Tomorrow (Monday), I'll be on Varney & Company on Fox Business at around 11:15 cst talking about the new dietary guidelines and the recommendation that we eat less meat.
Blog
New Dietary Guidelines
The federal committee that makes dietary guidelines and recommendations has just released their newest report. As expected, they've incorporated "sustainability" objectives and have recommended a move away from meat eating. I've previously commented on the the problem with a single committee making both nutritional and sustainability recommendations, and I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal on environmental impacts of meat production. Now we can take a look at what's actually been proposed.
Here's one tidbit from a Washington Post summary on the issue.
““We’re not saying that people need to become vegans,” said Miriam Nelson, a professor at Tufts University and one of the committee’s members. “But we are saying that people need to eat less meat.”
The panel’s findings, which were released to the public in the form on a 572 page report this afternoon, specifically recommend that Americans be kinder to the environment by eating more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods. The panel is confident that the country can align both health goals and environmental aims, but warns that the U.S. diet, as currently constructed, could improve.”
Other conservative news sources point to some pretty heavy handed portions of the report. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC):
“called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.”
"Interventionists" is the right word here, but rarely are interventionists so forthcoming in their intentions.They also want to tax foods, limit speech, and monitor TV use.
“DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.
“Align nutritional and agricultural policies with Dietary Guidelines recommendations and make broad policy changes to transform the food system so as to promote population health, including the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods,” its report read.
“For example, earmark tax revenues from sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and desserts high in calories, added sugars, or sodium, and other less healthy foods for nutrition education initiatives and obesity prevention programs.”
The amount of sedentary time Americans spend in front of computers and TV sets is also a concern to the federal panel.”
If you think this is a one-off isolated example, you haven't been paying attention.
Technology use in livestock production
This summer, I was interviewed by some folks with the North American Meat Institute on the use of technology in livestock production. The video was released last week
Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - November 2014
The latest edition of our Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.
This month, consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all food products (except steak, which was essentially unchanged) was up relative to October.
Consumers continue to expect higher meat prices in the coming month (but not quite as much as last month). Planned purchases of chicken were up relative to last month.
Three new ad hoc questions were added to the survey this month. Given the recent WTO ruling on the US mandatory country of origin labeling law (COOL) (see some discussion of the issues here), several questions were added to gauge consumers' knowledge and perceptions of different meat origin labels (thanks to Glynn Tonsor at K-State who provided suggestions on the questions).
The first question asked: “Which of the following are grocery stores required by law to label for fresh meat products?” Participants were shown seven issues and were asked to select “required”,” not required”, or “I don’t know”, for each issue.
64% of respondents believe nutritional content information is required to be labeled by law. Over a third (39%) thought there was mandatory labeling for use of hormones. For the remaining five issues, the plurality of consumers chose “I don’t know.” This includes the three issues related to MCOOL. About 40% of consumers did not know whether grocery stores required to label where an animal was born, raised, or slaughtered. More consumers than not thought grocery stores were not required to label such origin information. Only 22% of consumers thought grocery stores were required to label where an animal was born.
Secondly, (and only after answering the preceding question), participants were asked: “What portion of pork products consumed in the United States is covered by current mandatory country of origin labeling laws?” The plurality, 23.79% of participants, responded saying that 40% to 59% of pork products consumed in the United Sates is covered under mandatory country of origin (COOL) laws. 17% though no pork products were required to be labeled, and about 12% though all pork products were required to be labeled.
he third question pertains to consumer’s willingness-to-pay for a 12oz boneless rib eye beef steak dependent on the country of origin. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four groups that differed in the label given to the ribeye steak. On fourth of participants were asked: “ What is the most you would be willing to pay for a 12oz boneless rib eye beef steak that was labelled as: Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the U.S.?” Other respondents answered similar questions except the labels were changed to: Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in U.S.; Born and Raised in Canada, Slaughtered in the U.S.; or Product of Canada and the U.S. Respondents answered by clicking a response category with a range of dollar values such as, $0, $0.01 to $2.99, . . ., $13.00 to $15.99, $16 or more. Answers were used to estimate the mean WTP for each of the four groups.
Results indicate consumers valued beef that was born or born and raised in Canada $0.89 and $1.05 less, respectively, than beef that was born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. Consumers do not distinguish between beef born in Canada and born and raised in Canada; the difference in WTP for these two labels ($6.11 vs. $5.95) is not statistically different. Mean WTP for the label “product of Canada and the U.S.”, $6.55, is higher than the other labels that mentioned Canada and only $0.45 lower than “Born, Raised and Slaughtered in the U.S.”, a difference that is not statistically different.
An Anthropologist Takes on the Paleo Diet
Interesting TEDx talk by the anthropologist Christina Warner on the accuracy of our beliefs that underlie the modern Paleo Diet. I particularly enjoyed her discussion around the 11 to 12 minute mark about how many of our current fruits and veggies are modern, human creations that were no where to be found in the Paleo era.