The best part of the new school lunch regulations is that for the first time, there is a maximum limit set on calories; previously there was only a minimum number of calories required, with no maximum. As a result, many schools in the past served foods high in sugar, such as canned fruit packed in heavy syrup rather than its own juice, or extra packages of crackers kids didn’t need, just to reach the required minimum number of calories. Now the old minimum has become the new maximum, so there is no longer any need for calorie inflation in school lunches. Other positive changes are requirements for larger servings and more varied kinds of vegetables, including dark orange and leafy greens, more fruit and whole grains.

On the downside, the six cents per lunch additional funding being offered is not enough to offset the increased cost, which has been estimated by the USDA as about 11 cents per meal. To compensate, there are regulations requiring schools to raise the price of paid lunches if they fall below the government reimbursement for a free lunch, as well as new regulations designed to drive more revenue from food sold a la carte in competition with the National School Lunch Program. There are also some changes to the way students are qualified for free meals, which could increase the number of kids eating school lunch.

For some districts, these changes will drive extra revenue, but for school districts like San Francisco, where the paid lunch price is already higher than the free lunch reimbursement, where most a la carte has already been eliminated in an attempt to dispel the stigma of eating school meals, and where most of the new methods for identifying students as qualified for free lunch are already in use, there is little additional revenue projected. Trying to charge students who pay for their lunch a substantially higher price than what the government pays for a free lunch is not going to balance the budget. Our schools will just have to absorb the shortfall, as they always have, driving the deficit for our Student Nutrition department even higher.

That nutrition department deficit, which in 2010-11 topped $3 million, has for years been covered by money from the school district’s general fund, leaving less money for teachers, textbooks, and other classroom needs. While meals served in SFUSD cafeterias already meet or exceed most of the new nutrition regulations, the higher cost of serving this more nutritious food has helped drive the deficit, along with the higher cost of labor in this high cost of living city. In the past, the Board of Education and district administration generously agreed to fund the higher cost, but it was their choice to do so, and there was always the possibility that the whole grains, fresh fruit, and salad bars might have to be scaled back to save money, as happened midway through the 2009-10 school year. Now, when the new regulations go into effect next school year, those improvements will be requirements, not forward-thinking extras subject to the budget knife. In other words, not only will the Student Nutrition deficit continue, or even grow, as a result of the new regulations, but the school district administration will have fewer options for fighting that deficit; most reductions in the quality of the food will be off-limits.

That’s the conundrum. We want healthy food served at school–including the larger servings of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains mandated by the new regulations–but should we have to pay for them with our children’s classroom funds? With school funding in California plummeting even under the best case state budget scenario, it’s hard to feel good about cementing healthy food upgrades at the expense of other educational priorities.

We are at a crossroads in this country–we must decide whether it is worth it to spend a little more money now to adequately fund school nutrition programs, so that children can learn to make healthy eating habits a way of life, or whether we want to kick that can down the road, scrimp on school meal funding now, but instead pay the much higher cost of healthcare and loss of productivity when those children grow up to be unhealthy adults dealing with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and other weight-related disorders. It is an enormous disappointment that our Congress has chosen the “kick the can” solution.

Paula Deen’s public admission that she has Type 2 diabetes and her follow-up announcement that she is also a paid spokesperson for the pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, and its diabetes drug, Victoza, has sparked an interesting debate about the deeper issues surrounding our food system—especially the impact it has on the many people diagnosed with diabetes. And according to Deen’s comments on the Today show, she implies to her millions of fans, that the primary ways to deal with this largely diet-related disease are through personal responsibility and pharmaceuticals.

Indeed, when Al Roker, asks her if she is going to change the way she eats and the foods she cooks, Deen says, “Honey, I’m your cook, I’m not your doctor. You are going to have to be responsible for yourself.” Evading the question, Deen puts the onus back on the individual to decide what foods to eat or not, despite the fact that she promotes unhealthful and processed foods on TV. The one comment she does make about food choice is “moderation,” one of the most meaningless and confusing bits of nutrition advice. In fact, this is what the industry giants often use as their defense for harmful, unhealthful foods.

Personal responsibility and consumer choice are solutions heralded by conservatives and liberals alike—the idea being that ultimately good health comes down to what we choose to buy and eat. But it’s not that simple.

