Podcasts about rudd center

The food and nutrition landscape in our schools is really important. School meals affect the health, wellbeing, energy, vitality, and ability to learn for millions and millions of children. And for those whose family struggled to buy food, the importance of school meals cannot be overstated. This makes decisions about what foods are served in schools and where they come from. Highly consequential and raises issues about national and state nutrition policies, the influence of big food companies in shaping this picture and lots more.  It's a good time to unravel all this, which we can do today. Thanks to two experts with us. Dr. Marlene Schwartz is Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences and Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy health at the University of Connecticut. Mara Fleishman is CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, where she has been a leader advancing school food change, advocating for scratch cook meals that promote children's health and for more sustainable food systems.   Interview Summary In discussions about school food, it seems there first came a nutrition part, which in more recent years has been joined with a concern about where foods come from. Better connections, say between schools and low whole food systems. Let's talk about both, Marlene, let's start with nutrition. You have been a pioneer in working with schools, an interest that goes back a number of years. What was this food environment like in schools before change began to occur? It was my impression it was sort of a free for all. So, yes, I would agree that it was a free for all. The actual school lunch, what we call the reimbursable school lunch, which is the meal that the federal government gives states and then states give the local food service directors funds to support, that has actually always had nutrition standards. But historically the problem was under nutrition. The standards were very focused on making sure students had enough to eat. There were no maximums. It was really all about making sure that there was at least the minimum number of calories and foods available. But the other foods that were sold in schools, which we call competitive foods, so these are foods that were vending machines and school stores and fundraisers and things like that, were hardly regulated at all. And that is really where we saw a complete free for all. We saw ice cream and chips and soda and sports drinks and things like that. And I remember going to one school here in Connecticut and counting 13 vending machines in the high school. It really was remarkable the amount of unhealthy food that was being sold in schools. You know, I was thinking of that same thing when I was living in Connecticut, I went to my son's high school, a different school than what you're talking about. And I forget the number of soft drink machines they had around the school, but it was in the teens. And when I was a boy, I don't remember any soft drink machines in my schools. Maybe they hadn't been invented yet. I'm so old. But it was really pretty remarkable how much access children had to these things. And as I understand, the importance of those machines in the schools to the companies was more than just what food was being sold. There was a real branding opportunity. Is that right? I think that's exactly right. And I remember over 20 years ago when we were talking to some of the soft drink companies about the vending machines, they were quick to point out that they didn't make all that much money selling soft drinks in schools. Which I felt was them basically admitting that they weren't there because of the income from the sales in schools. But rather it was a hundred percent branding. And that was also really evident by the fact that you had to have a contract. So, the school districts had to have contracts with Coke or Pepsi or Cadbury Schwepps to only sell that company's products. It was blatantly obvious that this was all about marketing and marketing to an audience that they had to go to school, and they were going to be exposed to those logos every time they walked past one of those machines. Yeah. I remember in those days it felt like a victory when the companies agreed to change what was in the machines, but it was what was on the machines that was more important. So, you know, once again, that was a sign of the industry having upper hand. Let me ask you a different question. So there have been some important systemic changes discussed in context to school meals, ones that really could affect the nutrition landscape nationwide. And I'm thinking in particular universal free school meals. Can you tell us what this means and why it's important and what do you think ought to be done? Sure. So universal free school meals, or as the advocates call it Healthy School Meals for All, is a policy that is providing meals at no cost to all students. So typically the way it works in most school districts is there's three categories of payment. There are students who pay quote, full price. There are students who pay a reduced price and there are students who receive the meal at no cost, and it has to do with the income of their household. But what has been shown, interestingly most significantly during the pandemic, there was a policy from the USDA that all students would receive meals at no cost because we were clearly in a national crisis. And in some ways, it was this silver lining of that time because what it showed, those of us who study school meals, is how wonderful it is to be able to provide meals at no cost for everyone there. There are a lot of benefits. Some of it is just the administrative burden of having to figure out each and every household and which category they're in is lifted. You don't have to track which student is which as they're picking up their lunch. But it also really removed the stigma. One of the most surprising things that we've seen in our data is that even students who would have gotten their meal at no cost already were more likely to take a meal when it was provided at no cost for everyone. Because it just became part of what you did. Everybody was eating the school meal. And I think that it always leads to higher rates of participation among all of those sorts of categories of kids. And I think it also really allows the people running the food service to focus on preparing the food and making it the best it can be and not having that burden of the paperwork. And will there come a day, in your belief where this will happen? I hope so. What we've seen is that a number of states, I think it's eight right now, actually passed state policy to keep universal free school meals after the federal guidance that had been out there was lifted after the pandemic was over. And so my hope is that they'll really demonstrate the benefits and that other states will join in. There's certainly a lot of advocacy in a lot of other states to try to do this. And some of the benefits that have also been shown are outcomes like attendance and academic achievement and just really showing that just like we use our public funds to fund the teachers and the building and the water and the library books. It's sort of seen as a basic tool that the school needs to make available to students so that they can succeed academically. And I think that shift in attitude as opposed to seeing the lunchroom as this sort of separate thing from the rest of the school building. I think that shift in attitude will be really helpful overall. That makes good sense. Mara, let's turn to you. I'm really eager to hear about the work of the Chef Ann Foundation. I've followed its work for a number of years, but I'm eager to hear what the most recent iteration of this. So, I'm hoping you can tell us, and also give us some sense of why you got interested in these issues.   Well, the Chef Ann Foundation is actually celebrating its 15th birthday this year. And we help school food programs move from serving more processed heat and serve food to serving more freshly prepared scratch made meals in schools. And we do that through looking at what are the barriers to school food programs actually serving this freshly prepared meal. And there are a number of barriers: training, skill sets, equipment, access to healthier food, local farmers. The reimbursement rate, you know, how much money they get actually for serving these meals. What about the power of the companies that are providing the prepared foods to schools? Yes, that's a big piece. So those are very loud voices that have a [00:09:00] lot of power behind them. Through the passing of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010, there was an increase in nutrition standards change and what Marlene was saying is that while there was some basic before that, after Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, we had saturated fat standard, sodium, whole grain. But what happened was these big food companies just kind of R&D'd their food to meet these standards. So, we are in a better place today, right? Because we are serving more whole grains. We are serving less saturated fat, less sodium. But one of the big things that the passage of that Child Nutrition Reauthorization did not do was really reduce ultra processed food in school. And that I think is the next horizon for school food, is how to actually help them reduce that ultra processed food. Because there is, you know, a lot of research out there, I'm sure Marlene is familiar with this, that is linking more ultra processed food to diet related disease. So, we go in and really help these school food programs with more culinary training, we do assessments to tell them what kind of equipment they need to serve fresh food. A lot of it is financial training. So, when you're serving a chicken nugget. One chicken nugget that meets the standards. You bring it in frozen. All you have to do is reheat it and put it on the line. If you're making a chicken strip from scratch, you know you have to buy the chicken, you have to buy the breadcrumbs. You have to buy all the ingredients. You have to start looking at your program through a different lens. Your financial modeling is different. Your labor resources are different. Meeting meals per labor hour is different. We provide training on all these fronts to help them run that program. Well, it sounds enormously beneficial. How much do, in the modern day, how much do schools care about these things and how much do parents care about them? Well, I think something that's really exciting, and I think we have the best vantage point for it, is that schools, parents, communities, even government cares way more about it today than they did when the Chef Ann Foundation was launched. We were definitely considered more of a niche nonprofit organization that only worked with kind of districts that were very progressive. But today, we have, waiting lists for our grants. we work in every state in the country. And we now have a cooperative agreement with the USDA, which would never have really been possible 15 years ago. They just weren't looking for partnerships with organizations that were pushing the envelope to this level. So, I think now's our time. It's so nice to hear that because I remember back when the Chef Ann Foundation got started. And that niche role that it played was clear, but there was so much hope that it would expand and it's really nice that it has. And the fact that you're in every state and the USDA is working with you, those are all really good signs. Well, let me ask you another question. This one about equity. How does this work fit into an equity point of view? I mean, that's pretty much the heart of the matter, I think in many ways. I started this work because I worked for Whole Foods Market for 13 years and I was very interested in food systems work. I have three children and my oldest, who's now 23, when she started in kindergarten, I went to lunch with her. They were serving, this was before the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, they were serving a very highly processed, high sugar, low protein meal. And I was looking around at the cafeteria really looking at who is eating this meal and thinking to myself, what are we doing here? We are not providing the same springboard for every kindergartner to thrive and meet their true potential, right? There were kids coming to school with their very healthy packed lunches and little baby organic carrots and whole wheat bread and no-nitrate turkey sandwiches. And then there was a whole host of kids eating this very ultra processed high sugar, low fiber, no protein meal. And the equity issue that you're speaking of was right there and very blatant. And if we're not going to provide children that same springboard to thrive from, which, you know, is what K 12 is about, right? That's what we're trying to do for everyone then we have some big issues. And to Marlene's point, we disregard food in that equity issue. So, we don't make higher income kids pay for their bus rides or anything else. And we don't kind of create that divide. We don't devalue anything as significantly as we do food. And it's what makes you thrive. I heard once a very interesting statement from a physician who worked on brain development. And he said that if children are not fed correctly during critical stages of their development amounts to a life sentence. That there are just certain things that will never recover no matter what happens. Having a better school food environment helps erase some of that for sure. Not all of it, but at least some of it. And then each of the children are more on a level playing field in terms of their academic achievement because some aren't so much more burdened by a terrible food environment. I can see why this would, would really be so important. Marlene, let's talk about what changes have been made. Both you and Mara have alluded to this, but specifically what's happened over the years in terms of school meals and have there been studies on the impacts on children? Sure. Well, I completely agree with Mara that the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act was a really bright spot, certainly in, in my career, in terms of seeing changes to school meals. So, as I mentioned before, we used to have only minimum calories and things like that. And now we finally have maximum calories based on the age of the child as well as sodium, saturated fat, increasing whole grains, low fat dairy, things like that. The other thing with the smart snacks, so the competitive foods that started to have nutrition regulations. That was a perfect example though of where the companies use their research and development dollars to essentially make a Dorito that fit the standards and a cookie that fit the standards. And I think in some ways that has highlighted the fact that our society is starting to look much more skeptically at highly processed foods. Because I remember standing in my kids' high school a number of years ago after smart snacks went into a fat, and I was in front of the vending machine, and a parent came up to me who knew this was what I studied and said: 'What are you talking about? That school food is healthier. Look at that!' And sort of pointing to all the packaged chips and cookies and other snacks. And I tried, I was like, well, but those are reduced fat Doritos and those cookies are lower in sugar and probably have some whole grains and nobody cared. Parents basically can recognize junk food when they see it. I one hundred percent agree that processed food is the next dimension that we need to really be able to assess, measure it so that we can start to regulate it. And to have that be a new way in which we try to manage the quality of school meals. Before we get to the issue of what sort of research has been done to show the impact on kids, let me follow up on the Doritos example. Well, it sounds like what we were talking about earlier with a Coke machine being so important because of the logo and branding and stuff like that. Sounds like exactly the same things that work here. That the company wants to have Doritos in the school, not because they sell so much or make so much money. But that they brand, it's a chance to brand that particular product or that particular company. And then of course, kids want those when they get out of school and they talk to their parents about getting them. So, it seems like the fact that they get reformulated to be a tad healthier isn't much of a victory is it. No, and I feel like it's almost like the worst of all situations. So, we've done some research on this at the Rudd Center and have a graphic where we show like the school version and then the grocery store version. And it's completely clear that it's the same branding. Nobody would mistake or not think it was the same product. But the grocery store version is not as healthy as the school version. So you're simultaneously - if someone were to know, for example, that about smart snacks and the nutrition standards they could say, well, they sell it in schools maybe it's better. They might be more likely to buy it in the grocery store, but of course what they're buying in the grocery store is worse. And then if you ask folks from the food industry, which I've done, well, why don't you just reformulate all of it? Why don't you only sell the school version in the grocery store? They say, 'oh, well, we are just worried that people won't like it because it's not, you know, as palatable.' It's like a lose-lose proposition. I would like, personally, to see all of those foods removed from schools. And to answer your question about the research though, it's really promising. I mean, there have been a couple of studies that I always go to, to sort of document the positive impact of the regulations that came from the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. One was a study showing that basically the meals that students eat in school for most American children are the healthiest meals that they eat all day. So that it's sort of the best source of nutrition. And then another study that was looking at BMI trajectories over time and found that particularly among lower income children there was a measurable impact on BMI in terms of reducing the risk of childhood obesity after the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act regulations were put into place. So, I feel like when you have those sort of large national data sets and you can look at impact across the country, it's pretty clear that even though we of course, want to see more change and keep going forward, even the changes we've made so far have had an important impact. Do you think the changes are sufficient to produce impacts on learning and academic achievement and things like that? We have a hard time having enough data to really get at that very specific outcome because so many things have impact on academic achievement. But there definitely have been some studies that have been able to show some impact. But it's a tricky thing to measure. Mara, let's talk a little bit about how the school can be part of a vital and healthy food system overall. Tell us about your work in that space. We look at health in its kind of larger capacity, right? So direct related nutrition results with kids eating certain foods. But in addition, the school lunch program is funded to the tune of $17 billion a year, right? So, if we think about spending those dollars in the food system and how we're going to change the food system we have to really think about how we empower these school food professionals to make the best choices they can to affect change. With approximately about a $4.30 reimbursable rate price of a lunch, it's not easy right now. Labor prices are going up and you have to pay for labor out of that. You have to pay for food cost out of that. But you can prioritize your choices. Some of the things that we work with districts on are what are their top 20 highest volume purchases in the school food program. And how can we look at that top 20 and make some adjustments to purchase things that can impact the environment in a more significant way. Often it is animal protein that's in their top 20. That is really an opportunity for districts to make better choices. Local choices. Higher quality choices. You know, choices that impact not only the health of the environment, but the health of their local economy. But it is challenging because your district has to be able to manage raw animal protein. A lot of the processed animal protein products coming to the districts are pre-cooked, and so they don't have to always know how to manage in a kitchen raw animal protein. And that's usually this barrier that we help districts get over. But once we do, there is this huge opportunity for them to purchase higher quality animal protein. Also fruits and vegetables, right? I always get asked this from parent groups who are looking to change school food. Why can't we just purchase everything organic in schools, right? So that's hard on $4.30, right? You can't. But you can make choices and you can look at the highest volume products or the products that are more affected by pesticides, right? So, if you have a salad bar you know you're serving lettuce every day. You can move to serving an organic lettuce, and that is a huge opportunity to move forward. I think things like that are how we look at the food system in terms of school food. But it's really important not just for us food systems people to be looking at it like this, but for us to be training and teaching the school food professionals about their job and the impact they can make, both on student nutrition and environmental impact. And that's a lot of what we do in our workforce development initiatives. How does seasonal things figure in? Because schools are in session during the months when it's colder in most parts of the country, and the agricultural system isn't going full bore like it might in the summer months. How do you deal with that?  It's really a great point. I know whenever I bring up any kind of exemplary food program in California, people say to me, 'Ugh, California. You can do a lot in California, but what can you do elsewhere?' Well, here where I live in Boulder, the Boulder Valley School district serves close to 15,000 lunches a day. They have 55 schools. It's kind of that perfect midsize district example. And they purchase 40% of their products locally. This is a Northern Climate District. This is Colorado. It takes time. It takes a real steadfast plan. But you, you know, you can purchase potatoes through December. There's a lot of indoor growing right now locally too. So that's also this great opportunity to purchase things like if you have a salad bar purchase, things like lettuce locally, all year long. There's, there's a lot of local wheat production that is happening these days in northern climates and then it's getting milled and processed into different products that you can buy locally. It's very much possible. Can you get to a hundred percent local procurement? Not right now, not at the current reimbursable rate, but there's a lot of room for improvement even in northern climates. When the schools are buying such foods that come from local sources, are they buying directly from the farmers or is there some agent in the middle? It depends. Mostly for local farmers, small local farmers, they're buying direct. And that's a challenge for small and even some midsize districts because of their capacity, their procurement capacity, their administrative capacity. But it is possible. Obviously, it's in some ways easier for big districts like, you know, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District). We work with LAUSD. It's an amazing district that buys a lot locally. But they have the volume, they have the capacity, they have the administrative support. That's why a lot of our work focuses on small and midsize districts to actually provide them with that kind of structure and support to do it. And to really prioritize the buying processes through their local purveyors. There are some local distributors that have more local products than others. You know, gold Star is a distributor on the West coast that has more local products. But in reality, the prime vendors for these districts are mostly Sysco or US Foods. And they don't carry a ton of local farm product for these districts. So, they're really going to have to create those partnerships. I'm thinking of the farmers and what impact it might have on them. And I could imagine for some farmers at least, it would provide a reliable income source and a reliable customer for their products, which would be helpful financially. And I imagine, although I don't know that there are probably cases where the schools are inviting the farmers to come in and meet the kids, and that's probably good for everybody. Does that kind of thing happen? Yeah, I mean that is huge and as I kind of talked about ultra processed food being the next horizon to look at reducing in school food, I also think how we work with school food programs to connect them and actually have them be stronger customers of local farmers is also this next horizon. One of the new projects that we're working on is called Values Align Purchasing Collectives. So, we're currently doing assessments to determine how we can group small and mid-size districts together to form buying cohorts, basically, to purchase from local farmers. So how can we get them to look at serving some of the same menu items, purchasing together, working together to relieve some of the administrative stress on the districts, but also on the farmer side. So how do we create hubs to do and look at creating a process that can better support? And I think that's the future. Oh boy. That sounds like a very exciting development. Marlene, just you have something you wanted add? Yeah, I'm just so exciting to hear all of that. I was going to mention that we have a new project in Connecticut looking at farm-to-school practices across the state, and really trying to work with districts on both the procurement part of it as well as incorporating more into the classroom. So having that connection with local farmers, having that being part of the sort of educational curriculum. And then really what I've always thought was the goal was to have the cafeteria more of a learning lab. Not having it as this, I guess I said before, separate part of the school, but rather incorporating nutrition education, incorporating this is where that apple came from and teaching students where the food is from and particularly if it's from a local producer. I think there's a lot of excitement around there. I think the USDA is funding a lot of states to do more work in this area, and so it's a pretty exciting time. You know, connecting up what the two of you have just said, Marlene, I remember in the time I was living in Connecticut. Connecticut has a lot of small to midsize towns that are feeding kids and the collaborative that Mara was talking about sounds like it might be a really interesting solution in that kind of a context. I completely agree. I know some of the New England states, and maybe this happens in other parts of the country too, but it does feel like each school food authority is tiny. I mean, we have towns with one high school and to try to have any kind of buying power when you're so small, I think, is a real challenge. So, I know there are some collaboratives in Connecticut, but absolutely supporting, bringing people together to try to negotiate the best prices and things like that, and make those relationships with the local farmers. It feels like a really great strategy to pursue. I'd like to ask you both, what is it going to take or what does it take to make these things happen? You're talking about some very good things when they do happen, but what does it take to make them happen? And Mara, let's start with you. What are the factors you think are really important? We approach our work from a systems perspective. What is the system and what is the biggest barriers in the system that we can kind of selectively tackle, and kind of dig into from a programmatic engineering perspective. For us, and Marlene, I love that you brought up the lunchroom as a classroom, because I think that is really important. I think that's the kind of the ultimate goal and we're so grateful for programs across the country that are working on that kind of thing. What we want to stay focused on at the Chef Ann Foundation is school food professionals. We want to actually educate them. We want to figure out how to provide more professional development, learning, education so that they can start looking at their jobs differently. And the country can start looking at what they're doing differently; and start really looking at the value that they're providing during a school day. So, what it takes, back to your question, is it really takes breaking down the problem to understand how to put some pieces together to test out programs that can look at breaking down that barrier. And for us right now, we're doing a lot with workforce because what we believe is that in 10 years from now, if we have a workforce in school food that has a different perspective of their job, has different skill sets, is a kind of a different workforce than is right now, than a lot of these things we want to tackle as food systems people will be a lot easier. That makes good sense. And Marlene, you've been involved for many years in local and state and national policies. In your mind, what sort of things lead to change? So, that's a good question. I would love to be able to say, oh, it's the research, clearly. That people do studies and they document, this is what we need to do. I think that's necessary, but not sufficient. I think the real answer is parents and people. I had a similar experience going to my daughter's when she was in first grade going and having lunch at her school and looking around and thinking, oh my goodness, what are we doing? I think that it's the fact that even though this is my profession, this is something I study, It's deeply personal. And I think there's a lot of passion behind the importance of making sure our children are healthy. And if I think about the policy makers along the way who have really been the ones that have made the biggest difference, it was off often because they cared about this deeply, personally. And so, I think continuing to tap into that and reminding people how important this is, is how you get the political will to pass the policies that make the real changes. Well, you know, you both made that really important point about how important parents can be. But really impressive that this started as a personal thing, and you were caring for the welfare of your children and that helped inspire your professional work and look where it's gone. It's really very impressive. I'd like to end with a following question. Are you hopeful for the future? Mara, let's start with you. I am very hopeful for the future. I think when you look at what's important to our society, school food is often the answer. I feel like when you look at achievement, school food is often the answer. When you look at diet related illness, school food is often the answer. When you look at building local economies, school food is often the answer. And I am really hopeful because I think there's a lot of incredible work being done right now, and we are moving past piloting and we're moving into research. And we're moving into institutionalizing the work. And I think you can see that through policies, through USDA cooperative agreements with organizations and work that they're doing and through the guidelines. And through the excitement and integration you're seeing in communities with superintendents, school food directors, parents, and advocates. And Marlene, are you hopeful? I am hopeful. I mean, if I think back to, you know, kind of the early days of working on this issue, I feel like we were met with a lot of skepticism. People felt like, oh, the industry's so powerful, you'll never be able to do anything. I feel like there have been a lot of changes. And I think another shift that I've sort of seen over the course of my career is early on, because of the rates of childhood obesity increasing, a lot of these initiatives that was the hook, that was sort of the anchor. And there were positive things about that because it was such a dramatic change that had occurred that you could point to. But sort of the downside is it wasn't just about that. It's about all children. It doesn't matter what your body weight is, it's about diet quality and having food security and getting adequate nutrition. I feel like we've broadened a lot in the field in terms of how we think about the reason why we're doing that. And that has made it much more inclusive, and we've been able to talk about, as Mara said, how it's affecting lots and lots of things outside of individual children. Bios Marlene Schwartz Marlene Schwartz, Ph.D. is Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences at UConn. Dr. Schwartz studies how nutrition and wellness policies implemented in schools, food banks, and local communities can improve food security, diet quality, and health outcomes. Dr. Schwartz earned her Ph.D. in Psychology from Yale University in 1996. Prior to joining the Rudd Center, she served as Co-Director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders from 1996 to 2006. She has received research grants from a variety of funders including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Institutes of Health to study federal food programs, school wellness policies, the effect of food marketing on children, and strategies to address food insecurity and diet quality. She is also the recipient of the 2014 Sarah Samuels Award from the Food and Nutrition Section of the American Public Health Association; the 2020 Faculty Service Award from the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences; and the 2021 Community-Engaged Health Research Excellence Award from the Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention and Policy at UConn. Mara Fleishman Mara Fleishman's career in food systems advocacy started in her early 20's when she looked to the power of food after being diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. Mara has over 20 years of experience in leading systems change initiatives in the for-profit and non-profit sectors including over a decade at Whole Foods Market where she served as Global Director of Partnerships. In Mara's current role, CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, she has spent the last 10 years fighting for healthier food for our nation's kids. Mara's niche is system-based change and although she takes on many roles as a leader, her favorite is programmatic engineering; breaking down problems to their foundation and building programmatic solutions through dynamic and integrated approaches. This type of programmatic engineering can be seen through the work of the Chef Ann Foundation, an organization recognized as the national leader in driving fresh, healthy scratch cook food in schools. Mara also serves on regional and national boards, has spoken at conferences and academic institutions across the country, and has been recognized in publications as a champion and national advocate for change.  

