What will become of, us?

sunsetbarn.jpgGovernment’s cozy relationship with dairy lobby is problem no. 1

By Sherry Bunting, reprinted from Farmshine, October 19, 2018

These are tough times. The strain of a fourth year of flat-lined milk prices is wearing thin on dairy farmers and those who serve them.

And the folks inside the Beltway don’t get it.

Wait, maybe they do.

The Farm Bill has yet to be passed, the mid-term elections are over… and the question continues to be asked: What can be done about the fact that family dairy farms are dropping like flies?

This question has been asked and answered for the better part of three years and the whole decade before that… and still we find ourselves repeating the same words falling on the same deaf ears, pleasant nods, and ‘sincere’ handshakes.

Where does Washington go for the answers? The dairy lobby. In fact, members of Congress will say that nothing gets done without getting National Milk Producers Federation on board.

What’s the deal for the future? A better ‘welfare’ program for small farms to window-dress the rapid and deliberate consolidation that is running rough-shod over their markets and using the Federal Order and other regulated pricing mechanisms to do it.

For years, a decade or more, grassroots dairy farmers have told their legislators to please work on repairing the damage government has already done to dairy farming.

They’ve pleaded with those inside the Beltway to heed the truth on the decades of flawed dietary guidelines and to right the wrongs in our nation’s school lunch program and other institutional feeding programs that are forced to follow these flawed guidelines.

But alas, instead of real change, we get more of the same, while the dairy lobby cheers and applauds over a tiny change allowing schools to serve 1% lowfat flavored milk instead of the prior Obama-era mandate of fat-free.

Meanwhile, nothing changes for regular milk in schools. It’s been fat-free and 1% for a decade now, and we have lost a generation of milk drinkers and stand to lose even more, and all the while our school kids fight increased obesity and diabetes rates, and we wonder, why?

Heck, you can’t even sell whole milk as a fundraiser during school hours, and you can’t give it away to schoolchildren during school hours due to these dietary rules that –according to those who have done a decade of scientific investigation of the research –show are actually not healthy rules for our children in the first place.

Plus, we have the FDA, having looked the other way for more than 10 years, now talking about milk’s standard of identity within a greater framework of “modernizing” standards of identity to “accomplish nutritional goals” — goals that are guided by flawed government dietary guidelines.

Instead of acknowledging the past wrong and immediately setting it right, the FDA adds comment period after comment period to try to read the minds of consumers. They want to know if consumers understand what they are buying when they buy fake milk.

The short answer? survey after survey shows that an overwhelming majority of consumers are, in fact, confused about the nutritional differences between real milk and the imposters — some consumers even believe there is milk in the not-milk ‘milk’.

Meanwhile, more time passes. Farmers are asked to wait. Be patient, while more damage is done by counterfeit claims that steal market share from dairy milk’s rightful place.

And then there’s the regulated milk pricing. What are the odds that any member of Congress will heed the past 10 years of requests for a national hearing now that California has enthusiastically joined the Federal Orders? That was the death nell of more of the same.

“It’s a free market,” say the legislators, regulators and market pundits.

“It’s a global market,” they add further.

No folks. It is a regulated market, and believe me when I tell you, the USDA and the major national footprint cooperatives operate this regulated market in lockstep.

Processors can’t access the administrative hearing process, unless they are cooperative-owned processors.

Farmers can’t access the administrative hearing process, except through their cooperatives.

Ditto on the above when it comes to voting. Bloc voting on behalf of farmers by their cooperative leadership seals every deal.

At a meeting a few months ago in the Southeast with USDA administrators that was intended to talk about multiple component pricing, farmers brought forward their grievances about bloc voting and their concerns about how milk is qualified on their Orders to share in their pool dollars.

What was USDA’s official response? The same response we hear over and over from legislators. “You vote for your co-op boards and they vote for Federal Orders.”

The Federal Orders were implemented in the 1930’s to keep milk available to consumers, to keep producers from being run-over. Today, these Orders are used to move milk from expanding consolidation areas to regions that have small and mid-sized family and multi-generational dairy farms located near consumer populations and competitive markets.

This is not a size thing. This is not small vs. big thing. This is structural change thing that is happening in the dairy industry at an increasingly rapid rate while the lifeblood is sucked right out of our culture of dairy farming.

troxel-sale-2The storm is brewing. Since the beginning of this year, the financial experts have told us that one-third of producers are selling out or contemplating an exit from dairy, that another one-third are not sure where they even stand, and that another one-third are moving forward with plans for expansion within consolidating industry structures.

The thought occurs to me: When the other two-thirds of producers are gone, what will become of that one-third that is still moving forward expanding, undeterred? What will become of the fabric from which their progress emerged? What will become of the next generation with hands-on experience, passion and love of dairy? Who will be raised on a dairy farm in the future? What contributions will be lost when dairy becomes only a business and no longer a business that is also a lifestyle? Who will be the support businesses? How will our communities change? Will all of our dairies in the future be academically run? What will become of our cow sense, our deep roots, our sense of community?

What will become of, us?

GL 4736For years we have heard “there’s a place for every size dairy in this industry.” That phrase is how we get small and mid-sized farms to advocate with consumers about modern farming so they will accept a more consolidated dairy farming picture.

Now that we are reaching this point, will we hear the large consolidating integrators say the same in reverse? Will they slow down, push pause, and realize there IS a place for the diversity of farms that make this industry the shining star it is and could be?

While at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin in October, the strain of now a fourth year of low prices was evident. Attendance “felt” lower even if the official numbers don’t totally reflect it.

Show entries were down. Traffic among trade show exhibitors was interesting and steady, but ‘off’ and ‘different.’

Dairy farmers are struggling. Large, small, and in between, these times are tough, and clear answers are elusive.

Dairy farmers remain paralyzed by three things:

1) the inability to have an effect on their circumstances or seat at the decision table;

2) lack of understanding of an incredibly complex regulated market; and

3) the innate desire to trust the establishment that handles their milk because they are too busy milking, managing and caring for cows, not to mention the land, to handle the milk marketing themselves.

Just think about this for a moment. In the past four years, National Milk Producers Federation has created and implemented the F.A.R.M. program where someone can come in and put you on a list for a subjective heifer bedding evaluation, where more is being not asked, but demanded, while at the same time, the pay price from which to do more is declining.

The milk checkoff programs continue to focus on partnerships. All kinds of efforts emerge to give away milk and dairy, and meanwhile supermarket wars by large integrating retailers push milk further into a commodity corner from which all imposters can brand their ‘more than’ and ‘less than’ marketing claims.

What we learned at some of the seminars at World Dairy Expo is that nothing will change in the milk pricing system, that it’s a free market, a global market, and that the best Congress can do is improve the margin protection program and other insurance options so farmers have the tools to deal with it.

I’m here to tell you that as long as this remains true, no farmer should be ashamed to use these tools even if it means receiving taxpayer dollars because it is the government’s actions and inaction over a decade or more that have created the problems in milk pricing and marketing today, and furthermore, the government shows no sign of wanting to let go of its stranglehold on dietary guidelines, how it enforces dairy’s standard of identity in fraudulent labeling, nor how it conspires with the dairy lobby — made up of the nation’s largest cooperatives — to regulate pricing in a way that further consolidates the dairy industry.

And by the way, all of the rhetoric on trade and NAFTA and Canada’s supply management system and Class 7 pricing has been nothing more than a smokescreen.

wGDC18-Day1-56Trade is important, but again, we have reached a point where 2018 is seeing the demise of dairy farms at rapid rates while exports continue to set new records. As of Oct. 5, 2018, U.S. dairy exports for the first 8 months of the year (Jan-Aug) accounted for a record-setting 16.6% of milk production on a solids basis. That’s the largest ever percentage of the largest ever milk production total – more of the more – in the history of the U.S. dairy industry’s recordkeeping.

In fact, traders will be the first to tell you that “more exports” don’t translate into “better farm milk prices” because the export markets are largely commodity clearing markets and they are fueling expansion of commodity processing in areas of the U.S. where it is easiest to export to Asia and Mexico. A global supply-chain is in the works.

The exports, in fact, are diluting the Federal Order pricing at the same rapid rate as declines in consumer fluid milk consumption, putting severe pressure on eastern markets in particular.

Meanwhile, the eastern milk markets are extremely tight on milk. This information is sourced to cooperative managers and the independent USDA Dairy Market News. Plants are seeking milk and not receiving it. Trucker shortages are complicating the problem. State regulated pricing mechanisms, such as in Pennsylvania, still interfere, making milk cheaper to bring in than to use what is here. In some Federal Orders to the south, this is also the case because of how their pools are administrated.

We are seeing the vicious circle of self-fulfilling prophecies. Producers who want to operate 50 cow, 100 cow, 300 cow, 500 cow, 1000 cow, 1500 cow dairy farms in the eastern U.S. within a day’s drive of the largest population are in jeopardy. They have lost their location advantage but continue to deal with the disadvantages. As milk tightens they are not seeing their premiums return, instead some farmers report getting docked by their co-ops for not making enough milk, or they are socked with incredible hauling rates because their milk was hauled out while other milk was hauled in.

What can Congress do? Hold that national hearing on milk pricing. Give farmers a seat at the table apart from the company-store. Learn what is happening. See government’s role in it.

Dear Congress, if you really want to know what to do, look in the mirror.