There are three main issues when it comes to the myth of personal responsibility about food choice and they get at the root of our nation’s health crisis: The public’s confusion about nutrition; the lack of time and knowledge about real home cooking; and the promotion of quick fixes like drugs, diet foods, and fads in lieu of addressing underlying causes. The Paula Deen diabetes story manages to hit on every single one of these issues.

Americans suffer from nutrition confusion, thanks to an array of conflicting and often inaccurate public health messages, misleading labels and claims on packaging, and a lack of nutrition knowledge by many doctors, dietitians, and other health care providers.

Deen’s cooking, and now her public diabetes announcement, only adds to this confusion. During the Today show interview she repeatedly mentions the amount of fat in her recipes, as do many in the media reporting on the story. “For 10 years, wielding slabs of cream cheese and mounds of mayonnaise,” a New York Times article begins, “Paula Deen has become television’s self-crowned queen of Southern cuisine.”

But real, unprocessed cream cheese and mayonnaise are not the problem. The issue that mainstream media has largely overlooked is that Deen uses the processed, packaged versions of these foods, which are full of chemicals, additives and trans-fats. Actual home cooking would require whipping these foods up herself in her kitchen using real ingredients. And that is the real story behind Deen’s diabetes diagnosis: Her health problems are largely due to her reliance on packaged, processed foods that are the foundation for many of her recipes.

Even though her cooking show is called Paula’s Home Cooking, there’s a lot going on in her kitchen that is as far removed from home cooking as you can get. Many of her recipes include “ingredients” like Krispy Kreme doughnuts, biscuit mixes, cans of mushroom soup, and sour-cream-and-onion flavored potato chips. This is processed food cooking, not home cooking.

Heaping the blame on all the “fat” she cooks with only serves to confuse the public further. A New York Daily News article also cites fat as one of the main culprits in Deen’s cooking and her diet. But the most recent research indicates that when it comes to diabetes, fat is not the problem. The problem foods are sugar, refined white flour, chemical additives, artificial sweeteners and flavors, trans-fats, and the various other chemicals and additives found in the processed foods that abound in Deen’s recipes.

Now Deen is pushing the idea that taking medicine is the real solution to diabetes. On the Today show, she says, “Here’s what I want to get across to people, I want them to first start by going to their doctor and asking to be tested for diabetes. Get on a program that works for you. I’m amazed at the people out there that are aware they’re diabetic but they’re not taking their medicine.”

According to Deen, the reason she waited three years to go public with her diagnosis was because she didn’t have anything to give her fans. “I could have walked out and said, ‘Hey ya’ll, I have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.’ I had nothing to give to my fellow friends out there. I wanted to bring something to the table when I came forward.” So what is she bringing to the table? A sales pitch for a diabetes drug that costs $500 per month and has some seriously troubling side effects, including thyroid cancer, as Tom Philpott reports.

Just think of the kind of influence she could have wielded had she come out with a new cooking show that focused on using fresh, real food ingredients that cut way back on sugar and refined carbohydrates. In fact, if she had done so and eaten this way for the past three years she might have reversed her own diabetes diagnosis, which is entirely possible given the right diet.

But instead, Deen is getting paid to leave that task to a drug company. This isn’t her first corporate sponsorship (here she peddles Smithfield ham) and I doubt it will be her last. Diabetic and diet foods can’t be far behind in products she’ll attach to her name.

Alas, we can’t fairly discuss personal responsibility without taking into account the under-regulated advertising industry that pushes cheap, convenient, and processed foods on an overworked and cash-strapped population. Add to this the diminishing knowledge on how to shop for, cook, and prepare foods from scratch and we have a serious problem.

As Deen now joins the 25.8 million other Americans suffering with diabetes, she “brings to the table” the ideas of moderation, personal responsibility, and the drug Victoza as the solutions. She could do so much more with all the power she wields.

Anthony Bourdain put it squarely when he said of Deen, “If I were on at seven at night and loved by millions of people at every age, I would think twice before telling an already obese nation that it’s OK to eat food that is killing us.” And this was before her diabetes announcement. Bourdain has also said that Deen is the “worst, most dangerous person to America.” He might have a point.

FoodCorps is growing—expanding the number of states we’ll be working in next year and expanding the number of service members who are creating community and creating change. We created FoodCorps with two goals in mind: Addressing a public health crisis and providing a training opportunity for all of growing interest in careers in food and agriculture. Becoming a FoodCorps service member is a way to launch your career in food and farming while helping kids get healthy.