Award-winning wine expert Karen MacNeil discusses her book, “The Wine Bible: 3rd Edition,” which offers the ultimate education in wine with expanded content. Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English language. TIME magazine has called her, “America's Missionary of the Vine.” She is the author of the award-winning book, The Wine Bible, the only best selling wine book in the United States, and is the creator and editor of Wine Speed, the top digital newsletter on wine in the United States. She was the former wine correspondent for the Today Show on NBC, and was also the host of the PBS series Wine, Food & Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. Karen is also the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America, which has been called the “Harvard of wine education.” Originally published in November 2022. Watch this episode at youtube.com/TalksAtGoogle.  

For many years in talks that I gave, I showed a slide with an ingredient list from a food most people know. Just to see if the audience could guess what the food was. based on what it was made of. It was very hard for people to guess. A few people might come close, but very few people would guess. And it was pretty hard because the food contained 56 ingredients. This is in one food. And the ingredient list had chemical names, flavorings, stabilizers, and heaven knows what else. But 56 things in one, just one food in the food supply. Pretty amazing to think what kind of things we're bombarded with in foods we eat in our everyday lives. So, one key question is do we know what all this stuff does to us, either individually or in combination? So, how does ingredient 42 interact with ingredient 17? Even if we happen to know what they do individually, which we may not. And, who's looking out for the health of the population, and who has regulatory control over these things? Today we're joined by the author of a new article on this topic published in the American Journal of Public Health. Jennifer Pomeranz is an attorney and is Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management in the School of Global Public Health at New York University. The food, by the way, was a chocolate fudge Pop Tart. Interview Summary So, who has regulatory oversight with these things that are added to foods? The FDA has the authority over all of those packaged foods. So, Pop Tarts, all of that type of packaged foods and the ingredients in there. Can you explain the nature of their authority and the concept of GRAS and what that stands for? Yes. So, there are two main ingredients in our food, but there is also color additives and other things that we didn't get to in our study. But the two main ingredients are called 'food additives' and then 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS substances. And these are the two ingredients that are in all the processed foods. They're both complex substances, but they're regulated differently. GRAS is assumed to be safe. And food with GRAS substances is presumed to be safe as long as there's a generally agreement among scientists that it's safe, or if it's been in use in food since 1958. Food additives, on the other hand, are presumed to be unsafe. And so, foods that have food additives must have the food additive be approved for the condition of use. So actually, the FDA issues regulations on the food additives. Is it true that the FDA authority covers lots of these chemical type things that get put in foods that we discussed? But also, things that occur naturally in some things like caffeine? Yes. And so, caffeine is considered GRAS or generally recognized as safe. The FDA has a tolerance level for cola-type beverages for caffeine. It actually doesn't enforce that as you see, because we have energy drinks that far exceed that type of level. So, there's different types of GRAS substances. But they can be very complex substances that are actually not so different than food additives. Who decides at the end of the day whether something's safe or not? You imagine this battalion of scientific experts that the FDA has on hand, or consults with, to decide whether something's safe or not. But how does it work? Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case. When it comes to food additives, the industry must petition the FDA and provide evidence showing that it's safe. And the FDA promulgates a regulation saying that it agrees it's safe and it can be used for the things that it set forth in the regulation. For GRAS, there are two mechanisms. One is the industry can notify the FDA that it thinks something's safe. And then it actually goes through a similar transparent process where the FDA will evaluate the evidence submitted. Or, shockingly, the industry can actually decide that it's safe for themselves. And they don't have to notify the FDA. And they can add it to their food without the FDA or the public actually knowing. Now they might disclose this on a website or something, but it's actually not even required to be based on peer reviewed literature, which is actually one of the concerning aspects about this. Concerning is polite language for what one might call shocking. So, in the case of some of these things that go into the food, the industry itself decides whether these things are safe. And in some cases, they have to at least tell the FDA that something they declare as safe is going into the food. But in some cases, they don't even have to do this. Right. So, they only have to if they've determined that it's a food additive. But actually, the industry itself is deciding that it's a food additive versus GRAS. Once it made the decision, it's GRAS, it doesn't even have to notify the FDA that it considers it safe. If they do, they are supposed to rely on their own research saying that it's safe. But actually, there's some alarming parts about that as well. The other outside research that's not my own found that the panels of experts that they employ, 100 percent of the people on those panels have financial conflicts of interest. So, that's already worrisome. They're receiving money from the food industry in some way. Yes. To say that the ingredient is safe. Another scary part is that if they do notify the FDA and they're not happy with how the FDA is reacting to their GRAS notification, they can actually request a cease and desist. The FDA will issue a cease and desist letter, and then they can actually go to market with that ingredient. Pretty amazing. Like loopholes that not only a truck can go through, but a train and everything else. That's really pretty remarkable. So one could say that the risk built into this system is hypothetical, and it works pretty well. But is that true? I mean, are there cases where things have gotten through that probably shouldn't have? Or is it just that we don't know? I think there's a lot of unknowns. The Environmental Working Group does that research and they have identified things that they find to be concerning. A lot of it is that we actually don't know what we don't know, right? So even the FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know. And that is, is part of the concern, that you can't just identify this by looking at the nutrition facts label where they list ingredients. Sometimes they just use terms like spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives. But that could be masking an ingredient that has never been examined and for which It's unclear that it's actually safe. I know there have been some policy efforts in places such as California to prohibit use of some of these things that have otherwise been considered safe by the FDA, or perhaps just by industry. Is that true that's happening more and more? Yes, actually there has been. Because of the gap in the FDA's oversight, we are seeing states, and it's actually a pretty shocking situation, that California banned four ingredients that the FDA did not. And it's saying that those ingredients are not safe to be in food in California. And given what a huge market California is, the thinking is that the industry will have to change their ingredients across the nation. And frankly, they've already taken those ingredients out of the same foods in Europe, where those ingredients are not allowed. So how much do you trust this self-policing by the industry? To be honest, I'm quite concerned about it. The FDA has the authority to review substances post market, so after they're already in the ingredients. But we see that it can take years or even decades. In the case of, remember, partially hydrogenated oils, which were artificially produced trans-fat. It took decades for them to get that removed from the food supply, despite significant research showing that it had caused health harm. So, even when there is evidence of harm, it takes quite a long time for the FDA to remove it. And in the case of another ingredient recently where California banned it, then the FDA decided to ban it. So, it does worry me that even their post market authority is not being utilized to the extent that it should. Let's think about what a good set of defaults might be and how this might actually play out in practice. If you'd assume these things that go into foods are not safe by default, then the question is what would it take to make sure they're safe before they're allowed in the food supply? And it would take toxicology studies, studies with lab animals perhaps, studies with humans. I don't know exactly how these things are tested, but one can imagine it's not an easy or a quick process. Nor probably an inexpensive one. But somebody would have to do it, and if government can't do it, you can't rely on industry to do it. I wonder if the default might be fewer things in the food supply and whether that might not be a pretty good thing? I love that you said that because that's the conclusion I came to as well. Why do we need all these new ingredients? We already have ultra processed foods, which are by definition contain all these ingredients that we don't really know what they are. And why do we even need new ingredients? I think they could even put a moratorium on new ingredients and say, let's take a, take an analysis of what we've got in the food supply at this point. And to be honest, it would take Congress to act to change FDA's authority to give them more authority to do what you just suggested. And of course, resources, which would be personnel like you described. So maybe that chocolate Pop Tart that has 56 ingredients could get by with 41 or 32 or 17. And you know, maybe we'd be just fine having it with fewer ingredients. One interesting thing that I've heard about, but I'm not an expert in because my background isn't law, is I know it's possible for outside parties to bring lawsuits against government for failing to execute its duties. Has there been any talk about possible lawsuits taking on the FDA for failing to protect the public's health with regard to these things? Well, actually, there was a lawsuit already. These consumer protection organizations sued the FDA, arguing that they weren't protecting the public. And that they were actually ceding authority to the industry, which, they by definition are. But according to the law, because Congress didn't require them to review these ingredients pre market, the court found that the FDA did not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And so, they were operating according to the law. But also, to your point, I could see other lawsuits would be possible about them not actually exercising their post market authority to protect the public. Those could be from private lawsuits or a state attorney's general. There are different ideas there. So, what do you suggest going forward? You know what? Don't eat the Pop Tart. I think you got to avoid the many truly ultra processed foods and go for the lower processing levels. It's kind of that original advice. If you can't understand the ingredient list, maybe pick something different. And there are options within the same categories, right? There are potato chips that have three ingredients and there's potato crisps that have something like 12. So there are different options in that way. Bio Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

The first nutrition labels mandated by the Food and Drug Administration appeared on food packages in 1994. A key update occurred in 2016, informed by new science on the link between diet and chronic disease. Along the way, things like trans fats and added sugars were required, but all along, the labels have been laden with numbers and appear on the back or side of packages. There has long been interest in more succinct and consumer-friendly labeling systems that might appear on the front of packages. Such systems exist outside the US, but for political reasons and lobbying by the food industry, have been blocked in the United States. There's new hope, however, described in a recent opinion piece by Christina Roberto, Alyssa Moran, and Kelly Brownell in the Washington Post. Today, we welcome Dr. Christina Roberto, lead author of that piece. She is the Mitchell J. Blutt and Margot Krody Blutt Presidential Associate Professor of Health Policy in the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Interview Summary This is a really important topic, and if the nation gets this right, it really could make a difference in the way people make product decisions as they're in the supermarket. So, let's talk first about the importance of labeling on the front of the package. Why is that important when all the information is somewhere else, namely on the side or the back? I think there's a couple of key reasons why it's good to do front of packaging food labeling specifically. So, as you mentioned, it was a huge deal in 1994 to get this information mandated to be on food packaging to begin with, right? All of a sudden, there was much more transparency about what's in our food supply, but that being said, when you think about the nutrition facts label, it's pretty dense. There's a lot of percentages, there's a lot of numbers, there's a lot of information to process. And when people are actually in the supermarket shopping, they're making these split-second decisions, right? So, it's not to say that some consumers are turning it around and inspecting that packaging, but the reality is, for most people, it's a very habitual behavior. And so, we want to be in a place where that information is prominent, it's easily accessible, and it's easy to understand so that when you're making those snap judgements, they can be informed judgments. So, you're not talking about taking what's on the back and just moving it to the front. You're talking about a different set of information and symbols that might be available? That's right. Yeah. What front of package labeling is designed to do is just take some of the key bits of information that we know from science is going to be most important for consumers to base their nutritional decisions on. That's things like saturated fat, sodium, added sugars, right? And moving that to the front of the package and communicating about it in a very simple, clear way. So, no numbers, no percentages, just very straightforward language. And ideally some sort of icon, like an exclamation point, that would draw attention to that symbol and just quickly let consumers know that this product is high in those nutrients that you need to be concerned about and you need to try to limit. Why is it an important time to be thinking about this issue in the US? It's an important and it's an exciting time because the FDA right now is highly interested in actually moving forward on a policy that would require these types of front of package labels. And that hasn't been true, as you noted, for about a decade. But last year, the White House convened a very significant conference that hadn't happened in 50 years about nutrition, health, and hunger. And front of package labeling actually made it into their report in that conference as a key objective for this country in terms of a food policy that, under the Biden administration, they want to achieve. What we're seeing the FDA do now is actually undertake a series of research studies to try to understand what should this label look like, and how should it be designed to be consumer friendly. With the hope that actually we'll get a proposed rule on this potentially by June, and even if not by June. There's clear momentum that it looks like this is going to be happening in the near future. In a few minutes, I'd like to ask you about what's taken place in other countries, but what's been the history of this in the US? Front of package labeling really came to a head back in 2009. And it's actually quite a delight to share this with you, Kelly, because you and I were doing some research around it at the time. So, what played out then is a labeling system was introduced called Smart Choices. At its face, it seemed to make sense, right? It was going to be a check mark that was going to be put on products that were deemed to be healthy as a smart choice. So, a consumer could look at that and select something they wanted to eat that was relatively healthy. The reality is when that labeling system came out, it was on Fudgesicles and it was on Cookie Crisp cereal, and there was a lot of kind of concern about whether this type of labeling system was systematically problematic and was going to mislead consumers. And at that time, Kelly, I was a grad student at the Rudd Center and you really taught me quite a bit about how to make things happen and how to have a public health impact. Because we were quite concerned about that system, we actually did a study where we randomly sampled 100 products from Smart Choices and we applied an objective nutrition standard - an algorithm to score those products. What we found is that 64% of those Smart Choices products would not meet healthy by this objective nutrition standard. And so, you had the vision to reach out to the New York Times and alert the media to this. And we started to see a lot of kind of concerning reports in the media, like Smart Choices, what's going on? This doesn't seem very smart. We had done this little bit of science, and then at the Rudd Center, you had reached out to the attorney general of Connecticut at the time, Dick Blumenthal, who was quite interested in consumer protection issues and worked a lot on tobacco. And he took this up as a real public health champion to say this is concerning, we have some of this science, and he came out and threatened legal investigation into that program. What was so remarkable to see in that story, particularly for me as a grad student, was wow you can get these different actors coming together, right? Some of that media attention, science playing the role it needs to play, a public health champion who can really make a difference in the attorney general, and all of that can come together and this program literally halted, they stopped it. And I should say, that was a great public health victory. But immediately after that, the Institute of Medicine, so now the National Academy of Medicine, was charged with writing two reports on front of package labeling. And they came out with one that was focused on the nutrition criteria that should underlie a system like that, and one about the design of the label. And they had some great recommendations, very consistent with what you and I have seen in the science, right? It needs to be accessible, simple, easy to understand. Well, what ended up happening is not much. The industry at that point then released their voluntary labeling system that they call Facts Up Front, which is what we have to this day. And as you might imagine, it has percentages and it has grams and milligrams and it's confusing, and they can also highlight positive nutrients on there. So you can have a Cookie Crisp cereal that's also touting the amount of fiber, the amount of protein. And so that's really what we've been stuck with. It's now only over a decade later that we are at this moment where we're finally seeing this progress, and we're at a place where we might get a labeling system that does a really good job of communicating this information to the consumer. I guess one sort of ironic form of evidence that such a system is likely to really help consumers make decisions is how hard the industry has fought against having such a system. And not to mention the science that exists suggesting that these things might be helpful. A lot of activity has occurred outside the US. Can you describe some of that? Over 40 countries have front of package labeling systems. Now, some are mandatory, some are voluntary. The mandatory ones, as you might imagine, produce better effects. They range. And many of them are designed really well. So, let's take some of the best examples. Chile, for example, has warning labels that alert consumers to whether products are high in saturated fat, sugars, sodium, and calories, and those symbols are designed in a very intuitive way. They're stop sign shaped, so they really leverage the automatic associations consumers have. They're prominent, they're black, they stand out from the packaging. And these well-designed labels, we now have evidence from scientific evaluations that they're producing effects, right? They're leading consumers to purchase less of these unhealthy nutrients. They're also leading to some reformulation. And by that, I mean the industry is trying to figure out, 'well, can we lower the sodium, so we don't get one of those labels?' The other thing that I think is often overlooked with labeling but is so important is once you decide to label the food supply and you have an agreed upon system, that can support other policies. And that's what we see in Chile as well. Now all of a sudden, you can't market foods with these warning labels to kids, right? And you can't sell those foods with these warning labels to kids in schools. So, it really has even a broader impact than just the behavior change you see from the labeling, and so many other countries have followed suit. Mexico has a very similar labeling system. One thing that they've learned from Chile is, and this is a concern, that as the industry brings down the levels of sugar, for example, in foods in response to labeling, they're increasing the levels of non-sugar sweeteners, right? Things like Sucralose or Stevia or monk fruit, and so that's a worry. Mexico has, in addition, also labeled those non-sugar sweeteners on the food packaging. And then you see other examples. France has a really nice system. It's called Nutri-Score. Very intuitive. There are letter grades. I myself had the chance to go to France. I was trying to buy some turkey for my son. I don't speak a bit of French, and I'm standing in the supermarket and I just see the letter grade A and I think, oh, okay, I'll pick that one.   Great, great example. Yes, very intuitive systems around the world. So, are there studies showing which of these systems work and what sort of effects they have? And I know you've done additional work beyond what you mentioned earlier. Absolutely, and there are a whole range of studies, whether they're randomized controlled trials, lab studies, or online experiments. And then the more compelling, convincing evidence, which comes from natural experiments that are done around the globe, or even research we have from stores that have voluntary implemented these labels and we can look at changes in sales data. And what all that boils down to is labeling will produce behavioral effects. They will get people to purchase healthier foods, they will get people to purchase less of the unhealthy foods. Labels inform consumers, which I think is kind of the first order goal, right? Like let's just make sure people understand what's in the food supply, and then we see this reformulation. And that's been true, even if you look back to trans fat labeling, like requiring trans fat on the labels was also associated with trans fat coming out of the food supply. So, I think we can feel really good and solid that labeling can help people make healthier choices. And as anyone who's worked on issues related to chronic diseases, we're going to need a suite of policies, right? Labels are never going to be the silver bullet. They're not designed to be, but it's a policy that makes a lot of sense. It's a very cost effective policy. It's not very expensive to do labeling, and it can help support many other policies that might produce bigger effects. So, given the different options, the different kind of systems that have been proposed or are out there in use, do you have a sense of what ultimately might be the best system? I think the FDA has some good options in front of them. Now, if I were to wave a magic wand, I would do warning labels. I would make them more similar to what's done in Chile, just because we have good evidence that warnings in particular, and these kinds of symbols like a stop sign, are probably going to be more effective at educating consumers and shaping behavior. Now, that being said, we have some unique legal challenges in the US for getting a system like that. The FDA is proposing, I think, a totally reasonable, science-based label that essentially would have what it's high in and then indicate whether it's high in added sugar or saturated fat or sodium. I would love to see that label also have some sort of icons, some eye-catching exclamation point or something like that, but that label is great, it's a great option. Let's compare it now to what the industry is pushing for, which is basically what we have now, facts upfront. And as I said earlier, this is a label that has percent daily values, that has grams, that has milligrams, that can highlight positive nutrients that are going to appear on unhealthy foods. I think when you look at those two options, it's just a no-brainer to go with this very simple, very straightforward, high-end label that lists the nutrients and let's put some sort of icon on it. So are you optimistic about where things might go? Well, I'm a glass half full kind of person. I would say yes, I try to be very optimistic, but I think there's reason to be. I think we have some good options on the table, FDA is moving forward, research is being done, scientists and others are highly engaged in this process and giving feedback to FDA. And so many other countries have done this. So yes, I am feeling optimistic. So at the end of the day, a lot of this will come down to how much the FDA can resist pressure from the food industry. Right, so many things in food policy do come down to that. That's really true. So true. It's interesting, one of the things that you highlighted, but I'd like to even bring a little more attention to is the issue of the industry reformulating its products so that they don't have to show these negative labels. That's such a potentially powerful public health consequence of this, that it needs to be focused on even more. I'm hoping the valuations are being done of the impact of that on public health. Because you can make an argument, couldn't you, that if these labels don't affect the purchasing behavior of a single individual, they still could have enormous public health benefit just because of the reformulation, do you agree? Oh, 100%. Yes, absolutely. I would even argue that we have very few mechanisms to hold industry accountable, and to me is just a fundamental right of consumers. Like they have the right to know, there needs to be transparency, and great that they are likely to produce behavior change and great that they are likely to make the industry reformulate, but I just feel like that there's so many reasons to do labeling that it just feels like an obvious policy to pursue. Hopefully, any system that comes into place can be nimble as much as they can be in these government regulations to take into account new science that occurs. Like at some point, maybe a symbol that notes whether a product is ultra processed would be in order, or as you said, in France, I think it was, where they've labeled the addition of the artificial sweeteners. Was it France or was it another place? Mexico. Yes. That's right. Okay. Yeah, thanks for clearing that up. Something like that might enter the system, so having a system that can adjust to the science as it goes forward would be really important too. Kelly, it's such an important point. I think part of any labeling strategy needs to be monitoring and evaluation, and particularly with the non-sugar substitutes. Like right now, we don't know, it's a very hard thing to track. It's only on the ingredient list. We can't quantify how much is in the food supply. And so I would love to see coupled with labeling some way that that gets disclosed so we can really monitor and ensure how that might be changing in the food supply over time and evaluate, to your point, what's happening in terms of reformulation. As an aside, we've done a cluster of podcasts on the influence of these artificial sweeteners and the sugar substitutes and the available science on this, on what goes on in the brain, what happens to the microbiome, the impact of health overall is really concerning, so I totally agree with you that having that information disclosed could be really helpful. Yes, 100%.     BIO Christina A. Roberto, PhD is the Mitchell J. Blutt and Margo Krody Blutt Presidential Associate Professor of Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also an Associate Director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE) at Penn. Dr. Roberto is a psychologist and epidemiologist who studies policies and interventions to promote healthy eating habits and help create a more equitable and just food system. In her work, she draws upon the fields of psychology, behavioral economics, epidemiology, and public health to answer research questions that provide policymakers and institutions with science-based guidance. Dr. Roberto earned a joint-PhD at Yale University in Clinical psychology and Chronic Disease Epidemiology. Dr. Roberto completed her clinical internship at the Yale School of Medicine and was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholar at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