Before it’s too late, please right the fundamental wrongs government has done to our dairy consumers and dairy farmers as it controls what fat level of milk kids are permitted to drink at school, how milk is priced, how milk is marketed and how milk is allowed to be advertised and promoted with farmers’ own money – while at the same time still turning a blind eye and deaf ear to loss-leading supermarket wars that operate off the backs of farmers and the processing industry’s pillaging of milk’s market share with nondairy imposters.

-30-

ReplyForward

Comment period for milk, dairy identity ends 8/27. Part 2 of 7/26 hearing right here

iStock-544807136.jpgBy Sherry Bunting, from Farmshine, August 17, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. – There are 10 days remaining for public comment on FDA standards of identity for milk and nearly 80 other dairy products, along with the other aspects at stake as FDA launched its Nutrition Innovation Strategy to determine – and stamp – healthy choices for consumers while taking steps to “modernize” standards of identity to “achieve nutritional goals.”

The daylong FDA hearing on July 26 was one of several relating to these issues on the FDA docket, and as previously reported in Farmshine, dairy has taken center stage for several reasons.

First, Scott Gottlieb, head of the FDA, responded to calls for FDA to take a closer look at the dairy industry standards of identity, especially for milk. He opened the hearing saying that the agency must first determine “how consumers understand and use the term ‘milk’ to know if the inherent differences between these products is well understood by consumers so we can understand how consumers are being misled.”

The public comments being received by FDA through August 27, are the first step in its multi-faceted approach.

Individual comments on any of these converging standards of identity issues and the Nutrition Innovation Strategy can be sent to FDA prior to the Aug. 27, 2018 deadline at the docket portal here.

Or, send to: Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857. 

The second aspect of this brief comment period is to discuss the standards of identity more broadly.

“We want to hear about changes in science to review and update,” said Gottlieb. “We are hearing the standards of identity can cause the food industry to avoid reformulations that would reduce fat and calories. We want to gather this input and encourage out-of-the-box thinking with the bottom line helping consumers to identify healthier options.”

We covered some of the testimony at FDA’s July 26 listening session in Part One in Farmshine, Aug. 10, 2018.

Here, in Part Two, published in Farmshine August 17, 2018, are more of the elements from that hearing that are so important to know and understand…

Of particular interest on dairy product standards of identity were the hearing comments by Cary Frye, senior vice president of regulatory affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA). She commended Commissioner Gottlieb for undertaking the Nutrition Innovation Strategy “to improve nutrition and health.”

While absolutely silent on enforcement of milk’s standard of identity, despite representing the nation’s milk and dairy food processors, Frye said, “the key area we are working on is to modernize the standards of identity for dairy products, which make up more than one-third of the 280 standards of identity currently on the FDA books.”

She said these standards “are outdated and stand in the way of innovations and novel processes. Current systems are not working and definitely need to be reformed.”

Frye noted that the cheese standards have been unchanged while ultrafiltered milk processes have been around for 20 years. “Clearly a new approach is needed for processes like this to be used to create new and healthful products.”

She said “processing milk by filtration to concentrate proteins and remove lactose is embraced around the world, but these new processes are not permitted in our dairy products with the current standards.”

Frye did, however, thank the FDA for what she described as FDA’s “recent guidance allowing ultrafiltered milk as an ingredient for cheeses.”

“But the agency needs to go further and make dairy a top priority for modernized standards of identity,” said Frye on behalf of IDFA. “We must incentify innovation. We can’t make these investments if we must petition for standards that take decades to complete.”

Along with standards, FDA wants to modernize label claims as a key element of the nutrition innovation strategy, to give consumers “quick signals” with important information on the nutritional benefits of food choices.

A key question FDA is looking at is: What claims best stimulate innovation to create products that are better choices?

Speakers at the hearing identified food trends, saying consumers are committed to a more balanced approach between nutrition and function, but also the idea of food, that it is part of how they experience life, with taste becoming more important to consumers than nutritional profile as they move away from “lowfat” foods.

(Unfortunately, this FDA strategy has not yet acknowledged there are health-related and nutritional reasons for consumers to move away from “lowfat” dogma of the past 30 to 40 years. My comment to the FDA docket will include sending by mail, a copy of The Big Fat Surprise, by Nina Teicholz, who will join me in sending copies of this book to FDA?)

As in many of these discussions, the generational shifts in food trends and choices are the most noticeable. Hearing presenters noted that millennials are pursuing “clean eating and natural foods” as more important than a nutrition-based label.

With that in mind, upholding and enforcing the current standards of identity for milk and dairy products becomes important since it is simple compared with concocted imitation formulations with long lists of ingredients unable to provide all of the nutrition milk has – naturally.

Hearing presenters also acknowledged that the declines in consumption of meat and dairy over the past 40 years have just begun to “shift back the other way.” People are returning to the fresh perimeter of the grocery store.

(Again, no mystery here, FDA needs to read the book: The Big Fat Surprise)

With millennial food choices driven by a so-called “return to purity,” my thoughts as I listened to the July 26 FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy hearing is this: Will FDA move incrementally toward giving consumers what they want, while slipping into that desired food the science and innovation the FDA and food industry believe consumers need… in order to “get” the FDA ‘healthy choice’ stamp – however that is ultimately defined in this multi-year strategy and however it is ultimately designed for packaging?

These are big things to watch and participate in.

This is not to say that some new standards aren’t needed. Rob Post for Chobani, testified that they produce a nutrient dense, healthy, strained Greek yogurt, but because no standard of identity exists for this type of yogurt, they are challenged to have standardized nutrition profiles “that account for the 52% protein content in Greek yogurt” when used in institutional feeding programs like the National School Lunch Program.

“Today’s consumers have evolving demands and a new set of food values,” said Post. “Health is important, but so are other values and drivers.”

Others noted that the current standards of identity “do not allow lower salt content for cheese.”

This could be an issue when it comes to nutritional cheese getting a ‘healthy choice’ FDA stamp in the future, if such stamps are based on what are now questionable low-salt directives for healthy eating.

“Standards are important because they assure the consistency of the product, its authenticity and nutrition,” said Post.

Laura MacCleery, Policy Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest testified that, “Americans overconsume saturated fat.” They are among the contingent of wanting to work on labeling to steer consumers away from saturated fat.

Meanwhile, the American Heart Association testified to FDA that they want the standards of identity “modernized to improve the nutritional value of food by reducing both sodium and saturated fat.”

On the flipside, members of the dairy processing industry said they are looking for standards to be modernized to abolish the milk fat minimums and allow lower sodium on natural cheeses that currently have rigid standards of identity. Dairy processors testified that this is necessary to conform to the nutritional focal points of this discussion – salt and fat – that are still based on current dietary guidelines.

Will FDA grant these wishes and will we see lowfat and low salt cheeses introduced as “the real thing” because the standard has changed based on a dietary guideline many in the scientific community are already saying is a flawed guideline?

You can see the intertwined dilemma this FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy could spawn.

Taste is king, according to the food processors speaking about low salt claims. They said they go ahead and formulate low salt varieties, they just are not always advertising it on the packaging space.

Will modernization of standards of identity low-salt and low-fat our food – our cheese for example — without our knowing it or being able to choose? Do we care if that happens as long as it tastes good? And how is that happening? With milk protein concentrates, given FDA’s already loosened grip on allowable ingredients in cheese standards of identity?

A representative for Great Lakes Cheese spoke up to say that, “Consumer transparency around label claims and that presents a huge consumer perception issue. We are interested in experimenting to reduce sodium in cheeses, but without having to put a flag saying so on our product.”

Without a change in standards, a low salt or low fat cheese would have to be labeled that way. If the fat and salt standards are abolished, no ‘flag’ is needed and consumers won’t know the fat or salt is lowered – it just may taste different.

One question asked was “If our goal is to impact consumer behavior, how do we empower consumers to look for better choices by looking to the nutrition facts instead of making changes to do it for them (with modernized standards and healthy-choice stamps)?”

Part of this process is FDA’s work to “update” the definition of “healthy” as a “voluntary” claim. What kind of symbol should be used, should it be by food group.

“What’s healthy and not healthy shifts over time, and it’s not the same for everyone. If you’re putting a stamp on something today, you may have to take it off at some time down the road,” said one hearing participant.

Dieticians were on the side of “one size doesn’t fit all” when it comes to using FDA-sanctioned ‘healthy’ stamps or symbols on food labels. They preferred to see a focus on foods and food patterns more than specific nutrients.

In fact, one anonymous dietician has already commented on the public document online to say they have spent 30 years with government food programs and this is his or her observation over those 30 years: “We have done a great disservice to the public in trying to get people to eat 6 to 12 servings of carbohydrates per day while subsisting on a lowfat diet.”

A participant from the Edge dairy farmer cooperative of 800 members in the Midwest (formerly Dairy Business Association Cooperative based in Wisconsin) said that, “Accurate labeling is the first step in FDA’s enforcement of existing standards for milk, cheese, yogurt. High nutrition and taste have come to be expected,” he said.

“Inaccurate labeling is not fair to farmers and their investment or to customers who may have been misled. We’re encouraged by FDA’s announcement and we encourage innovation in the dairy case to keep up with changing wants and needs with options for healthy products, but most people under-consume dairy products. We must have the flexibility to make what competes and to label innovative foods made with milk.”

