Podcast appearances and mentions of sara bleich

There are over 13 million kids heading back to school this month in the U.S. that are living with hunger. Please be inspired by two episodes from our 2022 series on Food is the Most Important School Supply. Hear directly from kids affected by hunger and teachers and school administrators witnessing hunger in the classroom, as well as changemakers from federal, state, and local government that are making sure kids get fed at school. These changemakers include:Dawn Amano-Ige, the First Lady of HawaiiDr. Sara Bleich, Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the USDADr. Miguel A. Cardona, United States Secretary of EducationJohn Giles, the Mayor of Mesa, ArizonaJennie Gordon, the First Lady of WyomingLevar Stoney, the Mayor of Richmond, Virginia, andTom Vilsack, United States Secretary of AgricultureWe hope you are moved and inspired to fight childhood hunger. Go to nokidhungry.org to learn more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Food insecurity in America is back on the rise after a decade of downward trends. Dr. Sara Bleich, a public health policy expert, reveals the top contributing factors and which communities are most at-risk. She also discusses federal programs that are making a positive impact to reverse this concerning uptick in food insecurity. Learn More: https://radiohealthjournal.org/child-hunger-in-america-rising-rates-and-promising-solutions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Obesity in the United States has reached epidemic proportions, affecting millions of Americans and costing the healthcare system billions of dollars each year. As is so often the case with disease in this country, communities of color suffer disproportionately.Public health expert Sara Bleich, PhD '07, says it's time to deal with obesity as the urgent crisis that it is. A professor of public health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former director of nutrition security for the Biden administration, Bleich says the disease is largely preventable but to make progress, the country must deal with persistent inequities in the healthcare system—and the structural racism that underlies them. Join us this time for a conversation about obesity, public health, and race.

In this episode of Repast, Michael and Diana welcome Dr. Caree Cotwright, the Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.  In her role at USDA, Dr. Cotwright leads a whole-of-department approach at USDA to advance food and nutrition security, which is one of USDA Secretary Vilsacks five core priorities.  Dr. Cotwright is on leave from her position as an associate professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the College of Family and Consumer Science at the University of Georgia, where she has been since 2013.  She received her undergraduate degree in biology from Howard University before moving on to UGA, where she completed her master's and doctorate degrees in nutrition.  At the University of Georgia, she conducted early childhood obesity prevention research efforts focusing on youth ages 0-5 using innovative and multidisciplinary methods. Here, Dr. Cotwright notes how her personal background influenced her professional direction, and discusses the USDA's approach to food and nutrition security, scaffolded by the four pillars of (1) providing meaningful nutrition support from pregnancy to birth and beyond; (2) working to connect everyone in this country with healthy, safe, affordable food sources; (3) developing, translating, and enacting nutrition science through partnership including the National MyPlate Strategic Partnerships, and (4) prioritizing equity every step of the way.  She focuses on two specific programs—Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, and the new summer EPT program, scheduled for roll-out in 2024—and how the USDA is working to make MyPlate a household symbol.   You can find Dr. Cotwright's UGA profile here.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find more on the USDA's approach to nutrition security here. Learn about USDA's MyPlate initiative here.Follow the MyPlate Instagram at @myplate_gov.Or email pictures of MyPlate in the wild or MyPlate feedback to Caree.Cotwright@usda.gov. You can find the Repast episode with former Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity, Dr. Sara Bleich, here.

In today's episode, we welcome Dr. Sara Bleich, a leading policy expert and researcher who specializes in the prevention of diet-related conditions, food insecurity, and racial inequality, as she discusses the critical issues driving inadequate nutrition in underserved populations. We'll explore how access to healthy food options plays a pivotal role in disease prevention and consider the policy changes necessary to combat food insecurity. Sara Bleich is a Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. She is a policy expert and researcher who specializes in diet-related diseases, food insecurity, and racial inequality with more than 180 peer-reviewed publications. Previously Sara served in the Biden Administration as the Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “But one of my main messages for you all is that these are problems that are almost entirely preventable.” “I would just really think about how you can in your day-to-day life or in your professional life, how you can facilitate those linkages and raise awareness about the importance of the federal nutrition assistance program.” On This Episode You Will Learn: Poor Diet and Food Insecurity in Underserved Populations Key Factors that drive Poor Diet Relationship Between Income, Food Access, and Poor Nutrition Responsibilities During Biden Administration Main Takeaways of Paper (Co-Author): "Food Insecurity and Diabetes: Overview of Intersections and Potential Dual Solutions" Connect with Yumlish! Website Instagram Twitter Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Connect with Dr. Sarah Bleich! Website Twitter LinkedIn --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/yumlish/message

Today, we continue our last episode's discussion around federal efforts to understand and combat food insecurity. We discuss policies and programs that provide nutrition assistance with Dr. Sara Bleich, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity. We'll talk about updates in nutrition assistance programs aimed at providing more equitable aid and the important role education and community engagement play in feeding America. 