A generation ago, food marketing to kids was found mostly in two places: Saturday morning cartoons and the cereal aisle. No more. Children are now targeted throughout the grocery store, on billboards, product placements and, most dangerously, on digital media. Jane and Liz talk to Jennifer Harris of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health and Charlene Elliott of the University of Calgary to understand how the problem has exploded, in particular for tweens and teens, who are now believed to be even more vulnerable to advertising messages than young children.  Further Resources: More than a Nuisance: Implications of Food Marketing for Public Health Efforts to Curb Childhood Obesity (Annual Review of Public Health) Food marketing to teenagers: Examining the power and platforms of food and beverage marketing in Canada (Appetite) Tracking teen food marketing: Participatory research to examine persuasive power and platforms of exposure (Appetite) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our latest podcast, host and Master Sommelier Christopher Tanghe speaks with the wine writer and educator Karen MacNeil about the state of wine education today. They cover trends, strategies, innovative approaches, the future of wine education, certifications, and much more. Karen MacNeil is a wine writer and educator who is best known for her award-winning book, The Wine Bible, now in its third edition. Karen is an instructor at Stanford University's Continuing Studies program and the creator of the Culinary Institute of America's Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies. She leads events and tastings for companies and individual groups around the world. Karen's digital newsletter, Wine Speed, offers fast, authoritative information on wine. If you enjoy this episode, please leave us a review to support the show. Cheers!

For a Connecticut family of four, it costs over $126,000 just to meet their basic needs, according to a recent United Way report. That's more than four times the federal poverty level. Food insecurity is a big part of the problem, affecting more than 1 in 10 Connecticut residents, according to Connecticut Foodshare. A new report from the United States Department of Agriculture found the national rate of food insecurity jumped by more than 2% from 2021 to 2022, now 12.8% of U.S. households. This hour, UConn's Dr. Caitlin Caspi joins us to address some of the misconceptions around food insecurity. "Food insecurity isn't happening in a vacuum," she says. "It's really intersecting with a lot of other challenges that people face," including stable housing, health insurance, job security, disability, and other factors. "Food insecurity isn't primarily a story about food," says Dr. Caspi. "It's about many facets of economic instability." Plus, we'll discuss some of Connecticut Foodshare's efforts to address food insecurity where we live, including an income-based grocery store coming soon to Hartford, where food insecurity rates are highest in the state. Hartford High School just launched the Grub Pub, an in-school pantry. Principal Flora Padro joins us later in the hour, describing the "new normal" she envisions. GUESTS: Dr. Caitlin Caspi: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut's Department of Allied Health Sciences; Director of Food Security Initiatives, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health Jason Jakubowski: President & CEO, Connecticut Foodshare Ben Dubow: Executive Director, Forge City Works Flora Padro: Principal, Hartford High School Cat Pastor contributed to this episode which originally aired October 26, 2023. Where We Live is available as a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, TuneIn, Listen Notes, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe and never miss an episode.Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For a Connecticut family of four, it costs over $126,000 just to meet their basic needs, according to a recent United Way report. That's more than four times the federal poverty level. Food insecurity is a big part of the problem, affecting more than 1 in 10 Connecticut residents, according to Connecticut Foodshare. A new report from the United States Department of Agriculture found the national rate of food insecurity jumped by more than 2% from 2021 to 2022, now 12.8% of U.S. households. This hour, UConn's Dr. Caitlin Caspi joins us to address some of the misconceptions around food insecurity. "Food insecurity isn't happening in a vacuum," she says. "It's really intersecting with a lot of other challenges that people face," including stable housing, health insurance, job security, disability, and other factors. "Food insecurity isn't primarily a story about food," says Dr. Caspi. "It's about many facets of economic instability." Plus, we'll discuss some of Connecticut Foodshare's efforts to address food insecurity where we live, including an income-based grocery store coming soon to Hartford, where food insecurity rates are highest in the state. Hartford High School just launched the Grub Pub, an in-school pantry. Principal Flora Padro joins us later in the hour, describing the "new normal" she envisions. GUESTS: Dr. Caitlin Caspi: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut's Department of Allied Health Sciences; Director of Food Security Initiatives, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health Jason Jakubowski: President & CEO, Connecticut Foodshare Ben Dubow: Executive Director, Forge City Works Flora Padro: Principal, Hartford High School Cat Pastor contributed to this episode which originally aired October 26, 2023.Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Powdered drink mixes that are widely promoted as “toddler milks” for older babies and children up to age 3 are unregulated, unnecessary, and “nutritionally incomplete,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) warned October 20. The drinks, which are touted to parents on TikTok, in television ads, and on other sites, often contain added sugar and salt. The manufacturers make unproven claims that the drinks boost kids' brains or immune systems, said Dr. George Fuchs, a member of the AAP's nutrition committee, which released the new report. Formula industry officials said the toddler drinks could be useful for filling “nutrition gaps” in kids' diets. But Fuchs said older babies and toddlers should be given a balanced diet of solid foods, as well as breast milk, fortified whole cow's milk, and water after age 1. Infant formula is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and must meet certain nutrition requirements as a replacement for human milk for babies up to 12 months. The facilities where infant formula is made are regularly inspected. There are no federal regulations governing milk drink mixes for older babies and toddlers. Also, toddler drinks are different than medical formulas prescribed for specific conditions, such as heart disease or problems digesting certain foods. Why are health experts concerned? Fuchs and other experts point to the lack of common standards for toddler milks, which means the ingredients vary widely among brands. Most contain added sugar and are targeted toward children who are at the age when they could develop a lasting taste for sweets, possibly leading to obesity and other diseases. “It could be called the gateway sugary drink,” said Frances Fleming-Milici, director of marketing initiatives and a research professor with the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health at the University of Connecticut. Toddler milks are widely advertised, and sales have soared in recent years, from $39 million in 2006 to $92 million in 2015, according to a 2020 study. Fleming-Milici said companies promote these products in a way that may lead parents to believe the drinks are nutritionally necessary. "They look a lot like infant formula,” she said. “Parents really trust the formula they use for their children.” This article was provided by The Associated Press.

For a Connecticut family of four, it costs over $126,000 just to meet their basic needs, according to a recent United Way report. That's more than four times the federal poverty level. Food insecurity is a big part of the problem, affecting more than 1 in 10 Connecticut residents, according to Connecticut Foodshare. A new report from the United States Department of Agriculture found the national rate of food insecurity jumped by more than 2% from 2021 to 2022, to 12.8%. This hour, UConn's Dr. Caitlin Caspi joins us to address some of the misconceptions around food insecurity. "Food insecurity isn't happening in a vacuum," she says. "It's really intersecting with a lot of other challenges that people face," including stable housing, health insurance, job security, disability, and other factors. "Food insecurity isn't primarily a story about food," says Dr. Caspi. "It's about many facets of economic instability." Plus, we'll discuss some of Connecticut Foodshare's efforts to address food insecurity where we live, including an income-based grocery store coming soon to Hartford, where food insecurity rates are highest in the state. Hartford High School just launched the Grub Pub, an in-school pantry. Principal Flora Padro joins us later in the hour, describing the "new normal" she envisions. GUESTS: Dr. Caitlin Caspi: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut's Department of Allied Health Sciences; Director of Food Security Initiatives, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health Jason Jakubowski: President & CEO, Connecticut Foodshare Ben Dubow: Executive Director, Forge City Works Flora Padro: Principal, Hartford High School Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Frances Fleming, Director of Marketing Initiatives at Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, tells us how Fast Food brands market to us and why they are so good at marketing to children. RUOK with bugs? How about oysters? Ryan has found the best goal song in the history of hockey, and he plays it for us on the Millennial on the Radio. HEY, DO YOU LIKE PODCASTS? Why not subscribe to ours? Find it on Apple, Google, Spotify & Tune In

Governor Lamont recently signed legislation to extend Connecticut's free school lunch program through the academic year, with a $60 million price tag. Today, we talk about what free lunches mean for students. How will they benefit, what are the costs? Marlene Schwarts of UConn joins us. She says students should never have to worry about being hungry at school. The USDA recently announced new standards for nutrition in schools, including eliminating trans fats, and lowering sugar and sodium content in school lunches. Healthier lunches means increased costs in a time where we are already seeing food shortages and increased costs in labor. GUESTS: Lonnie Burt: Senior Director of Food & Child Nutrition Services at Hartford Public Schools Marlene Schwartz: Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health at UConn Dr. Melissa Santos: Division Chief of Pediatric Psychology and Clinical Director for Pediatric Obesity at Connecticut Children's Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We talk about weight stigma in kids with Rebecca Puhl, professor and researcher at the University of Connecticut and Deputy Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health.  Get full show notes and information here: https://thenourishedchild.com/177.

In this episode of the Vint Podcast,  Brady and Billy interview Tim Gaiser, Master Sommelier, musician, and author of an upcoming book titled "Message in the Bottle: A Guide to Wine Tasting". Tim has extensive experience across many areas of the fine wine world, including previous roles as the Education Director for the Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas, and adjunct professor for the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America at Greystone in Napa Valley. Aside from his passion for teaching about wine and wine tasting for quality, Tim is an accomplished musician and received an M.A. in Classical Music from the University of Michigan. We hope this episode will pull back the curtain on how wine professionals taste wine to assess quality, and some of the nitty-gritty on the philosophy of sensory experience and memory around wine tasting.  We'll release information about Tim and his upcoming book at the links below:Tim's WebsiteTim's Book (Link Coming Soon)Cheers!Contact us anytime at brady@vint.co or billy@vint.co

Lisa joined by Karen MacNeil who talks about the third edition of The Wine Bible  which has long been the most enlightening, comprehensive, and entertaining wine guide on the market—with over 800,000 copies in print, it is the bestselling wine book in America. And now it is completely revised and updated. Hailed as “America's missionary of the vine” (Time), MacNeil is considered one of only a handful of experts with a global command of wine. THE WINE BIBLE, 3RD EDITION (Workman Publishing; October 11, 2022) brims with MacNeil's knowledge and passion for the subject while artful, evocative descriptions bring each wine to life.  MacNeil delves into the history, food, wineries, and flavors of each region. At more than 700 pages, new content includes:  400+ new photos, all in color for the first time!New chapters on Great Britain, Croatia, and IsraelGreatly enlarged and updated chapters on France, Italy, Australia, South America, and the United States, along with fully updated chapters on Germany, Spain, China, and JapanA new chapter on Wine in the Ancient WorldNew fully revised Great Wines sections for each country and region, based on tasting more than 8,000 wines during the research for this edition   A greatly expanded Grape Glossary of more than 400 grapes, along with an unequaled Wine Word Dictionary of wine terms in French, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Hungarian, and GreekFood sections for all the major wine regions, with explanations of historic food and wine pairings for those regionsA fully updated Mastering Wine section with the latest research on taste and smellComplete chapters on how wine is made and how vines are grown around the world Plus: choosing great glassware, the best way to store wine, the ten questions all wine drinkers ask, and so much more! THE WINE BIBLE, 3RD EDITION offers the ultimate education in wine from one of the most renowned experts of our time. Complete with all-new full-color photographs and brimming with the most up-to-date information the wine world has to offer, it will inspire and educate every reader, be they new to wine or a longtime enthusiast.ABOUT THE AUTHOROne of the foremost wine experts in the United States, Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English Language. In a full-page profile on her, Time magazine called Karen, “America's Missionary of the Vine.” Karen is the author of the award-winning book THE WINE BIBLE, the single bestselling wine book in the United States, with more than 800,000 copies sold. She is the creator and editor of WineSpeed, the top digital newsletter in wine in the United States. Known for her passion and unique style, she conducts seminars and presentations for corporate clients worldwide. The former wine correspondent for the Today show on NBC, Karen was also the host of the PBS series Wine, Food & Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. And finally, Karen is the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America, which has been called the “Harvard of wine education. ” More information is available at karenmacneil.com.

Karen MacNeil's The Wine Bible has long been the most enlightening, comprehensive, and entertaining wine guide on the market—with over 800,000 copies in print, it is the bestselling wine book in America. And now it is completely revised and updated. Hailed as “America's missionary of the vine” (Time), MacNeil is considered one of only a handful of experts with a global command of wine. ABOUT THE AUTHOR One of the foremost wine experts in the United States, Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English Language. In a full-page profile on her, Time magazine called Karen, “America's Missionary of the Vine.” Karen is the author of the award-winning book THE WINE BIBLE, the single bestselling wine book in the United States, with more than 800,000 copies sold. She is the creator and editor of WineSpeed, the top digital newsletter in wine in the United States. Known for her passion and unique style, she conducts seminars and presentations for corporate clients worldwide. The former wine correspondent for the Today show on NBC, Karen was also the host of the PBS series Wine, Food & Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. And finally, Karen is the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America, which has been called the “Harvard of wine education. ” More information is available at karenmacneil.com. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tntbsmedia/message