Rachel is one of 50 future food systems leaders who started their terms of service this past August as the first ever class of FoodCorps service members. So far this year, these service members have reached over 20,000 children in 10 states. They are addressing the nation’s painful and costly childhood obesity epidemic using our three recipe ingredient for change: Hands-on nutrition education, growing and tending school gardens, and getting healthy local food onto school cafeteria trays.

Here is what Rachel had to say about her experience this year:

Being the new “garden lady” at a school in small town is cause enough for conversation. Add in the University of Georgia logos that emblazen the coffee thermos I take to school with me every day, and I stick out even more in the sea of Arkansas Razorback gear that comes standard for most of the students and teachers at my school. Serving for FoodCorps has brought me to the town of Marshall, Arkansas, where I spend my days gardening with students from Marshall middle and elementary schools.  The school is a part of the Delta Garden Study, a childhood obesity prevention research project based out of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute.

When teaching outside, it is important for me to begin by getting a grasp on what the day will hold. My morning starts with a garden walk-through and a meeting with my garden program specialist to plan what garden work we will tackle with our classes for the day. Rolling with the punches does not even start to describe the level of flexibility you need as a FoodCorps Service Member. Your greenhouse will flood, grasshoppers will eat your newly planted kale seedlings, and snow might cover your leaf lettuces in less than an hour. Overcoming these and other challenges have proven to be learning experiences for me and my students over the course of my service term.

If a tasting is on the agenda, I collect my cooking supplies and ingredients before the start of classes for the day. The sight of students gathered around a folding table helping to prepare braised greens, salad, pesto, or even corn and squash fritters is a common one in our classes. Hands-on nutrition education is just as important as the act of gardening.

After talking with my supervisor about the activities of the day, we head to our first class. When my school became a part of the Delta Garden Study, they agreed to adopt a garden-based science curriculum for their middle school science courses. Between sixth, seventh, and eight grades, I work with eleven classes of students. My supervisor and I work with our science teachers to strike the balance between in class science instruction and the outside garden and nutrition connections.

As the “garden lady,” I try to help my students think about learning in a different way, and I get to see firsthand the need to devote more time in our school day to discussing topics like healthy eating. Thanks to FoodCorps I have the opportunity to be a part of that dialogue on a daily basis. My service has given me the privilege of being a part of my students’ lives. Every time we work together in the garden, whether it is to plant, harvest, cook, or even winterize our greenhouse, we illustrate to students that food–where it comes from and how you cook it–is central to health.

Sitting in my organic chemistry class during undergrad, I never envisioned that I would soon become an expert in hosing off kids’ boots at the end of muddy garden work session, explaining the nutritional benefits of pesto over the din of my food processor, or reinforcing the concept of density by making balsamic vinaigrette. But at the end of every day, I am astounded at how lucky I am to experience alongside my students the wonderment that comes with growing and cooking food.

Recruitment for next year’s class begins this week. You can read more at our Web site: www.foodcorps.org or watch our video (produced by Ian Cheney, co-creator of King Corn) on YouTube here.

Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission, along with three other Federal agencies (FDA, CDC and USDA),  released a set of proposed voluntary guidelines for marketing food to children to reduce sugars, fats and salts and increase fruits, whole grains and vegetables in the diets of American youth. In 2008, led by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), Congress asked for the recommendations to address the nations’ growing obesity crisis among our nation’s youth.

Studies show that one third of all children aged 10 to 17 are overweight or obese. In the past three decades rates have more than doubled among kids aged 2 to 5 and more than tripled among those ages 6 through 11. The incidence of “adult onset” diabetes in children and youth has more than doubled in the past decade.

A coalition of major manufacturers of processed foods, fast-food chains, and the media industry that depends on their advertising dollars are spending millions to derail the proposed guidelines. The FTC has already started to trim the proposal in response to the lobbying blitzkrieg but industry wants to go ever further. They want to use an industry designed scheme that would declare Chocolate Lucky Charms, Marshmallow Pebbles and Cookie Crisp cereals as healthy.

But despite industry claims these guidelines are not mandatory regulations; they are voluntary guidelines developed by an independent committee of nutrition experts about how we can improve children’s health.

