Corporate interests and food politics shape nutrition recommendations. Is this good for you? Here’s what you need to know. (Full podcast, resource links, and Andy’s guest blog post are here.) If you like this, be sure to sign up for the newsletter so that you never miss out on the best nutrition and wellness tips.
Andy Bellatti, MS, RD
Frances Arnold: Hi, Andy. Thank you so much for joining us today. I’m really excited about this interview.
Andy Bellatti: Hi, Frances. Thank you so much for having me. I’m really happy to be talking to you.
Frances: You have quite a cool history as a dietician and as someone who really studies food politics. Do you want to just give the audience your two to three minute story about who’s Andy Bellatti?
Andy: Yeah, absolutely.
I am a registered dietitian. I have my master’s in nutrition from New York University. My bachelor’s degree is actually in journalism.
What inspired me to supplement that with a nutrition degree was actually the 2004 documentary “Super Size Me.” It spoke to me in many ways. For one, coincidentally, many of the nutrition and public health professionals in the documentary were NYU professors, among them Dr. Marion Nestle, whose book “Food Politics” has been instrumental in shaping my career.
Number two, that was the first time I realized that nutrition went way beyond just the food we eat, but also touched on issues of corporate control, co-optation of public health by big food, just food policy in general.
I ended up seeing that documentary twice in the theaters. I do remember walking out of the theater after seeing it for the first time. Something was awakened in me. That’s what led me to get into nutrition, but also, as I am doing now, mixing it with journalism and writing and issues of politics.
That’s the path that’s led me to where I am right now.
Frances: Wow, that’s really a cool wake up calling. Obviously there’s a lot of purpose in this for you.
It’s such a juicy topic, too. It’s one that’s really rich and it affects our everyday lives. It’s so prolific that I think we oftentimes fail to see how much food politics are actually interacting with our everyday food experiences and what’s available to us.
Andy: Absolutely. I think, also, there tends to be this idea that when people hear the word “food politics”, a lot of people just jump into this notion of, “Oh, well that has to do with Washington and there’s nothing that I can do. I don’t participate.” But, in reality, by virtue of just eating we participate in that whole process.
Frances: Absolutely true. And so, my goal for this whole journey with you today is to help shed the light on these really important topics. Because there’s so much to cover, just so everybody knows, this is a two part series with Andy which is the first two part series I’ve done, simply because it’s such a big topic. There’s just so much to share. I think everyone’s going to get a ton out of this.
We’re going to jump and we’re going to start with the Pandora’s box about the politics of dietary recommendations and how they came to be.
We’ll start with the food pyramid and then maybe you can go into MyPlate recommendations.
Andy: Yes, so there were really two incarnations of the food pyramid. The first one in 1992, which was pretty fittingly for the time, very much a message of, eat a low‑fat diet. And then you had the second one in 2005 which in my opinion was just one of the absolute worst illustrations of dietary guidance.
And what that one did, the second one, is that in an attempt to display kind of the quality among all the food groups, it put them all side by side with different colored slivers, whereas the first food pyramid definitely showed which food groups to prioritize, the ones that were more on the bottom. And then actually the ones towards the top, those were the ones that you were supposed to eat in smaller quantities.
But, one of the main issues that came up with the food pyramid especially was that this is all an effort by the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, and what happens is that a lot of people don’t realize that one of the main goals of the USDA is to really promote the beef and dairy industries. And so, there’s certainly a conflict of interest when you have the USDA also providing nutritional guidance. It’s also the same reason why in the first pyramid, to the shock and surprise of many health professionals, the base of the pyramid was not fruits and vegetables, it was grains.
What’s also important to talk about is that, when you’re talking about dietary recommendations, you also have to keep in mind the U.S. dietary guidelines, which are a joint effort by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, and these come out every five years. And if you look at the history of the dietary guidelines, you see that increasingly the language becomes a lot more neutral. So, instead of seeing things that would really help the public such as eat less sugar, or eat less red meat ‑‑ which are things that everybody should do for their health ‑‑ you see things that are worded along the lines of, prioritize these kinds of foods, and when possible, choose leaner cuts of beef.
And I knew that this terminology to the average person doesn’t really mean much ‑‑ like, reduce your intake of solid fats. So, it’s a very neutral, apolitical language.