-30-

‘FDA may have forgotten the standard for milk, but we haven’t’ – Part One

Dairy epicenter of broader FDA strategy

 Public comments due August 27

By Sherry Bunting, from Farmshine August 10, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. — While the dairy industry is focused on multiple layers to the milk and dairy standards of identity — the FDA review of these standards, and their enforcement, is couched within the broader Comprehensive Multi-Year Nutrition Innovation Strategy launched recently by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Labeling and education are aspects of the strategy, along with a new FDA definition of “healthy choice” to be identified “visually” on foods that meet criteria FDA is still defining.

But the key to the strategy, according to FDA, is to “modernize” standards of identity in order to achieve specific nutrition goals the agency believes will reduce chronic diseases – namely diabetes, obesity and heart disease.

Since 80 of the 280 foods with current standards of identity are dairy foods, and many of the remaining 200 are meat products, the FDA’s noted allegiance to the low-fat dogma of the current Dietary Guidelines does not bode well for how this may all turn out.

That’s why grassroots consumers and producers NEED to get involved.

Of particular concern in a July 26 FDA hearing are regulator use of terms such as “barrier to innovation” or “reformulations of foods using science” in discussing how modernized standards of identity can help the government attain an objective of getting consumers to eat in accordance with the ways it believes will lower chronic disease.

This, despite the fact that noted scientists in the health and nutrition fields and investigative science journalists, like Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise, continue to point out how flawed the science has been for current dietary guidelines,  and how these flawed guidelines have actually led to epidemic rates of obesity and diabetes while doing nothing to abate heart disease and morbidity.

Teicholz observed in submitted comments that, “There is no evidence that saturated fats cause obesity. Consumption of saturated fats have declined 17% since 1970, animal fats down by 29% in same period, while obesity rates are up, so explain how saturated fats can be the cause?”

Hearings on parts of the Nutrition Innovation Strategy have already taken place prior to FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s now-famous statement that “Almonds don’t lactate.” This statement propelled milk and dairy into the epicenter of the standard of identity modernization process FDA already had in motion.

A daylong FDA hearing on July 26 kicked off the standard of identity portion of the Nutrition Innovation Strategy, and two weeks prior, the administration held a listening session specifically on the labeling and regulation of new cell-cultured protein technologies — funded by billionaire investors and conventional agriculture companies — seeking to gain standardized status as ‘animal-free’ versions of various meats and dairy proteins for inclusion in products — interchangeably without notice.

The July 26 session attracted a larger than expected attendance due to the national discussion on imitation milk products, and FDA moderator Kari Barrett indicated there was a “very large webcast audience participating.”

Commissioner Gottlieb kicked it off telling how FDA has been monitoring food innovation trends and sees these trends as providing an opportunity to empower individuals to use nutrition to reduce chronic disease.

He acknowledged a “deep personal interest” in the Nutrition Innovation Strategy as he believes nutrition innovation can help solve health issues, and he believes FDA can develop a policy framework to achieve it in their regulatory role.

(However as the daylong hearing progressed, it became obvious that the notable presenters and regulators on various panels are relying heavily on the current flawed Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which themselves are in need of “modernization” due to the revelations about the poor science behind them, particularly on saturated fat).

“We want to empower consumers with innovation and facilitate industry innovation for healthier foods … to remove barriers and leverage nutrition toward these goals,” said Gottlieb, calling it one of his “top priorities.”

He reminded participants that FDA regulates 80% of the food supply with a long history of informing that regulatory process via the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“We want to modernize our regulatory approaches to help consumers seek healthier options,” said Gottlieb. “The historic approach (of FDA) is to set barriers. But by modernizing our framework and approach and looking at consumer trends, the food industry can provide these healthier options with foods consumers are seeking.”

The new area of focus for the agency, according to Gottlieb, will be to see the food industry “compete on the nutritional attributes of their products” within a policy framework that allows innovative reformulation.

Gottlieb also mentioned “calls for FDA to take a closer look at dairy identity,” he said. “But first we must better understand how consumers understand and use the term milk and how they are being misled.”

Gottlieb acknowledged the “proliferation of beverages calling themselves milk” and said the FDA is being questioned about its enforcement of milk’s standard of identity.

“The challenge is that we can’t unilaterally change if we have been historically enforcing it a certain way,” he said.  “That’s what we are starting, a conversation. We are meeting with interested stakeholders and will post a definition later this summer or early fall with specific questions for feedback and then revisit our enforcement.”

The next steps after comments, feedback and proposed definitions for milk will be to provide the industry with guidance on labeling, and then compliance.

“In the meantime, we will take steps on labels where there is a high likelihood of consumers being misled in cases where public health is affected,” Gottlieb said.

In total, the FDA has 280 standards of identity on the books “created when our grandparents were younger than me,” he said. “We want to hear about the changes in science to review so that we can update these standards.”

He gave the example of standards of identity being modernized with industry and consumer input “to reduce fat and calories.”

He said that FDA wants “to gather input and encourage out-of-the-box thinking” so that the standards are not so rigid as to “cause the industry to avoid reformulations that would reduce fat and calories.

“We need diverse opinions,” said Gottlieb, “but the bottom line (of the Nutrition Innovation Strategy) is for consumers to identify healthier options.”

He said that, “Disparities in diet contribute to disparities in health… modernizing standards and label claims are a key element of our strategy to give consumers quick signals with important information on nutritional benefits and provide incentives for industry to innovate for foods with more healthful attributes.”

Expert panelists, like David Portalatin, vice president and food industry advisor, The NPD Group, testified about consumer trends: “Our data suggest that plant-based protein alternatives are increasing very rapidly, and a large percentage of these consumers are not vegan.”

“Protein is the number one thing consumers seem to want to add to their diets, and we’ve seen a proliferation of ways to add it, and consumers say ‘yes’ I’ll try that,’” said Portalatin about the renewed interest in high protein diets. “When we invest in new stuff, we buy it, we are not a meat-avoidance society.”

He noted that according to survey data, 84% of people reporting they are consuming plant-based alternatives while they are not vegan or vegetarian. “There are a lot of us trying these alternatives,” said Portalatin.

He also mentioned that the interest consumers have in purchasing “low-fat” foods is declining, that people want real food – as it is – and want to control their intake of fat by portion size.

FDA hearing graph

David Portalatin said that in addition to more protein and fewer concerns among consumers about fat, consumers aso want more calcium, iron, Vit. A and antioxidants. Milk contains all and is a big source all but iron, while beef is a big source of the iron. A recent study showed that milk and other dairy foods are “densely packed” with antioxidants delivered in a more soluble way via the protein and fat found naturally in milk —  the very fat that FDA and the food police want people to eat less of and the very protein that some experts at the hearing said consumers want more of, but are not deficient in. In other words, consumers are going one way with their diets (away from flawed guidelines that have led to chronic illness) while the government may use this nutrition strategy to shepherd consumers back into the flawed guidelines obedience flock they are just now breaking free of. Screenshot by Sherry Bunting during FDA hearing webcast 

Interestingly, the four areas consumers are trying to improve their diets are found in the combination of real milk and beef in the diet.

The American Heart Association had a representative during the open comment time telling FDA they “want the standards of identity to be modernized to improve the nutritional value of food by reducing sodium and saturated fat.” (More on this in a future part of this series).

While he noted that generational cohorts are the biggest drivers of change, the renewed interest in high protein diets is, in his opinion, not necessary since “American diets are certainly not deficient in protein,” in Portalatin’s opinion.

He and other panelists tended to lump this high protein diet preference with a return to higher fat in the diet. Not one panelist recognized the revelations about low-fat dogma of 40 years contributing to the very chronic diseases the FDA strategy seeks to prevent. Every indication from this hearing is that FDA will fall in line with the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in continuing to tweak all kinds of rules and regulations to get Americans to eat less fat — unconsciously — through modernized standards and reformulated foods.

The Good Food Institute — an organization representing plant-based and cell-culture imitation meat and dairy products — had legal representatives testifying on July 26 that, “FDA’s practice for the last decade or more in its guidance for ‘milk’ is that we could use the term ‘milk’ with appropriate modifiers, like almondmilk. The same has been true of butter, such as cashewbutter.”

The Good Food Institute insisted that when their foods can use a standardized term with a modifier, it allows their new – and they say healthier (but are they?) – products come to market more easily. “If that changes, it will make it harder for newer and healthier foods to come to market,” they said.

A representative for Dairy Farmers of America spoke during the open comment time saying that, “The current standard for milk should be enforced as it is. The plethora of products are borrowing the dairy industry’s nutrition profile, and those products may not be as nutritional or wholesome with FDA not enforcing the standard.”

From the Academy of Nutritionists and Dieticians, Jeannie Blankenship, said their professional members will have to “translate” whatever FDA decides on these things. “Consumers must be able to readily understand,” she said. “People with food allergies and intolerances use these standardized terms in a different manner than the general population.”

North Carolina Ag Commissioner Joe Reardon cited the standard of identity defines milk as a lacteal secretion of the mammary gland. “Plant-based beverages do not meet that definition,” he said. “If milk is on the label, then milk should be in the product. Without enforcement of this simple standard, then all standards of identity are compromised.”

He and others made it clear they are not advocating for these plant-based beverages to be removed from the market.

“We recognize they are a vital option for many consumers; however, they should be labeled correctly, without the term ‘milk,’” said Reardon. “North Carolina and other states stand ready and willing to assist FDA to enforce this standard and for the industry to come into compliance. We have heard here all day about the importance of a label, but without truth in labeling, none of the other matters.”