Hunger is a reality, but it is also a solvable problem. While millions of kids face hunger everyday, we can make sure every kid gets the food they need to grow up healthy, happy, and strong. The second episode in Add Passion and Stir's series on why food is the most important school supply connects with changemakers from federal, state, and local government and community organizations that are working to solve childhood hunger in America. Their solution: making sure kids get feed while they are at school. The episode features: Dawn Amano-Ige, First Lady of HawaiiDr. Sara Bleich, Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity, USDADr. Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary of EducationJohn Giles, Mayor, Mesa, ArizonaJennie Gordon, First Lady of WyomingLevar Stoney, Mayor, Richmond, VirginiaTom Vilsack, Secretary of AgricultureSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This month on Repast, Michael and Diana talk with a very special guest, Dr. Sara Bleich, the Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.   Dr. Bleich is leading the department's work to counter food and nutrition insecurity in the United States.  In this episode, Dr. Bleich discusses the USDA's Actions on Nutrition Security, the difference between food security and nutrition security, health equity, structural racism, the upcoming historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, and much more.Dr. Sara Bleich is on leave from her tenured position as a Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.  She is a well-regarded public health policy expert specializing in food and nutrition policy and the author of more than 150 peer-reviewed publications. Her research centers on food insecurity, as well as racial injustice within the social safety net. Dr. Bleich holds a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University and a Bachelor's degree in psychology from Columbia University.In the first year of the Biden administration, Dr. Bleich served as Senior Advisor for COVID-19 in the Office of the Secretary. In January 2022, she transitioned to her new role as the first Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA.  She will elaborate more on this role today.  From 2015-2016, she served as a White House Fellow in the Obama Administration, where she worked in USDA as a Senior Policy Advisor for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services and with the First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! Initiative.  Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.  For more on the USDA's Actions on Nutrition Security, see here.See here for Secretary Vilsack's address on the USDA's Actions on Nutrition Security.See here for the USDA's new blog series on nutrition security.Look here for information about the upcoming White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.  