MyPlate, which came out in 2011, it’s certainly better to understand than the pyramid, because it actually uses a plate which is a much more familiar symbol for many people. But again, you have these political influences in the sense that even though MyPlate has definitely done a better job of promoting more vegetables, you have that quintessential dairy group that is right on the side of the plate.
And the reason why that’s political is because the dairy industry has a lot of pull, a lot of money, and a lot of lobbying power in Washington. And of course, what we aren’t being told is that in reality, not only can humans survive without ever eating dairy, but they can also thrive, and yet that’s not a message that’s getting across to the average American.
Frances: And I want to touch on that in just a moment, because I think that’s a very important topic as well. But one thing I want to touch on too is the grains, and you mention that the base of the pyramid was grains. Do you think that it’s peculiar or that there’s any sort of issue at all with there being such a high recommendation to eat so many grains? six to 11 servings a day is a lot of grains in my opinion. I’m curious what you think of that, and it’s OK if you don’t agree with me [laughs] .
Andy: No, I do agree. And again, this goes back to a few issues. One of the issues is, and you just said it yourself, six to 11 servings…the idea of servings got very confusing for people, because especially when you look at the food pyramid, at the bottom you would see things like an entire baguette, right? But in reality, a serving of grains was only like, an ounce of bread, but your average bagel was five or six ounces, so one bagel was really five or six servings. It got very confusing for people, which is why if you notice things like MyPlate, the servings are much more downplayed. It’s not so much about specific numbers.
But I do think that it’s also important to point out that there were political factors that I think caused grains to be at the bottom, because really, the base of every diet and the food group that should be most emphasized should definitely be vegetables. And when you’re talking about grains ‑‑ especially the 1992 pyramid which didn’t really even make much of a distinction between whole grains or refined grains ‑‑ so really if you were eating a bagel made of white flour or some wild rice, it was all kind of looked at the same way. And I think it is problematic, especially in a country where the average American eats half of the daily recommended amount of fiber.
Frances: OK, that’s good to hear your input on how that is, because six to 11 grains is a lot, and I personally think that when you eat all those grains, it’s really messing with our glycemic index in our country. We have so many problems with blood sugar.
So, moving on from that point, though, because we do have a lot to get through, I’m going to move into the national dairy council topic, and you mentioned that milk has sort of a quintessential place on the American plate. And we all are familiar with the catchy slogans, Got Milk? And now there’s another one, Drink Just One More Cup.
There’s a lot of very careful targeting by the dairy industry to target groups who don’t drink a lot of milk. Children are being targeted, different ethnicities are being targeted, and we’ve got a lot of dairy evangelists in the nutrition community as well, but it’s still such an inflammatory topic even though there are people who very strongly believe on one side or the other that dairy is important. So, what is your perspective on how children are being targeted and different ethnicities are being targeted?
Andy: Yeah, and we talk about dairy. This is where it’s really important to have a global perspective, because I think once people travel to other countries, or even if they don’t travel if they at least start reading about other food cultures, you start seeing that very few countries have the dairy fetish that the United States does.
Now the Dairy Council, like I said earlier, their political power and just the budget they have is huge, and they spend millions every year with their branding. Now, mind you, it is important to point out that the Dairy Council is currently in a bit of a crunch because sales are down as more Americans are choosing dairy alternatives.
And what’s really key is that it’s not just vegans or people with lactose intolerance who are choosing dairy alternatives. It’s people who have no…I guess you could say no ethical issue with milk, or who have no physical need to avoid it are still choosing dairy alternatives.
But in terms of targeting, yeah, children are absolutely being targeted, because the dairy industry, for one, they’ve relentlessly lobbied to have milk be a part of the school lunch program, and even with after school programs you see these things like, “Fuel Up to Play 60,” which is basically the dairy council getting in on athletic schools and this idea that the absolute best beverage that all athletes of all ages should be having is milk, and it’s a pretty relentless campaign.
In terms of ethnicities, when I was…a few months ago ‑‑ and I know I’ll talk about this later ‑‑ but a few months ago I was at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics annual conference, and I went to a talk sponsored by the dairy industry, and the one thing that I found so disturbing is that the dairy industry has made it very clear that they view African‑American and Hispanic populations as what they consider, “opportunities for growth.”
