Cross-posted on La Vida Locavore
This week, the House held a hearing on the rising cost of food and its impact on child nutrition programs. Rep. Miller (D-CA), kicked it off and then the first witness took the floor: Scott Faber of the Grocery Manufacturer's Association.
Here is a man who represents Archer Daniels Midland, Bumble Bee, Cadbury, Campbell Soup, Cargill, Chicken of the Sea, Chiquita, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Dannon, Dean Foods, Del Monte, Dial, Dole, Dr. Pepper Snapple, General Mills, Georgia-Pacific, Gerber, Heinz, Hershey, Hormel, Smucker, Johnsonville Sausages, Kellogg, Kikkoman, Kraft, Land O'Lakes, Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble, Safeway, Sara Lee, Sargento, Sunny Delight, Target, Unilever, and Welch, just to name a few of his organization's members. I am sorry but I just can't bring myself to believe that any of these companies are motivated by compassion for the poor.
Yet here is their representative, boo-hooing to Congress about the disproportionate burden high food prices places on the poor (oh and did he mention his concern for the environment?) unless Congress goes along with the GMA's agenda.
First, read what Rep. Miller brought up in his statement at the start of the hearing:
Many report having to use frozen vegetables instead of fresh vegetables, processed wheat products instead of whole grains, and prepackaged foods instead of more nutritious entrees that involve additional preparation costs.
and
According to the SNA's estimates, U.S. schools will incur a loss of $5 million to $8 million each school day in order to feed 30 million children.
Without sufficient federal resources, many states and school districts often have to rely on the sales of popular but less nutritious foods, like pizza, french fries, and sodas, to help generate the revenue needed to subsidize healthier meal options.
The less you've got, the crappier you eat. And as food prices rise, people (and schools) who could afford healthier foods before now can't. Miller's right to be concerned.
Before I share what the GMA had to say, I'd like to tell you a bit of the organization's history.
First of all - check out this musical chairs game: GMA's president Cal Dooley is leaving to head the American Chemistry Council. In turn, the American Chemistry Council president (Jack Gerard), is leaving his position to head the American Petroleum Institute. And before you start cursing the Republicans - think of this: Cal Dooley was a seven term Congressman and a Democrat. (Hat tip to Farm Bill Girl for this info)
On the recommendation of Appetite for Profit by Michele Simon (who will be a panelist at Netroots Nation next week), I went to GMA's website and searched on the term "school" ...
Search Results
146 documents found for SCHOOL.
96% [TESTIMONY] Californians for Sensible School Nutrition Policy Letter of Opposition to California Senate Bill 19
95% [NEWS RELEASE] GMA Statement Regarding Institute of Medicine Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools Report
95% [CORRESPONDENCE] GMA Letter of Opposition to Connecticut School Marketing Restrictions Bill
95% [TESTIMONY] GMA Testimony in Opposition to Maryland School Marketing Bill
95% [TESTIMONY] GMA Testimony in Opposition to Connecticut School Marketing Bill
95% [TESTIMONY] GMA Testifies in Opposition to Massachusetts School Food and Beverage Restrictions
95% [COMMENT] GMA Letter in Opposition of Texas Food and Beverage Restrictions
94% [COMMENT] GMA Letter in Opposition to Oregon School Restrictions Bills
I clicked on the first one. I liked the name. "Californians for Sensible School Nutrition Policy." I think that's code for major corporations for NO nutrition policy. They define themselves as "a coalition of food and beverage companies and broad-based industry and education trade associations."
Follow me through a tour of classic food industry speak... (my words are italicized, their words are bold, and I am not including all of their testimony here, just selected bits)
SB 19 Fails to Address the Real Causes of Obesity
The rise in childhood obesity is the result of many complex factors affecting eating and activity habits, including social and environmental factors, as well as culture and biology. Focusing attention exclusively on just one issue - foods and beverages sold in schools - is counterproductive and a totally inadequate response to a serious public health issue.
This is ALWAYS the argument. It's not us - you can eat our junk without getting fat if you exercise, and the kids don't exercise. Yet, no mention of the impact of eating a bunch of artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives with your minimally nutritious food even if it doesn't actually make you fat.
SB 19 Usurps Local Control
The restrictive provision of this bill prevents local school authorities from making decisions based on their individual needs and desires.
GMA didn't give a shit about local control when they wanted Congress to pass a bill in 2006 banning states from making labeling requirements stricter than the federal requirements. Hmmm...
Adequate State and Federal School Nutrition Standards Already Exist
California law already requires that half of all foods sold in schools outside the federal school lunch program shall be selected from a prescribed "list of nutritious foods," ...
So if 50% of what you offer kids is junk, that's OK? What if we made at least 50% of the classes the school offered educational and stipulated that the other 50% could be recess. Is that OK?
USDA regulations already prohibit food and beverages of minimal nutritional value from being sold during the school lunch period.
That's not true actually. Within the federally reimbursable school lunch there are nutrition standards - beyond that it's all fair game, including junk.
Michele's book documents case after case of state legislation to limit junk food in schools failing due to the influence of lobbyists from GMA and their sponsors. Here are some of the details she includes about a bill in CA to ban soda in schools:
According to one observer, "You could see the Coke and Pepsi lobbyists running down the hall after the legislators. They were out in full force." - p. 225
The freedom of choice argument was made in the California battle over soda in high schools - that high school students should be able to make their own "choices." But Michael Butler, legislative advocate for the California State PTA, says that's not a valid argument. "I can understand students making healthy choices. But we don't put cigarette vending machines in high schools to allow students to have a 'choice.'" - p. 237-238
Yet after a track record of opposing any legislation to provide children with a healthy environment in their schools, the GMA expects us to believe they care ONE BIT about poor children's nutrition???
So with that in mind - I took a look at the GMA testimony in this week's Congressional hearing. I barely made it through half a page without finding the GMA's real agenda here. They've been on a major anti-ethanol campaign lately... this testimony (in the name of poor children) was just one more plea to quit feeding their corn to our cars.
Don't get me wrong - I am NOT for ethanol. I think it's a stupid idea. Yes, it's renewable, but how renewable is a fuel that is obtained in such an unsustainable way? The same can be said for most of the corn we grow here.
80% of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, according to the USDA's 2008 numbers. Add to that some atrazine as a pesticide and petroleum-based fertilizer (which then runs off into our waterways, ultimately gathering in the Gulf of Mexico where it creates a "dead zone" the size of New Jersey) and that's what it takes to grow corn the way we do in the U.S. (to say nothing of soil erosion).
If I understand it right, this is feed corn, not sweet corn (what humans eat). As of 2006, over 50% of U.S. corn went to feed animals and 5% went to high fructose corn syrup and that's the way the GMA wants it. They blame ethanol for raising the price of their cheap food input, corn.
So - let's review - the GMA, which does not give a shit about child nutrition based on its long history of opposing child nutrition - used a session on nutrition for children born into poor families through no fault of their own to beg Congress to make their precious corn, their cheap ingredient for everything, cheap again.