Kim Bremmer FDA Hearing (1).jpg

Kim Bremmer testified to FDA on behalf of the American Dairy Coalition about enforcement of the definition of milk. Photo provided by ADC

Speaking for the American Dairy Coalition, which recently started an Integrity Initiative, Kim Bremmer, a dairy producer from Wisconsin said “You play a vital role in giving consumers the information to make choices. Nutrition matters. I see tens of thousands of consumers in my speaking and the vast amount think some of these beverages have cow’s milk in them, and most believe they are as nutritional as milk, and they aren’t. The play on words is misleading.”

Bremmer described cow’s milk as a powerhouse of nutrition with crucial nutrients for cellular function. “No other drink packs this nutrition. There’s no comparison,” she said, explaining what she sees and hears when fourth-graders visit her farm and she watches the children connect the dots to realize the almondmilk they may be drinking at home, isn’t milk at all.

“One in five people are food insecure and one out of 10 adolescent girl are deficient in calcium. We have a problem. We must protect the integrity and identity of milk because nutrition matters,” said Bremmer.

Rob Post from Chobani was there to talk about getting a standard of identity for Greek yogurt so that schools and other institutional feeding situations could accurately quantify the protein levels. As it is now, they are standardized at the regular yogurt levels of protein even though strained Greek yogurts are 52% protein — twice that of regular yogurt.

While he said standards of identity have not kept pace with new food innovations, and he wants to see a better process, he was quick to defend the current definition of milk and dairy — and its enforcement — saying that, “It’s important to have options, but words matter to consumers and dairy means something specific. It means nutrient dense, minimal processing. It is important that this standard is preserved,” said Post.

From National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), Tom Balmer noted that the issue comes down to “safeguarding the standards to help maintain honesty in the markets.”

“Milk, yogurt, cheese, butter. Standardized dairy terms are being coopted by others as purely a marketing gimmick, while these products lack the nutrients and attributes of dairy,” said Balmer.

“Consumers don’t realize they are being shortchanged. It’s hard to talk about ‘modernizing’ standards when current standards are not enforced. FDA may have forgotten the standard for milk, but we haven’t. Enforce the current standards and stop the confusing and deceitful marketing practices.”

International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), representing milk and dairy processors, was mum on milk, but touted an array of expanded and modernized standards they want to see for many dairy standards. More on that in part two.

The American Dairy Coalition is urging the FDA to stop allowing the wrongful use of the word “milk” on non-milk, plant-based alternative products labels. To sign the ADC Milk Integrity Initiative petition, it is available online at http://www.americandairycoalitioninc.com/the-integrity-initiative.html

Public comments can be sent to FDA prior to the Aug. 27, 2018 deadline at the docket portal at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FDA-2018-N-2381.

Or, send to: Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA– 2018–N–2381 for ‘‘FDA’s Comprehensive, Multi-Year Nutrition Innovation Strategy.’’

Look for part 2 this week.

-30-

FDA admits almonds don’t lactate, but here’s the rest of the story…

CowFace.jpg

They’re even taking her ‘moo!’ Investor-heavy high-tech startup companies are (with USDA’s help) taking her DNA to give food-grade yeast her protein-producing ability in a fermentation process to make “animal-free milk and dairy.” They’re editing her cells to grow muscle blobs in bioreactors for “animal-free boneless beef” and using her unborn bovine fetal serum as the culture media for the so-called ‘clean’ ‘animal-free’ cell-cultured meat growth. And they are taking her “moo” with website invitations to “join the ‘Moo’-vement or to get ‘moo-ving’ for all the dairy you love with none of the cows.” Meanwhile, FDA is poised — in a multi-year nutrition innovation strategy — to expand standards of identity for milk/dairy and meat/beef to accomplish nutrition innovation goals that, themselves, are being questioned and in the end may give these companies the license to steal. Photo by Sherry Bunting

FDA nutrition innovation strategy poised to ‘modernize’ how milk, beef defined as high-tech labs make cow-less versions of both

By Sherry Bunting for Farmshine, July 27, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As President Ronald Reagan famously said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Last week’s news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will “help” the situation of imitation milk labels was followed by specifics from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.

He revealed in a live interview with Politico: “An almond doesn’t lactate, I will confess.”

Now there’s the sound bite everyone wants to hear, and the media and social media worlds went wild. But what does it really mean? Here’s the rest of the story and how to get involved.

Gottlieb said publicly that FDA plans to start gathering public comments before taking next steps in “redefining the rules for milk products”.

What he didn’t say in the Politico Pro Summit on July 17 is that FDA has already published a hearing and comment notice in the June 27, 2018 Federal Register for a July 26 hearing that covers three topics related to “modernizing” standards of identity, and the comment period ending August 27, 2018.

Will the government’s offer to ‘help’, in this case, result in more dishonesty and skulduggery, tricking consumers into eating what they may not otherwise choose and allowing investor-heavy startup companies to steal from farmers and ranchers, not only the identity of the products they produce, but also the very commodity-promoting checkoff dollars the government mandates they pay?

FDA already has a standard of identity for milk, and almost 100 dairy products, that it has chosen to ignore for more than a decade on any product except actual dairy milk.

Here’s the rub… If real dairy milk does not have added Vitamin D (when fat is removed Vit D is added to bring it back to full-fat levels of Vit. D), it can be deemed “mislabeled” by FDA and unable to call itself MILK.

But, if there are almonds and soybeans in your milking parlor — by all means, have at it,  label it milk — with or without Vit. D — not to mention without real milk’s levels of protein, quality amino acid profile and 9 essential nutrients.

You see, the standard of identity for milk is enforced when it comes from a cow, but not when it comes from a plant. And yet, because there is a standard of identity for milk — a nutritional and functional expectation — the plant-based knock-offs get to hijack that profile without being held to it and can selectively market from it with ‘more xxx’ or ‘free of xxx’ statements without stipulating what they are deficient in. (Example: Almond milk labels should say “88% less protein” if they are going to differentiate from the standard of identity they are hijacking).

By its own admission, FDA has maintained a non-enforcement posture on plant-based imitation beverages. Described as “enforcement discretion,” FDA has looked the other way and the dairy foods industry was either asleep at the wheel or developing imitations on the side, while these imposters were flooding the dairy case.

Meanwhile the companies investing in the imitations were free to do their market development and consumer confusion while securing space in the dairy case.

The timing of Gottlieb’s comments last week is even worse, given FDA’s launch of a multi-year nutrition innovation review as part of the agency’s nutrition innovation strategy revealed in March that seeks to expand standards of identity for products like milk and meat.

FDA meetings are happening quickly and quietly in various areas of imitation animal protein labeling and regulation. Yes, they are public meetings, but no one really knows about them.

Milk and dairy products have already been on the receiving end of identity-theft for more than a decade, and now that griddle is heating up to pancake both dairy farmers and ranchers (cattle are the target) with new plant-based mixtures, but even more horrifying are the genetically-edited cellular protein blobs or white-substance-exuding yeast grown in bioreactors yearning to be beef and milk.

There are new identity-thieves lurking about and guess what? USDA — the government — is the source of the bovine gene-edited cells and bovine gene-sequenced yeast in the heavily-investor-funded tech food startup companies that are the real focus of FDA’s recent moves.

With patents in hand — and funding from their big investors to scale up manufacturing — they seeking regulatory and labeling authority under FDA to be meat/beef and milk/dairy — without the cows.

FDA had a hearing on cell-cultured proteins July 12, and comments on regulation and labeling for this are due September 25.

A hearing on standards of identity was held by FDA on July 26 (after Farmshine press time), and comments are due August 27. (Look for more on this in next week’s Farmshine).

Dairy and beef producers need to become actively engaged in these moves by FDA because the main organizations that represent them — National Milk Producers Federation and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association — are on record stating these cell-cultured products should be subject to regulation under USDA like real meat and dairy. They are mainly seeking a level playing field in the marketplace, not opposing their classification as meat, milk, dairy.

(NMPF is vigorously defending milk’s standard of identity against plant-based imitations on nutritional grounds, but seeking a level playing field on the cell-cultured proteins).

Trust me, food and dairy manufacturing companies and investors have already hired the best and the brightest and are already involved in this FDA process — cheering for the other team.

Here’s an example: Perfect Day ‘animal-free milk’ is on the market after receiving its patent in February and raising $24.7 million in first-round startup funding from investors to scale-up manufacturing.

This company has a business-to-business (B2B) model, according to an interview with Reuters, and is already working with some of the world’s largest dairy food and beverage manufacturers. Its website states that the product is just like milk in terms of proteins, but without the cholesterol, saturated fats, lactose, and environmental impact of cattle. Just think what this portends for the dumping of even more fat-free real milk from the market.

In fact, a primary foreign investor indicated support for the Perfect Day (fake milk) startup because it aligns with United Nations Sustainability Goals for 2030. (There’s that S-word again. I hope we are paying attention to how the S-word and cattle are getting along these days). Continental Grain is a big investor in both the Memphis Meats (fake meat) and Perfect Day (fake milk) startups, while Cargill and Tyson are investors in the Memphis Meats startup.

These high-tech food sciences are attracting big high-tech investors at a rapid rate because they are viewed as “disruptor technologies,” and their websites and promotional materials hold nothing back. Milk, meat, beef, dairy – no words are off limits in their branding and marketing.