That hasn’t stopped industry predictions of economic disaster. According to comments filed by General Mills’ to Interagency Working Group “the economic consequences [of the guidelines] for American consumers and American agriculture would be devastating.”  They also predict “severe” economic consequences for the media industry and their employees.

They argue that the voluntary guidelines would cause consumers to eat more fruits and vegetables produced in other countries and therefore fewer grains grown in America. According to research funded by the Grocery Manufacturers of America “demand for fruits and vegetables would increase by 1009 percent and 226 percent respectively” resulting in almost $500 billion more spent on imported food and $30 billion less on domestically grown grain.

Even if the voluntary guidelines were that effective and their study was accurate, it’s audacious marketing spin to turn an overwhelmingly positive victory for public health into a big government, job killing attack on freedom.

Another industry-funded study claimed that the voluntary guidelines would result in the loss of 74,000 jobs. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, found the study riddled with “implausible” assumptions, historical inconsistencies and incomplete analyses of potential impacts to both the industry and economy as a whole.   For example, the industry study assumes, without justification, a 20 percent decline in advertising and completely ignores the likely scenario in which companies shift advertising to other products or audiences. It also ignores the fact that there has been no negative economic impact since industry adopted its own guidelines in 2006. In fact, EPI concludes that the guidelines could have no impact on jobs or could even lead to job growth in other parts of the economy.

Finally, General Mills adds that the food companies’ $1.6 billion in advertising expenditures “would go up in smoke.” “$1.6 billion in economic activity cannot disappear without an impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods,” they wrote.

While it’s impossible to believe that food conglomerates wouldn’t redirect their advertising dollars, it’s even harder to think that media companies wouldn’t find other buyers. In fact, they’ve done it before. When Congress banned tobacco ads on T.V. and radio in 1970 media companies stood to lose $220 million in annual cigarette advertising. Like their counterparts today, the networks, and broadcasters associations lobbied hard alongside big tobacco against the ban.

The media industry did fine. Total T.V. and radio advertising sales has increased every year before the ban and after. According to media analysts, in 1969 ad expenditures on T.V. and radio were $4.85 billion. In 1972, they were $5.7 billion.

For decades, industries have opposed laws, rules and even basic consumer information that have made us all healthier. At every step they predict disaster but, in fact, they respond with new ideas and innovations and we all benefit.  These voluntary guidelines merely suggest a path that industry should embrace and applaud.

According to the allegations in the Penn State scandal, a pedophile was allowed to brutally assault/molest numerous young boys because no one dared to upset the very lucrative apple cart that is college sports.

And now comes word that Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee have torpedoed the USDA’s attempts to reduce the amount of pizza, french fries, and salt that our kids consume at school. Why? Because the frozen pizza companies, the salt industry, and potato growers asked them to. Really. It’s that simple.

The USDA wasn’t looking to ban any of these foods, but rather to increase the ratio of non-starchy vegetables and whole grains. This would be a step in the right direction, instead of using our resources to make our kids sicker and fatter. But such a shift would also make a dent in some very lucrative government contracts. So, no go.

There’s more going on here than simple greed, though. Because the politicians who do the food industry’s bidding are showing as much contempt for the expert opinion of nutritionists as they do towards the science of climate change. As Tom Philpott notes over at Mother Jones, the evidence that we need to feed our kids less of this stuff is solid: “Eat Your Greens, or Your Gut Gets It.”

But who needs experts, anyway? Not the GOP. Their ideal nominee should evidently be a blowhard ignoramus with a moral compass that’s shiftier than the San Andreas fault line, and at least as deeply cracked.

Take Herman Cain. When the pizza mogul/motivational speaker/alleged serial groper was asked if he could define a man by the kind of pizza he prefers, he declared that “A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.”

And so goes the ongoing conservative war against vegetables, served up with a side of machismo. We can’t let the First Lady instill a love of broccoli in our kids! And isn’t Obamacare just a sneaky plot to open the door for legislation that would crucify Americans who reject cruciferous vegetables?

I guess those retired war generals over at Mission Readiness didn’t get the memo about the sissifying powers of vegetables. Why are these military experts up in arms over the USDA’s caving in to Big Food? Maybe because “Obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service, and children get up to 40 percent of their daily calories during the school day?”

As Amy Dawson Taggart, Mission Readiness’s director, noted “This new effort to undermine school nutrition regulations raises national security concerns.”