Poor nutrition is the leading cause of health issues in the United States, with nearly three in four American adults being overweight or obese, and obesity in children and young people being equally concerning. Today, we're talking with Dr. Sara Bleich, the new Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the Food and Nutrition Service at the US Department of Agriculture. Dr. Bleich is leading the department's overall effort to tackle food and nutrition insecurity in the United States. Interview Summary   Sara, it's always wonderful to chat with you, and doing so in different roles that you've been in. So last time we spoke, you were doing full-time work as a professor at Harvard, and now you're in this vital position at USDA. I mean, personally, I can't think of anyone more capable and qualified for this kind of work. And so I'd like to begin by asking if you could explain the purview of your work at USDA.   I'd be happy to, and thank you. It's really kind of you to say that. And I do want to just underscore that for me, it really is an honor to have the opportunity to serve in this role and to help some of these populations that I care a lot about. And I do feel like so many folks in the public health community have been so generous with their time, their expertise, and have given really valuable feedback, so just really want to say thank you to those of you who are listening. You know who you are. You've really been a wonderful sounding board.   So in terms of my transition to federal government, at the start of the Biden administration, I took a leave. I was previously at the Harvard School of Public Health, this was in January of 2021, and I spent the first year as the Senior Advisor for COVID in the Office of the Secretary. And now, in the second year of the administration, I have this new hat, which you mentioned, which is serving as the Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity, and this is within the Food Nutrition Service. So what's really interesting for me is that both of these jobs are brand new to USDA, so it's been really fun to sort of craft them and have the opportunity to sort of start fresh and take on these new responsibilities in very important areas. Now, one thing that they both have reminded me of is just how much I love federal service. This is my second tour of duty in government, and I honestly thought, the first time around, that I wouldn't like it so much, but I have fallen in love with federal service, I really love working at USDA, it's such a fun place to work, and I think that's largely because it has such a broad and diverse mission, so it touches the lives of 330 million Americans every day. I don't know of another job where you can have that sort of impact. So for me, it's great to be back. It's great to have an opportunity to serve, and it's especially nice to be able to do it in a topic area that I have worked on in my professional life, from the academic side, for so many years.   The enormous impact that this federal work has is clear, from what you just said, and everybody knows this, and in any administration, the country really relies on the service of people like you who are willing to take on these important tasks, so I'd like to say how much I appreciate you doing that. So it's heartening to know that the USDA is making nutrition security a key priority, and it's noteworthy that the term food security has become food and nutrition security. Can you explain why this transition has occurred in terminology and how is nutrition security being operationalized?   Great question. Really glad you asked it, because we are hearing a fair amount of confusion about the concept of nutrition security itself. And then how does it differ from the longstanding efforts at USDA to address food insecurity. So let's start with, first of all, what is nutrition security? So the concept is designed, or aims, to help us better recognize the coexistence of food insecurity and diet-related diseases and disparities. So specifically, what nutrition security means is consistent access, availability, and affordability of foods and beverages that promote wellbeing and prevent disease, and in some cases, treat disease. And this is particularly true among racial/ethnic minority populations, lower-income populations, and rural and remote populations, which includes tribal communities. Now, at USDA, nutrition security builds on and complements our efforts around food security, but it's different in two distinct ways. The first is that it, it being nutrition security, recognizes that we're not all maintaining an active healthy life that's consistent with federal recommendations, and the second is that it emphasizes taking an equity lens to our efforts. So put simply, you can think of nutrition security as having consistent and equitable access to healthy, safe, and affordable food. Now, many listeners may be aware of this definition, and may realize that it directly builds on the JAMA commentary by Dr. Dari Mozaffarian, my assistant, Dr. Sheila Fleischhacker, and Chef Jose R Andres, that came out a little over a year ago. So right now, what we're spending a whole lot of time doing, and that's why it's such a privilege to be on this podcast, is really trying to clearly articulate that definition of nutrition security to a broad range of audiences to really try to get everyone on the same page about what we're doing and how it is a complement to these long-standing efforts around food insecurity.   I'd like to explore this concept just a little bit more. So if you go back to when the country really started to take hunger seriously, in the 1960s, if the term security had been used back then, it probably would've been calorie insecurity, wouldn't it? There was an effort just to get food to people, irrespective of what it was, because they just needed to get more calories in them. But that's given way to a much more sophisticated concept that, if I'm hearing you right, not only do you want to get food to people, but the kind of food that specifically promotes health.   That's exactly right. So what we know right now about burden of disease in the US is that every year, about 600,000 people die because of diet-related conditions. Those are preventable deaths. So the burden of disease looks very different than it did 40 or 50 years ago. And so at USDA, now, what we're concerned about is not just giving people calories or food that fills up their fridge, but we want to give them calories or food that is also going to promote their health and their wellbeing, and that is the critical pivot, and the point that we're at right now, with all the messaging that we're doing, with how we're positioning the programs, and how we're prioritizing action as we move forward.   Sara, when we began the podcast, we talked about the very high rates of obesity in the country, and now you're talking about food insecurity, which people used to refer to as hunger, and a lot of people would see these as the opposite ends of the same spectrum, that they're somehow different and disconnected from one another, but they're not. Would you care to comment on that?   Food insecurity and obesity are definitely related. They often coexist. So we know, for example, that both food insecurity and excess body weight, which you can think of as obesity, they tend to be aggregated among historically disadvantaged populations. So communities of color, low-income populations. And because these two conditions coexist, it's really important to think about how do we use the power of the federal nutrition assistance programs to help move people out of food insecurity and toward nutrition security. And the power of the federal nutrition safety net is that it has a number of programs which are designed to do both. So, for example, if we look at SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formally known as food stamps, it helps about 41 million Americans - in fact, more than 41 million Americans, afford food each month. There's strong evidence which suggests that it pulls people away from food insecurity, so it lifts families out of hunger. But what we also know is that with the historic reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan, which is the calculation that underlies the size of the SNAP benefit that increased the benefit amount by 21%. This happened back in the fall of '21. What that does is, it puts healthy food within reach for so many participants who are on SNAP. So we view this change to SNAP, this reevaluation, which is the first permanent increase in over 45 years, we view this as core to our nutrition security efforts because it allows families to actually purchase food and put those foods within reach that are going to promote their health and their wellbeing.   Thanks for that explanation. So it sounds like some of your work lies at a very interesting intersection of two important priorities of the current administration. So on one hand, you have USDA Secretary Vilsack's goal of promoting and elevating nutrition security, which you've discussed, but also the President's goal of advancing racial equity. So what things are happening at this particular intersection of USDA?   Well, first I'll say this is an exciting time to be in government because there is so much focus on core issues that matter a lot. And so a key reason why the Secretary of Agriculture, which is Secretary Vilsack, the key reason why he is so passionately focused on nutrition security is really due to the pandemic, and the President's goal of advancing racial equity. So what we all know is that COVID-19 brought health disparities and the vital need for access to healthy food right up to the forefront. There's a study, which many listeners may be familiar with, which estimated that nearly two thirds of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States were due to four diet-related conditions: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure. And so for this reason, given the disproportionate impact of COVID, its impact on diet-related conditions, and we know that it really disproportionately impacted communities of color, equity is central to our work to promote and elevate nutrition security. And so just to keep us all on the same page, let me just quickly say what we mean by equity: everyone having an equal opportunity to live the healthiest life possible, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they make. But when we talk about equity that also dovetails with considerations around the context in which we live. This means we also have to consider structural racism, and this is how we bring in the racial equity lens. So structural racism is not just individuals having prejudices, but it's also when racism gets produced and reproduced by laws and by rules. It becomes embedded in the economy, and so therefore, confronting racism requires that we don't just change how individuals think, but we also start to transform policies. In our efforts to build awareness around nutrition security, we are also making very concerted efforts to explain how structural racism is real, it reaches back to the beginnings of US history, and it stretches across our institutions and economy. So we emphasize that structural racism harms health in ways that can be described, measured, and dismantled. And this is a really important needle to thread as we think about nutrition security, because social disadvantage is not random. It has real roots that we need to acknowledge, and then address wherever possible. So for example, we know that there are disparities in diet-related conditions that have existed for decades, and those are associated with structural limitations to retail food outlets that sell healthier foods, among a whole host of other longstanding historical inequities. And this is where the work of nutrition security comes in, where we at USDA, and hopefully, all the listeners of this podcast, can really make a difference.   So I would challenge you all to lean in and ask yourself how can you be part of the solution. And maybe that's asking a critical research question, maybe it's trying to help connect eligible individuals with the federal nutrition assistance programs, but there are so many opportunities to promote and elevate nutrition security. And the key, going back to your question, is that the President cares about this, the Secretary of Agriculture cares about this. This is a window of opportunity to really make a difference in people's lives. And so I think that we really want to lean in as much as possible and take advantage of it.   This work is really important, so following up on something you just said about ways that people can engage with this process, so what kind of things are you seeing on the horizon, and what are the best ways for people who might be listening, to engage?   So I think it's going to depend on the lane that you sit in. If you're listening to this podcast and you're a researcher, I would ask yourself, "Given the data that I've collected, given the data that I plan to collect, could I do a secondary analysis that might help me understand some of the impacts of the COVID flexibilities that have happened during the pandemic?" For example, there was a temporary increase to the SNAP benefit, and then that became a permanent increase. There have been hundreds of waivers that have been issued which have made the programs more easily accessible. So for example, with WIC, you don't have to go in in person, you can do meetings over the phone. There are all sorts of things, all sorts of program modifications that have happened, and USDA doesn't have the bandwidth to do all that evaluation. So I'd say if you're a researcher, look at how your existing data, your existing portfolio, may be able to answer other important questions.   Second, if you are industry, or if you're somehow in the private sector, ask yourself, "What could I do to lean in on this?" For example, there is a waiver that's allowed, it's called the SNAP Incentive Waiver. Retailers can apply for this and it allows them to incentivize SNAP participants to purchase things like fresh fruits and vegetables, and whole grains that are in alignment with the dietary guidelines for Americans. This has been around for a few years, and it's a really nice way that retailers could take advantage of an existing waiver to try to help promote healthy eating purchases among SNAP participants. Which, again, covers about 41 million Americans each month. There are so many different ways to think about leaning in on this particular issue. And I would say that one of the things that we have really tried hard to do over the past several months is that we at USDA are trying to really clearly define our role. How we are trying to make a difference - with the hope that it makes it obvious how others can do complementary activities, because yes - we are investing tens of billions of dollars towards this portfolio. We are very serious about it. This is a top priority. But USDA alone cannot solve the problem of diet-related diseases and disparities. It is going to take a whole-government, if not whole-country approach. And so this is where creative ideas about how to make a difference, leveraging existing resources, is where many of you who are listening can make a difference.   Thanks for that. By the way, this focus on equity and this idea that the whole country can engage to help address these issues feels very optimistic, and just like there's hope for the future of really addressing these problems in a fundamentally different way. So back to your career: you've been in both academics and in federal service, as you mentioned earlier. So what makes you passionate about nutrition security as an issue, and do you have advice for people that might be interested in federal service?   I love questions like this, largely because when I was starting off my career, it would've been so helpful to hear what motivates people. So for me, my north star is that I've always wanted to help historically underserved populations, communities of color. How do I help them achieve a better quality of life? I'm from inner-city Baltimore. I have a twin sister and an older brother. My parents still live in the same house that I was raised in, and they were public school teachers, they're now retired, and when we were young, our family received food stamps, now SNAP, we received WIC, we received school meals. So I've always been very motivated to give back to the communities that have given me so much. And I think that our current reality is that every child and every person in this country doesn't have an equal opportunity to live a healthy life. And that's not the way that it should be. So every day, I am very, very motivated to ask myself what can I do to help push us in that direction, and push us in a meaningful way. I think the challenge is always, you can push hard but you want to push hard on things that are moveable, where you can actually make a difference. Because everything is all about timing and you want to just be very strategic about where you're going to make investments or put your energy in an area. Because this is where there's an opportunity. And I would say that if we can achieve nutrition security, it is going to change people's lives. Diet-related diseases are preventable. Hundreds of thousands of people a year don't have to die from them. And that's particularly true among communities of color. I think that many of you listening probably feel the same, but these are things that need to change. As I mentioned earlier, I do think we are at a moment where there's a window of opportunity to make a difference. And I would say, more practically, if you're interested in federal service, I would strongly encourage you to just throw your hat in the ring and apply. So you can either go through the career staff route, you could go through the political route. If you go through the career staff route, the Food Nutrition Service at USDA is going to be hiring about 450 people in the not-too-distant future, and that process has started, so I would look at usajobs.gov and see what looks interesting. And I would also consider some of the political jobs, thinking about different fellowships that would allow you to insert yourself. I never expected to love government so much. I never expected to come back again, this is my second tour of duty, but I have just absolutely loved it. And then personally, it's such a pleasure to be able to work on the programs that I was able to benefit from as a child. So for me, it motivates me. I find it very exciting. And I think that for those who are in research and that choose to spend some time in government, I truly think it will make you a better researcher, because what it will teach you is that not every important question is urgent, and what are the urgent questions on which you should really focus your energy.   Speaker Bio   Sara Bleich, PhD was named Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity for the Food and Nutrition Service in January 2022. Since joining the Biden-Harris Administration in January 2021, Bleich has served as Senior Advisor for COVID-19 in the Office of the Secretary. Previously, she served as a Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Her research centers on food insecurity, as well as racial injustice within the social safety net. She is the author of more than 150 peer-reviewed publications. From 2015-2016, she served as a White House Fellow in the Obama Administration, where she worked in USDA as a Senior Policy Advisor for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. Bleich holds a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University and a bachelor's degree in psychology from Columbia University.  