In effect, while the government forces dairy and beef producers to pay a checkoff tax for promotion of their commodities, beef and dairy — and the names of products associated with those commodities — the government is looking the other way or now potentially encouraging more identity-theft as techies enter the food space to market proteins using the dairy and beef profiles and images, without paying one dime.

As for Perfect Day, this fake-milk is made by genetically altering food-grade yeast, taking DNA from a cow and sharing its protein-producing qualities with the yeast. (Sourced from the USDA, the genetically-altered yeast are cultivated to produce ‘dairy’ protein).

This process results in a microbe that is combined with a sugar substrate (food for the microbe) to feed, grow and exude in a fermentation process the company says is like “craft-beer-style-brewing,” producing protein “building blocks” for making dairy milk, yogurt and cheese. Perfect Day’s website says: “Dairy reinvented: Sustainable. Kind. Delicious.”

The end game is to provide a ‘base dairy’ protein that looks and tastes like milk, for inclusion in manufactured dairy products like cheese, ice cream, pizza, yogurt, and to work “synergistically” with the dairy foods industry as — according to the website — “a complement to cow-based milk that takes some of the stress away from the factory-farming system, rather than replace dairy cows entirely.”

fake-meat.jpg

Enter a caption

Memphis Meats and other companies on the fake meat side are doing similar things with cell-culturing to grow cellular protein blobs in laboratory bioreactors.

In each case, the ultimate goal is to decrease the need for cattle — be they dairy or beef bovines.

Think about this for a moment. Even at a 1 to 3% inclusion rate in common dairy foods or ground beef, these lab-cultured proteins and genetically-altered yeast give processors even more control over supply, demand and pricing of milk as well as boneless beef, and if standards of identity allow this, or if FDA enforcement discretion looks the other way – consumers will never know the integrity of their food has been changed.

If FDA modernizes its standards of identity to accomplish the goals as outlined by Commissioner Gottlieb — including a reduction in saturated fat consumption despite revelations that saturated fats are healthful not harmful — it is entirely possible that FDA’s new guidance could allow these protein “innovations” in standardized dairy and meat products, without being considered mislabeled and with no indication to consumers.

Gottlieb has already established FDA’s desire to accomplish certain nutritional goals by spurring innovation with more “flexible” standards of identity.

Ahead of the July 26 hearing, FDA published its intention to cover three aspects in the standards of identity discussion: 1) Protecting consumers against economic adulteration; 2) Maintaining the basic nature, essential characteristics, and nutritional integrity of food; and 3) Promoting industry innovation and providing flexibility to encourage manufacturers to produce more healthful foods.

FDA’s Federal Register notice also says the following: “Our intent is that modernizing standards of identity to improve the nutrition and healthfulness of standardized foods will promote honest and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and achieve the goals of the Nutrition Innovation Strategy.”

How can FDA pursue this course in the face of what has been revealed in the past three to four years? It appears that bringing these B2B products to market, along with the FDA nutritional innovation strategy, are happening ahead of the battleground brewing for the next round of Dietary Guidelines.

It appears they want to modernize standards of identity for dairy within less than one year, to get them in place before the current flawed dietary guidelines are challenged in the 2020 cycle, which begins in earnest in 2019.

Numerous investigations and scientific reports and studies show that the saturated fat avoidance of more than 30 years was not only never proven to be healthful, it is now shown to be harmful. And the rhetoric from the United Nations and various Sustainability projects continues to focus on cattle as being bad for the planet, despite evidence to the contrary.

FDA wants comments that specifically talk about how the agency can use standards of identity to encourage the production of more healthful foods, to take into consideration technology, nutrition science and marketing trends, and to assess what consumers expect these standards to tell them.

Is FDA about to help the food industry blur the lines of food integrity to trick people into eating according to USDA/HHS flawed set of dietary guidelines (and UN environmental sustainability assumptions)?

That would be the ultimate dishonesty, and much worse than the 10-plus years of ignoring dairy identity theft already happening daily in the supermarket dairy case. Expanding the standard of identity, depending upon how it is accomplished, would give large, powerful, multinational food corporations a true license to steal.

Last week, the American Dairy Coalition (ADC) launched a “Protecting Milk Integrity Initiative” to advocate for the proper use of federally standardized terms established for the word “milk” on product labels. ADC is a coalition of dairy, ag and livestock producers, and they are devoting a branch of their organization to work specifically on “providing clarity and consistency for consumers across the nation,” the organization said in a July 17 news release.

ADC is getting the word out that it believes the dairy industry must speak up to ensure the FDA understands how important it is, not only for the current standard of identity for milk and dairy products to be upheld, but for it to be fully enforced — restricting the use of the word “milk” on all future plant-based or alternative product labels.

They point out that the price of milk continues to decline while sales of plant-based alternatives are up 61% over the past five years with projections of more market share gains in the future.

Don’t be fooled by FDA’s admission that almonds don’t lactate. Instead of the enforcement of milk’s standard of identity that dairy farmers have been waiting for, FDA has already quietly launched its process for modernizing standards of identity to achieve specific (and flawed) nutritional goals.

To comment on Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2381 for “FDA’s Comprehensive, Multi-Year Nutrition Innovation Strategy,” due August 27, 2018, use the docket portal at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FDA-2018-N-2381.

To comment on Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2155 for “Foods Produced Using Animal Cell Culture Technology, due September 25, 2018, use the docket portal at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FDA-2018-N-2155 .

To mail comments for either one, reference the appropriate docket name and number in your letter and mail to: Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

In addition to commenting, a petition has been developed by the American Dairy Coalition’s Protecting Milk Integrity Initiative, and signatures are being collected to submit with public comments. ADC is also taking donations to raise funds to fight this cause.

More information about Protecting Milk Integrity Initiative, visit American Dairy Coalition

To learn more about the July 12 FDA cellular protein hearing (fake meat) and July 26 standards of identity hearing (fake milk), stay tuned to future editions of Farmshine for full reports ahead of the deadlines for commenting to FDA on both.

-30-

CAPTIONS

FAKE MEAT and FAKE MILK

New Harvest and Memphis Meats testifed to FDA on July 12 that cell-cultured ‘meats’ are inevitable. They showed diagrams of how gene-edited bovine DNA and culture media are combined in bioreactors to make cellular blobs they want to call ‘boneless beef’ — without the cow. Similar diagrams can be found for Perfect Day and their phrase: ‘all the dairy you love with none of the cows’ at their website perfectdayfoods.com. Screenshot of materials displayed during FDA hearing by Sherry Bunting

School milk: Time to be bold for our kids

By Sherry Bunting, from Farmshine, May 11, 2018  

EAST EARL, Pa. — One would think there would be overwhelming support in the official dairy community for the Whole Milk Act, H.R. 5640, introduced by Rep. Tom Marino, representing Pennsylvania’s 10th legislative district.

Since the bill was introduced on the floor of the United States House of Representatives April 26, it has been given a name and assigned to Education and Workforce Committee that oversees the National School Lunch Program. While the Ag Committee is not the committee for this bill, the USDA’s part is the implementation of the rules and reimbursements of the National School Lunch Program — and its approval of five-year cycles of U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans that drive these rules.

cosponsorsMarino’s Whole Milk Act has just one cosponsor as of May 9. That would be longtime whole milk advocate Glenn (G.T.) Thompson — representing Pennsylvania’s 5th legislative district. Thompson is now noted at the bill-tracking website as an original cosponsor.

That’s a good thing, because Thompson serves on the Education and Workforce Committee that oversees the National School Lunch Program, Marino does not. Thompson also is vice chair of the House Ag Committee.

Two more cosponsors include Rep. Claudia Tenney of New York and Rep. James Comer of Kentucky. But more cosponsors are needed!

Where are the farm and dairy associations on the school milk issue? Where, indeed, is the “dairy lobby”? The folks who collect, assemble, process, market and distribute the milk produced on dairy farms? Where is National Milk Producers Federation? Where is the International Dairy Foods Association?

Back at square-one: 1%. Taking baby steps in the face of a brick wall.

Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications for National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) explains it this way: “While (NMPF is) supportive of efforts to increase milk consumption at school and having more options to help achieve that goal and we  are talking with Rep. Marino about his intentions to move the bill forward, and how he can build support for the measure…”

Wait for it, there is a ‘but’…

“At the same time, we also have to secure the progress made so far to upgrade milk options in school. That’s why we’re also working with Rep. Thompson to help pass his H.R. 4101, which codifies the decision made by Sec. Perdue to allow flavored 1% milk in the schools,” Galen stated in an email response to questions from Farmshine this week. We are still waiting on a response from IDFA.

Last fall, Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue made an administrative change to the National School Lunch Program allowing schools to serve 1% flavored milk. They were already permitted to sell 1% unflavored milk.

States then implement this change by filling out waivers to show that children were drinking less milk because of the fat-free option being the only option for flavored milk in order to then switch to allowing 1% flavored milk.

Kids on a school break

While both 1% milk and whole milk have the same essential nutrients, the children don’t benefit if the nutrients are not consumed and the evidence shows the fat is actually good for adults and especially children. Let’s stand up for our children. There was never any evidence they would benefit from the old heart patient’s diet at school in the first place, and mounting evidence shows what the lowfat craze has done and is doing to them. Istock photo andresr imaging

In Pennsylvania, alone, the Pa. Department of Agriculture reported in March that over 300 schools filled out waivers to serve the choice of 1% flavored milk. Many did not implement the change due to having school milk contracts already set for the current school year. Some have recently added the 1% flavored milk.