It should also raise questions about what kind of culture turns a blind eye to kids being brutalized and turns our children into vessels for commodity crop crap because it protects the revenues of some high powered institutions and politicians. What warped brand of capitalism have we created that permits our kids to be treated as collateral damage?

I was skeptical and sighing heavily when I pressed play to view Fat, Sick, & Nearly Dead. I immediately thought, “With such a negative title, this documentary will be a) depressing and b) preachy.”

I’m an optimistic person though–hence my dislike for the title–so I tried to toss out the judgmental thoughts and, as it turns out, my initial impression was pleasantly proven wrong.

The premise of the story is that Joe Cross, an affluent Australian businessman and director of the film, armed himself with a juicer and a video camera to wage a war against his weight in America. Predictably, Joe loses 100 pounds after a 60 day juice fast and eradicates his autoimmune disease that manifests itself as an annoying rash. (Admittedly, I scoffed at his complaining about taking a few pills a day while I watch my husband give himself six insulin shots daily along with a cocktail of pills, but, really, a disease is a disease whether a rash or a failed pancreas.) If this was the end of the film, I would think it was an indirect infomercial for a new line of juices.

But this is where the film takes a direction that is refreshing, especially after watching Jamie Oliver’s come-to-America-and-revolutionize-the-food-system, community-placed approach.

Joe has a genuine, gregarious, non-condescending manner that allows his conversations with the diversity that is America unwrap raw truths of the trajectory of our food culture. From a family that proudly only eats a home cooked meal a few times a month to a father who shrugs off dying early in front of his son even when he could change course with better eating habits, our convenience-based eating habits are exposed.

Then Phil comes along, a story one gets all too used to after shows such as the Biggest Loser. By befriending Phil, a random trucker with the same rare condition as Joe and who is severely obese, the film demonstrates how a helping hand and a healthy relationship with food can give you a life back.

And that is what the film’s mission is to do, I learned, with a campaign called “Reboot.” As the film unrolls across screens this spring, the Reboot team is partnering with the National Good Food Network to help build the supply channels to meet the increased demand for fresh fruits and vegetables this film will seed.

As a beginning farmer and advocate for local food systems, I cannot help but love the demand this film can create for local produce growers, but in the film there is no rally cry to local, sustainable or organic food, it’s just simply increased fruit and vegetable consumption. The film’s singular focus may attract more viewers, but it’s a missed opportunity to not touch upon the built environment, i.e., how many fast food chains were in close proximity to Phil’s home compared to the grocery store or farmers’ market? Why was the day’s worth of juice ingredients more expensive from the local co-op versus the big box store? Maybe Reboot as a campaign will delve more deeply into the issues the film skimmed over.

So even though I still don’t like the title, I recommend watching the film to witness how the simple act of consuming more fruits and vegetables can, in fact, reboot your life.

You can watch the trailer here:

Photo by Daniel Marracino

This time, it’s Tea Party star Michelle Bachmann who believes Obama is part of a leftist agenda intent on making “government the answer to everything.” Bachmann took an inflammatory position against Obama’s campaign on Laura Ingram’s radio show Tuesday, saying, “To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump…You want to talk about nanny state, I think we just got a new definition.”

In fact, Bachmann is inaccurate about the government buying breast pumps. The IRS would actually allow people to deduct breast-feeding expenses from their taxes. Since breast pumps can be costly (I found them online in the range of $75 to $350), the tax break would be a relief to many working mothers. But for Bachmann and her ilk, any government intervention to support healthier options is fodder for harsh criticism.

Last month, I wrote about the American Fast Food Syndrome and Sarah Palin’s attempts to discredit the work Obama is doing with her Let’s Move campaign on grounds that she is creating a nanny state. Last year on The Laura Ingram show, Palin came out swinging against the First Lady saying, “Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights.”

Palin made a contentious remark of her own about Obama’s statement, saying, “No wonder Michelle Obama’s telling everybody, ‘you’d better breast-feed your baby.’ Yeah, you’d better, because the price of milk is so high right now!”

It’s unclear why Bachmann or Palin wouldn’t want to foster an environment that makes it easier for mothers to breast-feed their babies. Bachman’s implication that this is unpatriotic and an infringement on American rights is baffling given the fact that all politicians at least pay lip service to the importance of motherhood—to attack breast-feeding, as Bachmann and Palin have, is to attack a healthy mother and baby.