And the reason for me why to me that is so bothersome and so twisted is that because lactose intolerance is much more prevalent in these populations, and in some cases the dairy industry is going after these populations with sweetened milks, especially chocolate milk. And this idea that sugary milk is a healthy choice because it has calcium to me is just the epitome of misguided nutrition, and the last thing that most children in this country need is more sugar.
Frances: And that’s a really hefty topic in our industry that has been widely debated is some people are on the fence, on the side of the fence that we need more dairy. Children need to be drinking more milk, and so if chocolate milk is all they’ll consume then that’s the best way to give them milk.
And then there are people on the other side of the fence, and they’re saying, “Well, there’s a lot of alternatives to dairy for meeting your calcium needs, and besides your bones don’t need just calcium. There are a lot of minerals that they require to support calcium and sugar compromises your bones, because it helps leach minerals out of your bones.”
So I’m curious because…I’m curious what you would say about how much dairy we actually consume and our nation’s rate of osteoporosis, which I find is strikingly odd, because we actually do have a high rate of consumption compared to a lot of other cultures like, for example, Asian cultures where there is lactose intolerance and they don’t drink milk, and we have also a very high rate of osteoporosis compared to those Asian cultures. Do you have anything you want to say about that?
Andy: Yeah. As you said we are one of the world’s highest per capita in both dairy consumption and osteoporosis and fracture rates. We’re in the top five. And some of the other countries that are just as high, if not higher ‑‑ Scandinavia you also see…in some of those countries a lot of dairy intake, very high rates of fractures.
And what continually gets left out of the conversation that you just touched upon is that as far as bone health goes, calcium is only one piece of the puzzle. It’s certainly important, but this is where when you start looking at bone health and the nutrients that are required for optimal bone health the picture becomes very clear that the best bang for your buck for bone health comes from dark leafy greens.
And what I mean by that is that when you look at dark leafy greens, they’re very high in vitamin K. Vitamin K, although most people know it as important, say, for, you know, for thinning the blood, it’s crucial for maintaining bone. And these dark leafy greens are very high in vitamin K. Dairy offers absolutely none.
Then you have other nutrients, minerals like manganese, also important for bone health in dark leafy greens, not in dairy. And then you have the issue of magnesium, where magnesium, you know, about half of all magnesium in our bodies is stored in our bones. And so although dairy does have magnesium, leafy greens have it as well, but more importantly, in a better ratio.
The ratio of magnesium to calcium in dairy is about one to 10, and in leafy greens it’s about one to 3, which is much better. And what that means it that with a much better ratio we absorb both minerals much better.
And you know, it’s funny, because the dairy industry, I recently looked at a pamphlet of theirs where they were showing why milk was superior and they made the argument that, “Well, if you want to get the amount of calcium that you get in one cup of milk, you’d have to eat 10 or 14 cups of spinach.”
And this is where the dairy industry’s deception comes in, because it is true that some leafy greens like spinach are high in oxalates, and oxalates do inhibit the absorption of calcium. It’s absolutely true. But there are also leafy greens like kale and bok choy and broccoli and others where they have very low oxalate content, and absorbing calcium from them is not difficult.
So the two problems here are, number one, there is no dark leafy greens council with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars to educate or put a message out there. But furthermore the dairy industry is deceptively talking about the calcium that can be obtained from these dark leafy greens.
Frances: Yeah, so it does get really confusing, and I just want to point out a couple things, and the first one is that for those people who are going to be listening to this podcast, I don’t think Andy or I are saying that you shouldn’t consume dairy or that it’s bad. This is just to point out how confusing it can get, and that it’s also a little untruthful at times or misleading as Andy was pointing out with the kale and the talk about just the whole advertising around marketing dairy to us as being sort of the be all end all for getting us what we need.
And I like to put it in perspective in a couple ways. The first way is that we evolved for millennia without consuming dairy. Dairy’s relatively new. I’m not really sure exactly how long it’s been in our population, in our food supply, but there’s a reason that a lot of populations and ethnicities cannot absorb dairy, and it’s because they lack the genetic ability to digest lactose, and some people are really sensitive to the proteins in dairy so there’s the sugar and the proteins.