“Just like the classic metaphor of the frog in the pan of boiling water, it doesn't happen overnight, it's a lifelong thing,” says Dr. Michael Goran, Professor of Pediatrics and Program Director for Nutrition and Obesity at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. Adult issues such as weight gain, cardiovascular disease, Type II diabetes, are most often formed by poor childhood eating habits, most notably the excess consumption of sugar. The only problem is, sugar is practically in everything. Food manufacturing companies know that children's palates especially favor sweet tastes because they are primed to crave the naturally sweet taste of breast milk. Worse, loopholes in standards set by agencies like the Food and Drug Administration allow certain amounts of sugar present in food to go unaccounted for. Food packaging features ambiguous language like “no sugar added,” to suggest a lack of sugar, or emphasizes that a food is made with fruit juice concentrate, or brown rice syrup, when those alternatives can actually be more harmful than plain sugar.    So, what is the answer? Dr. Goran urges that though sugar can clinically be classified as an addictive substance, there is no need to go cold turkey. Instead, we can mitigate the intake of sugar and introduce healthy habits starting pre-birth, where mothers can avoid growing “sugar babies” by passing sugar to the baby in utero, via “secondhand sugar.” Just as crucial is the period between ages zero to five, when the majority of brain development occurs, and a child's lifelong threshold and craving for sugar are formed. Lowering intake early helps prevent health problems later in life, from acne to heart failure.    Join us as Sasha presents Dr. Goran with a series of myths raised in his book “Sugarproof: The Hidden Dangers of Sugar That are Putting Your Child's Health at Risk and What You Can Do,” and learn the steps you can take to navigate this real-life Candyland. Quotes • “You know those two-pound bags of sugar that you can buy at the grocery store? The average adult eats one of those every five days.” (13:10-13:21 | Dr. Goran) • “The food industry has kind of got us tricked because some of the newer sugars like fruit-based sweeteners, the fruit juice concentrate. Sounds pretty good? But what if I told you it's even higher in fructose than high fructose corn syrup?” (15:45-16:08 | Dr. Goran) • “We're consuming more liquid sugar. If you think about raising kids historically, generations ago, it was water or milk. Now, we have fruit juice, energy drinks, all kinds of flavored drinks.  (18:50-19:08 | Dr. Goran) • “If you really want to avoid the pushback you think you might get, start small. Say, ‘OK, this calls for a cup of sugar,' take 20 percent out of that one cup. Then next time take a quarter out, then 30 percent.” (41:25-41:42 | Dr. Goran) • “With kids, there is some semblance of a blank slate, although they do have that innate preference, they don't know how sweet something is “supposed to be.” (42:14-42:25 | Sasha) • “When you start to implement these same type of sugar proof practices, in being mindful of how much sugar or the type of sugar versus natural that you're putting in your foods, you're creating a palate for your children.” (43:01-43:18 | Sasha)   Stats • “Babies have an innate preference for sweet flavors, as breast milk is naturally sweet and contains a sugar called lactose.” (0:13-0:20 | Sasha) • “70% of all foods and 80% of snacks for kids contain some kind of sugar.” (0:28-0:35 | Sasha) • “98% of toddlers and 60% of infants are consuming added sugars on any given day, because nearly every product designed for their age group is sweet.” (0:36-49 | Sasha)  • “This industry spends $10 billion per year advertising to children; $500 million is allotted for sugary drinks alone.” (1:16-1:27 | Sasha) • “A recent report from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that in 2017, 86% of television advertising on programs targeted to African Americans, and 82% of ads on programs targeted to Hispanics were focused on junk food, sugary drinks, and other high-sugar snacks and candy.” (1:43-2:05 | Sasha) • “The USDA dietary guidelines have now come out with a recommendation which is zero added sugars for infants zero to two years of age. So the US Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines for healthy Americans recognizes that we should avoid healthy sugars, but if you have added sugar in formula it doesn't count, according to the USDA.” (30:14-30:49 | Dr. Goran)  • “Added sugar, technically, according to the FDA,  is sugar that's added to a food during processing.” (34:03-34:10 | Dr. Goran) • “90% of brain development occurs in the first five years of life so what is fed, what the brain is nourished upon during those years is very critical.” (1:00:20-1:00:31 | Dr. Goran) • “So, if we look at subclinical markers, the studies show too much sugar is associated with elevations in those subclinical markers, starting quite early in life. So children may not have childhood Type II diabetes, or fatty liver disease, or cardiovascular disease yet, but they will have subclinical risk that will gradually build up over time.” (1:02:31-1:02:09 | Dr. Goran) Notable links:   Connect with Dr. Michael Goran: Website: www.sugarproofkids.com   *** “Sugarproof: The Hidden Dangers of Sugar That Are Putting Your Child's Health At Risk And What You Can Do” is available at all bookstores and on Amazon.   IG and FB: @sugarproofkids Twitter: @michaelgoran Subscribe to our Mailing List: www.TheOfficialMomologist.com   Connect with The Momologist™: https://www.instagram.com/theofficialmomologist/ https://www.facebook.com/TheOfficialMomologist   ------   The Momologist™ is a production of The Reel Media Group.  For inquiries, please email: contact@thereelmediagroup.com

On today's episode of Kids Can! brought to you by Action for Healthy Kids, Rob sits down with the inspiring Marlene Schwartz, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Marlene is a vital leader and contributor to our understanding of food, nutrition, and diet issues. She joins Rob to discuss her thoughts on some of the challenges around summer feeding programs for children, weight bias and stigma, as well as touching on nutrition policies at a district and school level. So press play and join us for an inspirational episode of Kids Can!, brought to you by Action For Healthy Kids.Follow Us Online!Twitter @Act4HlthyKidsInstagram @act4healthykids Facebook @Act4HealthyKids Presented by Action For Healthy Kidswww.actionforhealthykids.org

Today on the first of three episodes dealing with weight discrimination in the workplace, we're pleased to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Puhl. Dr. Puhl is Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at UConn. She has testified in state legislative hearings on weight bias, routinely provides expertise to state and national health organizations, and has developed evidence-based training programs to reduce weight bias that have been implemented in medical facilities across the country. She and host Phil Wagner discuss how to identify weight stigma, how best to promote health at every size, what workplaces can do to be more inclusive for people of varying sizes, and more. If you'd like to follow William & Mary's School of Business or learn more about the Diversity and Inclusion podcast and our programs, please visit us at www.mason.wm.edu.

On this week's episode of the podcast, General Gross chats with Marlene Schwartz, Ph.D, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at UConn. Dr. Schwartz talks about the Center's research work on nutrition and early childhood development, how child nutrition has changed in recent years, and her work on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Food Bank.

Well-intended strategies to help overweight kids shed pounds often backfire. New research says there's a better way.  Guests: Katie Loth is an assistant professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Minnesota. Rebecca Puhl is a professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut. 

According to a study by the University of Connecticut's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that companies target marketing for nutritionally poor foods directly to Black and LatinX youth, exacerbating health disparities. To address this problem, The Vida Agency (TVA),  founded by Amalia Martino, was selected to lead a bilingual campaign to reach Black and LatinX youth within Seattle. The “Be Ready. Be Hydrated”/“Prepárate. Hidrátate” campaign promoted water, as an alternative to sugary-sweetened beverages within an urban lifestyle shared through digital and social media.With our youth coalition and community partners, TVA ensured that BIPOC youth saw their campaign in the streets as much as online. 

Today, we're exploring the intricate relationship among African-American politicians, civil rights organizations, communities and the fast food industry. We're talking with Dr. Marcia Chatelain, Professor of History and African-American Studies at Georgetown University. She is the author of a fascinating new book entitled, "Franchise: The Golden Arches in Black America." Interview Summary Well, let's begin with this question. Can you tell us about your book Franchise, and why did you believe the story needed to be told? Well, when I was in graduate school working on my dissertation, which would become my first book, I became more and more interested in issues around the food system and food justice. The film "Super Size Me" had come out while I was in graduate school. And I became more curious about some of the issues around health and nutrition, particularly the disparities along racial lines in terms of access to fast food, as well as marketing and fast food. And as a historian, one of the things I noticed in a lot of the conversations, is that public health practitioners and advocates for healthy eating, rarely contextualized the problems in our food system historically. There was a common sense understanding that some groups of people didn't have access, and some groups of people were more susceptible to diet related diseases, but I didn't hear enough people asking, well, how did we get here? And so with franchise, what I really wanted to think about were the ways that McDonald's, as the leading fast food brand, really pivoted from being a presence in mostly white suburban communities for the first two and a half decades of its existence, to one that became such a presence in African-American communities. And so I wanted to historicize the problems we see today in terms of access to food. Before you tell us what you found in your historical research, can you tell us how you developed resources for the book? Oh, thank you for asking that question. As a historian, I love to talk about sources. You know, when I started "Franchise," the first thing I did was I called McDonald's, and they have an archivist and their own research entity, like a library, and I contacted them and I said, you know, "I'm a researcher and I'm interested in this history. Can I have access to your archives?" And they said, "No," which I expected. And so what I started to do is to think really creatively about the various places in which McDonald's first tried to enter African-American communities, and to think about the leadership of various black organizations during the time. So I started to look outside of the traditional sources for business history and for fast food history. And by centering African-American communities, I found a treasure trove of resources about McDonald's marketing strategies from the 1960s and how they started to engage with black consumers. I have a question about marketing in particular I'd like to ask you, but I'll loop back to that, but let's tell our listeners what you found mainly in your research. So, essentially what happens is that McDonald's is founded by the McDonald's brother in 1940. And they develop as a Southern California brand, alongside other fast food businesses. But it wasn't until Ray Kroc creates the McDonald's system that we know today. Franchises become the way that McDonald's grows in the 1950s and we start to see McDonald's confronting the reality of America's racial climate, such as confrontations over segregation in the South at McDonald's restaurants. And then, this period in 1968 shortly after Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, is when McDonald's is starting to pivot to African-American neighborhoods because some white franchise owners no longer want to do business in increasingly black communities. This is when the Nixon administration is encouraging something that they are calling black capitalism and is trying to promote black business ownership in black communities. And leaders of the civil rights organizations are trying to determine what their identities and interventions will be after King. And a number of people who were very much formed by that mid-century civil rights struggle start to think about black economic empowerment and development as the next phase. And so all of these forces kind of come together to create an environment in which the fast food industry can capitalize on federal funds and support from the civil rights establishment as well. And the black consumer market is hungering for inclusion in some of the mainstream marketplaces that McDonald's represents. Over the years, people, especially the Rudd Center, has done research on targeted marketing of things like fast food and sugar beverages and cereals to people in different demographic groups. And they found a considerable amount of targeted marketing. And there's been kind of a mix of outrage and lack of surprise on this. Some of the lack of surprise comes from people who better understand the history, like you're talking about. They will say things like, “you know, there was a time when communities of color were ignored entirely by establishment companies, in both the products they were selling, in their portfolio and also in their marketing, and it actually came as a welcome change when the community started being paid attention to.” But in the context of your work, does that all fit? Absolutely. So what happened prior to the late 1960s is reminiscent of some of the conversations that were had after the George Floyd summer in 2020, in terms of how far do corporate commitments to inclusion go. How do we think about business as a lever for social change? And so while there had been companies that were marketing to African-Americans throughout the early 20th century, especially during the Great Migration, with the urbanization of African-American communities and a recognition of buying power in those communities, it wasn't until the late 1960s where you start to see that kind of market segmentation with the specialized advertising, featuring African-American models or celebrities. This is a period in time in which you were seeing the growth of African-American public television programming, shows like Soul! and Black Journal, that are really trying to speak to the concerns of African-Americans. And so after '68, you start to see this incredible creative industry that is built around marketing to black consumers. And for the first time, it isn't just commercials that were once designed for white people, and then there are a few black people in the commercials, these are commercials that are trying to really touch upon black cultural markers. So it sounds like this movement of fast food, led by McDonald's, into the communities of color was welcome, because what it represented, both in terms of economic development, and then attention being paid to the communities. Absolutely, and I think it's really a double-edged sword, because on one hand, people are desirous of this type of inclusion. And it is being sold to communities as this great economic opportunity for people to build wealth, to create jobs, to create community. But the hindsight of 50 years has shown us that all of these things come at an incredibly high price. And in the book, I really like to focus on the varying reactions to what kind of presence McDonald's should be in black communities. You know, in places in Chicago, people embraced this idea, and community groups actually tried to acquire franchises so they could reinvest in the community. But in other places, people were skeptical of the kind of corporate-social responsibility talk about diversity that McDonald's was developing the language for throughout the 1970s. And I think the backdrop for all of these conversations and all of these struggles is: can business ever really fully deliver on the promises of racial justice? And I think that the answer is no, because it always comes at such heavy costs to the most vulnerable communities. I'm expecting that the number of owners of franchises of color has increased over the years. Has that had an impact on the company and the way it does its business? Well, this is a really fascinating point you raised in this moment. So over the summer, McDonald's was sued by more than 50 former African-American franchise owners. And there's a current lawsuit of a current franchise owner, Herb Washington. And they claim that McDonald's has had a series of policies and behaviors that are racially discriminatory, and that has led to fewer black franchise owners. And so at its peak, it was a little over 300. Now it may be in the 150s, but part of this process of getting African-Americans to franchise McDonald's was successful, in the sense that, throughout the 70s and 80s, you see the building of economic power among this group of franchise owners. And they take a lot of their profits, and they become incredibly generous with historically black colleges and universities. They prompted McDonald's to start celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. They are the driving force behind some of McDonald's diversity initiatives within its corporate headquarters, which it was lauded for throughout the 80s and 90s. But these types of changes are sustainable to a point. They are corporate activities that, ultimately, shut out the people who, again, are most needing structural change, and that's the black and brown workers who are working at the fry stations, who are making burgers, who are ensuring that people get fed in the stores. They're very much cut out of this vision as a force for good for racial justice. Now, I'm going to ask you a question that's more economic in nature. Here's the context. With programs like SNAP, where vast amounts of money are flowing out from Washington into communities, so people have food assistance that they really need desperately, there's concern that too little of that money remains in communities, that it just flows through, as people might leave the neighborhoods to go to places like Walmart or Kroger to buy their foods. And so there's a real missed opportunity for economic development going on. What do you think about McDonald's? Do you have any sense of how much of that money remains in the communities? Tell me what you think about that. Well, this is an interesting place in which you see the operation of race in the context of a multinational corporation. So one of the reasons why this lawsuit emerged last year and there were different versions of similar lawsuits and similar claims, since the early 1970s, that McDonald's essentially restricts African-American business people to doing work in hyper-segregated neighborhoods. And this is important, because part of the sell of this idea in '68 was that black franchise owners would be like local business people, right? They know the community, they're connected, they're invested, they'll employ people that they know in the community and it'll have great rewards. But part of that strategy means that there has to be a level of exclusion of those business people from expanding into white neighborhoods or neighborhoods with different racial backgrounds. And part of the argument that black franchise owners make is, the name of the game is volume. And so for us to really keep up with our white peers, we should be able to get a whole bunch of stores in different types of neighborhoods, with different types of operating costs, and we could really profit from it, but McDonald's, they alleged, keeps them from doing that. And so when you talk about local impact and local dollars, one of the problems of fast food is that a good portion of the revenue goes way out past the community, because after you talk about the low wage jobs that it provides, and maybe some of the philanthropic efforts, on the local level, a good portion of profits are going to franchising fees, back to the national headquarters. A good portion of the advertising fund that franchisees have to pay into are going to advertising firms in Chicago and New York City and Los Angeles, that aren't necessarily in the local communities. And the supply chain that fast food relies upon are from vendors and suppliers that are all over the nation, and unlikely to be locally sourced. And so this was one of the critiques in the 1970s, and I think the critique holds today, that fast food does not really circulate money in the local economy, because it is not a local small business, even though there's some aspects of franchising that might mirror that. That is fascinating. And so when one calculates the ultimate impact of a place like McDonald's on the community, there's the nutrition impact, to be sure. There's the loss potential for economic development within the community, but they're all the sorts of historical reasons that made this possible, and even desirable in the first place. But in your own mind, given that you've thought about this so thoroughly, how do you balance all of this? Well, I think that this is a cautionary tale about bad ideas, well-intentioned bad ideas, and the sense that we could rely on the private marketplace to mediate the problems of the public good caused by racism and inequality is not sound thinking, it's not sound policy. What it is, is a reflection that communities that are vulnerable are often given constrained choices for survival and for something that mirrors advancement. And so it's kind of strange to think that, in 1968, after all of the grief over the loss of Dr. King, and all of the unfinished business of the war on poverty, of the Johnson administration escalating war abroad, and poverty at home, how is fair housing going to be delivered? The failed promise of school integration. So you have a really, really long list of reasons why people are deeply aggrieved, and the solution comes, well, maybe people could open businesses? Maybe a franchise could come into your community? And this doesn't respond to any of the reasons why people were crying out in so much pain. And for me, it's really hard to see that playbook re-emerge in 2020. You know, in the middle of a global pandemic and a crisis of racial justice, you hear some of the similar things. I was just on a call recently, where someone said, you know, "After the George Floyd summer, we committed our company to more investment in black business." But the reality is that there are nearly 2 million black-owned businesses in the United States. Very few of them have the size, scale, or capacity to provide incredible jobs, and the volume of jobs necessary to really help rebuild communities. And so I think that, if anything, researching this book just made me more certain that big state solutions are the only ways we get on the other side of injustice, and that includes food injustice. Well, this has been fascinating. So let me end by asking a question about what we can learn from the history of fast food. So what do you think the fast food can teach us about food policy overall in the US, and how do you believe fast food has shaped the relationship to food? Well, I think that what we need is an end to what I would call passive subsidies for the industry. Because when we think about the fact that we can get this type of food so cheaply and so quickly, then we know that there's a series of public policy failures all along the road to it, whether it is subsidies on corn for high fructose corn syrup, whether it is the lack of a federal minimum wage that allows low wage work to continue, whether it's the fact that we have a lot of the smaller... McDonald's doesn't fit in this category anymore, but some of the smaller fast food franchises that are qualifying for small business loans. And as a result, this becomes a funnel for minority owned businesses, which are more likely to happen in hyper segregated communities. And so the incentives for opening other types of businesses are fewer than fast food. We have all of these reasons why this problem persists. And unfortunately, we live in a cultural context in which the people who consume the food are blamed for all of the problems and not the structures that allowed this food to become available. And so I think that if we really are serious about health and nutrition and all of the complicated issues associated with fast food, then we have to stop allowing fast food to set the tone of the way we live. A lot of people, when I was on the road for this book on my book tour, would say, you know, "This is why I advocate nutrition education or gardening," and all of these things. And I said, "These are great, but we have to ask questions about the quality of people's lives." All the access to fresh food doesn't matter if a person can't pay an electric bill and keep the refrigerator running. And all of the lessons about nutrition and how to prepare food mean nothing, if people are working multiple jobs and don't have time to prepare food. The reality is that fast food is a rational and reasonable choice for good portion of Americans, because of the quality of life that people are forced to have, because of poverty and being part of the working poor. And so if we are serious about this, then we need to not let fast food dictate the fact that consuming a lot of calories very quickly makes perfect sense in a culture that people are stretched so thin. Bio Marcia Chatelain is a Professor of History and African American Studies at Georgetown University. The author of South Side Girls: Growing up in the Great Migration (Duke University Press, 2015) she teaches about women's and girls' history, as well as black capitalism. Her latest book, Franchise: The Golden Arches in Black America (Liveright Publishing Co./W.W. Norton, 2020) examines the intricate relationship among African American politicians, civil rights organizations, communities, and the fast food industry. An active public speaker and educational consultant, Chatelain has received awards and honors from the Ford Foundation, the American Association of University Women, and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. At Georgetown, she has won several teaching awards. In 2016, the Chronicle of Higher Education named her a Top Influencer in academia in recognition of her social media campaign #FergusonSyllabus, which implored educators to facilitate discussions about the crisis in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. She has held an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellowship at New America, a National Endowment for the Humanities Faculty Fellowship, and an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship.  