There are a host of studies to show just how important breast-feeding is. The Centers for Disease Control has an entire section on its Web site dedicated to explaining the benefits of breast-feeding. Just this past January, the Surgeon General issued The Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding and lists a myriad of benefits when it comes to breast-feeding on her Web site. The benefits include: Protecting babies from infections and illnesses such as diarrhea, ear infections and pneumonia; preventing the development of asthma; preventing obesity; reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); and a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancers in mothers.

These are substantial health benefits and they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all that breast-feeding does for both mother and baby. Obama’s focus is that nursing prevents obesity and diabetes because breast milk contains the protein adiponectin, which lowers blood sugar. Low levels of adiponectin are linked to obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease. (For more detailed information on the benefits of breast-feeding I recommend Nina Planck’s book, Real Food for Mother and Baby).

The Surgeon General also lists the economic benefits of breast-feeding; something you’d think might pique Palin and Bachman’s interest. According to the Web site, a study published last year in the journal Pediatrics estimated that if 90 percent of U.S. families followed guidelines to breastfeed exclusively for six months, the U.S. would save $13 billion annually in reduced medical and other costs. The Web site also says that for both employers and employees, better infant health means fewer health insurance claims, less employee time off to care for sick children, and higher productivity.

And finally, Mutual of Omaha found that health care costs for newborns are three times lower for babies whose mothers participate in the company’s employee maternity and lactation program. Add to this the fact that the federal government is one of the biggest buyers of baby formula through its nutritional programs for women and infant children, and as the New York Times article rightly points out, a tax break for breast-feeding could reduce government spending—something Bachmann and Palin both advocate.

While neither Bachmann nor Palin have come out against breastfeeding (Bachmann says she breast-fed her five children), to imply that Obama’s campaign to encourage women to nurse is somehow akin to a nanny state is harmful to the health of our nation’s babies and mothers. We currently face a national health crisis largely fueled by a toxic food supply that does not support easy access to healthy options. On the other hand, breast milk is the perfect food for newborns—and given the proper guidance and support, access is not a problem for most women.

Every politician should back an idea that makes breast-feeding easier and more affordable than it already is. According to the CDC, 75 percent of mothers in the U.S. start out breast-feeding but those rates fall to only 43 percent by six months and only 13 percent of babies are exclusively breast-fed. Among African-Americans, the rates are much lower—58 percent of mothers start out breast-feeding but the rate falls to 28 percent by six months and only 8 percent are exclusively breast-fed.

One of the more startling statistics I’ve come across is the fact that one out of five four-year-olds is obese and children of color are at higher risk. The magnitude of the health crisis we currently face is unprecedented and strong measures must be taken in order to reverse these trends. Michelle Obama is right to follow up on the Surgeon General’s call for greater awareness on breast-feeding. Anything to help reduce the surging obesity rates in this country is a step in the right direction.

This article is part of a regular column by nutrition expert Kristin Wartman, in which she examines food, nutrition, and the way the industrial food industry affects our food system and our health.

I never would have believed they could pull this off.  The new guidelines recognize that obesity is the number one public health nutrition problem in America and actually give good advice about what to do about it: eat less and eat better. For the first time, the guidelines make it clear that eating less is as priority.

She did criticize the guidelines for talking about “food” when it came to things you needed more of (such as vegetables) and “nutrients” when it was time to talk about cutting back (less saturated fat instead of less meat).

But to be honest, I don’t really want to talk about the dietary guidelines. As important as they are–they are central to school lunch menu creation, for example–they are just guidelines and don’t exactly have the force of law.

In fact, two recent studies suggest the causes of the obesity epidemic are so pervasive and so deeply intertwined with our advanced industrialized way of life, that we’ll really need to “go long” if we’re to have any hope of addressing it.

The first study out of Oxford University, which appeared in the journal Economics & Human Biology, suggests that the root cause of obesity can be summed thusly: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Researchers found a relationship between living in “free market” countries such as the United States and obesity, likely due to the experience of prolonged economic stress (via ScienceDaily):

The researchers believe that the stress of living in a competitive social system without a strong welfare state could be causing people to overeat. According to the study published in the latest issue of the journal Economics and Human Biology, Americans and Britons are much more likely to be obese than Norwegians and Swedes.