And, secondly there are other ways if you don’t like dairy to get your nutrients that support your bone health, like you’re talking about greens, but you know what I also recommend to folks who don’t consume dairy and are worried about their bone health?
Andy: What’s that?
Frances: I also recommend fish with bones, you know, like smaller fish, and are you still vegan, Andy?
Andy: I am, yes.
Frances: OK. So you won’t like this [laughs] , but I also recommend bone broth, because you can…when you consume bone broth, and it’s been prepared properly where its helping to release the minerals in the bone, it’s actually very supportive to the bones that you…in your own body. So those are two things that I recommend in addition to lots of dark leafy greens.
Andy: Yeah, well, and I like what you said earlier which is important that this is not about bashing milk. It’s about just talking about the issue of bone health in a realistic and more objective manner, which I think is important for people to understand.
Frances: Right. And it’s OK to have milk that doesn’t have sugar, too, because even yogurt has more sugar in it than a candy bar so if you’re eating sugar, or so yogurt that’s really, really sugary, you just need to look at the label. If it has more than six grams of sugar you’re getting a lot of added sugar.
Dairy does have some of its own sugar, but it’s not really good for anyone to get all that sugar with their dairies. So that’s probably all we can say about that, because we do have so much more to talk about. So let’s go on to food labeling. That sound OK?
Andy: Yeah, absolutely.
Frances: OK. So this does tie in with what we’ve already mentioned, because food labeling is notoriously misleading and confusing to consumers, and it drives me nuts. It’s something I’d love to help set straight today with you. So why don’t you start by just sharing with us how food companies use the food label and food packaging to deceive consumers.
And deceive maybe is a strong word, maybe that’s not quite fair, but just to kind of sway people, and after all, that’s what marketing is. It’s something that you use to sway someone to your side to buy your product, but it can be deceptive because people think that they are buying something that is nutritionally superior, and cereals are such a great example of this where you think you’re getting a lot more than you are because the package is so fancy.
Andy: Yes, and this is why before I get into that I just want to briefly mentions, this is exactly why it’s important to advocate for law and policy, because although nutritional education, you know, educating people certainly has it value, we also need policy and law that can keep marketing to a certain standard and to try to just prevent as much deception as possible, because you’re right. It can be very difficult for people who are shopping.
But my main rule is when you see any food products the front of the package is marketing, and the back of the marketing is science. So whatever you see in the front of the package, I just say ignore it and go straight to the ingredient list and go straight to nutrition facts label, because food companies do use a lot of tactics that are deceptive on food packaging.
And by this I mean like you just said with cereal. You’ll see the most hyper‑processed, sugary cereal with transfats, and artificial dyes, and genetically modified byproducts, and on the front of the package they’re boasting about the inclusion of 23 vitamins and minerals, most of which are just tacked on during processing.
A few years ago I did a blog post where I basically made the argument and showed how a bowl of Fruit Loops or Trix is basically, the equivalent of eating Twizzlers for breakfast with a little bit of cornstarch added on and taking a multivitamin on the side, because that’s what most children’s cereal is. It’s cornstarch and sugar and then a bunch of vitamins added on.
Other examples of deception are things like the transfat loophole, and what I mean by that is that you can have transfat in a food ‑‑ and by that I mean that on their ingredient list you will see partially hydrogenated oil ‑‑ and as long as there is less than a half gram of transfat per serving you can have a 0 grams of transfat claim on the food package.
And when you consider the fact that as little as a gram of transfat a day can have serious health consequences on the heart, consuming 0.3 grams of transfat two or three times a day is a problem. And ultimately what we’re talking about here is deception through omission.
So these companies, they’re not telling you about the heaps of added sugar or the unhealthy processed oils or the lack of fiber in a processed food. The one thing they’ll tell you is, “Oh, look. This food has no cholesterol.” And in most instances it’s a given, because no plant food has cholesterol. So when you see, “cholesterol‑free,” on, say, a fruit candy, that’s an example of just pure marketing, and, yeah, deception.
Frances: Yeah, the transfat issue drives me nuts how you can just omit and round down so I’m glad you brought that point up. And then the other thing about a lot of those cereals is I love your [laughs] what you call it, the Twizzler with a multi‑vitamin. What did you call it exactly?
Andy: Yeah, that they’re equivalent of having Twizzlers with a little bit of cornstarch and a multivitamin on the side.