For the next school year, the waivers are not necessary. Schools may simply make the choice to include the choice of 1% flavored milk in their contract bids for next school year.

Without a change in the law, however, Sec. Perdue’s administrative change could revert to fat-free in the future, says Galen.

He indicated that the USDA action to allow 1% flavored milk “as welcome as it is, is merely an administrative decision, and could be rolled back in the future by a different administration, which is why it needs a law to fully implement.”

NMPF and IDFA have been on-record publicly as supportive of Thompson’s H.R. 4101 but have not come out with any public statement on Marino’s H.R. 5640.

When asked about NMPF’s support for Marino’s H.R. 5640, Galen stated: “It’s worth noting that this will be an incremental process, given the gradual evolution of dietary science along with the snail’s pace of Congress.”

Thompson’s bill, H.R. 4101, with 38 cosponsors to-date, was introduced in the House on October 24, 2017 and referred to the Education and Workforce Committee, on which Thompson serves.

Marino’s bill, H.R. 5640, with just one cosponsor, Thompson, was introduced in the House on April 26, 2018 and referred to the Education and Workforce Committee, on which Marino does not serve, but cosponsor Thompson does.

Neither bill has been taken up by the Committee.

“Making progress toward allowing higher fat content milks in schools is a function of both whether there is bipartisan support on the committees in the House and Senate that oversee the issue, and also whether there is support in the nutrition community, without whose positive engagement we will not be able make any headway on the issue,” notes Galen for NMPF.

He adds that the composition of the Education and Workforce committee is not the same as the Agriculture committee.

“So, we are pushing to make progress on the issue, but it’s a bigger chore than just asking the dairy sector to pitch in — consumer and health groups have to be part of the coalition. We are sharing with them the emerging science on dairy fat, but that’s an evolutionary process,” notes Galen. “You can’t just send them Nina Teicholz’s book and expect two generations of conventional wisdom about food, wellness and obesity to suddenly change.”

Teicholz spoke during the Pennsylvania Dairy Summit last February about the nutrition aristocracy and her 10 years of investigation as a science journalist and former vegetarian.

Her International and New York Times Best Seller “The Big Fat Surprise” has been around since before the last Dietary Guidelines cycle was begun and later approved by then Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Her book exposed the tactics and lack of evidence that brought dietary guidelines to the current fat caps that are still in place today — despite proof and trends both showing the flawed nature of these guidelines and the harm to children for which there was never any evidence in the first place suggesting caps on saturated fat would be beneficial in any way.

Rise+in+US+Overwight+Obsetity+Coincides+with+DGA

Nutrition Coalition image

To the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that these guidelines actually harm children, which is the reason the long title for Rep. Marino’s Whole Milk Act (H.R. 5640) spells it out like this: The Wholesome Healthy Original Lactic Excellence Making Intelligent Literate Kids Act.

Looking at the science and the trends, this title for the bill on whole milk, says it all.

Marino’s H.R. 5640 specifically targets the unflavored milk options allowed in school. Thompson’s H.R. 4101 “codifies” the step taken by Sec. Perdue last fall on 1% flavored milk.

Both bills can be vigorously supported. They are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the Education and Workforce Committee can combine them?

The Nutrition Coalition, founded by Teicholz, — with support from many nutrition, health and medical advocates — brings together the evidence and seeks to challenge the “conventional wisdom” foisted upon the public by the national and international nutrition aristocracy that controls the food supply today.

Leading cardiologists are up to date on their recommendations for middle-aged men even though the American Heart Association is dragging its feet. (I know this from personal experience as well).

PERSONAL-PHOTO-FOR-SCHOOL-MILK (1).jpg

If a cardiac patient in his mid-50s — such as my husband just 14 months ago — can be offered, not just served, a carton of whole milk right out of the cath lab at the esteemed Lancaster General Heart and Vascular Institute, then why can’t our children be served the best nutritional option of whole milk in our schools? I am grateful for my in-shape-and-stress-test-passing husband’s recovery from five stents that had the medical staff in disbelief last year. The point here is that leading cardiologists, like his, recognize the role of sugar in heart disease and the fact that as we remove saturated fats from our diets, our bodies replace this with additional calories from carbohydrates. The science shows no harmful impact — and in fact positive effects on hearth health and other health concerns — in consuming even 18% of calories from saturated fat. That’s nearly double the “conventional wisdom” that controls our food supply today. Photo selfie by Sherry Bunting February 2017.

If leading cardiologists are focusing on dietary sugars and the abundance of carbs in the diet — letting go of flawed guidelines on saturated fat — why is there so much dragging of feet where our children are concerned? Why, indeed, given the fact that as Teicholz points out, there was never any evidence — in the first place — that children would benefit from caps on saturated fats.

Still the U.S. government pushed the lowfat agenda and the dairy industry, in effect, acquiesced, only in the past two years supporting “incremental” change.

“Right now, we don’t yet even have a permanent law permitting 1% flavored milk in schools, so we need to start with that and then move from there,” Galen insists.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO), dubbed as the supreme agency in terms of being a nutrition aristocracy for status quo – no matter what the science says – weighed in with a statement this week upholding the over 30 years of flawed dietary guidelines.

WHO persists in its recommendation that adults – and children — should consume a maximum of 10% of their daily calories in the form of saturated fat such as meat and butter and 1% from trans fats, to maintain a healthy heart.

Dr Francesco Branca, director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development said in a statement this week: “Dietary saturated fatty acids and trans-fatty acids are of particular concern because high levels of intake are correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases.”

This regurgitation of proven flawed “conventional wisdom” disregards randomized controlled studies to the contrary at double these levels of dietary fat.

And even though it disregards the evidence, even the WHO’s weigh-in this week does not preclude whole milk, real butter, real cheese, real beef from the school diet. The problem is that not all calories have the same metabolic effect and the calorie threshold of the school lunch program was lowered by the Obama administration, along with the current requirements that less than 9% of those calories can come from saturated fats. This is a further level to the problem.

Last month after USDA closed its unprecedented 30-day public comment period on specific topics for the 2020-25 U.S. Dietary Guidelines, nearly 6000 comments were posted by concerned citizens.

The Nutrition Coalition reports that the USDA sought this input on topics where the science has evolved, particularly on saturated fats and low-carbohydrate diets.

“The results demonstrate a widespread belief that the Guidelines need to be changed in order to reflect the best and most current science,” the Nutrition Coalition reports. “Of the 5944 comments, 1145 mention ‘saturated’ as in ‘saturated fats’, 1288 mention ‘low-carb.’”

This was an unprecedented opportunity to stand up for good science, and the public responded.

The Whole Milk Act is another opportunity to stand up for good science. Let’s respond.

Will the U.S. food and agricultural system continue to dance to the agendas of the World Health Organization? World Trade Organization? One World Order philosophy?

Will we sit back and allow two generations of flawed advice — based on absolutely zero studies on children and even refuted by actual trials when they were finally shown the light of day on adults?

Will we continue to face the brick wall of control over what is best for our children with timid and child-like baby steps? If so, it will it take two generations to right this wrong.

Meanwhile, it is our children and our farmers who will pay the price for our complacency.

There are several ways we can all help support Rep. Marino’s Whole Milk Act.

Contact your representative in the U.S. House and ask them to cosponsor and support H.R. 5640 The Whole Milk Act. If you don’t know who to call, enter your zipcode here to find out who represents you

Also, call the U.S. House of Representatives at 202-225-3121 and let them know that H.R. 5640 is important for the health and well-being of our schoolchildren.

In addition, contact members of the House Education and Workforce Committee and the Committee chairwoman. Ask them to put this bill on the committee’s agenda. Its passage must begin in this committee.

Also, write to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue or contact the USDA with your support for the letter Rep. Marino has sent in conjunction with introducing H.R. 5640 The Whole Milk Act. USDA is key to making school milk great again by making it whole again.

Finally, contact Rep. Tom Marino’s office and thank him 202-225-3731.

Follow H.R. 5640, The Whole Milk Act, at this link.

(Author’s note: Since this report was published, the Pennsylvania Association of Milk Dealers announced their official support for The Whole Milk Act)

Reinventing milk… promotion

MilkMarketMoosHeader070914.jpg

Reprinted from FARMSHINE, April 8, 2016

Fewer Americans eat breakfast today, adding to the milk consumption woes created when families stopped eating sit-down dinners, for the most part. Both were the staples of commodity fluid milk consumption that have been diminishing over the past two generations and four decades to where we are today.

Forecasters say it will only get worse. They are projecting continued declines in ‘white milk’ consumption while consumption of milk alternatives is predicted to increase dramatically through 2021.

A major reason is that the majority of urban consumers — up to 90% — do not view white milk (aka Vit. D whole milk) as a protein drink, when clearly it is the original, the natural protein drink.

But what is DMI working on? Alternatives. Checkoff dollars continue to flow through DMI to alternatives milks. Yes they are dairy products, but they are further processed, as in the case of Fairlife, which is ultrafiltered, for example.

I have had dairymen involved in these boards excitedly tell me: “We finally have a product consumers want!”

If they are referring to Fairlife, that may be true for consumers we’ve lost to Muscle Milk (which does contain some whey) or Almondmilk (which is the equivalent of eating an almond and chasing it with water full of thickeners, sugar and chemically added calcium and vitamins.)

