Hygeia AnalyticsLogo

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Hygeia
    Analytics
    • Dynamic Presentations
    • Keywords and Site Map
    • Hygeia Analytics – Who We Are
    • Why Hygeia?
    • Funding and “Sound Science”
    • Acronyms and Glossary
    • Sign-Up for Updates
  • Nutrition
    • Introduction and Nutrition 101
      • Good Fat Bad Fat
      • Fatty Acids
        • Primer on the Fatty Acids in Milk
      • Impact of Livestock Feeding
    • Antioxidants
      • Organic Farming Elevates Antioxidants
      • Maximizing Antioxidant Intake
    • Organic vs. Conventional Foods
      • Milk and Dairy Products
        • 2018 Grassmilk Paper
        • PLOS ONE Study
        • Dairy Meta-Analysis
      • Multi Food Meta-Analyses
        • Meat Products
        • Plant-Based Foods
        • Smith-Spangler et al.
        • Dangour et al.
        • The Organic Center Report
      • Food Specific Comparisons
        • General
        • Fruits and Vegetables
        • Wine and Wine Grapes
    • Considering Nutritional Quality
      • Impact of Genetics and Production Systems
      • New Tool for Food Security
      • Transforming Jane Doe’s Diet
      • Nutritional Quality Index
    • Nutrient Decline
    • Other Choices and Challenges
      • Human Health
      • Dietary Choices
  • Pesticides
    • Usage
      • Pesticide Use Data Sources
        • Pesticide Use Indicators
      • PUDS – The Pesticide Use Data System
    • Dietary Risks
      • The Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
    • Risk Assessment and Regulation
      • Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
      • Glyphosate/Roundup Case Study
      • The Lowdown on Roundup
      • Does Glyphosate/Roundup Cause Cancer?
      • 2019 Glyphosate Genotoxicity Paper
    • Impacts of GE on Pesticide Use
    • Environmental, Human Health, and Other Impacts of Pesticides
  • Ag Biotech
    • Key Historical Documents – Donald Duvick
    • Key Historical Documents – Arpad Pusztai
    • Herbicide Resistant Crops
    • Weed Resistance
    • Bt Transgenic Crops
    • Resistant Insects
    • Health Risks and Safety Assessments
    • Regulation of GE Crop Technology
    • Marketing, Economics, and Public Relations
    • Patenting and Intellectual Property Issues
    • Labeling
  • Other Issues
    • Animal Products
    • The Future of Food
    • Global Food Security
    • Natural Resources and Climate Change
    • Alternatives to Industrial Ag
    • Policy and Politics
    • Scientific Integrity
    • Soil Health
    • Yields
  • Recent Posts
    • Hot Science
    • In The News
    • Hygeia’s Blog
  • Special
    Coverage
    • Organic Apples in Washington State
    • Dicamba Drift Crisis
    • Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risk
    • Organic Integrity

Badges of Honor, Smart Metrics, and Quality Food

Posted on July 13, 2018 in Hygeia's Blog, Nutrition | 373 Views

It is widely accepted that consumer tastes, preferences, and concerns will drive the Future of Food.  The companies that find a way to connect with consumers on these issues will gain market share and traction, or so the theory goes.

But how will consumers know which foods are tastier and more nutritious? Safer and less heavily processed? Produced on farms committed to soil and water quality and conservation? Or, whether food comes from animals that have been treated humanely?

In a fascinating “Talking Points” entitled “Badges of Honor — Restoring Trust Through Certification,” Nick Fereday, Rabobank’s ED for Food and Agribusiness, asks a question most major food companies are currently pondering — “how does one go about restoring trust and becoming credible again?” Good question.

Fereday provides an overview of the successes and shortcomings of companies going the B-corp route, and the pros/cons of various certifications. He then addresses “The Elephant in the Room” — “the nutritional quality of food, and an assessment of the impact that this has on consumers.”

One example of an effort to address food nutritional quality is highlighted — the Gates Foundation funded Access to Good Nutrition Index. This report is released each year and ranks the food and beverage product lines of the world’s 22 largest food and beverage companies, using indices reflecting various aspects of food nutritional quality, or lack thereof.

Searching for “Smarter” Metrics

“Smarter metrics will help fix our food system” argues Pavan Sukhdev, founder and Chief Executive of GIST Advisory, based in Mumbai, India, in a World View commentary in the prestigious science journal Nature. Sukhdev begins his piece bluntly (and remember, his piece is published by a top-notch science journal with rigorous peer review) —

A Western diet high in processed foods and animal products is being adopted around the world, with concerning consequences for global health.

“Today’s food systems are broken. Our diets are the leading cause of disease. Some 800 million people worldwide still suffer from hunger, while more than 2 billion are overweight or obese.”