Frances: And the problem that I see with the cornstarch or just corn in general and soy is that it’s now genetically modified, and we’re going to get to that topic in a minute, but it’s actually become just a little bit harder to manage what it is to eat real food, because you think you’re getting just regular stuff. “Oh, it’s just corn, or it’s just soy,” but then when you know that now it’s genetically modified in this country, well now getting that corn or soy might be presenting entirely new problems.
Andy: Absolutely. And another thing, too, that comes up with cereals now when talking about the idea of real food that isn’t actually real, is that a lot of cereals are notorious for having what the industry has…they’ve coined a term, “crunchlets,” and this is essentially a mixture of transfat, cornstarch, artificial flavors, and artificial dyes.
And these are meant to replace things like dried blueberries or dried fruits in a lot of cereals that will say that they have some fruit in them. In some cases you’re just getting absolutely zero fruit, and you’re just getting this mixture of really unhealthy ingredients.
Frances: Well, and, you know, that stuff and get stretched really far, too, because you know those little gummy fruit snacks? I think that they’re just called, “fruit snacks,” and they’re shaped like little pieces of fruit, and they have, “100 percent fruit juice,” in them, and they’re considered a serving of fruit [laughs] .
Andy: Yeah.
Frances: It’s so remarkable. It’s not a serving of fruit, my friends, but I’m pretty sure most people in this audience do know that, and if you don’t, don’t feel bad. That’s why we’re here is to help clear some of that confusing. Fruit is fruit, and fruit gummies are candy.
Andy: Yes.
Frances: So I was reading your blog. Andy has this spectacular blog, by the way, and I want to make sure we share that in the show notes so people can find it. And you actually were reporting that there’s a 50 million dollar consumer education campaign for the nutrition label, and that sounds very interesting. So will you just share with us what this means for consumers and industry?
Andy: A few years ago, basically, in an attempt to prevent the FDA from setting some standards from what can go on the front of the package, the food industry decided to come together ‑‑ and by this I mean groups that represent the food industry like the Grocery Manufacturers Association ‑‑ and they came up with what is known as the, “Nutrition Keys.”
And there was this big hoopla about it and how it’s revolutionary, and it’s going to change everything, and it’s a joke, because what these nutrition keys are, all they’re doing is, they’re taking the information that’s already on the nutrition label ‑‑ for example, grams of sodium, calories per serving…milligrams of sodium. I’m sorry. Calories per serving, grams of fat, etc., etc. ‑‑ and they’re going to put that in the front of the package on the top right corner so that in the front of the package you’ll see serving information.
And for some reason there is going to be a 50 million dollar consumer education campaign, which in reality it means it’s a 50 million dollar marketing blitz and self‑congratulatory, of course. But this is exactly the kind of really ridiculousness that we’re seeing from the food industry where they really think that repeating the exact same information that is on the nutrition label on the front of the package is somehow revolutionary and going to change the health of Americans for the better.
Frances: I love your irreverence [laughs] . I think it’s really great that you are just…you’re such a champion for honestly and truth in advertising, and you love to call out the deception.
Andy: I do. Thank you. Well, and the reason why I’m so passionate about doing that is because I remember how easily I would fall for things, and it wasn’t until I started learning and reading that it made me realize just how much thought goes into all of this so that’s kind of what motivates me to help inform everybody else.
Frances: Yeah, and this is a true work of the most passionate people, because it’s a frustrating job to try and sort through all this stuff and help people understand what it all means. So this is good, and we’re not done, because there’s a really important piece that also drives me nuts, which is the American Heart Association’s stamp of approval that they’re now putting all over whole grain packages.
And you know, it’s…I find that a lot of stuff that they allow the stamp of approval to be placed on is very questionable, and I’m not surprised because the American Heart Association does make money by letting food manufacturers buy this label and place it on…prominently on their products, because the American Heart Association comes with a lot of trust.
And so consumers know, “Oh, well the American Heart Association believes in this, therefore if their stamp is there we know instantly. I don’t even really have to question it. This must be good for me.”
What are your thoughts about this? Can you just illuminate for everybody what consumers really need to understand about what this might mean? Looking at what else is in the package besides just what’s on the front of that package.