It wasn't that long ago that there was a nutrition free-for-all in schools where sugary beverages, high calorie snack foods, and even things like pizzas and cheeseburgers direct from fast food chains were part of the food landscape in schools. What do you think the situation is today? Has it deteriorated even further? Has it improved or stayed about the same? Today's guest, Dr. Marlene Schwartz, is a champion for improved nutrition and physical activity in schools and one of the leading experts in the field. Schwartz is director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and professor of human development and family studies at the University of Connecticut. She's an expert on nutrition and physical activity policies in schools and preschools nationwide, and has collaborated in particular with the Connecticut Department of Education on their policies.   Interview Summary   Let me ask you about the food landscape in schools. When people generally think of this, they think of school breakfast, school lunch, but there's actually a lot more of the picture of food in schools than just this. And you've talked about this a lot. Can you help explain?   Sure. So the school meals are definitely the most visible aspect of school food. And when I first got into this work, I thought that was pretty much all there was. But once you go into the school, what you realize is that food is available from a lot of different sources. In the cafeteria, there is often food sold outside of the meal program that's called competitive foods. So those are snacks or other beverages. High schools often have schools stores where they can sell a whole variety of snacks and beverages. Schools also have vending machines that sell food. And then there are fundraisers that are often done during the school day where children can buy food. And then in addition to all the food that's sold, there's food that's simply given out in schools quite commonly, particularly at the elementary school level. There is a lot of food available during parties, birthday parties, holiday parties, as well as teachers who use food as a reward in the classroom. So once you go in and try to start changing school food, you realize that there are many, many different places that you have to try to influence.   So when you mention birthday parties and things, every child just has one once a year, and you wouldn't think it really adds up to a lot, but you've made a different argument. Tell us about that.   Well, I think that yes, parents think, "Well, my child only has one birthday a year." But of course your child is one out of 25 children in the classroom. And so my argument was really that you have to look at what's happening in the classroom overall over the course of a year. And I actually made a slide that showed all of the different holidays, all of the birthday parties that take place during the year, so that people could really see that when you started to count, there were parties happening pretty much every single week in elementary schools.   So returning to school meals, and the competitive foods, and things served a la carte and things in bending machines, how the heck did things get to be this way? I mean, were there federal, state, or local policies that permitted or even encouraged this? Were people making money? What made this happen?   It's really interesting to look into the history of competitive foods in schools. What I learned is that there are actually multiple layers of policies. And historically, the main policy was the federal policy, because the school meal programs are federal programs. But in the 1980s, the National Soft Drink Association, which is now known as the American Beverage Association, actually sued the federal government to make the case that they should not be allowed to regulate what was sold in schools outside of the school meals. And that was really the beginning of a very sort of troubled era, I would say, in the school food environment, because a lot of vending machines started going into the schools at that point, selling soft drinks. Companies even had something called pouring right contracts, which were essentially contracts with a particular brand, so Coke or Pepsi, where they would give the school money, they would provide the vending machines, and they would sell their products, and they would let the school have a cut of the profits. On the one hand, it helped the soft drink companies sell their product. They made some money from that. But I think what was probably more important to them is they got their brand in front of the students in that school. And the deal was you couldn't sell other brands of beverages.   I remember when we first started doing this work, I went to a high school in Connecticut, and I remember counting 13 vending machines as I was walking through the halls. So that was 13 times during the day, you know, children would be passing by that huge machine with the logo for that beverage company. There were really limited regulations during that era of what could be sold outside of the school meals. There was something called foods of minimal nutritional value, which was a pretty short list of things you couldn't sell. So it was things like cotton candy and lollipops. And there were also rules about not selling unhealthy foods for 30 minutes before the lunch period or 30 minutes after the lunch period. So you had a situation where sometimes there would be a vending machine in the hallway and they would unplug it for 30 minutes before lunch and then 30 minutes after lunch. But people could go plug in the machine, buy their soda, and then unplug it again. Those are the sorts of stories that you would hear.   So the good news is that things started changing in the early 2000s. People started to realize that it had gotten out of control, and States started passing regulations to get rid of some of these unhealthy competitive foods. And at the time, there really wasn't much promise of making a change at the federal level. So you had dates that were progressive passing laws that you couldn't sell soda or you couldn't sell certain unhealthy snacks in the schools. And then something interesting happened in 2006, which was the federal regulation was updated, basically saying that school districts needed to set their own policies. So it was somewhat of a political compromise. I think that the advocates had hoped that time that the federal regulation would actually say what the nutrition standards would be for competitive foods. But instead of that, they at least got this idea that, okay, you need to set your own policy. You can't just ignore this problem. And so it sort of forced the hand of school districts to at least put down on paper what their rules were for the snacks that they were selling outside of school meals. And so there was this period of time where schools really were responding to three levels of regulation, often. The federal regulation, if they lived in a state that had state regulations, they had those. And then also their own district regulation. It was quite confusing. And I think schools sort of struggled to figure out what they were doing and which regulations they were following. But things have definitely improved.   There are lots of interesting examples of individual parents making a difference in this problem by what they've done within their own school systems. So you don't necessarily just have to think about top-down things, and you're one such person. I remember that as a parent, when you had children in the Connecticut schools, that you made a big difference in the way the school system looked at things. So I'd love to hear just a little bit about how you approached that. What was the situation when you began working on it? And then what happened?   I was one of those parents and have a reputation that continues to follow me to this day. I had, you know, young children in the schools and was not happy with what was being sold in the schools. I wasn't happy with the number of times, as I mentioned, there were parties or teachers were handing out candy or coupons for donuts in the classroom. And so I got involved in my own elementary school with the principal, and we formed what was sort of ahead of its time, but it was essentially a school wellness committee. And we invited the school nurse, the PE teacher, some other parents joined. And we really tried to think about what could we do in our own school to make changes. And given that, you know, my training as a researcher taught me that you want to collect data, you want to keep track of what changes are occurring.   We began with a survey of parents in my school district that the district helped orchestrate. And I was able to document that parents overall really didn't want these unhealthy foods in schools. They didn't really like the snacks being sold in the elementary schools. They didn't like teachers handing out candy. And so I was able to then go back to the board of education with the data and convince them that we should have a stronger policy in our district. Now I will say that it turned out there was mixed feelings about it. Even though the majority of parents felt that way, there certainly were parents that didn't feel that way. And I got a lot of really great research ideas from going to different PTO meetings presenting the research on this topic and really hearing the way parents talk about it.   One of the things I learned pretty early on is that it really seemed like it wasn't so much about cupcakes in the classroom, but the arguments were more about what is the role of government? What is the role of policy? And when do you sort of let parents do whatever they want and when does the school or the school district have the right to say, "No, this is how we want things done in our district."   Well, what you've just said is a great example of how much difference a single parent can make. So let's talk about the federal government and what it's been doing. So a lot happened during the Obama administration on school food nutrition standards, and the Trump administration as well. But there's quite a contrast in the way these two administrations have been addressing this issue. Can you paint us a picture of this?   The Obama administration: I think of it now as the golden age of improvements in school food. You had a situation where States were passing policies. The federal government didn't do too much other than require these local policies. But because of all of that, it became evident that change really could happen. So you had whole States that got rid of all of the sugary drinks in schools like Connecticut. In 2006, K through 12, no sugary drinks could be sold in any of our schools. And essentially we proved as a state that this change could happen, that there wasn't a disaster. People didn't lose so much money, you know, that it was a huge problem. And so all of the arguments that have been made as to why you couldn't make these changes were kind of shown to be false because we were able to demonstrate that it could be done. I think those stories started accumulating. And then of course, Michelle Obama was a tremendous champion for children's health, for nutrition. And a piece of legislation called the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 went through and I think completely transformed the school food environment. So that acted lots of things that really hadn't been done before. First of all, it revamped the nutrition standards so that they were in line with the dietary guidelines. So we saw things like increases in whole grains, increases in low-fat dairy, also more fruits and vegetables. And in addition to more in terms of larger quantities, also more variety in fruits and vegetables. So those changes were all really important. The other thing they did that was very new is they started setting calorie maximums for school meals instead of just calorie minimums. Those minimums had always been there because the concern was that kids weren't getting enough to eat. Now we had knowledge that we also needed to be careful about kids eating too many calories at school.   And then the other really major change that came with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act is that lawsuit I mentioned from the National Soft Drink Association in the 1980s that prevented the federal government from regulating foods outside of the school meal programs finally was changed. And now the federal government started to set standards for the first time for all foods sold on school campus during the school day. And they developed something called Smart Snacks, which is a set of nutrition standards that went into effect that essentially regulates everything that's sold. So those were all wonderful changes.   I think the USDA did a great job developing the regulations, implementing them over time. It wasn't like everything happened overnight. There were several years where each year different levels of the changes would get implemented. Another important one was sodium levels. There had been very clear research documenting too much sodium consumption and that school meals had too much sodium. So there was a progressive series of three levels of sodium reduction that were scheduled. So then came the Trump administration. And I think there were a lot of concerns about whether things would go backwards because one of the priorities, it seemed, from the Trump administration was deregulation and taking away things like federal regulations. And in the end, some changes have taken place. So there've been a couple of rollbacks. One is the original Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act regulation for milk said that all milk had to be 1% or fat-free, and there could be flavored milk, but it had to be fat-free flavored milk. And the reason was because that was a way to keep the calories below a certain level. So one of the roll backs was saying, no, you can have 1% flavored milk. So that was a change. Another had to do with whole grains. The regulation that had been implemented over time was that items needed to be what they call whole grain rich. And whole grain rich means more than 50% of the grains in the product are whole grains. And originally 50% of your grains had to be whole grain rich. And then it went up to 100% had to be whole grain rich. And essentially Sonny Perdue, about a year ago, rolled that back so that only 50% needed to be whole grain rich. So that was a step backwards. But I would say probably the biggest problem were the sodium changes. So as I said, there was this progression that had been scheduled pretty slowly to allow the industry time to reformulate to decrease the amount of sodium in schools. And essentially, Sonny Perdue announced last year that they were going to get rid of that third, most progressive level, and they were going to give more time to reach the second level. So it rolled back and then essentially stopped the progression in terms of improving the amount of sodium in schools.   So where do you think the most important advances in policy will be?   You know, I think that it goes up and down, if that makes sense. I think that things begin at the local level, because you have districts that really get out in front and have community that, you know, sort of taking this on as a priority. And then I think when you have districts showing that something can be done, it's more likely to happen at the state level. And then when things are done at the state level, oftentimes when you have a handful of states around the country that have demonstrated that something could be done, it's much easier for the federal government to make the changes. So if you're in a progressive state, the changes come earlier, because they are at those local and state levels. If you're in a less progressive state that doesn't tend to be out front on these issues, you really have to wait for the federal government to step in. That's what we've seen. And I wouldn't be surprised if it continued with that pattern.   So what do you think are the top priorities for what can be done in schools as we look forward?   The nutrition standards where they are, those rollbacks notwithstanding, I think are great. And I think it would be fine to keep them where they are now. I don't necessarily think that there need to be big changes there. What I think is more important now is to work on the culinary skill of people who are preparing school meals and find ways to help everyone make meals that follow those standards, but are also highly palatable and really attractive to the students. Overall, there have been a lot of success stories in terms of students liking the new school meals. I mean, we collected data in New Haven and documented very clearly that there had been no increase in plate waste, that children were eating the meals, they were eating more fruit than they were eating before. And I think that's the story in a lot of the cities and particularly districts that have 100% free lunch, so universal free meals. Those are the students who are used to eating school meals. They've been eating school meals since they came into schools. It's free, it's available for everyone, and that I think is often where you're going to see the most success. I think what's harder are the school districts that have a smaller proportion of students who qualify for free meals and therefore their rates of participation tend to be lower. They're faced with more challenges because they don't have the volume of participation that financially helps them invest in, let's say, new equipment or staff or training. And so they're the ones that I think have been struggling. And so I would love to see efforts to really help those districts learn from the districts that have seen a lot of success and kind of get the training, get the equipment, to really be able to provide meals that all of the students are going to want to eat.     Bio Dr. Marlene Schwartz is Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences. Dr. Schwartz's research and community service address how home environments, school landscapes, neighborhoods, and the media shape the eating attitudes and behaviors of children. Schwartz earned her PhD in Psychology from Yale University in 1996. Prior to joining the Rudd Center, she served as Co-Director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders from 1996 to 2006. She has collaborated with the Connecticut State Department of Education to evaluate nutrition and physical activity policies in schools and preschools throughout the state. She co-chaired the Connecticut Obesity Task Force and has provided expert testimony on obesity-related state policies. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Food Bank.  

Monologue Dr. Joel Wallach begins the show discussing the Covid 19 numbers of infections and deaths. Stating that wearing a mask, distancing and hand washing are not enough. Asserting that people need to stop eating gluten found in wheat products. Condtending gluten kills the villi in the intestines. Compromising the body's ability to absorb nutrients needed to fight off the virus. Pearls of Wisdom Doug Winfrey and Dr. Wallach discuss a news article regarding a report out from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut. Finding that in 2018 62% of children's drink sales were for sugary drinks. While only 38% of children's drinks were healthier like pure fruit juices. The article points out that some drink companies actually advertise on children's TV channels. Callers Margaret's husband has been experiencing chest pain. David's cousin has been diagnosed with Covid 19 virus. Carolyn has two questions the first concerns breeding a horse. Second she has questions concerning a pig with anal bleeding. Laurie has been diagnosed with kidney stones and fibromyalgia. Call Dr. Wallach's live radio program weekdays from noon until 1pm pacific time at 831-685-1080 or toll free at 888-379-2552.

Food banks and food pantries provide life-saving help for families all around the country. Like other institutions addressing food issues, there is growing focus on providing not just food, but healthy food. There are complex issues in this picture, however, issues we can address with today's guest, Dr. Marlene Schwartz. Schwartz is director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut.   Interview Summary   Many of our listeners will know in general how food banks work, but may not know the details. Can you explain in general how these organizations operate? Where do they get their food and where does it go?   There are two terms that you hear a lot: food bank and food pantry. So a food bank is basically a huge warehouse that will get food either directly from a factory, from the food industry, or from a large retailer, sometimes directly from farmers and then sometimes from food drives or other efforts to collect food to donate. Most food banks have an online ordering system for food pantries, so food pantries are much smaller. They are sometimes run by churches or other community centers, and they're typically fairly small places where the staff will obtain the food from the food bank and maybe some also in addition from other local retailers or donations, and then that's where the clients come in. And so the clients will go to the food pantry in their community and that's where they will obtain the food that they can then take home and use.   If there are other programs that help people with food-related needs like SNAP and WIC, how do food banks fit into this overall picture?   So, it's really interesting because when you look at the actual amount of food provided by certainly a program as large as SNAP or WIC, food banks are tiny by comparison. So it's really a very, very small percentage of food that individuals get from the charitable food system compared to SNAP and WIC. However, I think their role really goes beyond the food they provide. Oftentimes food pantries are a place where people can come and get access to other resources in their community. So as I mentioned, they're often in community centers or faith-based organizations that will not only provide the food, but sometimes provide assistance signing up for SNAP or WIC or finding out about other types of social services or resources that are in the community. And so I think that their role can really be measured not just by the amount of food that they distribute, but also the way in which they connect their clients with other resources and really provide a place of support for their community.   You've paid a lot of attention to using the healthiness of the food distributed as an index of success. So how's this different than what's been done traditionally?   Traditionally, the success of food banks or food pantries has been measured in the pounds of food. And it's really interesting because you can see why that was an attractive measure because it's super easy. You basically just put the food on a scale, you measure how many pounds it is, it's a number, you know when it's more or less, and it's pretty straightforward. But as often happens when things get measured is that sometimes the system evolves to really maximize the measure without thinking about the consequences. So really heavy products, like two liter bottles of soda, for example, became very popular to donate to food banks and food pantries because they weighed a lot. And other things like maybe a container of spinach or kale was not very popular to donate because you wouldn't necessarily see a big change in the number of pounds. So I think that we definitely need to start looking at it differently and looking at the volume of food and consider the nutritional quality of food and not just the pounds.   So what sort of things were getting donated that wouldn't be considered good nutrition?   Packaged foods are very popular to donate to food banks. A lot of the packaged snack foods, a lot of canned meals. So things like beef stew or, you know, Beefaroni, or other foods that are shelf stable and heavy and people sort of felt would be filling, those tended to be the foods that people automatically thought would be the best things to donate to food banks.   If people are really hungry and in need, doesn't it make sense just to give them anything that's available? And could you make that argument?   I am sympathetic to the argument that people are hungry and you need to just give them something, and then it's all about the volume and the amount and that's the most important thing. But in really doing research on the people who come to food banks, I learned a couple of really important things. First of all, their rates of diet-related diseases are much, much higher than the general population. So we've seen very high rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. So you have to really think about the folks that are coming. They're at an even higher risk of those diseases. And the second thing is we started doing research where we actually asked clients, "What would you like to have at the pantry?" And the answers might surprise some people. We found that what was most important to them were fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, meat. So they weren't really looking for these canned products or these packaged products. And they certainly weren't looking for things like salty snacks and sugary drinks. So when you really listen to people, you find out they want healthy groceries, just like everybody else. And so, in my opinion, if you are taking on the responsibility of running a food pantry or a food bank and providing food, you really need to think about the needs of the people you're serving.   Are food banks generally around the country thinking more about the nutrition quality of the foods they receive and how is this playing out?   I've been in this area of research probably for six or seven years now. And even in that short time, I've seen a big change. So when we first started doing work in this area, we did a national survey of people in food banks and we did interviews to try to hear about how they were thinking about nutrition. And I would say there were still a lot that took the position you mentioned earlier that it's about pounds and it's about getting the maximum amount of food out and nutritional quality is really secondary. But I think as the public conversation has changed and people have become more and more aware of the importance of healthy food and the concern of diet-related diseases, food banks have changed as well. And we did another survey last year and really found that a large number of food banks are thinking about these things. They're using nutrition ranking systems, they're developing nutrition policies. And Feeding America is a national organization overseeing a network of about 200 food banks. They've come a long way in terms of thinking about the role of nutrition and how they can really lead that way.   You've done some research yourself on food banks and nutrition programs. What sort of nutrition work can be done in the context of food banks? And is there information available on how well these approaches work?   I would say the first step that a lot of food banks have taken is what we're calling nutrition ranking. So it's essentially having a systematic way of scoring the food products that come in. Sometimes they use a stoplight system, sort of a green, yellow, red in terms of the nutritional quality. Sometimes it's a binary system where they sort of consider it like foods to encourage or not. But sort of whatever system you use, I think having a system where you're keeping track of the quality of food in a systematic way helps you in a number of ways. One, you can see your changes over time. Two, you can sort of see which donors are giving you the sorts of foods that you're looking for and which donors are not, and that can sometimes facilitate conversations with those donors. But we did a really exciting study recently, we just finished analyzing the data, where we then had the food that the food bank had collected. So this is a food bank here in Connecticut called Foodshare, and they implement a system called the SWAP system, which stands for Supporting Wellness at Pantries. And it's a green, yellow, red stoplight ranking system based on saturated fat, sodium, and sugar. And what they did is they rank all the food as it comes in, and then when they put it on their online shopping platform for the food pantries, and there are about 150 food pantries that shop at Foodshare for the food that they distribute, we actually showed them green, yellow, red next to the items so they could see the nutrition quality assessment like that. And because we knew we were going to do it, we were able to look before that information was available and after that information was available over about a three-year period of time with it changing in the middle. And what we found was that there was a significant increase in the proportion of the order that was green and a decrease in the proportion of the order that was red. So what this really suggests is that if you communicate that information, you can sort of shift the behavior of the people who are making the decisions. We did another study, then. We basically did the same thing at the pantry level. So we went into a food pantry and we reorganized their shelves so they were clearly labeled with sort of circles that were the color green, yellow, red, but then had words like "Low sugar, good for managing diabetes," or, "Low sodium, good for managing blood pressure." We did that before and after we had collected data with these clients, and again found the exact same thing, that when clients were given the information, they change their behavior and there was an increase in the proportion of what they took that was green and a decrease in the proportion of what they took that was red. So I think there's a lot of promise in this idea of simply measuring and providing that information, I think will nudge people in the right direction.   Those interventions that you designed are very creative and it's really nice that they were so powerful. And boy, that does really speak to what can be done in these settings. So you mentioned Feeding America, a national organization, then you said that they work with 200 food banks around the country. And also I know they work with 60,000 food pantries. So what role do they play in all this?   Feeding America is incredibly important because they are kind of this umbrella organization for food banks nationally. There are some food banks that aren't affiliated with Feeding America, but the vast majority of the food banks in the United States are. One of the things they're able to do is navigate donations from very, very large national donors. So they can keep track, for example, of, you know, if there's a huge shipment of, I don't know, butternut squash, they can sort of figure out where it is and communicate with different food banks and try to get the food where it needs to go by having sort of the big picture of the whole country in front of them. And so they're able to really help a lot with fresh vegetables and fresh fruit and making sure that things get where they can be distributed in a timely fashion. They also can provide a lot of education for the networks and they have a lot of information online to really help food banks and food pantries know the latest science and also have access to different resources. And they also have a lot of national conferences for different segments of the system, where they'll present the latest information and help different members of this system do as good of a job as they can.   If I ask you to peer into the future, what do you think food banks will look like going down the road?   Well, the future in my imagination is that food banks and food pantries will continue to provide nutritious foods and will really focus primarily on providing the most nutritious foods, but will also become places that really serve the communities that they're in. So what I think is the untapped potential of this system is having a place where folks who might not have other resources, let's say because maybe they're not working or they're not in school, to have a place in their community where they can go and get access to trainings and other resources and sort of help them get back on their feet so that they can be successful. And there's a colleague of mine named Katie Martin who has this concept called More Than Food, which is really this idea that food pantries can help people obtain other services, connect them with health care, connect them with educational opportunities. And in that way, I think can really get more at the root causes of the food insecurity in the first place. Bio Dr. Marlene Schwartz is Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences. Dr. Schwartz's research and community service address how home environments, school landscapes, neighborhoods, and the media shape the eating attitudes and behaviors of children. Schwartz earned her PhD in Psychology from Yale University in 1996. Prior to joining the Rudd Center, she served as Co-Director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders from 1996 to 2006. She has collaborated with the Connecticut State Department of Education to evaluate nutrition and physical activity policies in schools and preschools throughout the state. She co-chaired the Connecticut Obesity Task Force and has provided expert testimony on obesity-related state policies. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Food Bank.  

