbying have shaped policy and regulations that some groups say prioritize corporate profits over public health.The corn lobby and high-fructose corn syrupHigh-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) owes its success to U.S. government subsidies for corn production. The Farm Bill, influenced heavily by agribusiness lobbyists, has ensured corn remains one of the most heavily subsidized crops. Between 1995 and 2020, corn subsidies amounted to over $116 billion in the U.S.This surplus of cheap corn made HFCS a low-cost alternative to sugar, leading to its widespread use in sodas, snacks, and fast food sauces. Despite links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders, HFCS remains, thanks in part to powerful lobbying by groups like the Corn Refiners Association.Meat industry lobbyistsThe meat industry has consistently pushed back against stricter regulations on safety and labeling. One infamous example is pink slime, a finely textured beef filler treated with ammonia to kill bacteria. This filler, made from low-quality trimmings squished together, sparked public outrage when first exposed in 2012.After lobbying efforts by meat processors like Cargill and Beef Products Inc., pink slime was reclassified by the USDA as ground beef, meaning it could be more widespread than before.But “pink slime” is fattier and more likely to contain pathogens than ground beef from quality cuts.FDA and additivesFood manufacturers have fought to keep artificial preservatives and additives legal despite evidence of potential health risks. For instance, Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives used in fast food and processed goods to prevent fat from spoiling.Both are listed as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” by the National Toxicology Program, yet lobbying by food industry groups has ensured they remain approved by the FDA.

What to know about HHS and how RFK Jr. could lead it

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could radically reshape the Department of Health and Human Services if he is confirmed as secretary of the agency under President-elect Trump. Why it matters: The onetime independent presidential candidate has been one of the country's most prominent vaccine skeptics for years, alarming public health experts about his nomination to lead to HHS.His appointment to HHS would also come 16 years after he was considered for a cabinet appointment by former President Obama. Obama had weighed appointing Kennedy — then an environmental lawyer — to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Kennedy's views range from cracking down on food additives to conspiracy-tinged ideas about fluoride in water.State of play: Kennedy's nomination to HHS Thursday came after weeks of speculation over what role he would play in the incoming administration.Trump promised in October he'd let Kennedy — who endorsed him after dropping his own presidential bid — "go wild" on federal oversight of food and medicine.Experts have warned that he could help erode key parts of the health care system and lead to an increase in preventable disease. Between the lines: Kennedy's selection has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill, though some in the GOP remain optimistic Kennedy will secure the requisite number of votes to be confirmed by the Senate.What is the HHS?The Department of Health and Human Services is a nearly $2 trillion agency is in charge of dispensing nearly 25% of the federal budget and employs more than 80,000 federal workers.HHS encompasses other departments that approve new medications, conduct infectious disease research and contribute to other public health services.It includes departments whose work touch on immigration, child support and adults with disabilities.HHS also processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, allowing journalists and other members of the public to request records from the federal government.What departments fall under HHS?HHS encompasses 13 operating divisions. Americans may be familiar with the FDA, CDC and NIH — particularly after the COVID pandemic — but other lesser known divisions can still impact their everyday lives.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with regulating new drugs and medical devices, approves new vaccines, and ensures the safety of the food supply. After the 2022 Dobbs decision, the FDA has also helped make medication abortion more accessible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) helps respond to infectious disease outbreaks like the bird flu and the COVID-19 pandemic. It also tracks food-borne illnesses like E. coli and listeria.The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) overseas health insurance programs that benefit millions of Americans nationwide.The Office of Refugee Resettlement helps support refugees, unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers who are in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health oversees vaccine and other biomedical research, like cancer research. It includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which was headed by Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Administration for Children and Families helps fund foster care and Head Start child care programs across the country.What could Kennedy's appointment mean for Americans?As head of a large and influential agency, Kennedy could begin implementing some elements of his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.Kennedy has previously outlined plans to clear out entire departments from health care agencies, such as the FDA's nutrition department, in a bid to root out unspecified "corruption." He also said he would advise water districts against using fluoride, a mineral that occurs naturally in water but is often added to the water supply to help prevent tooth decay.He has also expressed interest in pausing drug development and infectious disease research at NIH for eight years, in favor of studying chronic disease. Zoom in: Kennedy has repeatedly denied that he is anti-vaccine and said he won't take away any vaccines from Americans. But he's continued to promote unbacked claims about vaccines causing various illnesses.He is also a proponent of drinking raw, unpasteurized milk, which both the FDA and CDC warn come with serious health risks. As the head of HHS, Kennedy would be able to initiate the roll back of the FDA's raw milk regulations.Go deeper:What to know about RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccines, drugs and health careHow RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement could shake up public healthWhat a Trump-empowered RFK Jr. could do on health care