Andy: Yes, and you hit it on the head when you mentioned that the American Heart Association’s seal of approval or check mark is bought. You know, it’s something that companies can simply buy. It is not awarded out of merit, per se. Now, what’s troubling is that on the one hand, in 2009, to my surprise, the American Heart Association came out with some really great guidelines about sugar intake, to where they recommended that adults in the US should not consume more than five or six teaspoons of added sugar a day, which I thought was fantastic.
It was the first time that any organization remotely relating to health set such low standards, as they should be. Now, the confusing part is on the one hand, they’re giving that recommendation, then you look at the guidelines for the seal of approval, and they’re mainly about fat and sodium.
Basically, as long as you are low sodium and low fat or fat‑free, you can get the seal of approval. This is where it gets really troublesome, because I’ve seen the American Heart Association approval on something like white rice. When you think about the fact that refined grains raise triglycerides, they do nothing towards raising HDL cholesterol.
You’re having, as you mentioned, some of these refined grain products or products with a hefty amount of added sugar that are getting the seal of approval and then something like, for example coconut milk, which is very good for heart health, doesn’t because the American Heart Association is still under this idea. They treat saturated fats all the same, when in reality there are different saturated fats, plural, which don’t all behave the same way.
Really, it’s frustrating to me that I think anything that’s high in fat usually will not get the seal of approval. Of course, there are some things high in fat like conventional red meats, which should not get it. I’m talking about things that are high in healthy fats. We’re talking about almonds, or pecans, or seeds or whatever it might be, and then meanwhile a lean cut of red meat will get that seal of approval.
It’s definitely confusing for shoppers, and this is again another example of how these seals of approval can be co‑opted, and how they’re not necessarily awarded by merit, but rather outright purchased.
Frances: Absolutely. You hit on so many points. One of them I just want to touch on a little bit more because it’s an area of massive frustration for me, and that is the whole fats argument. It is that ‑‑ there are two things here. First of all, sugar is bad for heart health. It’s bad for everything health. Added sugar is not healthy, but when the American Heart Association originally labeled fats as evil for heart health, they didn’t actually have all of the research data that really showed that.
The research and the data was actually cherry‑picked to show that there was a correlation, and therefore there must be a causation between dietary fats and heart disease. They just, Ansel Keys was actually the leader in all of this movement about fats, and he left behind the data that didn’t line up with the theory that fats were causing heart disease.
Then we went on this crusade to abolish fats, and when you remove fat, you also remove a lot of flavor. Naturally, sugar came on scene and higher sodium came on scene to replace a lot of that flavor. Well, what happened is heart disease didn’t go down, but heart disease continued to skyrocket, as did obesity, and cancer, and diabetes, type two diabetes.
We haven’t really gotten ourselves in any better position. In fact, you could argue that it’s a lot worse. I think that the American Heart Association’s position on fat definitely needs to be updated to reflect what’s in the literature. It’s very conflicting that saturated fat is actually evil. As you said, there’s a lot of research that shows that different saturated fats behave differently in the body. Coconut oil is one of them.
I always have a lot of fun re‑educating my clients, that what we’re going to do first of all, for your heart health, is cut back your sugar. I actually recommend six grams of added sugar per day is the ideal limit. I know it’s hard to reach, but that’s still what I recommend.
That’s a big topic, so I think we can leave it there. [laughs] Because I should probably do a whole show on it.
Let’s talk about GM foods.
Andy: OK.
Frances: Lots of people don’t understand what genetically modified foods are. So GMO’s and GE’s. I want to talk about why they matter. This is another really big topic where we could have a whole show, so we’re going to condense it for everybody. Why are GMO’s and GE’s showing up, and why are they not labeled?
Andy: OK. The first thing I want to say is that when you look at the United States in terms of labeling, we are way behind. There are 50+ countries that have some kind of GMO labeling. Some countries, or parts of other countries, there’s even outright bans on GMO foods and crops. We definitely need to catch up with the rest of the world, at the very least in just labeling.
It’s a very controversial topic, and I think it’s important when we talk about genetically modified foods to not just talk about the effects on human health. Of course there are concerns about how they can affect the body, one of the main concerns being that really, there are no long term studies. There are very small animal studies.