But I find myself confused. Isn’t dairy promotion supposed to promote what contributes most to the dairy farmer’s milk check? I mean, it is the dairy farmer’s money, is it not?

As long as the Federal Order milk pricing scheme puts the value on Class I utilization, then the milk checkoff organizations should be most diligently promoting regular, straight-from-the-cow (pasteurized of course and maybe even flavored) milk as the healthy high-protein beverage it is, naturally, because I’m sorry to tell you friends, consumers just don’t know this information.

Milk: The protein drink that’s right under our noses and costs a lot less than fancy packaged and advertised alternatives — some of them complete frauds in that they are not even milk!

Why is it that milk alternatives can claim all sorts of things, but milk is not even allowed to advertise itself as 96.5% fat free! Why can’t the milk bottle say “8 times more protein than almondmilk per 8 oz serving!”

Why can’t it say: “Want Protein? Get Milk!”

Do we really need Coca Cola to revolutionize our branding? Or should dairy farmers take the bull by the horns and demand great packaging, savvy catch phrases, eye-catching point-of-purchase education, head-on comparisons to the fraudulent beverages that so wish to be milk that they call themselves milk.

No, USDA does not allow dairy farmers to promote their product comparatively with those other commodities that have stolen some of their market share by stealing the name milk. You dairy folks must play nice of course!

That’s hardly fair since dairymilk is losing market share. If you can’t defend your own market turf with your own collected monies, then what’s the point of collecting the money? All of these joint partnerships to sell cheese on pizza and mixes through frappes at McDonalds might move some more milk, but the value is in the Class I fluid milk, so unless we’re going to change the complicated milk pricing formula and glean more value and a guaranteed minimum for the manufacturing milk via its products, then we might just as well use the money to buy-back our own fluid milk and donate it to the poor to keep the demand for Class I tight vs. the supply.

Or put the money in a kitty to develop better fluid milk labels. Make them cool and splashy with P-R-O-T-E-I-N in large letters.

Milk: The original protein drink!

Milk: Protein drink of champions!

Milk: Why pay more? We’ve got what your looking for!

I could go on all day.

If the growth of our Class I milk markets rely on the USDA school lunch program, then we’re sunk and USDA is once again to blame for this dismal failure by tying the hands of school districts who want to serve 2% and whole milk.

Analysts say that the strong growth in the milk markets of emerging countries like Chile is attributed to their school milk programs.

In the U.S., milk is stigmatized as a “commodity.” We sure don’t help that with plain white bottles and lackluster graphics.

Milk alternatives such as soymilk and almondmilk (aren’t they so tricky in creating their own new words by paring their commodity to the word milk as one word) are increasingly viewed as ‘fashionable drinks’ and a more health-conscious choice compared to white milk.

Let’s reverse this trend by making dairymilk fashionable again!

Let’s call it dairymilk (a tricky combined word!) and come up with a new standard of identity that allows us to say 96.5% fat free instead of “whole.”

Maybe even come up with a standard for protein and say to call it dairymilk it must meet that protein standard and then colorfully package and protein-promote the heck out of it.

Analysts say that consumers like innovation in their drinks and they are finding “innovation” in the “newer milk categories” which are so much more attractive than the “mature” white milk category.

Okay then, let’s give the consumer what they want. Great tasting real milk but let’s reinvent the packaging and the promotion and the name… not the beverage itself.

Just think how much money we can save on fancy equipment if all we have to do is reinvent the promotion of milk, not reinvent the milk itself. After all, it is nature’s most nearly perfect food.

Maybe instead of fighting each other for Class I sales by moving milk all over to get the best price and utilization (see chart on page 13 showing that picture for the beleagured Northeast Order)… we should be fighting, instead, together, to save our beverage from its continued depreciation at the hands of internal politics, external politics, USDA rules upon rules, fraudulent not-milk-milks whom regulators ignore and even patronize, and other assorted casts of characters.

NUTRITION POLITICS: Kids and cattle caught in the crossfire

GROWING THE LAND: Nutrition Politics: Let them eat cake!

April 2, 2015 Hudson Valley Register-Star

Seems like an April Fools’ joke, but I am sorry to say it is not. Like the ill-fated Marie
Antoinette in her final words, the federal government lacks understanding for the nutritional realities of the masses as it turns the simple act of providing a nutritious lunch to schoolchildren into an exercise in frustration.

Kids buy Twinkies instead of lunch. Or they pack. Some go hungry.

For 40-plus years, the concept of a “heart healthy diet” has been unchallenged even though it was implemented based on a set of hypotheses created from epidemiological studies on middle-aged men. No study of impacts on women and children. No clinical trials on anyone.

As noted in this column on Jan. 27, schoolchildren have been eating the equivalent of a heart patient’s diet since the mid-1990s as the fat percentage was tightly controlled even though the sugar was not. Then, the government cut the calorie totals realizing the fat that was removed was replaced with sugar to meet the calorie requirements of a growing child.

What have we to show for it? Rising levels of obesity and diabetes, particularly among children.

It is about to get worse, but there is still time to be heard. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — charged with making recommendations every five years — has now
stepped beyond its nutritional realm to consider the “environmental impacts” of foods.

From the frying pan into the fire we go.1538850_10203867018139998_98482634260761802_n

In this column on Feb. 8, we looked at the National School Lunch Program and the Dietary Guidelines just as the five-year Advisory Committee submitted its Advisory Report to the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Committee states that “The purpose of the Advisory Report is to inform the federal government of current scientific evidence on topics related to diet, nutrition and health. It provides the federal government with a foundation for developing national nutrition policy.”

However, the Advisory Report constructs and reinforces further reductions in its guidelines on the consumption of red meat and whole dairy fat such as butter and whole milk by using these so-called “sustainability factors.”

This area of science is even more subjective than the past four decades of nutrition science have proved to be. Just when the truth is coming out that decades of nutrition policies are based on hypotheses steering unwary consumers away from healthy fat and into the arms of carbohydrates, suddenly “sustainability” emerges to perpetuate the lie.

New York Times bestseller “The Big Fat Surprise” delves deeply into this subject. Author Nina Teicholz, an investigative food reporter, compiled nine years of research covering thousands of studies and many interviews with nutrition scientists to discover this April Fools’ joke has already had too-long a run and with unintended consequences for Americans.

As noted by Anne Burkholder, a rancher and blogger (Feedyard Foodie), who wrotGL 1847 (1)
e after reading Teicholz’s book: “The diet-heart hypothesis (coined by a biologist Ancel Keys in the early 1960s) proclaimed that a low fat and high carbohydrate diet provided the basis for good health. Although not proved through clinical trials, the hypothesis gained support from the federal government and provided the basis for mainstream dietary advice during the ensuing decades.

“…The culture of the American diet has shifted dramatically. According to USDA, the consumption of grains (41 percent), vegetables (23 percent) and fruits (13 percent) rose significantly from 1970-2005 while red meat (-22 percent), milk (-33 percent) and eggs (-17 percent) fell dramatically. Overall carbohydrate intake for Americans rose with low fat starches and vegetable oil took the place of animal protein and fat in the diet. Animal protein lovers shifted from beef to chicken and many traded whole fat dairy for skim milk and margarine thereby forsaking nutrition density for lower saturated fat options,” Burkholder writes. “All of this occurred during a time in the United States when obesity rates more than doubled (15-32 percent), the prevalence of heart failure, cancer and stroke all increased and the rate of diabetes increased from less than 1 percent to 11 percent.”

Here are just some of the conclusions Teicholz highlights in “The Big Fat Surprise” after nearly a decade of research:

1. Causal associations between red meat consumption and heart disease are minimal.

2. The HDL (good cholesterol) is increased by the saturated fat found in animal protein.

3. Animal fat is nutrient dense, packing protein, energy and essential vitamins and minerals — plus helping the vitamins and minerals of other foods eaten together to be better absorbed by the human body.

4. There are no health studies to learn the effect on health of liquid vegetable oils. We do know that the process of solidifying vegetable oils creates the very unhealthy transfats. Butter and red meat do not contain these transfats.

5. Insulin levels are elevated by constant carb consumption, not by animal fat and protein. Furthermore, as insulin levels are raised, the body is less able to digest its own stored fat created by — you guessed it — carbs!

Our children have been and will apparently continue to be test subjects for nutrition GL kids-cowspolitics. The simple act of providing a nutritious school lunch will become even more
complicated if the Advisory Report is accepted and used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture secretaries in the food programs they administer.

Published in the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 35) on Feb. 23, the public comment period was recently extended to May 8. After that, the secretaries will jointly release the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015.

A quick perusal of comments already logged shows that two parts of the Report are garnering attention:

1. There is an overwhelming support for the recommendation to reduce the amount of added sugar in the diet. My only question is: What took them so long?

2. There is an overwhelming lack of support for the recommendation to reduce even more the role of saturated fats — red meat and whole dairy fat — in the diet.

Some children may forego the school lunch and pack a nutritious replacement. But what about the child in poverty? Their options are limited to taking what the federal government dishes out, literally.

To comment on proposed Dietary Guidelines by May 8, visit www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2015/comments/. It is easy to do electronically.


GROWING THE LAND: Kids and cattle caught in the crossfire 

Feb. 8, 2015  Hudson Valley Register Star

Kids and cattle are caught in the crossfire of nutrition politics, and it may get worse. GL 0263Two weeks ago we talked about the changes over the years in the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and their direct influence on the National School Lunch Prog
ram. This week we look at how the simple act of providing a nutritious school lunch could become even more complicated.