Interestingly, the researchers were able to separate out the effect of junk food availability on people’s eating habits and measure that against economic stress. They found that economic stress was a greater contributing factor to obesity than the fact that so many cheap, nutrient-poor calories are available to consumers. Lead author Avner Offer commented:

Policies to reduce levels of obesity tend to focus on encouraging people to look after themselves but this study suggests that obesity has larger social causes. The onset and increase of large-scale obesity began during the 1980s, and coincided with the rise of market-liberalism in the English-speaking countries.

It may be that the economic benefits of flexible and open markets come at a price to personal and public health which is rarely taken into account. Basically, our hypothesis is that market-liberal reforms have stimulated competition in both the work environment and in what we consume, and this has undermined personal stability and security.

Tom Philpott and I have both written about the role of wage stagnation in the obesity epidemic. And now, we learn that it may be our economic system itself that’s to blame. It’s already established that economic stress can cause poor health — so why not obesity as well.

The second study, also from Britain — this time, University College London–and published in Obesity Reviews, found a relationship between the obesity epidemic and the global North’s love of central heating. It turns out that we’ve reduced our exposure to “thermal stress,” especially to cold during winter, and as a result, spend fewer calories on maintaining our body temps. Indeed, it has even changed the balance of different kinds of fat in our bodies (“brown fat” is burned for energy and cold exposure encourages its formation while more permanent “white fat” forms at higher temperatures).

While turning down the heat is certainly not an “answer” to the obesity epidemic, nor is making the United States into a European-style welfare state in the cards, we do need to get our arms around the breadth of the challenge before us. Admitting we have a problem with our economic system would be a good start.

Originally published on Grist

First Lady Michelle Obama joined America’s largest grocery chain, Walmart, Thursday to announce that the Fortune 500 company has a five-year plan to increase healthy food offerings, reduce fresh produce prices, and improve access to affordable food, a move intended to complement Mrs. Obama’s campaign to combat childhood obesity.

Walmart’s new initiative aims to reduce sugar by 10 percent, sodium by 25 percent, and eliminate industrially produced trans fat in its store brand line by 2015.

Because Walmart is the largest force in groceries, it is widely assumed that these new voluntary standards will be met by a bevy of suppliers and food producers extending beyond the retail giant, which on its own attracts about 140 million American shoppers each week. The impact that Walmart’s standards have on the marketplace is hard to overstate.

As Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the New York Times, “A number of companies have said they are going to make voluntary reductions in sodium over the next several years, and numerous companies have said they are going to try to get trans fat out of their food. But Wal-Mart is in a position almost like the Food and Drug Administration. I think it really pushes the food industry in the right direction.”

“Those two moves by Walmart ultimately should save thousands of lives each year that might otherwise be lost to heart disease or stroke,” Jacobson added, in a statement from CSPI Thursday.

Though Walmart’s pledge to reformulate its brand name products gained the most media attention yesterday, keen food politics observers believe the corporate heavyweight’s commitment to reducing the price of fruits and vegetables is the most radical part of the new plan, which is being dubbed the “nutrition charter.” Walmart says it will save customers $1 billion annually on produce alone and work to “dramatically reduce or eliminate” the price premiums on healthier processed foods.

“The idea of making fruit and vegetables more affordable could actually make a dent in the obesity problem by helping Americans to eat healthier,” writes BNET’s food industry guru Melanie Warner. “Too bad neither Walmart nor Obama seem to want to address the root causes of why whole foods like fruit and vegetables are often more expensive than comparatively unhealthy, processed foods.”

Food Politics author and New York University professor Marion Nestle, unimpressed by Walmart’s reformulation goals and annoyed by their health-claims marketing, said she thinks the price reduction “sounds good” but was wary of unintended consequences.

Walmart executives insisted they would not squeeze produce growers or hurt small scale, local farmers, but would accept lower margins and improve efficiency in the supply chain. When asked specifically about the impact on their efforts to boost locally sourced produce, the company’s VP of sustainability, Andrea Thomas, said local food could save the company money.

“There’s a lot of things through the supply chain that add costs. If you have fruits and vegetables traveling long distances that actually adds costs,” said Thomas, during a Q&A with reporters. “With local farmers, we can supply [directly] great products to our stores, the quality is great and they don’t have to travel as far so we save money.”