One of the problems is that when, as an anti‑GMO advocate, when you get stuck on the human health component, it’s very easy for people who are pro‑GMO to attack your arguments. That is why I always tell people that if you’re going to talk about genetically modified foods and crops, you need to go beyond human health and look at other aspects that are troubling.
Genetically modified foods, they take quite a tool on ecological systems, on the environment, on soil. We know that healthy food needs healthy soil. That’s key. Genetically modified foods are definitely a problem in that sense, and also from a food justice standpoint when you look at issues of food sovereignty in developing countries.
GMO’s are a huge, huge problem, because what they do is they let these large bio‑tech companies basically have full control of most of the food supply in developing nations. This gets in the way of small farmers, and therefore really prevents local economies from really becoming healthy. The whole issue of genetically modified foods really affects every aspect of not just health, but socioeconomic, agricultural, environmental aspects.
This is why again, in so many other countries, they’re at least labeled, so people at least have a choice and they’re aware whether or not they’re purchasing these foods.
Frances: There was, in our most recent election, a strong effort by people who are concerned about genetically modified foods to label them. That was happening in California, it was called Proposition 37. That was a wild show, because it was a small grassroots effort to try and get the labeling implemented in California. There were millions of dollars spent against this campaign by bio‑tech industry, and it was amazing, because ultimately bio‑tech industry won. They’re not being labeled. Do you want to say anything about?
Andy: Well, what was really amazing was that around August or September, the polls were showing that two‑thirds of potential voters were going to vote in favor of Proposition 37 and get GMO’s labeled. Then closer to election time, Big Ag and Big Food spent a lot of money. There was just a whole blitz that they put out to “educate” people on what it really meant.
Although it didn’t pass, it is important to point out that it was a pretty close vote. This is where I have to not just point out, but also be grateful for the work of Michele Simon. Michele Simon, she’s an Oakland‑based public health lawyer, she’s also the author of a terrific book called, “Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Public Health and How to Fight Back.” Another book that has really shaped my career.
But the reason why I’m saying this is because Michele Simon wrote a really great piece earlier this year, after the defeat of Prop 37. She pointed out just the amount of work that Monsanto and a lot of these big food companies did.
These dirty tricks. They were deceptive in the California voter guide. They made it seem like certain organizations were against Proposition 37. That actually wasn’t the case. They misrepresented academic affiliation. They misused a federal seal and they misquoted the Food and Drug Administration. It was just all these things that she pointed out that really made the case that, from a grass roots standpoint, there is a big machine with a lot of money that we’re up against.
But even with that said, it was a very close vote and already I know that Washington and Vermont have similar initiatives in place. So I think that Prop 37 was the first domino that fell. It’s going to unleash an entire cascade of more initiatives, more votes and this issue increasingly becoming more and more mainstream.
Frances: Well said. Yay for dominos. I definitely hope so. I did participate in the call banks. They just asked for volunteers to call from their home to call California voters. So I did that for Proposition ‑‑ sorry, I wanted to say 37. 70…yeah, it is 37. It was amazing. Even though we lost that initiative, I received some follow‑up emails about the deception. They even went so far as to call Democratic voter homes or people who were maybe more on the fence, independents or something, and represented themselves as Democrats.
Or organic farmers who were against Prop 37. So there was a lot of money that went into deceiving people and I do think deceit is a fair way to say that. This morning, I got a little something in my inbox about the Monsanto Protection Act, which I think is just the nickname for how Monsanto is trying to gain a free pass for future GMO crop approvals. It’s easy. It’s a slippery thing to get into understanding the backdoor deals that happen. But there is some backdoor work that’s taking place or trying to take place, with the fiscal cliff coming up.
I don’t really know that much about it. I’m not sure if you do, but basically there is a lot of fear that Monsanto lobbyists are going to slip in something into the next fiscal year agriculture appropriations bills. I think this is really significant. Number one, they have really smart lobbyists, they have really smart lawyers. They have tons of money. They have tons of power. Some of that power is that there is the revolving door.
Monsanto keeps making their way into our federal politics and into very powerful positions. Do you want to say anything about that piece or do you know much about that piece?
Andy: Just what you pointed out that, apart from the money, there is just a lot of the political connections that make this a very tangled web. This is where I think the best defense is supporting organic farmers, supporting local farmers and just seeing what you’re supporting with your actions. Which is really one of the best things that we can be mindful of.