Welcome to the very first episode of "Food Issues." In this episode, about the impact of COVID-19 on health inequities, rates of food insecurity, and childhood obesity. We also tackle the current state of school lunch and proposed waivers, food marketing and social media influencers and what we can do to affect change. My guest is Dr. Marlene Schwartz, the Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences at UConn. For the highlights, see the time stamps below, but listening to the entire episode will give you a deep dive into the issues. Welcome2:00 What impact has COVID-19 had on food insecurity?4:10 What impact has COVID-19 had on childhood obesity rates? 6.51 What did the USDA waivers for school lunch do?15.04 How has COVID-19 affected health inequities in the U.S.?18.06  Dr. Schwartz's research about unhealthy food donations and social stigma are linked to higher rates of both food insecurity and obesity among food pantry clients 27.00 What did this recent study on junk food marketing find and what's your advice to parents?34.52 YouTube influencers are marketing junk food to kids too—what can parents do?38.05 What is the impact of COVID-19 on childhood obesity rates?40.37 What does the future hold—do you have hope for these food issues to improve? LINKS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and ObesitySubscribe to the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity's newsletter  ABOUT OUR SPONSOR The Dinner Daily is a one-of-a-kind, weekly, personalized dinner planning service that makes getting dinner on the table every night easy and affordable for busy families.  Founded by a working mom of 3, The Dinner Daily answers the “what's for dinner” question, helps families eat healthy, and save money and time.  Members receive complete meal plans and an organized grocery shopping list customized according to their food preferences, dietary needs, family size, and weekly specials at more than 16,000 grocery stores across the U.S. to help them save money.  Meal plans can be customized for gluten-free, dairy-free, nut-free, soy-free, heart-healthy, and more. The service also provides one-click ordering at Kroger stores nationwide and select Stop & Shop stores in the Northeast.  The Dinner Daily  has been featured in Rachael Ray Every Day and Working Mother magazines.  Memberships are as low as $4/a month and new members get a free, 2-week trial. Go to TheDinnerDaily.com and use code “HEALTH15” to receive 15% off. 

When the food industry promises to police itself and pledges to improve nutrition in public health, can it be trusted to make meaningful change or must government mandate those changes? Our two guests today have done groundbreaking work to help address this very question. Dr. Jessica Fanzo, Professor of Global Food and Agricultural Policy and Ethics at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Jennifer Harris is Senior Research Advisor for Marketing Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut. Interview Summary So Jess, let's begin with you. You coauthored what I thought was a very important and novel report released by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition on product reformulation by the food industry. Would you might explain what's meant by reformulation? When we think about reformulation, it's really defined as the process of all-terrain a food or a beverage product. You can alter that by improving the products' health profile or reducing the content of harmful nutrients or ingredients. So it's a process of either removing those negative ingredients or nutrients or adding back positive ones into foods. Why is that done? Because people consume a lot of processed foods. Almost every food that we consume has gone through some form of processing, but there's a whole range of that processing from very minimal to very highly processed, what's often called ultra-processed or junk food that doesn't have a lot of nutritional value. In the report, we were looking at what are the challenges with reformulating food? What are some of the opportunities to reformulate food? And in the realm of reformulation, has it had a positive impact on public health? So we were looking at those aspects of the reformulation of processed foods. So I'm assuming there could be enormous advances to public health if reformulation were done on a broad scale and or if it were done in a meaningful way. So what were your main findings then? Have there been examples of industry being successful with voluntary reformulation? Somewhat. And absolutely it could have potentially really important positive impacts for public health, but it's also not a panacea for improving diets and nutrition. And while there are some examples where voluntary reformulation has had some impact, the UK with salt and some other examples, overall we found that it's important for governments to mandate reformulation through different tools, whether it's labeling, taxes, et cetera. For foods that are not reformulated, we felt that it was really important for governments to mandate with clear, transparent and direct targets, particularly removing the unhealthy ingredients like added sugars, salts, unhealthy fats like trans fats. The food industry should be involved in implementing reformulation policies but not in their design. And governments need to really step in and step up. But that said, that doesn't mean that reformulation is going to solve all the problems. Governments also need to invest in many other tools to protect consumers and to invest in other ways to improve diets for nutrition. So reformulation shouldn't be the only answer. So I'm assuming the reason that food industry won't go far enough on their own is that these things that make the food less healthy also tend to make them pretty palatable, or give them long shelf life or properties that make people enjoy them a lot. And that why in the world would they do something that would make their products less desirable? Does that pretty much the case or do you see other reasons why? That's definitely true. I mean, these highly processed foods are cheap in their ingredients to make, they are very palatable, there's a high demand for them. We're seeing this shift now into low-income countries like with tobacco when consumers catch on that these foods are not so healthy, they go to populations where there's a bit of a lag in that knowledge. But also reformulating foods from the industry's perspective is not so easy. It's quite expensive to do it. It's difficult to reduce salt and sugar, which are vital not only for the taste of foods, but for their composition and shelf-life and texture. So it has a lot of ramifications to remove those ingredients. So meeting government mandates around reformulation can be really challenging and sometimes impossible for companies. So they often will deal with getting a warning label, for the example in Chile, they'll just take the warning label because they can't reformulate some foods. But there's a change in consumer demand and tastes. Consumers like their brands, but the more and more consumers are caring about clean labels, environmental sustainability, their health, people are concerned about the amount of sugar in foods so they're going to have to answer to that, that changing demand as consumers demand better foods whether it's from a health or sustainability or transparency perspective. Let me ask one more question related to this. Is it also the case that it's pretty difficult for some company to be the first out of the gate if they were inclined to do this voluntarily because then their products would become less desirable and their competitors would be kinda stuck in the old ways? So isn't that another argument for government intervening that everybody is on the same playing field? Absolutely, yes. I mean, why not hold every player accountable and to the same standards and mandates? It pushes them all to take action. So when we were interviewing some of the industry players, they really struggle because when they did try to reformulate some of the foods, consumers no longer bought them because they're very wedded to their brands, they're wedded to certain tastes, it's a real challenge for them to keep their consumer base. But at the same time, try to adhere to government mandate. And some companies care more about health and sustainability than others. We definitely learn that some companies have no interest in that, because they know they'll always be a big consumer base for these quote less healthy foods. So there's a real issue from company to company of who's willing to take more action to reformulate and who doesn't really care to reformulate at all and they're willing to live with warning stickers and taxes. So Jennifer, let's turn to you. So you've done really pioneering work on the impact of food marketing on children that began when we were colleagues together at the Rudd Center when it was at Yale University. And there I was witness to the fact that you created a very impressive methodology for studying what's a pretty complicated issue. And you paid a lot of attention to industry promises for self-policing of children's food marketing. Do you mind giving us a quick sense of what's being marketed to who and how, and how much marketing children are exposed to? Annually, companies spend over $13 billion in advertising food to all consumers. And just to put that number in perspective, the whole chronic disease prevention budget at the CDC is 1 billion. So the companies are really controlling the messages about what people should eat. And most of that money is spent to advertise very unhealthy products. The products that are contributing to poor diet and disease in this country. The biggest ones are fast food, sugary drinks, sweet and salty snacks and candy. Those categories represent about 80% of all foods that are advertised. Healthier categories of foods, if you look at all of juice, water, fruits, and vegetables and nuts combined, it's less than 3% of the total. So they're really pushing these very high fat, high sugar, high salt products extensively. Companies spend most of their advertising dollars on television ads. On an annual basis, kids see about 4,000 of those ads per year. So almost 4,000 ads, that's over 10 a day for unhealthy food. Kids of color, so black kids see twice as many of those ads. A lot of the worst products, their advertising is targeted to Black and Hispanic communities and especially adolescents. But TV isn't the only way companies advertise. And in the last few years, the ways that companies market just increased exponentially. Now with smartphones and tablets, they can reach kids any place and any time through things like ads on YouTube videos, social media, smartphone apps, with games and ordering programs, even educational websites teachers are using in grade school have ads on them. This kind of marketing is personalized. So what you see depends on what you do online. They know who you are and they can reach you. And unfortunately, this kind of marketing also is the kind of thing that parents can't monitor as easily as what your child is watching on TV. So the companies basically try to be wherever the consumer is to reach them with their advertising. Well those are really stunning numbers. I know one of the arguments the industry has made for years, and one of the things that you've addressed directly in your research is their claim that this food advertising doesn't really make kids or adults eat an unhealthy diet, it just shifts their preference from brand to brand. So if Coke is advertising a lot, they might say, "Well we just wanna take market share from Pepsi, "but we're not encouraging sugar beverage consumption." What would you say to that? That is something they've argued for a long time. And one thing that we showed is that just watching a television program with food advertising makes kids and adults eat a lot more both while they're watching and afterwards. And another of our colleagues, Ashley Gearhardt has done some really interesting research showing how the food advertising actually activates the reward regions of the brain and leads to increased consumption. So that's one way that food marketing affects more than brand preferences. There's also been a lot of research showing that if you advertise Coke, it increases consumption and purchases of all sugary drinks. They also affect sales of the categories, not just the specific brands. So with you and others doing so much work showing how much of the marketing there is and how disastrous the impact is, you can imagine the industry feels vulnerable to the possibility of outside regulation or perhaps even litigation. And so one of the things the industry has done and this links back to what Jessica was talking about in the context of reformulation, is to say that they can police themselves. So can you explain how they've gone about doing that? Well in the US there's a program called the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which is the food industry self-regulatory program to address food advertising to kids. And there are similar programs in countries around the world. But basically what the industry has promised is that they will only advertise products that meet nutrition standards in child directed media. That sounds really great. They implemented the program in 2007, but you said Kelly, we've done a lot of research showing how many limitations and loopholes there are in this program. One is that they only define children as 11 years and younger. So they only have promised to reduce unhealthy advertising to young children. And more and more of the research is showing that adolescents are just as affected and maybe even more effected by the advertising. Since their program was implemented, they've increased their advertising to the slightly older group that isn't covered by the CFBAI. Another limitation is their definition of what is child directed is advertising in media where children are the primary audience. So on television that would basically be children's TV. So Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, those kinds of programs. But children watch a lot more television than just children's television. And so they can still advertise anything they want on programs that are also watched by adults and older children. And then the third major limitation is that they've set their own nutrition standards. So they have defined what is healthy. And maybe not surprisingly, a lot of the products that they say are healthier choices that can be advertised to kids are things like sugary cereals, fruit drinks that maybe have less sugar but they also have artificial sweeteners in them. Things like goldfish crackers, fast-food kids' meals, all of those can still be advertised to children under their nutrition standards. What we found is since the program was implemented in 2007, food advertising on children's television has gone down quite a bit, 45%. But at the same time, advertising on other types of television that children watch has gone up about 30%. So now kids see almost as much food advertising as they used to, but most of it is not on children's television, it's on the other kinds of television that they're watching. And a lot of the harder things to monitor, things like apps and social media and websites do not qualify as child directed media under this program. Now the reason I asked both of you to be on this podcast at the same time as I figured there would be interesting similarities, even though you're working on somewhat different topics, and boy does it turn out to be they're real themes weave through this. So let's talk next about what might be done then. So Jessica, with your work on industry reformulation, what have you concluded can be done voluntarily? Kelly, I think government needs to be much more involved than they are. The challenges that we see with voluntary regulation, whether it's in reformulation or marketing of unhealthy foods to children, we know that voluntary reformulation, industry sets its own agenda, they set their own targets, they have no accountability to meet those targets, they may pledge to reduce harmful ingredients but if the product has a very high level of these unhealthy ingredients, the reformulation may not make much of a difference from a public health point of view. So I think we need much more regulation. Governments need to hold industry accountable and ensure that they are meeting national standards for public health. I think government has been too laissez-faire about industry and the power that they hold. And I think now we're seeing the consequences of that not only in the United States, but everywhere in the world with rising levels of obesity and NCDs and unhealthy diets being a big risk factor with these processed foods playing a huge role in that. So we really need to see government step up in a much more profound way and hold industry having public health goals. It's a little bit of enough is enough. So Jess, just out of curiosity, let's say you were the government official in charge of taking such action and you have the authority to do it, where would you start? Would you start with particular nutrients across the food chain or would you start with certain categories of food and would you worry first about sugar, salt, fat? That's a good question. In the paper we outline four types of processed foods. To me I would probably look across the entire food supply chain at those highly, highly processed foods. And it would be good to start with at least the three categories of sugars, salt, and trans fats to even start with and setting key targets for those and marking those ultra-processed foods that go beyond that target. Chile had the great food law that's been enacted that's put warning labels on the front of packages and has regulated I think some of the advertising of those foods. Jennifer you probably know about this. And I think that's been an important case study for the rest of the world to look at of how Chile has done that because sales of those foods that have the warning label have gone down somewhere in the ballpark of I think between 23 and 28%, depending on the population. But I think there's lessons to be learned of how Chile has done that that other governments could learn from. Now I'm happy that you pointed out the advances in Chile because there have been some very impressive impacts reported from the studies that have been done so far. So I agree that that is really a model to look to. So Jennifer, let's just get your opinion on this. Where do you come down on this issue of voluntary versus mandated? So we've given the industry 12 years now to show that they can market healthier products to kids. And basically what they've done is they're marketing slightly healthier products to kids but the products they're marketing are not nutritious products that children should be consuming a lot of like sugared cereals. So it's pretty clear that they can't do it on their own and that regulation is required. In the US, we have a little bit of an issue that not all countries have because of the First Amendment. And advertising is protected speech according to the Supreme Court. So we can't just say companies cannot advertise anything. So we have to be more strategic about the kinds of regulations that we can implement here. If we could do anything we wanted, Chile is a great example. In the next year, they won't be able to advertise any products that are high in fat, sugar and salt before 9:00 p.m. So it's not just children's programming, they won't be able to advertise it. They had to take all their characters off their packages. And so Tony the Tiger can't be on the package of frosted flakes anymore because it's high in sugar. They've done a lot of great things in Chile and sure we can adapt some of what they've done. In other countries also, for example the UK has very strong laws about marketing foods in digital media. So that would be another thing that we could import from other countries.   Bios   Jessica Fanzo, Ph.D., is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Global Food Policy and Ethics at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, the Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University in the USA. She also serves as the Director of Hopkins' Global Food Policy and Ethics Program, and as Director of Food & Nutrition Security at the JHU Alliance for a Healthier World.  From 2017 to 2019, Jessica served as the Co-Chair of the Global Nutrition Report and the UN High Level Panel of Experts on Food Systems and Nutrition. Before coming to Hopkins, she has also held positions at Columbia University, the Earth Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Food Programme, Bioversity International, and the Millennium Development Goal Centre at the World Agroforestry Center in Kenya. She was the first laureate of the Carasso Foundation's Sustainable Diets Prize in 2012 for her research on sustainable food and diets for long-term human health. Jennifer Harris, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Advisor, Marketing Initiatives at the Rudd Center. Previously, Dr. Harris worked as Director of Marketing Initiatives and was an Associate Professor in Allied Health Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Harris received her B.A. from Northwestern University and M.B.A. in Marketing from The Wharton School. Before returning to graduate school, she was a marketing executive for eighteen years, including at American Express as a Vice President in consumer marketing and as principal in a marketing strategy consulting firm. Harris completed her PhD in Social Psychology at Yale University with John Bargh and Kelly Brownell.

Dr. Rebecca Puhl, Deputy Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, joins Adam to deep dive into the concept of weight stigma and how often we misunderstand the science of weight gain. Rebecca covers the relationship between weight stigma and eating disorders, the role personal behavior does and does not play into weight gain, how “genes load the gun but environment pulls the trigger,” weight bias in the medical field, what to say to yourself when you look in the mirror, and more.

How did The Wine Bible get its name? How was it unlike any wine book of its time? What was it like as a young woman trying to break into the male-dominated New York wine scene in the 1970s? Why are there significantly fewer women than men with the Master Sommelier designation? How does wine help you to immerse yourself in other cultures? In this episode of the Unreserved Wine Talk podcast, I'm chatting with Karen MacNeil, author of The Wine Bible, former wine correspondent for the Today Show, the first Food and Wine Editor of USA Today, and creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America in the Napa Valley.   Highlights Where did the idea to write The Wine Bible come from? How is The Wine Bible different for you, as a reader, from other comprehensive wine books? How does wine help you to immerse yourself in other cultures? Why does hearing the story behind a wine create a more enjoyable experience for you? What was it like to try to break into the male-dominated New York wine scene in the 1970s? How can you confidently charge your worth? Why do you see significantly fewer women than men with the Master Sommelier designation in the US? What types of roles would you see typically filled by women in the wine industry? How does the proportion of female executives in the wine industry compare to corporate America? How has the "Me Too" movement impacted the wine industry? Why was the naming of Karen's book so emotional? What hurdle was Karen able to overcome with 8 years of silence? How does Karen believe some women in the wine world are downplaying themselves?   About Karen MacNeil Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English language. These include the Wine and Spirits Professional of the Year (James Beard Foundation) and the Global Wine Communicator of the Year (International Wine and Spirits Association).  In a full-page profile on her, TIME Magazine called Karen “America’s Missionary of the Vine.” In 2018, Karen was named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the Wine Industry.   Karen is also the author of the award-winning book, THE WINE BIBLE, the single best-selling wine book in the United States, praised as “The most informative and entertaining book I’ve ever seen on the subject” (Danny Meyer), “Astounding” (Thomas Keller), and “A masterpiece of wine writing…the single best wine book written in years…” (Kevin Zraly).   The former wine correspondent for the Today Show, Karen was the host of the PBS series Wine, Food and Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. Karen is the creator and editor of WineSpeed, the leading digital “e-letter” in the U.S. for fast, authoritative information about wine. Her articles on wine and food have been published in more than 50 newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, Town & Country, Elle, and Worth. She was the first Food and Wine Editor of USA Today. Karen currently hosts #SipWithKaren, the leading Twitter tasting in the global wine sphere, which each month reaches 20+ million timelines from Indiana to India.   Karen’s firm, Karen MacNeil & Company, creates customized corporate events and wine tours around the world for companies and individual groups. Among Karen’s corporate clients are Lexus, Merrill Lynch, Disney, General Electric, UBS, and Singapore Airlines, as well as numerous law and biotech firms. Karen is the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America in the Napa Valley, which has been called “the Harvard of wine education.     To learn more about the resources mentioned in this episode, visit the https://www.nataliemaclean.com/91.

The President's Tax Returns Stay Private, For Now (0:31)Guest: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law, Stetson University, Brennan Center fellow, author of “Political Brands” and “Corporate Citizen?”Both President Trump and his critics are claiming victory in the US Supreme Court's ruling on whether or not he can be compelled to release his tax returns. Water Bills Around the Country Have Dramatically Risen in Recent Decades (20:36)Guest: Roger Colton, Public Utilities Economics Consultant, Fisher Sheehan & ColtonHow's your water bill these days? On average, water bills in US cities have jumped a lot in the last decade. So much, so, that America is verging on a water affordability crisis. Is it because we're running out of water? Or because of something else? Soda Ads Skyrocket (36:42)Guest: Jennifer Harris, Senior Research Advisor, University of Connecticut's Rudd Center Soda consumption has been steadily declining in the US for over a decade now. But teens, minority and low-income youth are a different story. The Rudd Center's latest “Sugary Drink Facts” report finds that young people consume sugary drinks in the US at a disproportionate level. And that parallels large increases in advertising aimed at youth overall, and Black and Brown youth in particular. The Volcano under Yellowstone Might Be Chilling Out (52:53)Guest: Thomas Knott, Geochemist at the School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, UK.2020 has definitely felt a bit apocalyptic. What with the fires in Australia, a pandemic, locusts, and killer hornets. It seems like the only thing that could make it worse would the eruption of the supervolcano in Yellowstone National Park. But here's some good news: a new geological survey of Yellowstone shows that the next major eruption might be much, much further away than previously thought. Tracking the Uighur People of China (1:10:34)Guest: Darren Byler, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Asian Studies at the University of Colorado, BoulderThe US last week imposed strict sanctions on three senior officials of the Chinese Communist party over alleged human rights abuses against the Uighur Muslim community in western China. The Chinese government is promising “reciprocal measures” against the US. Chinese leaders view the Uighur Muslims as a security threat and up to a million of them have been detained in prisons and internment camps. An American digital security company called Lookout recently released a report showing the Chinese government's extensive use of malware on smartphones to track Uyghurs in China and other countries. How do Workplace Stereotypes Impact Pregnant Women? (1:29:19)Guest: Lindsey Lavaysse, Recent Doctoral Graduate, Washington State University VancouverAcross the US workforce, only two percent of employees are pregnant, so being one of those women can be pretty isolating. Survey research by Lindsey Lavaysse at Washington State University found that it's common for pregnant women to work extra hard–even risking injury–for fear of confirming stereotypes about pregnant women being incompetent or weak. 