What I have gleaned from reader comments is a high level of frustration about the current status of the National School Lunch Program limiting the caloric intake and food choices of growing children. Now, the next twist in the nutrition-noodle may not even be nutrition-based.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the deciding agency for new “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” expected to be released soon. The HHS Secretaries are deliberating the recent report from their Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which held meetings for months.

When the new Guidelines are officially published in the Federal Register, a second round of comments will open. I’ll let you know when and how to comment when the time comes.

For now, let’s look at a few concerns with the committee’s report.

1) It is worth noting that back when we had a Food Pyramid, physical exercise was Boilermaker6929visually highlighted, where today it is notably absent from the MyPlate diagram.

2) More troubling this time around, is the fact that the committee is not just focusing on new information about healthful eating, they have incorporated so-called “sustainability”
factors or environmental impacts of various foods — namely lean meats. This opens a whole can of worms that — quite frankly — have nothing to do with nutrition!

3) Furthermore, some of the science the committee used to come up with thewWill-Feed3983 idea of eliminating lean meat from its so-called “healthy eating pattern” is quite controversial and involves a United Nations study that has since been refuted.That study had suggested meat production contributes more to climate change than transportation.

Scientists have come forward in droves with counter-studies showing the greatly reduced carbon footprint of agriculture, particularly animal agriculture. The whole lifecycle of beef and dairy cattle needs to be considered when formulating environmental impacts.

While the dietary gurus in Washington debate the merits of meat and whole-fat milk, let’s look at this term “sustainability” and what dairy and livestock producers actually care about and accomplish for their land, animals — and us!

Regarding potential replacement of a “healthy eating pattern” in favor of a “sustainable eating pattern,” there are several concerns.

1. If red meat and full-fat dairy are not considered a component in a healthy eating pattern, students will increasingly see this nutrient dense protein source removed from their diets and replaced with foods that are less nutrient dense.

2. Since these guidelines affect the most nutritionally at-risk children through their effects on the school lunch program, WIC and food stamps, the impact of the dietary guidelines would fall mostly on those children who are already on the hunger-side of the nutrition equation.

3. How can the committee recommend a “sustainable dietary pattern” when mothers, doctors, scientists, and all manner of experts can’t even agree on what “sustainable” actually means? Let’s stick to nutrition. Defining that is a tall-enough order.

Scientist, cancer survivor and new mom Dr. Jude Capper covers this topic best. She points out that, “With the world population officially hitting 7 billion people earlier this year and projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, farmers and ranchers must continue to find ways to sustainably feed a growing world population using fewer natural resources.”

She notes the many improvements to the way cattle are raised and fed in the United States between 1977 and 2007 that have yielded 13 percent more total beef from 30 percent fewer animals. More beef from fewer animals maximizes resources like land and water while providing essential nutrients for the human diet. U.S. cattlemen raise 20 percent of the world’s beef with 7 percent of the world’s cattle.

Capper’s research in the Journal of Animal Science shows that beef’s environmental footprint is shrinking. Each pound of beef raised in 2007 (compared to 1977) used 19 percent less feed; 33 percent less land; 12 percent less water; and 9 percent less fossil fuel energy. Significant gains have been made in the seven years since the data was collected for this report.IMG_2657

What is discouraging to cattle producers — be they beef or dairy — is the lack of understanding for how cattle are raised and fed. They utilize feedstuffs we humans cannot digest and turn that into meat and milk, which are nutrient-dense sources of proteins, minerals and vitamins.

Some of their lifecycle is spent on grass or eating a mostly grass / hay diet and some of their lifecycle is spent eating a more concentrated diet at certain stages. Feedlot beef wky3327

cattle start out as calves on grass. Even in the feedlot, today’s rations — especially in the east and near food processing centers — utilize bakery waste, over cooked potato chips, wilted produce and the like that would otherwise end up in a landfill. Incorporated into cattle diets along with traditional feedstuffs, these foods provide protein and energy for the animals without sole reliance on corn. In addition, when corn is fed, the whole plant is used.

Farmers are thrifty. They don’t like to waste a thing. They understand the balance of working with nature because it is not just the vocation, but also the very life they have chosen working with their animals and the land.

I can’t think of any other reason why someone would work this hard and put their entire livelihood and all of their capital at risk to the swings of the marketplace other than they are passionate about producing food and using science and ingenuity to work with

Mother Nature in preserving a sustainable balance for all of God’s creatures — the 2-legged and the 4-legged.

Send me your questions and look for part three when the official new guidelines are posted in the Federal Register for public comment. Email agrite@ptd.net.10256404_10204082794934283_4627952695489572277_o


GROWING THE LAND: How did school lunch get so complicated        

Jan. 27, 2015 Hudson Valley Register-Star

Are you satisfied with your school lunches? Do your children eat them? Do they come home so hungry they binge out of the snack drawer?

The National School Lunch Program and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are lightning rods for the latest nutritional ideas — none of which seem to be working particularly well because we’ve gotten so far from the basics, and yet both childhood hunger and childhood obesity are on the rise.

Now it seems there will be another twist in the nutrition-noodle. Recent food studies and “The Big Fat Surprise,” a best seller by Nina Teicholz, reveals the truth about the healthfulness of natural fats in whole milk, butter, beef, ice cream, etc. Teicholz was profiled on “Live! with Kelly and Michael” last week, where she described the “nasty nutrition politics” that continually shape these programs.

In response to these animal-protein-friendly nutritional revelations, the environmental webfeed9297nail-biters (under the influence of refuted studies) are “concerned” about what they see as the effect of dairy and beef production on climate change. According to news reports last week, these groups would like the government to take their version of the facts and tweak new-again the nutrition guidelines. This means yet another lunchroom brawl will soon be coming to a school cafeteria near you where the already burdensome and counterproductive rules for lunch menu planning have lunch ladies and foodservice directors — not to mention kids and parents — tearing their hair out.

How did we let serving a decent healthy meal to schoolchildren become so complicated? Why don’t schools take their cafeterias back? One reason is the federal government ties its financial support for literacy programs (extra teachers and tutors) in schools to the number of students enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program as monitored by — you guessed it — the federal government. Oh what a complex web we weave when all we set out to do is healthfully eat!

The government’s interest in the school lunch program got its first foothold during World War II when more women joined the workforce as part of the war effort. The emphasis at that time was to provide a hot meal with plenty of protein, calories for energy and the healthy fat necessary for brain development and satiety — a fancy word for no hunger pains during the end of the day math class!

My generation grew up with the “eat all things in moderation” mantra. Lunches were a bit repetitive, but they were good, honest meals and we ate them. We learned about the four food groups, and we ran and played and worked outside ‘til dusk.

My children’s generation grew up in the “food pyramid” days, spelling out the servings deal differently. Then, in the 1990s, the school lunch program went through a major metamorphosis that paralleled the “low fat” offerings in nearly every product category at the supermarket. What the 90s gave us was less fat and more carbs, and a lot of guilt. I would say those three things are actually ingredients for obesity.

By the late 1990s, the government came out with the nutrient standards for menu planning, and school districts across the country bought the software and began to submit their menus for approval. I was editor of a farm publication at the time and served as an elected director on a local school board. I interviewed not only our own district’s foodservice director but others as well, and I visited one of the schools that had piloted the program for USDA.

“Schoolchildren were being relegated to the equivalent of a heart patient’s diet,” explained the foodservice director who was piloting the program in 1997. The calorie thresholds were unchanged, but the government began regulating the percentage of those calories that could come from fat. There were no regulations yet for sugar or carbohydrates. And yes, as always, the goal was to get kids to eat more veggies and fruits and fiber. We might take a lesson from France in that department. They require lunches to be made from fresh ingredients, but they aren’t afraid to deep-fry some broccoli or soak a healthy vegetable dish in yummy cheese — real, of course.

The new fat rules forced foodservice folks to put imitation cheese product on their once delicious pizza. Ground turkey replaced beef in spaghetti and tacos. Rolls were served without butter. All milk was reduced to nonfat or 1 percent so the amount of chocolate milk consumed increased. (Whole milk is much more flavorful than nonfat, and it is just 3.25 to 3.5 percent fat!

As fat was reduced, so were calories and flavor. To get back up to the number of calories required, “we just served a bigger brownie, for example,” that foodservice director recounted. Of course, they used applesauce to replace the shortening in making such desserts. But still, no requirement on sugar and carbs.

“Two elements give food flavor: fats and sugars. When you pull one out, chances are the other is added,” the wise foodservice director observed. Whether natural or added, sugars and fats provide flavor, but what most people don’t think about is: The fat in real foods — such as beef and butter and cheese — is accompanied by a nutrient dense protein source that naturally supplies vitamins and minerals and helps kids feel satiated, not hungry or hyper, so they can concentrate and learn. Healthy fats are known to be good for brain development.

Fast forward to the decade of the 2010’s. More tinkering! The food pyramid became the plate showing portions of different food types, and we are now in a time when school menus are regulated in the number of calories that can be served using arbitrary, across the board calculations.

Caught in the crossfire are kids and cattle. We’ll continue this topic in the next edition of “Growing the Land,” so send me your questions about nutrition standards, new information on healthy fats, school lunch programs, and the real-deal on the carbon footprint and environmental contributions of today’s dairy and beef cattle. Email agrite@ptd.net.