Sukhdev plugs the metrics in a recently released UN Environment Programme report entitled “Measuring What Matters in Agriculture and Food Systems.” He claims that this report “demonstrates how to capture the complex reality of food systems through a wide-angle lens.”

His concluding statement in the Nature piece is aspirational, but debatable — “Only if we diagnose our food system honestly, can we heal it.”

This sentiment reminds me of sage advice delivered at the beginning of my career by the late Congressman George Brown. Mr. Brown Chaired the Congressional Subcommittee I worked for in 1981-1983. We were discussing the role of oversight in drafting new legislation, and he said:

“It is best to understand the causes of a problem before setting out to solve it.”

So true.  But 35 years later, it is clear to me that understanding a problem does not mean it will be effectively addressed, let alone “solved.”

Will Product Quality Set You Free?

UK farmers are wondering how they will compete in a post-Brexit world. One idea is to focus on producing high-value quality foods for gourmet and specialty markets.

Across the pond, Peter Melchett, Policy Director for the U.K.-based Soil Association, published a provocative commentary in the July 6, 2018 Farmers Weekly entitled “Time to tap into growing demand for ‘quality’”. Peter writes:

“Food and farming lags behind other industries when it comes to providing accurate information about how differences in production systems affect quality.”

Melchett then highlights historic changes in policy under development in DEFRA, the U.K.’s USDA. A new plan is urgently needed to help U.K. farmers survive post-Brexit.  Once Britain splits off from the EU, they will lose the generous, automatic farm subsidies that have kept U.K. farmers going for years.

The U.K. cannot afford to replace EU subsidies, but they hope targeted investments in value-added, high-quality foods, both for domestic consumption and export, will create new income streams sufficient to keep most farmers in business.

According to Melchett, this shift in UK policy is needed because “…there is no way English farming can compete on a world market based on price alone.”

A sober, contemporary assessment of the U.S corn and soybean industries might soon lead to a similar conclusion, especially if Trump’s trade war spreads and lasts.

The cold, harsh reality is that there many countries are pushing hard, and successfully, to develop the infrastructure needed to sell $3.00 corn and $8 dollar soybeans in world markets, prices too low to sustain many current U.S. farm operations.

Tack on 25% tariffs on grain from the U.S. to some key export destinations, and the shift in global competitive advantage will accelerate, and not in favor of Chuck Grassley’s constituents.

Getting Real About Quality

To me, the “Elephant in the Room” is the sometimes harsh light that “smart” and quality-relevant metrics would shine on some of the food products in American grocery stores, and by extension, on some of the farming systems and technology in the U.S.

Progressive food companies want to win back consumer trust and confidence, but are reticent to commit to meaningful, simple metrics and qualitative measures that connect directly to goals consumers care about. But a new consortium of four major players has banded together to hopefully push the envelope, as recounted in the July 12, 2018 Washington Post story “Four of the world’s largest food companies have a new plan for fixing food and farming policy“.

Stay tuned for more discussion of three examples: cow longevity in the dairy sector, pesticide residues and risk in fresh produce, and how to objectively quantify the nutritional quality of food so that consumers can tell the difference between super-foods and, well, you know, the other kind, rhymes with dunk.

Sources:

Caitlin Dewey, “Four of the world’s largest food companies have a new plan for fixing food and farm policy,” Washington Post, July 12, 2018

Nick Fereday, “Badges of Honor — Restoring Trust Through Certification,” Rabobank Talking Points, July 2018. Email Nick to get on his mailing list to receive his informative newsletter.

Peter Melchett, “Time to tap into growing demand for ‘quality’”, Farmers Weekly, July 6, 2018

Pravan Sukhdev, “Smarter metrics will help fix our food system,” Nature, Vol 558, June 7, 2018

Posted in Hygeia's Blog, Nutrition | Tagged Economics, Europe, Future of Food, Human Health, Policy and Politics

Related Posts

Research Links Childhood Stress to the Microbiome in Pregnancy, and Suggests Protective Role of Omega-3 Fatty Acids→

FAQs re Biden-Harris Ag and EPA Transition Priorities→

Implications of EPA’s Decision to Renew Dicamba Registration for Over-the-Top Use→

Neonic Seed Treatments in the (Science) News→

Dr. Benbrook Testifies Before the Philadelphia City Council as they Consider Glyphosate Ban→

Guest Blog: The Big Meat Gang Is Getting Awfully Smelly→

Why Promoting Organic Integrity Must Become a Top Priority for USDA→

Guest Blog: Finding the Root Cause of Organic Fraud→

©2016 Hygeia-Analytics.com. All Rights Reserved.

Menu