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could radically reshape the Department of Health and Human Services if he is confirmed as secretary of the agency under President-elect Trump. Why it matters: The onetime independent presidential candidate has been one of the country's most prominent vaccine skeptics for years, alarming public health experts about his nomination to lead to HHS.His appointment to HHS would also come 16 years after he was considered for a cabinet appointment by former President Obama. Obama had weighed appointing Kennedy — then an environmental lawyer — to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Kennedy's views range from cracking down on food additives to conspiracy-tinged ideas about fluoride in water.State of play: Kennedy's nomination to HHS Thursday came after weeks of speculation over what role he would play in the incoming administration.Trump promised in October he'd let Kennedy — who endorsed him after dropping his own presidential bid — "go wild" on federal oversight of food and medicine.Experts have warned that he could help erode key parts of the health care system and lead to an increase in preventable disease. Between the lines: Kennedy's selection has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill, though some in the GOP remain optimistic Kennedy will secure the requisite number of votes to be confirmed by the Senate.What is the HHS?The Department of Health and Human Services is a nearly $2 trillion agency is in charge of dispensing nearly 25% of the federal budget and employs more than 80,000 federal workers.HHS encompasses other departments that approve new medications, conduct infectious disease research and contribute to other public health services.It includes departments whose work touch on immigration, child support and adults with disabilities.HHS also processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, allowing journalists and other members of the public to request records from the federal government.What departments fall under HHS?HHS encompasses 13 operating divisions. Americans may be familiar with the FDA, CDC and NIH — particularly after the COVID pandemic — but other lesser known divisions can still impact their everyday lives.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with regulating new drugs and medical devices, approves new vaccines, and ensures the safety of the food supply. After the 2022 Dobbs decision, the FDA has also helped make medication abortion more accessible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) helps respond to infectious disease outbreaks like the bird flu and the COVID-19 pandemic. It also tracks food-borne illnesses like E. coli and listeria.The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) overseas health insurance programs that benefit millions of Americans nationwide.The Office of Refugee Resettlement helps support refugees, unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers who are in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health oversees vaccine and other biomedical research, like cancer research. It includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which was headed by Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Administration for Children and Families helps fund foster care and Head Start child care programs across the country.What could Kennedy's appointment mean for Americans?As head of a large and influential agency, Kennedy could begin implementing some elements of his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.Kennedy has previously outlined plans to clear out entire departments from health care agencies, such as the FDA's nutrition department, in a bid to root out unspecified "corruption." He also said he would advise water districts against using fluoride, a mineral that occurs naturally in water but is often added to the water supply to help prevent tooth decay.He has also expressed interest in pausing drug development and infectious disease research at NIH for eight years, in favor of studying chronic disease. Zoom in: Kennedy has repeatedly denied that he is anti-vaccine and said he won't take away any vaccines from Americans. But he's continued to promote unbacked claims about vaccines causing various illnesses.He is also a proponent of drinking raw, unpasteurized milk, which both the FDA and CDC warn come with serious health risks. As the head of HHS, Kennedy would be able to initiate the roll back of the FDA's raw milk regulations.Go deeper:What to know about RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccines, drugs and health careHow RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement could shake up public healthWhat a Trump-empowered RFK Jr. could do on health care

Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food

First, food prices could increase. A lot. And this time, food inflation will be driven by food policy choices, not by the Covid-19 pandemic. After the role food prices played in the election, some might wonder why Trump would place tariffs on food imports, which could increase food prices if the costs are passed along […] The post Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