Frances: Absolutely. That leads us into an opportunity to just share with consumers what they can do to stay educated, without being overwhelmed, or having to become experts. Because nobody wants to be more overwhelmed then they already are.
Andy: I would say the main thing people need to remember is that the more they cook, the more they establish relationships with local food vendors, the more they eat lower on the food chain, the more they eat unprocessed, the more they grow their own food whenever possible. These are all things that will enable people to be closer to health. That will hopefully just become habits.
One thing that I would tell people, too, is that I think it’s great to be informed about nutrition. There is a lot to learn. But at the same time, don’t forget the fact that the way you feel an hour after you eat something, the way your body feels, says a lot about what you just ate.
So I think people need to listen to their bodies more. And see the difference. When you eat something that’s healthful and unprocessed, versus something that is the opposite of that. I think so many people get caught up in minutiae that ultimately makes many lose sight of the bigger picture.
When people are shunning pears and bananas because they’re high in carbohydrates and instead they are eating an egg, sausage and bacon bowl for breakfast, that is a huge disconnect that needs to be addressed. Because, again, you have to think about, not only how the food you’re eating affects your own body, but looking at how does it affect the environment. And how does it affect the workers who are growing the food.
And everything that goes beyond just ourselves.
Frances: I love that. That’s so important. Because we’re so far removed it is easy to not think about how it affects the workers. We vote with our dollars but we don’t realize that how we’re spending our dollars is affecting the lives of other people. Not everybody has the choice. To say it simply, farmers grow what consumers buy. They practice in ways that are better for their bottom line, but if we’re willing to vote conscientiously it is better for our health.
What I like to say is, pay a little bit now and pay less later. You’re probably going to have fewer health problems if you’re buying food that’s supportive to your health, that’s packaged the way that nature intended and not the way that biotech industries or anybody else manipulates.
Andy: Yeah and also vote with your vote. If there’s a candidate or if there’s a politician, whether locally or at the state level, federal, whatever it is. But if there’s somebody who is out there tackling issues, whether it’s agriculture and environment, social equality, economic equality, anything like that, make sure to support that person too, with your actual vote. Because that’s also how change gets done.
Frances: Amen. [laughs] So what resources would you recommend to help people educated themselves and keep their families safe and be reasonably informed about these topics?
Andy: There’s different media and organizations and non‑profits that I’m always following and keeping a close eye on, because I love the work they do. So there is Grist. Grist is an online magazine. It’s an independent, green news organization. They write a lot about issues of sustainability and food. There’s also Mother Jones, another great magazine that often has articles about food. There’s also a great website called Sustainable Table.
Food Safety New is another one about issues of food safety. There’s a lot going on there. And then there are these non‑profits or organizations like the Food Integrity Campaign, the Environmental Working Group. They do a great job. They’re the ones who come out with the Dirty Dozen list and the Clean 15. It’s a list of produce that has the highest and lowest pesticide residues. So that, if you are enabled to purchase everything organic…
And that’s something that I realize not everybody can do ‑‑ at least with that Dirty Dozen, you know what 12 fruits and vegetables you should really be trying as much as possible to buy organic. Two other great organizations are the Center for Food Safety and the Food Chain Workers Alliance, which touches on issues of labor rights.
Frances: I can tell that I’m attracting a certain type of people. Because on the last several podcasts, they recommend Environmental Working Group. I’ve written some material off of Environmental Working Group’s material as well. [laughs] So the last one was Food Chain Workers United?
Andy: Alliance.
Frances: OK. We’ll share all of these on the website for this podcast and we’ll make sure that we have a way for people to connect back to you. Your website is?
Andy: My website is Andy Bellatti. That’s andybellatti.com. You can also find me on Twitter @AndyBellatti.
Frances: You’re really active on Twitter. That way if people don’t make it back to the blog posts that you provide then they’ll at least have it in their minds how they can reach you. AndyBellatti.com.
I’m very excited. This was a great introduction. I’m looking forward to session number two with you. I hope that people come back for that one, as well.
Is there anything else you want to say before we close up?
Andy: It’s been a great conversation. I’m looking forward to part two, as well. Thank you so much for having me on.
Frances: All right. Thanks, Andy. We’ll see you soon. We’ll talk to you soon.