In this episode, we unpack “Weird Al” Yankovic's hit 1988 song “Fat,” a parody of Michael Jackson's “Bad,” and discuss how it mocks heavy people in a way we now know as “fat-shaming.” While accordions and pop music may seem like strange bedfellows, Yankovic has made a long career out of parody, earning the title, “The Court Jester of Rock & Roll.” And since a discussion of Yankovic's “Fat” is also a discussion of Jackson's “Bad,” we also have the “can you separate the art from the artist?” debate. Post-recording correction: Several artists have refused Al permission from parodying his songs;  he always asks for permission first. But it was the Coolio song “Gangsta's Paradise” that Al had trouble getting permission for as he parodied it in “Amish Paradise.” He doesn't seem to have had issue with getting permission for the Chamillionaire/Krayzie Bone song “Ridin'” for his popular parody, “White and Nerdy.”Follow Along:Weird Al's original “Fat” VideoMichael Jackson's original “Bad”A snippet of The Food Medley featuring “Snack all Night” (a parody of Michael Jackson's “Black or White”) Archival footage of “Weird Al” performing My Bologna Enjoy some of Weird Al's Polkas here or here in his “Polkas on 45”Want some bratwurst while you enjoy your polkas? Here's a crockpot recipe. Watch Yankovic's movie “UHF” on iTunes Enjoy this commercial for Spatula City Finally, read more about fat-shaming from Rebecca Puhl and colleagues at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut.Give a listen and tell us what YOU think!!***AND***Visit our website at www.sickburnspod.com to leave a comment or a voicemail!Instagram @Sick_Burns_PodTwitter @Sick80sFacebook https://www.facebook.com/SickBurnsPodcastEmail us at Burningthe80s@gmail.com

Today, we are joined by Courtenay Fisher who is an FNTP Nutritional Therapy Practitioner located here in Charleston.  We had an absolute blast during our conversation today and I was fortunate enough to learn quite a bit about nutrient-dense foods, the SAD diet, and many other things involving nutrition.  I got a lot out of this episode and I think you will too.  Enjoy!   Topics Covered: The SAD diet Where to start on changing your nutrition for the better? The individualization of a diet Do we over-complicate our nutrition? Courtenay's take on properly prepared nutrient-dense foods How effective are meal-prep services? Sorting out the research What it is like to be a client of Courtenay's   Reach out to Courtenay: Via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CourtenayFisherNTP/   1. Meal delivery option we mentioned: https://balancedbites.com2. Two quick resources on why we should avoid incentivizing with food: https://maryannjacobsen.com/what-rewarding-kids-with-food-looks-like-20-years-later/Although written for schools, this resource (Food_As_Rewards pdf - attached) includes some great information and alternate suggestions, and a favorite quote on the subject, "Rewarding children with unhealthy foods in school undermines our efforts to teach them about good nutrition. It’s like teaching children a lesson on the importance of not smoking, and then handing out ashtrays and lighters to the kids who did the best job listening.” Marlene Schwartz, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University. 3. What is Nutrient Density?  Facebook post: 4. More about the Nutritional Therapy Association: https://nutritionaltherapy.com/about/ 5. Snacks - While I agree that some people need go-to, healthy snacks or small meals for certain situations, I also encourage clients to tune into eating enough of their best ratio of quality protein/fat/carbs at each meal so that they don’t regularly feel the need for snacks.  (Of course, those who train at a higher level or have specific medical conditions or lifestyle needs may require adjustments.). I particularly encourage parents to avoid feeding kids (or anyone else) snacks out of habit or craving as opposed to real hunger.  If kids aren’t hungry enough to eat quality, real food, they aren’t really hungry.  This can be a hard concept but helping kids to discern between hunger (or thirst, which is often confused with hunger) and cravings will contribute immensely to long term health.

Today, we are joined by Courtenay Fisher who is an FNTP Nutritional Therapy Practitioner located here in Charleston.  We had an absolute blast during our conversation today and I was fortunate enough to learn quite a bit about nutrient-dense foods, the SAD diet, and many other things involving nutrition.  I got a lot out of this episode and I think you will too.  Enjoy!   Topics Covered: The SAD diet Where to start on changing your nutrition for the better? The individualization of a diet Do we over-complicate our nutrition? Courtenay's take on properly prepared nutrient-dense foods How effective are meal-prep services? Sorting out the research What it is like to be a client of Courtenay's   Reach out to Courtenay: Via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CourtenayFisherNTP/   1. Meal delivery option we mentioned: https://balancedbites.com2. Two quick resources on why we should avoid incentivizing with food: https://maryannjacobsen.com/what-rewarding-kids-with-food-looks-like-20-years-later/Although written for schools, this resource (Food_As_Rewards pdf - attached) includes some great information and alternate suggestions, and a favorite quote on the subject, "Rewarding children with unhealthy foods in school undermines our efforts to teach them about good nutrition. It's like teaching children a lesson on the importance of not smoking, and then handing out ashtrays and lighters to the kids who did the best job listening.” Marlene Schwartz, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University. 3. What is Nutrient Density?  Facebook post: 4. More about the Nutritional Therapy Association: https://nutritionaltherapy.com/about/ 5. Snacks - While I agree that some people need go-to, healthy snacks or small meals for certain situations, I also encourage clients to tune into eating enough of their best ratio of quality protein/fat/carbs at each meal so that they don't regularly feel the need for snacks.  (Of course, those who train at a higher level or have specific medical conditions or lifestyle needs may require adjustments.). I particularly encourage parents to avoid feeding kids (or anyone else) snacks out of habit or craving as opposed to real hunger.  If kids aren't hungry enough to eat quality, real food, they aren't really hungry.  This can be a hard concept but helping kids to discern between hunger (or thirst, which is often confused with hunger) and cravings will contribute immensely to long term health.

Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English language. These include the James Beard award for Wine and Spirits Professional of the Year, the Louis Roederer award for Best Consumer Wine Writing, and the International Wine and Spirits award as the Global Wine Communicator of the Year.  In a full-page profile on her, TIME Magazine called Karen “America’s Missionary of the Vine.” In 2018, Karen was named one of the “100 Most Influential People in the Wine.” But deep global wine knowledge is only part of the story. Karen is considered America’s foremost wine presenter–a speaker who can enchant audiences from 5 to 500, and from wine novices to wine collectors alike. Her customized TED-like talks are accompanied by extraordinary wines which she personally selects for the event. Karen is also the author of the award-winning book, THE WINE BIBLE, the single best-selling wine book in the United States, praised as “The most informative and entertaining book I’ve ever seen on the subject” (Danny Meyer), “Astounding” (Thomas Keller), and “A masterpiece of wine writing…the single best wine book written in years…” (Kevin Zraly). The former wine correspondent for the Today Show, Karen was the host of the PBS series Wine, Food and Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. Karen is the creator and editor of WineSpeed, the leading digital “e-letter” in the U.S. for fast, authoritative information about wine. Her articles on wine and food have been published in more than 50 newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, Town & Country, Elle, and Worth. She was the first Food and Wine Editor of USA Today. Karen currently hosts #SipWithKaren, the leading Twitter tasting in the global wine sphere, which each month reaches 20+ million timelines from Indiana to India. Karen’s firm, Karen MacNeil & Company, creates customized corporate events and wine tours around the world for companies and individual groups. Among Karen’s corporate clients are Lexus, Merrill Lynch, Disney, General Electric, UBS, and Singapore Airlines, as well as numerous law and biotech firms. Karen is the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America in the Napa Valley, which has been called “the Harvard of wine education.”

Host Jenna Liut welcomes Dr. Marlene Schwartz, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut, back on the show to discuss the article she co-authored with Dr. Kelly Brownell and Dr. Lee Miller that was recently published in the American Journal of Public Health. The article, “Primer on US Food and Nutrition Policy and Public Health,” explores the critical and inextricable link between agriculture and public health and demonstrates the need for policies that simultaneously address hunger, obesity and the effects of agricultural production on the environment. It's HRN's annual summer fund drive, this is when we turn to our listeners and ask that you make a donation to help ensure a bright future for food radio. Help us keep broadcasting the most thought provoking, entertaining, and educational conversations happening in the world of food and beverage. Become a member today! To celebrate our 10th anniversary, we have brand new member gifts available. So snag your favorite new pizza - themed tee shirt or enamel pin today and show the world how much you love HRN, just go to heritageradionetwork.org/donate Eating Matters is powered by Simplecast

In an earlier podcast with Dr. Rebecca Puhl, she described the nature extent and impact of weight bias on the lives of individuals was described and clear and very moving ways. Dr. Puhl, professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut, and deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, is a leading researcher and an agent for change on this important topic. She's kindly agreed to speak with us on this podcast on what might be done to prevent weight stigma when it does occur and how to reduce its impact. About Rebecca Puhl   Dr. Rebecca Puhl, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut and the Deputy Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Dr. Puhl is a leading voice in both research and in policy efforts aimed at reducing weight-based discrimination, stigma, and victimization. She has conducted research on weight stigma for over 16 years and has numerous publications on related topics. She has testified in legislative hearings on weight discrimination and routinely provides expertise on strategies to reduce weight bias to national and international health organizations. Dr. Puhl has received awards for her work from national organizations such as the National Eating Disorders Coalition, the Obesity Action Coalition, and most recently The Obesity Society. Interview Summary Rebecca, you have done very impressive work with the media on how people with obesity are portrayed. Can you remind us again how quickly how weight is portrayed in the media and what you have done to address this? The media is a powerful and pervasive source of weight bias in that people who have larger body sizes are really depicted in negative ways in media that reinforce societal stereotypes like lazy or sloppy or a target of ridicule and this happens in many forms of media. Not just entertaining media but also the news media. And one of the things that struck us early on when we began studying this issue is just how many news reports about obesity are accompanied by stigmatizing images and videos of people with obesity. And we did some research where we looked at hundreds of news reports on obesity across lots of different national news outlets. And we found that essentially over two thirds of the images that accompany these reports were very stigmatizing. And so to try to help change this we created a comprehensive gallery of images and videos that essentially portray children and adults who have obesity in ways that are respectful and positive and non-stigmatizing. We hired professional photographers to do this and we essentially created the first image bank of its kind, which provides these images and videos for free to the media, and also to help professionals or researchers or educators. And the idea here is to try to provide an easy source of images that can help challenge weight bias in the media. And we had a lot of success with this. Our images have appeared in national and even international news outlets. And what I have been really delighted to see over the years, especially recently is other organizations are now following suit. So there are now image banks available in Canada and through the World Obesity Federation. And from my perspective, these types of efforts are really important to try to help shift media portrayals of obesity. But it doesn't really stop there. We try to speak out against the weight bias in the media when we see examples of it to you, those as teachable moments of why it's, it's damaging and harmful. And, you know, I'll be honest, it can be challenging to stay on top of this, especially with weight bias that is now emerging on social media. But it's definitely been often that stick to see more people speaking out against stigma and shaming and calling out the harms of weight stigma when this occurs. And I don't think I could have said that five or 10 years ago. But certainly the voices against the weight stigma and the public awareness of it I think are increasing. In an earlier podcast you mentioned the pretty serious impact of lead by us in medical care settings. And I know you when others have worked on addressing this issue, what's been done in this area? So I think that engaging medical professionals in efforts to combat weight bias is really important. And you know, part of the reason for that is that we know that weight bias is a big problem in healthcare and that we need to really educate providers about weight bias and the harmful impact that it has on our patients. You know, when we think about medical training, you know, topics of obesity and nutrition don't really get curriculum coverage in the way that the need to. And essentially there's no education about weight stigma. And so we've developed a number of educational resources for health care providers to try to help them become aware of weight bias and how it impacts their patients and what they can do about this in the clinical practice. And another reason I think we need to really engage healthcare providers in this way is that they can be very important allies and sources of support to patients who have obesity, who may be experiencing stigma. This is especially true for children who are vulnerable to teasing and victimization because of their weight, not only at school from their peers, but at home from family members. And for kids who experienced weight stigma in both of those settings, health providers, pediatric providers, may be one of the few allies who can really identify this issue and support them. So as an example of a way to kind of address this in the medical community, I coauthored a policy statement with Steven Cotton and other colleagues that was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2017. It essentially aims to increase awareness in the medical community about the harmful effects of weight stigma on children. And it provides guidance for ways that healthcare professionals can address this issue. And what I think was important about this is that not only were there clinical practice recommendations in this policy statement for ways that pediatric providers can reduce weight stigma, but we also made a number of broader advocacy related recommendations of ways that providers can try to help reduce a broader societal weight stigma in children. So for example, we recommended that health professionals work with schools to try to ensure that anti-bullying policies protect students when it to weight based bullying. We called upon health professionals to advocate for training for medical trainees and health professionals. That they're educated about weight stigma and its harmful effects. And to really advocate for responsible portrayals of people with obesity in the media. And so I think efforts like this in the medical field are really important because we need to bring attention to the fact that stigma really does pose a barrier to effective clinical care and treatment. And to find ways to better support patients regardless of their body size. Rebecca, you and your colleagues at the Rudd Center developed a series of videotapes to show the impact of weight bias. Could you explain what these videos they just portray? Sure. As part of our efforts at the Rudd Center to reduce weight stigma, we created three educational videos and these have different target audiences that include health care providers, parents and teachers, and students. And we worked on these videos with an Emmy-award-winning writer, Heather Hale. And we also involved Emme in this project, who is considered to be kind of the world's first plus size model. And we created these films as a way to bring attention to the issue of weight stigma and how it impacts people and what can be done to address this problem. And our videos have been very successful. Particularly our video targeting health providers, which has been disseminated across the country and actually outside of the US, and is used frequently in medical facilities as part of a sensitivity training. What I've been delighted to see is that there's also been several studies testing the videos and what they have found is that these are effective interventions in improving attitudes and reducing weight bias. I will also mention that we worked with HBO on their Weight of the Nation Series. We also created a short video with HBO called the human cost of obesity. And that really kind of shows the personal side of weight stigma. And it has also been tested in research and found to improve attitude. So I think that these kinds of tools, these brief videos, which are really less than 20 minutes each, can be really useful ways to increase awareness of weight stigma and offer some strategies to be part of a solution to address this problem. You know the Weight of the Nation was a major enterprise by HBO to address obesity issues in the United States. And it was a sign of changing times to have included weight biases among the issues in that documentary. And I thought some of the personal stories that came out in those documentaries are really very powerful and I give you a lot of the credit for making that happen. So good work. So let me ask you on another level about the policy level about what might be done. And I know there has been some discussion about dealing with weight discrimination through antidiscrimination laws. Where does that stand? So you know, from my perspective, policy is really one of the most important strategies we have to address the problem of weight stigma on a broad scale. The kinds of policies and legislation that are relevant here are different for adults than for children. So for adults, you're right that this involves passing antidiscrimination laws and policies that essentially make it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of body weight. And currently there are very few options for legal recourse in the United States if someone has faced weight discrimination. Right now Michigan is the only state that has a law prohibiting weight discrimination. This was a law that was passed as part of their state civil rights statute back in the 1970s. There's also now half a dozen cities across the country that have passed local jurisdictions to prohibit discrimination. But essentially there are very few options available. And so we've been conducting national studies really for the past eight years or so, looking at public support for different types of laws that could address this. And what we have found is substantial public support for laws that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because of their weight in the workplace. And we see as much as 80% of people in favor of this. And we also see a similarly high levels of support for adding body weight as a protected characteristic in existing civil rights laws. And essentially this is what Michigan has and we're starting to see that some states want to do the same. For some time Massachusetts has been trying to pass a state law to add weight as a protected category in their state civil rights law. And they are making progress. And I think that we will likely see more states begin these types of efforts as well. So that is somewhat promising. When it comes to children though we were talking about weight-based bullying, which is a huge problem. And it's often something that gets ignored at the policy level, whether it's school-based anti-bullying policies or state anti-bullying laws. So right now almost every school district across the country has to have an anti-bullying policy. But these policies vary considerably in terms of how comprehensive they are. So some policies will list characteristics that place kid that risk for bullying, like sexual orientation or race and ethnicity, whereas others don't. And what we know is that schools that have more comprehensive policies that can enumerate these characteristics tend to have lower rates of bullying and better student safety, and more teacher intervention. So what's really concerning is that body weight is essentially a glaring omission in most of these policies. And so there is a clear need to strengthen these policies. And the same goes for anti-bullying laws. So every state in the country has an anti-bullying law, but they really vary from state to in terms of how strong they are. And right now only a couple of state laws even mentioned body weight. So we've done a lot of research on these issues and looking at things like parental support for strengthening policies and laws to better protect kids from weight-based bullying. And again, we see really high levels of support from parents, often 80% or higher who want to see body weight added into the language of school based policies in anti-bullying laws. So I think what this means is that we need to not only work with policymakers and school administrators to make this happen. But I think we also need to educate parents about this issue because when it comes to policy, parents have an influential voice in motivating political will for action on things that affect children. But many parents don't really know if their child's school has an anti-bullying policy. And if it does, whether it even addresses weight at all. So I think we can encourage parents to really talk to their schools, to learn more and to ask and request that body weight be included. Because we really needed to treat weight-based bullying as a legitimate form of harassment and bullying. And you know, at the Rudd Center we've provided examples of model policies and what they look like, and ways that parents can talk to their child or their child's school about making improvements So how can people learn more about your work and about the issue of weight stigma overall? So I would encourage folks to go to our website, which is www.uconnruddcenter.org. We have a whole section of our website devoted to weight bias and that includes not only our research but lots of resources that we created coming out of our studies that are available for policymakers, health providers, and parents and teens. That's a great place to start to get more information.  