Michelle Williams, Dean of the Faculty, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Jeffrey Sánchez, former Massachusetts state representative and lecturer at the Harvard T.H. Chan School will have a conversation about the Op-Ed the co-authored in the Washington Post titled, “Racism is killing black people. It’s sickening them, too.” It was published on June 4, 2020. The moderator is Sara Bleich, Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy and Management.

On this week’s episode: Dan, Jamilah, and Elizabeth interview Dr. Joseph Allen from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health who argues that remote school is failing our kids. Allen explains why virtual dropout is so concerning, especially to low income and minority students. They also discuss leadership failures and what infrastructure schools need to make sure they are safe for students, teachers and staff.  Following the interview, they answer a wild listener question about body shaming, blackmail, and ostracization.   In Slate Plus: How do you celebrate a kid’s birthday that’s constantly eclipsed by a holiday? Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on MADAF each week, and no ads. Sign up now to listen and support our work. Recommendations: Elizabeth recommends trying embroidery with your kids. Specifically the kits from Oh Sew Bootiful.  Jamilah recommends Dole Whip. Since you probably won’t be at Disney any time soon, you may as well make it yourself.  Dan recommends a tactic if your kids aren’t leaving to go to bed… just start making out with your partner. The room will be evacuated in no time.  Additional Recommendations: The Kids Are Asleep, the hilarious Slate Live show. Catch it via Slate’s Facebook or YouTube on Thursdays at 10:00 p.m. ET / 7:00 p.m. PT.  U.S. schooling during covid-19 doesn’t deserve a passing grade. Here’s the way forward. by Jessica Cohen, Sara Bleich, Joseph Allen and Benjamin Sommers. Is go-slow schools’ reopening failing kids? by Alvin Powell.  Join us on Facebook and email us at momanddad@slate.com to ask us new questions, tell us what you thought of today’s show, and give us ideas about what we should talk about in future episodes.    Podcast produced by Rosemary Belson.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s episode: Dan, Jamilah, and Elizabeth interview Dr. Joseph Allen from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health who argues that remote school is failing our kids. Allen explains why virtual dropout is so concerning, especially to low income and minority students. They also discuss leadership failures and what infrastructure schools need to make sure they are safe for students, teachers and staff.  Following the interview, they answer a wild listener question about body shaming, blackmail, and ostracization.   In Slate Plus: How do you celebrate a kid’s birthday that’s constantly eclipsed by a holiday? Slate Plus members get a bonus segment on MADAF each week, and no ads. Sign up now to listen and support our work. Recommendations: Elizabeth recommends trying embroidery with your kids. Specifically the kits from Oh Sew Bootiful.  Jamilah recommends Dole Whip. Since you probably won’t be at Disney any time soon, you may as well make it yourself.  Dan recommends a tactic if your kids aren’t leaving to go to bed… just start making out with your partner. The room will be evacuated in no time.  Additional Recommendations: The Kids Are Asleep, the hilarious Slate Live show. Catch it via Slate’s Facebook or YouTube on Thursdays at 10:00 p.m. ET / 7:00 p.m. PT.  U.S. schooling during covid-19 doesn’t deserve a passing grade. Here’s the way forward. by Jessica Cohen, Sara Bleich, Joseph Allen and Benjamin Sommers. Is go-slow schools’ reopening failing kids? by Alvin Powell.  Join us on Facebook and email us at momanddad@slate.com to ask us new questions, tell us what you thought of today’s show, and give us ideas about what we should talk about in future episodes.    Podcast produced by Rosemary Belson.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sara Bleich, Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health discusses the impact COVID has had on food insecure populations around the country, and our best steps forward to ensure an equitable recovery.

Press conference on coronavirus (COVID-19) from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health with Sarah Bleich, professor of public health policy. This call was recorded at 11:30 am Eastern Time on Thursday, June 18.

Food in the U.S. is cheap. It's very accessible; it's very unhealthy. And it's strongly marketed to us," says Sara Bleich, professor of public health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Bleich discusses her research evaluating policies related to obesity and diet in vulnerable populations in our latest podcast.

Dr. Sara Bleich of the Harvard Chan School of Public Health sits down with Sarah Blackburn of Edible Boston to talk about the key to effective nutrition policies. Read our favorite highlights of this episode as you listen HERE. While you’re listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts. Apple Podcasts Stitcher Google Play Spotify Become a Food Tank member for exclusive benefits: join HERE! Follow Food Tank on Social Media: Twitter Facebook Instagram LinkedIn Youtube  

This week, Review of Systems joins forces with Harvard Chan This Week in Health for a crossover podcast episode! We’re talking about food stamps, or SNAP, and how upcoming legislation in the Farm Bill will shape SNAP policy over the next five years. Changes in SNAP policy will have important public health implications and affect the food insecure patients we see in our clinics in primary care – so it’s a perfect topic for us to examine together. Audrey Provenzano and Noah Leavitt, the host of Harvard Chan This Week in Health talk with our two guests for this week: Sara Bleich, who is a Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy and Management. She is also the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and is an expert in obesity and food policy; and Hilary Seligman, who is a primary care physician and Associate Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF. She is also a Senior Medical Advisor for Feeding America, Director of CDC’s Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network and the founder of EatSF: A Healthy Food Voucher Program for Low-Income Residents of San Francisco. If you enjoy the show, please rate, review & subscribe to both of our shows wherever you listen, it helps others find the show, and share us on social media and with our friends and colleagues. We’d love to hear feedback and suggestions, so you can tweet at us @RoSpodcast or @HMSPrimaryCare or @HarvardChanSPH.

