If you want change, get ready to spend a little extra change.

Page 24 of the USDA’s Economics of Food Labeling

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer793/AER793.PDF

The tuna industry and specifically its labeling practices changed dramatically due to the consumer demand and labeling practices.  

The report in its entirety details how consumers who demanded safe practices for the tuna industry ultimately received government aid.  However, it is important to note these changes did not happen overnight and required the consumer to pay a premium price for dolphin free tuna.  What do we need to take away from this report?  Fork over the extra money, be patient, and be vocal if you want to see change in the food industry.  

This timeline provided by the USDA shows the transformation of the tuna industry.

Late 1980s Consumer boycott of tuna; U.S. Government begins pressuring other countries to improve fishing practices to save dolphins

1990 April Tuna producers announce dolphin-friendly practices and labeling of “dolphin-safe”

1990 October U.S. enforces import ban on tuna from countries that kill more dolphins than the United States does

1990 November Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act regulates labeling of dolphin-safe characteristics

1991 Mexico files complaint with GATT, alleging that embargo and labeling legislation are illegal

1992 International Dolphin Protection Agreement is signed. Sale of dolphin-unsafe tuna is banned

1997 Congress changes definition of dolphin-safe to allow tuna caught in nets, as long as no dolphins were killed; Congress lifts import embargo to allow boats with no observer aboard to use nets

-k

The Politics of Food

I found a news piece that I found pretty interesting. Despite not being directly related to me, or anyone I know for that matter, New Hampshire is looking a passing a new law regarding food. No, they aren't taking on corporate giant Monsanto, but rather ordinary citizens. New Hampshire is looking into requiring people who use food stamps to take drug tests. Clearly this debate could be a heated one, so I will avoid disclosing my personal opinion on this proposed law. What I would like to point out though is that it is interesting that the government's control over the food we consume and how we reach that food is much broader than an ordinary citizen may presume.

-- Eric

Article found from:
http://www.slashfood.com/2011/02/23/one-more-state-joins-the-drug-test-for-food-stamps-debate/

Government Starting To Pay Closer Attention To Food Safety

Over the past decade, the American people have been noticing a recurring theme in their daily news television programs. Reports of food-born illness outbreaks have been making appearances at a such a rapid frequency that the United States Government now feels the need to step in and take control of the situation. On January 4, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act into law; subsequently setting new food safety standards that will ideally reduce the appearance rates of the food born illnesses that have been wreaking havoc on the American people. For more information on this act go to http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm237758.htm

-Alex

The Tough Cost of Being Organic

So in our attempt to be organic, a large problem is the food industry’s ability to provide much cheaper food.  An average family (let’s assume of four members father, son, daughter and mother) goes to Mc. Donald’s once a week for dinner the father and son get an angus deluxe ($7) with the included fries and drink, the mother and daughter get the Big N’ Tasty with cheese ($5), with the included fries and drink, this averages $25 a night. This same family goes to Farm Burger in Decatur and creates 4 burgers. The father and son get burgers with pepper jack cheese and bacon ($9) the mother and daughter get a burger with cheese ($7) plus the fries with the burger ($1.50 ea.) and four drinks (also $1.50 ea.), This totals to $44 a night plus tip, which finals out to about $50. Double the cost, so, once a week multiplied by 52 weeks is $1,300 a year for Mc. Donald’s and $2,600 for Farm Burger. Now with these tough economic times, it’s becoming increasingly tougher for families to eat organic.

--Chris

http://www.farmburger.net/storage/menus/farmburgermenu.pdf

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/full_menu/sandwiches.html

Ripped off? I think yes...

How much are major food corporations actually ripping us off.. according to research and an article in newsweek "The concentrate for 70 percent of Coca-Cola's 1.5 billion drinks served each day originates in the tax haven of Ireland, where enough concentrate for 50,000 Cokes costs $2.60—including labor. The concentrate's main ingredient? Caramel." (by the way that is made of corn)

Research shows the syrup to make a single cup (or can) of Coca-Cola costs $0.000052, or .0052 cents. So, that means that one penny buys enough syrup to make nearly 200 glasses of Coke.

Now the scenaraio is:
 The can and the plastic 6 pack holder make the cost of producing a can of Coke about 5 and a half cents.
The actual Coke that goes in it bumps the price to six cents.
By the time you add in shipping and handling, the cost rises to 19 cents.

Now we pay on average one dollar for this can of Coke. Where does the money all go? Advertising? or control of food policy? So where else are we getting ripped off by the food industry?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/donnyw/2810076196/sizes/m/in/photostream/

 

--Chris 

Walmart May Actually Shrink American Waistlines - IF All Goes Well

Despite my antipathy towards Walmart as a company, I must give them credit where credit is due. The company now has a five year plan to make its food products generally healthier. This plan includes reducing sodium content in some foods while ridding trans-fat from packaged food items, among other things.  I personally have my doubts about this truly having any real effect. Their pledge on making healthy food cheaper sounds like an empty promise to me. But an expert disagrees with me, so maybe my bias is just speaking out here. An economics professor at UNC has proven through research that the introduction of a Walmart into a community results in the average BMI of the population increasing, while at the same time expanding the average waistline. He does believe the trend could work in the opposite direction if Walmart introduces its plan. Only time will tell if this plan is followed through and actually shrinks American waistlines. But, as for me,  I'm not holding my breath.

--Eric 

A Link to the story is below.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/20/walmart-pledges-to-make-food-healthier-more-affordable/