Overall the food and nutrition community welcomed the initiative, though some expressed skepticism about the company’s intentions and the implementation of the plan. Walmart will work with the Partnership for a Healthier America–a foundation dedicated to mobilizing the private sector, NGOs, and thought leaders to partner with the First Lady’s Let’s Move! campaign–to issue public progress reports.

Originally published on Food Safety News

In a telephone briefing on Monday, the authors of the study discussed why their research is so important. They cited statistics compiled over the past year, which show that one-third of U.S. children and teens eat fast food every day, accounting for 16 to 17 percent of their daily caloric intake. “Eating at fast food restaurants is ingrained in our culture. That’s why the nutritional quality of these meals is so important,” Marlene Schwartz, co-author of the study said on Monday. Jennifer Harris, lead author of the study added that they uncovered how the barrage of fast food advertising has made kids think that this kind of food is “normal and expected.” Harris said: “Kids think that they should be able to eat McDonald’s all the time and this has a direct effect on obesity.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says two-thirds of American adults and 15 percent of children are overweight or obese. The childhood obesity rate is above 30 percent in some states.

The researchers found that the average preschooler saw 2.8 TV ads per day for fast food, children saw 3.5, and teens saw 4.7. The ads are not limited to TV alone—children and teens are also viewing ads on-line, on the radio, and with in-store promotions and signs.

Indeed, the $4.2 billion dollars spent in 2009 on advertising by the fast food industry is working. The researchers said that 40 percent of parents report that their children ask to go to McDonald’s at least once a week and 15 percent of preschoolers ask to go every day. Another finding concludes that 84 percent of parents take their child to a fast food restaurant at least once a week while 66 percent reported going to McDonald’s in the past week.

According to Schwartz, part of the problem is that the current generation of parents is the first group to have grown up with fast food advertisements. The researchers said that the parents’ exposure to marketing makes them think it “normal” to take their children to eat at fast food restaurants as well.

The study also found that the industry specifically targets teens and minority youth more often and with less healthy items. African American youth saw at least 50 percent more fast food ads on TV in 2009 than their white peers. The researchers said that African Americans were also exposed to more websites and banner ads. “KFC and McDonald’s specifically market to African Americans through what they watch,” lead author Harris said. “We also found that Hispanic children, and especially preschoolers, are seeing a lot of ads on Spanish TV, particularly for McDonald’s.”

Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center said this is particularly alarming since these are the populations most at-risk for obesity and diabetes. “The disproportionate marketing to these groups is concerning,” Brownell said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of obesity for African Americans is 51 percent higher than for white Americans, and the prevalence of obesity amongst the nation’s Hispanic American population is 21 percent higher than their white peers.

Children are clearly eating more fast food than they should be and the authors hope their research will help to devise strategies to curb this trend. “You can try education, but that doesn’t seem to be working, so that’s not the answer,” Brownell said. “Restricting or curtailing practices is something we need to do.” Brownell referred to the ordinance passed last week in San Francisco that only allows restaurant meals to include a toy when the meals meets certain nutritional standards and criteria. He hopes that other states and local jurisdictions will take similar actions.

When asked what parents could do, lead author Harris said, “The only way to control what kids are seeing is to turn off the TV. No matter what’s on, you’re going to see a lot of fast food ads.”

The tricky part of the debate revolves around the First Amendment. While the authors of the study would like to see advertisements to children and other vulnerable groups curtailed, corporations have the right to advertise. And while the fast food restaurants have pledged to offer healthier menu options, this doesn’t seem to be affecting what people are eating. The study found that just 12 of 3,039 possible kids’ meal combinations met nutrition criteria for preschoolers and 15 met nutrition criteria for older children. “You have to work hard to get a healthy side and drink with kids meals,” co-author Schwartz said. “You have to know it exists and you have to ask for it.”

These findings come on the heels of other shocking news released last week that the incidence of diabetes has reached an all-time high in Los Angeles County. The Department of Public Health report shows an increase from six-and-a-half to nine percent among adults between 1997 and 2007, for a total of 650,000 people with the disease. In addition, obesity rates rose from 14 to 22 percent, or to more than one in every five adults.

Schwartz, who along with her colleagues spent more than a year compiling this information told reporters, “All of this is really just the tip of the iceberg.”

This article is part of a regular column by holistic nutrition expert Kristin Wartman, in which she examines food, nutrition, and the way the industrial food industry affects our food system and our health.