Do you make better food choices when you see calorie counts listed on restaurant menus? Do you think food stamp recipients should be able to buy unhealthy foods, like sugary drinks? And what role should the government play in our food choices? We'll explore these questions on The Leading Voices in Food with Dr. Sarah Bleich. About Sara Bleich Sara Bleich is professor of public health policy at the Harvard Chan School of public health. She is also the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Her research provides an evidence base to support policies to prevent obesity and other related diseases, particularly among vulnerable populations. The signature theme that we've seen through her work as an interest in asking simple, meaningful questions which can fill important knowledge gaps. Her work has been published in the top journals in the field such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, Health Affairs, and American Journal of Public Health, but has also been featured for the public and outlets such as New York Times The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and National Public Radio. Sara's received numerous awards including one for excellence in public interest communication. From 2015 to 2016. She served as a White House fellow where she worked as a senior policy advisor to the US Department of Agriculture and also to the First Lady's Let's Move Initiative. Interview Summary To begin with a discussion of Federal menu labeling of legislation: after many delays, the Federal menu labeling rule was implemented this past May. Would you explain what the legislation is all about? Is the beginning. Sure, so included in the Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010, which is also known as Obamacare, there was this little provision which had bubbled up from the local level and required that large chain restaurants are required to post calories alongside price. This first started in New York City and then by the time it got to the Federal level, more than 20 cities or localities around the country had adopted some version of this. And so the Federal role was an attempt to make a uniform rule that applied to chain restaurants around the country. And then one thing that happened is that the role was expanded to not just apply to chain restaurants, but to also think about how people eat today. So it includes entertainment venues and ice cream shops and movie theaters. And all those places, as of May 2018 when the rule was implemented, are required to post calories alongside price. The legislation was passed in 2010 and now we're in 2018, why in the world did it take so long? Yeah. Well, there, there are a number of reasons why it sort of got kicked down the road. It was delayed by both the Obama Administration and the Trump administration and a lot of the delays related to key push back from different industry groups. So for example, one industry group that was really opposed to the legislation was the pizza lobby. They felt like it was burdensome to have to apply calories to all the different variations that you could make for a pizza. And another key group that opposed the legislation where the grocery stores, the small grocery lobby. But in the end, you know, this rule was backed by a large chain restaurants because for them it was very, very challenging to have one set of rules in one city and other set of rules in another city. And so yes, it did take eight years for the rule to get implemented, but now it is, and should be available all around the country. What impact do you think this will have on the population's health? Well, the original thought behind menu labeling was you put calories alongside price and that provides transparency to consumers and helps them make better choices at the point of purchase. And since the law was implemented or passed in 2010 there have been lots and lots of opportunities to study the effect of menu labeling on consumer behavior. Because there've been all these local policies that have passed and the takeaway from more than 55 or 60 studies focused on consumer behavior is that menu labeling appears to have little to no impact on what consumers are doing at the point of purchase. The exception is maybe in certain venues like cafes or in coffee shops. Consumers do tend to purchase a little bit fewer calories, but what the evidence instead suggests is that the story of menu labeling is not that consumers are changing their behavior, but the story of menu labeling is that restaurants are changing their offerings in response to the transparency that menu labeling demands. And so we've done a lot of work over the past several years tracking the largest chain restaurants around the country. So these are the largest revenue generating restaurants. Your McDonalds, your Chipotles your Cheesecake Factories and so on. And what we find is that if you compare items that are newly introduced year over year, we find that the calories and newly introduced menu items are going down over time by about 60 calories or 12 percent. And interestingly that the highest calorie items appear to be dropping off the menu. Very impressive change. So there are many things that could be responsible for that in addition to menu labeling, is it possible to define the impact of menu labeling per se? It's not. And you know, one of the things that's interesting is the trend data that we have is available starting in 2012 and obviously the Federal Menu Labeling rule started in 2010. And so ideally we would have data before and after, so we can answer that exact question to what extent are the observed changes in restaurants are attributable to menu labeling versus something else. It very well could be part of a larger secular trend. We have done work looking at restaurants who voluntarily said even in the absence of the Federal rule being implemented, we're going to go ahead and post calories. So Mcdonalds is an example of one restaurant that did that and when you compare restaurants that voluntarily posted labels to those that did not, what you find is that that average calories among those with voluntary labeling was lower. So there does appear to be some sort of trend that's happening that may be above and beyond menu labeling. And from my perspective, you know, the why it's happening for a population health perspective is less important than the impact that it could potentially have. And so on a typical day, a third of kids and a third of adults eat at chain restaurants, particularly fast food restaurants. And the beauty of these supply side changes that we're observing is that unlike the consumer side, which demands that you see the calories and that you change your behavior and response, changes that are happening on the menu are largely invisible to consumers and they're not requiring individuals to change their behavior--which is very resistant to change. And because we're seeing calories being pulled off of menus and it doesn't take a lot of extra daily calories to drive obesity, the potential impact of this cycle, of this change of restaurant behavior could have a positive impact on population health. You have a fascinating perspective on this. I'd like to ask a particular question about the history. So before I came to Duke, I was at Yale University for a number of years with our group at Yale was working to some extent with the New York City Department of Health when they passed the first set of regulations around menu labeling. And one of the things that I thought was historic about it, there were the impacts on the restaurant behavior, consumer behavior that you've just now addressed, but it also seemed to me it was historic because it was the first time to my awareness that a city department of Health had express jurisdiction over the long-term consequences of food. The short term consequences of food, you know, people getting sick from tainted us in a diner there, they are all over and they, the cities have expressed long-term interest in educating people about the long-term consequences of food, but had never, to my knowledge, gotten in and done anything in a regulatory way about this. And it was interesting in that New York City said we have jurisdiction here and it's in our legal purview to do something about diabetes, heart disease, and the other things they could follow from a lifetime of eating some of these unhealthy foods. Does it, do you. Do you think that's true that that was in a historic breakthrough when the menu labeling legislation you've got introduced? I do think it was a historic breakthrough and I think it was an example that was then followed by several other cities that also adopted that same legislation and you know, New York and a lot of ways has been on the vanguard of progressive obesity policies. So an example where New York attempted to establish jurisdiction but was unable to, was the portion cap role where they tried to pass a law saying that anything larger than a 16 ounce size beverage could not be served within New York City limits. And that was passed but then overturned based on the claim that New York City didn't have jurisdiction. So I think it's something which has been tested and pushed by health departments, but I, I do think it was historic when it comes to menu labeling and I suspect for, for leading health departments like New York, like Philadelphia, or probably see more of this in the future. We had Shiriki Kumanyika come and do a podcast with us, which was terrific and she explained a lot about disparities by race and income. And I know you worked on that as well. What are you think are some of the interesting policy solutions to disparities? Yeah, well I'm so glad that you had Shiriki on the podcast because she obviously is a leading thinker in this area. My thought around health disparities, which certainly when it comes to obesity and lots of diet related diseases, they're very persistent. So if you look over time, there are these very longstanding, for example, black, white gaps in the prevalence of obesity where you have higher rates among black Americans and white Americans. Similarly by income, higher rates of obesity and diet related conditions among low income versus high income populations. And I think where a lot of the policy opportunities lie is looking outside of specifically health and thinking more broadly about the social determinants of health. And so that refers to things like where a person is born, where a person grows up, where they live, where they work. And there's all sorts of things about those factors, which if they were