None of Trump’s supporters voted for food that costs more and is less safe. Nevertheless, a second Trump administration could be a disaster for eaters, farmers, food and farm workers, and provide a windfall for the largest food and farm interests. Here’s why. First, food prices could increase. A lot. And this time, food inflation will be driven by food policy choices, not by the Covid-19 pandemic. After the role food prices played in the election, some might wonder why Trump would place tariffs on food imports, which could increase food prices if the costs are passed along to consumers. But that’s not all he might do. The Trump team might also reduce food assistance for poor people, as House Republicans have already proposed. A Mexican agricultural worker cultivates lettuce on a farm in Holtville, California. (Photo by John Moore, Getty Images) Deporting food and farm workers, as Trump has pledged, could also increase the cost of producing food (and be devastating for families and rural communities). In combination, tariffs on food and farm products, reducing food assistance, and driving up labor costs could be a food affordability triple whammy for many of the people who just helped put Trump back in office. “If Trump truly wants to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ he will ban toxic pesticides and food chemicals, put warning labels on junk food, and require farmers to test for pathogens before they water their crops.” Second, the people who feed us could lose important workplace protections. The COVID-19 pandemic unmasked the harm food and farm workers face, but that might not stop the Trump team from weakening labor standards. Many of the people who feed us are not only at risk of being deported, they may also have fewer legal protections at work if industry lobbyists are placed in key positions at the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture. Even if Trump fails to deliver on promised deportations, food and farm workers will live and work in constant fear—and face increased harassment. Third, as hard as it is to imagine, our diets could get worse. While Trump and some of his supporters have pledged to “Make America Healthy Again,” the industry lobbyists who will likely run the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could instead weaken school nutrition standards (as Trump tried to do during his first term), reverse plans to require a warning label on junk food, weaken proposed limits on “healthy claims” on food packages, reduce access to local food sources like farmers’ markets, and replace nutrition science with pseudoscience. Fourth, despite Trump’s pledges to the contrary, our food and tap water could be filled with toxic pesticides and pathogens. The Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency banned toxic pesticides, including most uses of chlorpyrifos. The first Trump administration reversed a ban of chlorpyrifos, and a second Trump administration could reverse the ban again—and undo other recent chemical safety progress, including efforts to tackle toxic “forever chemicals.” The next Trump administration could also increase the risk of pathogens by reversing proposals to address salmonella in chicken as a favor to Big Meat. Fifth, the new Trump team could gut voluntary programs to help farmers get their farms “climate ready” and reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Climate pollution from farming could account for 38 percent of U.S. emissions by 2050—up from 10 percent today. That’s more likely  if the incoming administration diverts funding for reducing emissions and instead funds infrastructure projects like irrigation pipelines. The same voluntary practices that reduce emissions can also help farms withstand extreme weather. If funding is cut, farms could become more vulnerable. That’s not the only way a second Trump term could make things worse for most farmers. Tariffs will be bad for farmers because important overseas markets will be lost. Not only that, efforts to address monopoly control of the things farmers buy—like seeds, chemicals, and equipment—and monopoly control of the places farmers sell their goods will likely grind to a halt. If the past is prologue, the Trump team will raid USDA’s coffers to help disburse billions to the largest, most successful farmers and once again leave smaller farmers, especially farmers of color, with no safety net. Whether election-year pledges to “Make America Healthy Again” will produce a meaningful change remains to be seen. What’s clear is that no one voted for higher food prices, more hunger, increased diet-related disease, or more toxic pesticides and pathogens in our food–including most Republican voters. Public opinion research shows strong bipartisan support for anti-hunger programs, protecting workers, keeping food safe, and helping farmers address climate change. Handy Kennedy, founder of AgriUnity cooperative, feeds his cows on HK Farms on April 20, 2021 in Cobbtown, Georgia. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago, Getty Images) While the election shows we may not agree on everything, everyone agrees that our food should be affordable, safe, and produced in ways that protect our workers and our neighbors. Everyone, that is, except for the industry lobbyists who may soon be running the federal agencies charged with protecting us. Some of us will be able to choose organic or buy water filters. Others will live in states where state policymakers will continue to step in to protect us. But most of us—especially most of the voters who elected Trump—will be unprotected from higher prices and food and water that can make us sick. Counting on health gurus and other false prophets will be no substitute for the hard work that lays ahead. If Trump truly wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” he will ban toxic pesticides and food chemicals, put warning labels on junk food, and require farmers to test for pathogens before they water their crops. He will help farmers prepare their farms for extreme weather and avoid becoming a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. He will not only ensure that people have enough to eat, but also that they have more healthy food choices and fewer foods with misleading health claims. And he will make sure that the people who feed us aren’t living in fear or putting their own health and safety in jeopardy. The post Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.