Think back to your time in school and try to remember how the overweight children were treated. It is possible that you were the subject of such treatment, but if not, imagine how this would feel and whether such experiences could have an indelible impact. What are the consequences of such treatment then and later in life? When people think of stigma, bias, discrimination factors such as gender, race, and age come to mind for most people, but not necessarily weight. And weight bias is a very important topic and has been the subject of an impressive body of research. About Rebecca Puhl A leader in this area is Dr Rebecca Puhl, professor of Human Development Family Studies at the University of Connecticut and the deputy director of the Rudd Center for food policy and obesity. Dr Pull is a leading voice in both research and in policy efforts aimed at reducing weight based discrimination, stigma, and victimization. She's conducted research on weight stigma for more than 16 years and has numerous publications on the issue. She has testified in legislative hearings on weight discrimination and routinely provides expertise on strategies to reduce weight bias to national and international health organizations. She's received numerous awards for her work from national organizations. Interview Summary Rebecca, I give you credit for what I believe you people can claim you really created a field before you began your work on weight stigma, one could count the studies on the topic on one hand. But you made this an area of legitimate scientific inquiry and because of the work you and your colleagues have done, a robust field now exists and much has happened. The subject of weight bias may seem like an academic matter, but there's a real human cost. Can you paint a picture of how people are affected by this and what sort of things actually happen in people's lives? And why don't we begin with a discussion of children? Well, most of the attention to childhood obesity typically focuses on children's physical health? But we know from considerable research that the social consequences of being teased or bullied because of weight can be really devastating for kids. And weight stigma begins early in life for children. Some studies have found that even by preschool, three and five year olds are already endorsing negative stereotypes about their peers who have a larger body size. And by elementary school, many children are being teased and bullied about their weight. And unfortunately this really continues throughout adolescence. And what we know is that these experiences can take multiple forms. So weight stigma for kids means being socially excluded from their peers. Being verbally teased or insulted because of their weight. Being the target of cyber bullying or physical aggression. And you know, these experiences can really result in damaging emotional and physical health consequences for children and adolescents. We know that they have an increased risk of things like depression and anxiety, poor self-esteem, poor body image. But it can also lead children and adolescents to turn to unhealthy eating behaviors too. Like binge eating or unhealthy weight control practices, avoiding physical activity, often because gym class or sports activities are settings where these kids are very vulnerable to weight based teasing. And we even see that teasing and bullying about weight can actually predict future weight gain. And these can be really long lasting consequences. We published a study in 2017 from a longitudinal cohort called Project Eat, which essentially follows adolescents for many years. And what we found is that being teased about weight in adolescence predicted unhealthy eating behaviors and obesity and weight gain 15 years later--when those adolescents were in their thirties. And, that remains true even after we accounted for their body weight and other kinds of demographic factors. And so, we really can't ignore or underestimate the damaging impact of weight stigma on, on the quality of life for children and adolescents. You mentioned stereotypes that are commonly thought of in this area. What sort of stereotypes are there? And what do people assume in the case of children, for example, is true of them just because of their being overweight? Well, you know, we see some of the same stereotypes for both children and adults. Assumptions that because people have a higher body weight, they must be lazy, lacking discipline, lacking willpower. There's also stereotypes that they're incompetent, less intelligent, or sloppy. The list really goes on and on. Kind of at the root of these stereotypes are beliefs that it's a person's fault that they're overweight or obese. That they have done something personally to be responsible for their weight rather than recognizing, in the more complex, broader societal, environmental, biological factors that all play a role in determining a person's body weight. That really creates a double whammy doesn't it. That the person is stigmatized, they are stereotyped because of their weight. But then they're also blamed for it. That's pretty powerful. It's very powerful. And, and I think what's hard is that we live in a society that doesn't really challenge those beliefs very much. In fact, what we see from the mass media, from societal messages about weight from the diet industry, fashion industry, is that this really does come down to personal effort. When in fact we know from considerable science that that's just not the case. That body weight is a very complex issue that is caused by many different factors outside of personal control. But we don't hear those messages very often. And as a result of this societal stigma, these kinds of stereotypes remain very prevalent. Let's talk about adults. So in what areas of life does weight based bias and discrimination affect people who suffer from these issues? Well, certainly for adults, we see that weight bias occurs in really most societal settings and areas in life. There's considerable evidence of weight bias in employment settings where people who have a larger body size, face weight discrimination at essentially every stage of the employment cycle from being hired to getting fired. And there's evidence that that students and college students as well face weight bias in educational institutions. And that can be in the form of differential or unfair treatment from educators having lower expectations of students compared to thinner students. But you know, one of the other settings where we see a lot of documentation of weight bias is actually in health care by healthcare professionals. And, weight bias has been demonstrated from primary care providers, from cardiologists and nurses, dietitians and medical trainees, mental health professionals, you name it. And again, this kind of includes the same stereotypes that we just talked about. Views that patients with obesity are lazy or lacking control, are to blame for their weight or noncompliant with treatment. And, this is really concerning because weight bias from health care providers can really impair quality of health care for patients. We know, for example, that some physicians spend less time in their appointments with patients have a larger body size. They give them less education about health. They're more reluctant to perform certain screenings. They talk about treating patients with obesity as being a greater waste of their time than providing care to thinner patients. And we know that patients seem to be aware of these biases from providers and that can really contribute to patients avoiding health care because they just don't want to repeat those negative experiences of bias. And, so I think this all underscores that no one is really immune to weight bias in our society. That negative stereotypes and stigma related to weight are really present across major societal institutions of healthcare and employment and education, which means that people are really vulnerable to mistreatment in multiple domains of their life. So it sounds like it's the kind of thing people are living with every day of their lives because they're intersecting with one of these systems: education, employment, medical with medical systems almost continually all the time. And you also mentioned that the way people are portrayed in the media is a real issue here. Can you explain more about that? Absolutely. So, you know, the media is a very influential and pervasive source of weight bias. And, our research as well as the research of others has looked at the ways that people with obesity are portrayed in the media and what we see is it is very negative. So for example, entertainment media like TV shows and movies, characters who have a larger body size are consistently portrayed in ways that really reinforce negative stereotypes as being lazy or glutinous or sloppy or a target of humor or ridicule. In the news media, this comes across a little bit differently where we see stigmatizing visual portrayals of people with obesity. So for example, the types of images or videos that accompany news reports about obesity are often very stigmatizing. And, we've done some experimental studies looking at this where we show people realistic news reports about obesity, accompanied with either stigmatizing or respectful positive images of people with obesity. And what we see is that when people see those negative stigmatizing images, it worsens their weight bias. And we also find in our research that people don't want to see those stigmatizing images. They want to see respectful non-stigmatizing portrayals of people of diverse body sizes. But that's not what we really see in news coverage. I think what's getting even more complicated with media now is we've got social media here in the mix. And we have seen evidence of weight bias through things like fat shaming in Twitter and on YouTube. And it's unfortunate that social media has kind of become a platform for disparaging comments about people because of their weight. And it's not just adults being targeted through media. I mean these issues are also present in youth targeted media and children's TV shows and social media that appeals to youth. And so I think this is really a huge problem because again, these media messages really reinforce and contribute to broader societal weight bias. And that's difficult to shut down, especially when it's happening online. And you know, again, if we bring this back to kids, there's research that shows that the more media that youth are exposed to the higher weight bias they have. And so the influence of weight of media is really real when it comes to weight bias. Speaking of this, you see more stories about people challenging the weight shaming that's occurring in social media. Do you think that's helping? I do. I think even compared to 10 years ago where there was a lot of negativity, we didn't see as many people challenging or coming out and pointing out and bringing awareness. And I think that has changed and I think that there are some benefits of social media because, as much as it's a platform for some of this negativity, more people are calling it out in a way we really weren't seeing before. And so I think that's an important piece of progress. I think that we still need to sway it so that there's more positive than negative, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. I know there's some research suggesting that familiarity with a stigmatized group will help reduce stigma because you know people as people and can learn more about their good qualities. And with two thirds of American adults now overweight or obese and the same being true for a third of American children, you'd think that almost everybody would have lots of familiarity with people who have obesity. Wouldn't this reduced bias? I think that's a good assumption to make based on evidence that we've seen with others, socially stigmatized groups. But you're right that so many people in our society now are struggling with either overweight or obesity that we would expect bias to be much lower than what it is. And in fact, we're not seeing it reduce in the same way that we've seen other reductions. And you know, I think that's due to a couple of reasons. I think first is that we still live in a society that has very strong ideals when it comes to thinness. And thinness has come to symbolize values of hard work and discipline and attractiveness and desire. And unfortunately the converse of that thinking is that people who aren't thin are lacking in those traits and characteristics. And those thin ideals are still heavily perpetuated in the media and by the diet and fashion industries. So that's one contributing factor. I think another real contributor is this idea of personal responsibility that is still, common in kind of the societal thinking when it comes to body weight. And, that notion of personal responsibility isn't getting challenged enough. And that's not to say that that personal behavior isn't important when it comes to body weight, but it's only one piece of a very complex puzzle. And if we only focus on that piece, which is typically what the messaging is, we're not going to address it and we're not going to be able to reduce stigma. I was just going to say that I think, the other contributing factor here is that from a policy perspective, we live in a country--and this is true for other countries in the world as well--where it's essentially legal to discriminate on the basis of weight. And we don't have policies prohibiting weight discrimination and I think that really sends a message that this form of bias is tolerable. And so those are some main contributing factors I think to why we see weight stigma remain present and in some cases pervasive in our society. And those are kind of large areas to tackle to try to reduce it. You mentioned before that weight bias and stigma can have a negative effect on an individual's mental health, including things like depression, which in turn can lead to further reading and exacerbated weight related issues. So this really counters, doesn't it, the assumption that some people have that weight stigma is good because it puts pressure on people to lose weight. Is that pretty much been debunked now? There has been this public misperception for quite some time that somehow stigma will motivate people to lose weight or provide an incentive to lose weight. And I think, again, a lot of that comes from inaccurate beliefs or oversimplified notions of personal responsibility for weight. And, what we know is that when we look at the research on weight stigma and health, that that weight stigma really does predict in a lot of longitudinal studies, weight gain and obesity over time. And there's a lot of evidence showing that weight stigma contributes to behaviors that promote weight gain, like binge eating or lower physical activity. And some of our recent research has found that weight stigma interferes with weight loss maintenance, making it more difficult for people to sustain weight loss over time. And so, yes, the evidence suggests that this is really contributing to health indices and health behaviors that promote gain and obesity. And, and you know, speaking as a psychologist, I'll add as well that the idea that shame or unfair treatment is somehow an appropriate way to incentivize weight loss is completely inappropriate. And you know, rather than stigmatizing and shaming people as an approach to motivate improved health behaviors, we really need to provide people with support and empowerment to do that. And I think that in some ways, it highlights the fact that weight stigma is both a social justice issue but it's also a public health issue. And I think it really needs to be tackled on both of those fronts if we want to reduce this problem and, and improve people's quality of life. Fundamentally I think the bottom line is that this is about respect and dignity and equal treatment for children and adults, regardless of what their body size.  

 Black and Hispanic children see TV ads for sugary drinks, unhealthy snacks, and fast foods far more than anything else and it's no accident.  They are targeted by the food companies that know the addictive qualities of their ‘food products'. According to the latest study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at … Continue reading EP 241 Junk Food Ads Target Black and Hispanic Kids

When it comes to gambling addiction, what segments of the U.S. population are most affected? This hour, we look at a new report by Connecticut Public Radio and the Sharing America initiative, which shines a light on the issue of problem gambling within the Southeast Asian refugee community.Later, we discuss a new report on weight-based bullying and its effect on young members of the LGBTQ community. Dr. Rebecca Puhl of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity joins us and we also hear from you. Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Editor-in-Chief Linda Snetselaar, PhD, RDN, LD, FAND, interviews Marlene B. Schwartz, PhD, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut. Schwartz discusses issues and challenges within the school lunch environment, how school lunches have changed over time, plate waste, strategies to make school lunches healthier, and future policy changes that could have a positive effect on school lunches.

Sally Mancini is Director of Advocacy Resources at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, leading efforts to inform the public, community organizations, advocates, and policy makers about the Center’s research related to food marketing to children and its impact on health disparities. She also helps state and local advocates develop the resources necessary to support food policy improvements in all communities.

Karen MacNeil is the only American to have won every major wine award given in the English language. These include the Wine and Spirits Professional of the Year (James Beard Foundation) and the Global Wine Communicator of the Year (International Wine and Spirits Association).  In a full-page profile on her, TIME Magazine called Karen “America’s Missionary of the Vine.” But deep global wine knowledge is only part of the story. Karen is considered America’s foremost wine presenter–a speaker who can enchant audiences from 5 to 500, and from wine novices to wine collectors alike. Her customized TED-like talks are accompanied by extraordinary wines which she personally selects for the event. Karen is also the author of the award-winning book, THE WINE BIBLE, the single best- selling wine book in the United States, praised as “The most informative and entertaining book I’ve ever seen on the subject” (Danny Meyer), “Astounding” (Thomas Keller), and “A masterpiece of wine writing…the single best wine book written in years…” (Kevin Zraly). The former wine correspondent for the Today Show, Karen was the host of the PBS series Wine, Food and Friends with Karen MacNeil, for which she won an Emmy. Karen is the creator and editor of WineSpeed, the leading digital “e-letter” in the U.S. for fast, authoritative information about wine. Her articles on wine and food have been published in more than 50 newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, Town & Country, Elle, and Worth. She was the first Food and Wine Editor of USA Today. Karen currently hosts #SipWithKaren, the leading Twitter tasting in the global wine sphere, which each month reaches 20+ million timelines from Indiana to India. Karen’s firm, Karen MacNeil & Company, creates customized corporate events and wine tours around the world for companies and individual groups. Among Karen’s corporate clients are Lexus, Merrill Lynch, Disney, General Electric, UBS, and Singapore Airlines, as well as numerous law and biotech firms. Karen is the creator and Chairman Emeritus of the Rudd Center for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America in the Napa Valley, which has been called “the Harvard of wine education.”

Brian Grim, President of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation, explains why religious freedom is good for business. Duke's Jonathan Anomaly explores why you should have more children. Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity's Rebecca Puhl on women's weight stigmas. University of Texas' Eddie Chambers on keeping Black History month. Veronica Newhart, UC Irvine, shares new technology that allows children to go to school via robot. BYU's Brian Harker on the tap-dancing genius of John W. Bubbles.

This week, host Jenna Liut and associate producer Taylor Lanzet are joined by Michael Roberts from the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at the UCLA Law School and Marlene Schwartz from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, to discuss food marketing to children. We unpack common marketing strategies, how social media has changed the game, and what industry's response has been. Later on the show, we are joined by Kelly Swette, CEO of Sweet Earth Natural Foods, makers of “heat and eat,” vegan and vegetarian convenience foods based in Salinas, CA.

What's so smart about those USDA-regulated "Smart Snacks" sold in school vending machines? More whole grain, and lowered sugar, fat, and calories—even if they're Cheetos, Doritos, or Pop Tarts. These reformulated items are less unhealthy, sure, but new research from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity proposes that their "copycat" look and packaging is designed to maintain brand loyalty outside of school, where the original versions are heavily marketed to teens. The strategy may be working—and backfiring on school food service when the presence of perceived junk food undermines parent trust.

Wrapping up the radio season, Eating Matters hosts Kim Kessler and Jenna Liut are talking kids menus – where they came from and how they reflect the state of the broader food environment and culture in America today.  Kids also represent a highly targeted and sought after portion of the consumer population.  With the rise of kids menus came marketing to children, which really took off starting with the first ever ‘happy meal,’ in the 1970s.  Today marketing food to kids specifically is a multi-billion dollary industry and many believe is responsible in part for the high rates of obesity and diet-related disease.  Helping to further delve into these issues and possibly policy solutions are Austin Bryniarski, George Weld, chef and owner of Egg, and Jennifer Harris, the Director of Marketing Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity.

Is it possible to eat a nutritious, healthy diet on a budget?  Is healthy food too expensive, or too cheap? These are the big questions on this week’s episode of Eating Matters with host Kim Kessler and co-host Jenna Liut.  With these concerns creating fault lines among food advocates, some of which have said that Americans need to spend more of their income on food, it raises concerns about those who can’t currently afford enough good food to eat.  On the line, Kim and Jenna welcome two experts, Parke Wilde (Associate Professor, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University) and Marlene Schwartz (Director, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, University of Connecticut), for a thorough discussion surrounding these questions.  

Amid widespread complaints about discarded school food, enter a new study that tells us things may be not as bad as they seem. Careful measurements of plate waste taken in twelve Connecticut schools in 2012, 2013, and 2014 tell a different story, of students eating better and wasting less as they adjust to changes on their lunch trays. Lead author Marlene Schwartz, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, unpacks this new data and reviews the study’s conclusions.

Rebecca Puhl, Deputy Director, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Yale University on "Weight Stigma: Implications for Research and Public Health." About the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy: The Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University is the only independent school of nutrition in the United States. The school's eight degree programs – which focus on questions relating to nutrition and chronic diseases, molecular nutrition, agriculture and sustainability, food security, humanitarian assistance, public health nutrition, and food policy and economics – are renowned for the application of scientific research to national and international policy.

Guest Jennifer Harris, Ph.D. MBA, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University, talks about her research into the extent and psychological impact of children exposure to food advertising and encourages parent advocacyRudd Roots Parents

Moderated by Whole Foods Market's Senior Global Grocery Coordinator, Errol Schweizer, this event features four esteemed panelists from Yale who will explore everything from food access and security and their impacts on human health, to sustainable food supply chains and institutional food procurement. Panelists: Patrick Stuebi, Founder & CEO, Fairtrasa Mark Bomford, Director, Yale Sustainable Food Project Kelly Brownell, Professor of Epidemiology & Public Health, Director, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity Rafi Taherian, Executive Director, Yale Dining

Let the games begin! The mad dash to the phone … the sudden spring out of bed … the frantic juggling of car keys, grocery bags and a cell phone! Olympic athletes may have remarkable speed and strength, but it's easy praise the extraordinary. Here's to the extreme averageness of the rest of us. From beer bellies to aching backs, we're all winners in the Darwinian Olympics just by virtue of being here. Identify the one physical trait that you share with all Olympians – your head - and why it's a remarkable human evolutionary achievement. Plus, the role of genes in putting on the pounds … and what event Spiderman would enter to win the gold. Guests: Daniel Lieberman - Professor of human evolutionary biology, Harvard University, author of The Evolution of the Human Head Callum Ross - Professor of organismal biology and anatomy, University of Chicago Kelly Brownell - Psychologist, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University Robert Peaslee - Assistant professor, College of Media and Communications, Texas Tech University and author of Web-Spinning Heroics: Critical Essays on the History and Meaning of Spider-Man Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let the games begin! The mad dash to the phone … the sudden spring out of bed … the frantic juggling of car keys, grocery bags and a cell phone! Olympic athletes may have remarkable speed and strength, but it’s easy praise the extraordinary. Here’s to the extreme averageness of the rest of us. From beer bellies to aching backs, we’re all winners in the Darwinian Olympics just by virtue of being here. Identify the one physical trait that you share with all Olympians – your head - and why it’s a remarkable human evolutionary achievement. Plus, the role of genes in putting on the pounds … and what event Spiderman would enter to win the gold. Guests: Daniel Lieberman - Professor of human evolutionary biology, Harvard University, author of The Evolution of the Human Head Callum Ross - Professor of organismal biology and anatomy, University of Chicago Kelly Brownell - Psychologist, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University Robert Peaslee - Assistant professor, College of Media and Communications, Texas Tech University and author of Web-Spinning Heroics: Critical Essays on the History and Meaning of Spider-Man

Ashley Gearhardt, Yale and Rudd Center for Policy and Obesity, explores what makes certain foods capable of triggering an addictive process. Series: "UCSF Consortium for Obesity Assessment, Study and Treatment" [Health and Medicine] [Education] [Professional Medical Education] [Show ID: 21692]

Ashley Gearhardt, Yale and Rudd Center for Policy and Obesity, explores what makes certain foods capable of triggering an addictive process. Series: "UCSF Consortium for Obesity Assessment, Study and Treatment" [Health and Medicine] [Education] [Professional Medical Education] [Show ID: 21692]

Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are now medically defined as overweight, stigma against individuals who are obese remains a widespread phenomenon. Virtual Mentor asked Dr. Rebecca Puhl, Director of Research and Anti-Stigma Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University to comment on the prevalence in our society and in health care and what can be to help ameliorate it.

Guest: Kelly Brownell, PhD Host: Larry Kaskel, MD It has been billed as the biggest boon to public health since tobacco taxes. And a one-cent per ounce tax on sodas could bring in as much as $400 million of annual revenue for the state of New York alone. How would a tax on sugared beverages impact our health and health care budget? Would the general public throw enough support behind this policy shift for politicians to think about putting it on the books? Host Dr. Larry Kaskel wades into the debate over soda taxes with Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, where he is also a professor of epidemiology, public health and psychology. Dr. Brownell, who recently co-authored a New England Journal of Medicine article with then-New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden in support of a soda tax, shares the scientific evidence that supports his position. He also considers other viewpoints in this debate: if a soda tax won't work, could we find a better way to discourage our insatiable taste for these sugary drinks?

Guest: Rebecca Puhl, MS, PhD Host: Leslie P. Lundt, MD Obesity is associated with multiple medical and psychological co-morbidities. An often under recognized problem is that of weight related stigmatization which can lead to unfair treatment, prejudice and discrimination. Are you guilty? Dr. Rebecca Puhl, director of research and anti-stigma initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, joins host Dr. Leslie Lundt to explain how weight bias may affect your obese patients.

Guest: Marlene Schwartz, MS, PhD Host: Leslie P. Lundt, MD Studies show that people who eat breakfast have better overall nutrition, improved cognitive functioning and are less likely to be overweight. What should we advise our pediatric patients to eat for breakfast? Up to 50% of school-aged children eat cereal for breakfast. How much nutritional value is present in cereal? How best can we advise parents on feeding their children? Dr. Marlene Schwartz, deputy director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, describes her research into children's nutrition with host Dr. Leslie Lundt.

Tomas Philipson, Professor in the Harris School and Faculty Member in the Department of Economics and Law School at the University of Chicago, talks to Kelly Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, about the economics of obesity.