modified, they could actually have a meaningful impact on disparities. So, for example, if you know that for a lot of people the biggest barrier to getting healthy food is a reliable source of transportation, then the way to get better access to healthy food is then to fix that transportation problem. Similarly, if you know that based on if someone has unreliable housing and because they have unreliable housing, they don't have a place that they can even store food and say a fridge or other places. Then thinking about how you actually help people find long-term housing that is stable. And so I think that, you know, to really address some of these longstanding disparities, we have to look outside of health and think about the broader factors that shape the way that a person lives, and those would include trying to address maybe income, maybe education, maybe job status, maybe housing, maybe transportation and lots of other factors which are strongly contributing to why we see these huge black white differences and, and along other race and ethnicity lines. And the challenge obviously is none of that is very easy to do, but I think what it requires this republic health to look, you know, outside of the usual partners and look to other parts of the, the city infrastructure and the state infrastructure and think about how can we join forces and by and doing so sort of promote health and reduce disparities at the same time. This sure argues as well for coordination between agencies at all levels of government. And I'm wondering when in your time as a White House fellow, whether you saw any examples of agencies cooperating on these kinds of issues. Yeah, so I think one's experience in government is very dependent on the administration. And so when I was a White House fellow, it was under the Obama administration. It was year seven in an eight year administration. And certainly a really important piece of that administration was interagency collaboration. And the area that I worked in was really around nutrition policy. And what was interesting is that it was probably the first time and more than 50 years that both the east wing, which is where the first lady said, since she had the Let's Move campaign, the West Wing, which is where the president sits and USDA, which is in the executive branch, it's the department of Agriculture and overseas nutrition assistance programs, among other things. There was tremendous alignment around improving nutrition and also around reducing poverty and then that then trickled out to other agencies and, and so for example, transportation was involved and housing was involved. And so I think there was a lot of effort in the last administration, and health and human services to think about how do we lift families out of poverty and how do we, at the same time improve nutrition. Much of that work did take place between the White House in USDA, but certainly it's the case that there was interagency work trying to facilitate that process. The Federal government has a great many nutrition assistance programs, as many as 15. What are some of the ways in your mind these programs could be leveraged to better promote health and diet? That's right. So I'm under the US Department of Agriculture there are 15. There's sort of this suite of nutrition assistance programs. The most widely known is SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It's formerly known as food stamps, which is how many people know it. That program alone has a budget of $70 million a year and it helps roughly 40 million, low income Americans, about half of them are children afford food on a daily basis. And so when you sort of think about both for snap and across the programs, you know, what are some of the things that could be done to improve nutrition among the many, many millions of families that benefit from them. In my mind, one of the key ones is thinking about, you know, what is the role of sugary beverages within these programs? And so stepping back for a second, we know that sugary beverage consumption is very strongly linked to obesity to type two diabetes and a host of other conditions, we know that over time the levels of sugary beverage consumption have been going down over the past decade or so, which is a good thing, but the levels remain unacceptably high among low income and minority populations. And so if you look just at the SNAP program, formally food stamps right now, the way that the benefits are administered as you can purchase virtually anything with those benefits. And so one important policy change would be to think about should we restrict the ability of participants to use their snap benefits to purchase sugary beverages because we know of this very strong negative health outcome that's associated with consuming those drinks. A second is that if you look across all the different Federal nutrition assistance programs, sugary beverages can be currently made available without reimbursement. So one example would be CACFP, which stands for the Child and Adult Care Food program. So what that means in practice is in a childcare center, sugary beverages can be made available to children, but the programs can't be reimbursed for them. And so then what are the important policy change would be to prohibit those beverages from being served at all so they can't be reimbursed and they can't be served and it is small changes like that, which may sound minor, but essentially it's modifying the environment. In this case, children, it's modifying their exposure to sugary beverages, which will hopefully help set their pallets for things that are less sweet when it comes to beverages, so maybe they'll prefer water if they're not exposed to sugary beverages so early. And similarly within the SNAP program, the vast majority of participants, 75 percent have income from other sources. And so you could make the argument that they could rely on those resources if they wanted to buy sugary beverages and not use program resources to do so. This has been a highly controversial policy proposal to government might actually do this. Yeah, I mean when it comes to nutrition policy, this is like the third rail and you're exactly right that it's been so controversial in the sense that there've been a number of states which have requested waivers. So in order for states to have the ability to restrict what someone can and cannot purchase in snap states have to go to USDA and say we'd like permission to be able to do this. And there've been four or five attempts by states and within those states, they've tried multiple times and they've all been denied. So to answer your question, you know, will this happen in the future? I don't know. I think that it's unlikely that it'll happen in this current administration. I think in the last administration, there was some warming to it towards the end, but it never actually happened. And you know, the reality is that there are a lot of strong arguments on both sides. So people that oppose this talk about the potential increased stigma for participants because what it would mean is that when you're at the point of purchase new UPC codes, which defined beverages would have to be entered in so that those would be excluded from the basket of things that can be purchased with the SNAP benefit. People that support these policies say yes, it's possible that stigma can be increased, although unlikely, because it's so easy to reprogram computers, but the potential benefit in terms of population health far outweighs the potential negatives around stigma. So I think it's something that's going to remain front and center right now. The best possibility for a pilot to be conducted would be have to be authorized through the 2018 Farm Bill, which is not going to be going anywhere anytime soon. So I think we sort of are in a wait and see period. If you could think of a single strategy that might be most effective at addressing the problem of obesity, what would you say? So recognizing that there is not a single thing which will alone solve their problems with obesity. I would say that if I could wave my magic wand, it would be a sugary beverage taxes. And the reason for that is a couple, one is that sugary beverage tax has have the potential to decrease consumption among everyone because we know that generally people drink sugary beverages quite a bit, but we also know that the consumption is highest among low income and minority populations. So one thing that sugary beverages can do is that they can both reduce consumption and potentially improve health equity, which is really important. The second thing that makes sugary beverage taxes very promising is that they don't. They are a very strong nudge and we know that if you change prices, it can really affect behavior. And the empirical evidence on sugary beverages from places like Mexico and from places like Berkeley is that it does appear to reduce consumption and purchases. Those drinks taxes appear to do so most among low income populations. And because it's such a strong environmental nudge, it's less reliant on people sort of thinking very carefully about their behavior and more just respond to these cues in the environment. And I think a third reason why they're promising is that they have the potential to raise a lot of money for localities that pass them. And so if you look, for example, at Philadelphia, which has a one point five cent per ounce beverage tax that has the potential to generate roughly $90,000,000 a year and the way that Philadelphia is repurposing those dollars is in universal Pre-K and green space and other improvements to the city. And so there's ways to also give those dollars back to populations which are more vulnerable. And then because final point is that because of the revenue that's being generated, it also makes you beverage taxes attractive for cities and localities that need extra revenue. And so I'd say for all those reasons, one of the most promising possibilities, although very politically challenging, are sugary beverage taxes. Another advantage of the sugary beverage taxes is almost everything else that you might think of to address obesity. More treatments, let's say more education or anything else, costs money. And there's a question about whether government will actually come up with money to do those things no matter how good the ideas are. And as you mentioned, the sugary beverage tax would not only not cost money but raise money for important causes. So there are, there really are a lot of benefits, aren't there? I completely agree. That's a great point.  

John Silvanus Wilson, Jr., Senior Advisor and Strategist to the President of Harvard University, will be talking with Prof. Sara Bleich on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Watch the webcast to learn more about what steps Harvard University is taking to building a more inclusive environment, and what lessons can be learned from fellow universities like Morehouse College and other HBCU’s.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps 40 million low-income Americans afford food each month. But the program's future is uncertain as Congress debates the Farm Bill, a multi-year spending bill that will expire on September 30. The Trump administration has proposed significant changes—including cuts in funding—that could shape SNAP in the years ahead. In this week's episode we examine how changes in SNAP are likely to affect the health of food insecure Americans. You'll hear from Sara Bleich, professor of public health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Hilary Seligman, a primary care physician and associate professor of medicine and of epidemiology and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco. This episode is a collaboration with Review of Systems, from the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps 40 million low-income Americans afford food each month. But the program's future is uncertain as Congress debates the Farm Bill, a multi-year spending bill that will expire on September 30. The Trump administration has proposed significant changes—including cuts in funding—that could shape SNAP in the years ahead. In this week's episode we examine how changes in SNAP are likely to affect the health of food insecure Americans. You'll hear from Sara Bleich, professor of public health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and Hilary Seligman, a primary care physician and associate professor of medicine and of epidemiology and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco. This episode is a collaboration with Review of Systems, from the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School. You can subscribe to Harvard Chan: This Week in Health by visiting iTunes or Google Play and you can listen to it by following us on Soundcloud, and stream it on the Stitcher app or on Spotify.

In May 2018, the U.S. government will be rolling out broad new menu labeling regulations. As part of the Affordable Care Act, restaurants and other food outlets with more than 20 locations will be required to post calorie counts right on their menus. And new research shows those rules may already be having an impact before they even go into effect. A study led by Sara Bleich, professor of public health policy, shows that many large chain restaurants have started removing higher calorie items from their menus. In this week's episode, we speak with Bleich about what these changes could mean for America's fight against obesity—and how policy changes can be used to alter the country's unhealthy food environment.

In May 2018, the U.S. government will be rolling out broad new menu labeling regulations. As part of the Affordable Care Act, restaurants and other food outlets with more than 20 locations will be required to post calorie counts right on their menus. And new research shows those rules may already be having an impact before they even go into effect. A study led by Sara Bleich, professor of public health policy, shows that many large chain restaurants have started removing higher calorie items from their menus. In this week's episode, we speak with Bleich about what these changes could mean for America's fight against obesity—and how policy changes can be used to alter the country's unhealthy food environment.

Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, discussed her journey from aspiring journalist to ambassador on Wednesday, Dec. 13. Ambassador Power spoke with Dr. Sara Bleich on a wide range of subjects, including combating Ebola, being on the ground during a crisis and how motherhood shaped her time in the United Nations.

Despite decades of research and relentless messaging about the importance of diet and exercise, type 2 diabetes remains a major threat to the lives of millions of Americans. As new diagnoses in some populations plateau, rates in others groups, including African Americans and Latinos, are increasing. Why does this largely preventable and multifactorial condition persist? What are the latest treatments available for individuals living with diabetes? And what technological and medical breakthroughs lie on the horizon? In this Forum — held on World Diabetes Day — experts in medical innovation, food policy, diabetes and obesity research, and community outreach assessed the promise of new approaches to diabetes, as well as explored remaining challenges. Part of The Dr. Lawrence H. and Roberta Cohn Forums, this event was presented jointly with HuffPost on Tuesday, November 14, 2017.

Sara Bleich, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, joins us to discuss her career in obesity prevention and control. Hear about the range of public health issues she has tackled throughout her career, including her efforts to reduce children’s consumption of sugary drinks, and her time as senior policy advisor to the former First Lady’s Let’s Move! initiative.