Now, more than a half a century after that first declaration, that same date brought the movie Food, Inc. to theaters, a film that reveals the dysfunction of our food system. With obesity rates at the highest point in history, contaminated food regularly sickening thousands, and government estimating we will continue to spend 6.2% more on healthcare annually (this year, an additional $200 billion, more than our annual economic growth of 4.1%), it is clear that we have a problem as big as smoking: an addiction to cheap, unhealthy food perpetuated by an industry intent on maximizing profits at the expense of our health and our land. It is time to regulate Big Food by changing the culture in Washington that allowed it to proliferate.

According to a recent study [pdf] by Kelly D. Brownell and Kenneth E. Warner at Yale University, the food industry is using “similar legal, political, and business strategies” that were once employed in tobacco, including dismissing peer-reviewed studies that make a connection between their product and disease, paying scientists to produce pro-industry studies, denying the addictive nature of their products to create doubt in the minds of consumers, and advertising heavily to children. A powerful lobby also ensures that agribusiness as usual is maintained in Washington.

But we know the food system as it stands right now isn’t working, and that it isn’t sustainable. Cheap processed food requires commodities like corn, soy, wheat, and rice. The production of these crops currently depends on industrial-scale, acreage-intensive monoculture that is in turn not feasible without surplus water, cheap oil and fertilizer, and a stable climate, all of which are at risk for becoming scarce.

Instead of taking a seat at the table, Big Food has renounced as “junk science” peer-reviewed studies showing the correlation to obesity with the proximity to a fast food restaurant. It has actively denied the science proving the relationship between soda consumption and weight problems and diabetes. Big Tobacco spent years insisting that there wasn’t enough evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. The results were that millions of people had to die before the government acted.

Good health, food safety and sustainability will never exist in our current food system. Big Food is standing in the way of change with agribusiness campaign funding and corporate ties moving through the Washington revolving door that brings lobbyists, consultants and strategists to high level positions. Historically, thirty-two members of the Senate Agriculture Committee and fifty of the House Agriculture Committee have had these ties to industry.

We were able to rattle the grip of Big Tobacco loose and we can start to do so now with Big Food by tightening campaign finance reform. Agribusiness is one of the largest lobbying interests in the capital, spending nearly 140 million in 2008 according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In creating a system based on public financing, their power could be greatly diminished. Food production is controlled from seed to supermarket shelf by a handful of companies [pdf], who are in effect deciding what we can and cannot access to eat. 83.5% of all beef-packing was controlled by 4 companies in 2007, while the numbers for pork-packing (66%), chicken processing (58.5%) and turkey (55%) reflect the same lack of competition. This extends to soy bean crushing (80%) and wet corn processing (74%), both sectors producing many of the ingredients in the processed foods we consume. President Obama has promised to take a hard line on anti-trust regulations, including those impacting agricultural companies. This would be a great start to building a better food system.

In addition, our government should fully fund unbiased studies assessing the long term sustainability of our food system. Most food research is funded by industry, and therefore focuses on biotech and other subjects that favor its development, rather than forming true assessments of the safety of our food and the lasting health impacts of our current food system. We can also change the incentive structure by incentivizing better farming practices like crop rotation, intercropping, smaller-scale food and animal operations that improve the air, water and land quality of the local environment.

President Obama can also nominate a Surgeon General who could set the tone for a better food system. A strong Surgeon General should warn Americans about the longterm health effects of consuming fast foods, and educate and advise the public about the outcomes of unbiased government studies. He/she should also oversee the labeling of foods for their possible detrimental health effects. The tobacco industry no longer has the power to advertise wherever it pleases, nor can it advertise to children; cigarettes are properly labeled with health advisories. A similar tack needs to be taken with unhealthy food.

While millions still die of smoking related illness every year, it’s not too late to lift the veil from Big Food, and in doing so, save lives and public health for years to come.

h/t to Bonnie Powell and Naomi Starkman

Recently, a cadre of notable professors, chefs and policy leaders have spoken up about the dangerous links between our food and diseases like obesity, from Bill Clinton to Dr. Barry Popkin. Even Tom Vilsack has remarked that he would like to steer food policy under the umbrella of health care reform and just last week Michelle Obama spoke of reducing processed foods in our diets. But where is the voice of America’s #1 doctor, the Surgeon General?

As the Obama administration began to take shape at the start of the year and whispers circulated over the naming of the next Surgeon General, I couldn’t help but wonder what this post is really about and how seemingly appropriate its station could be in the widespread communication of food sustainability and health to the mainstream.

According to the government website of the Surgeon General, the position is part of the Office of Public Health and Science within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the office holder seeks to be “America’s chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.”

Unfortunately, our chief health advocate has been somewhat invisible or inaudible at least, some may argue, since the days of C. Everett Koop.

It is now time to revitalize this invaluable tax-supported post in our government and choose an intelligent agenda for the next Surgeon General. Although the sustainable-food movement has been gaining in leaps and bounds at the moment (e.g. White House organic garden), by tapping the top advocate for public health to join the squad, this base can be solidified to tackle issues from a government-backed, mainstream platform – at least on the health front. How better to contain the critics who profess that sustainable food advocates have a scattered and extreme agenda?

And there is no better time than now to have a Surgeon General dedicate resources to a healthier food supply. Some have now deemed obesity the #1 threat to American health (nearly 2 out of 3 Americans is either overweight or obese).

There are plenty of innovative and effective initiatives the next Surgeon General can roll out to inject techniques of sustainable food into an agenda combating diet-related lifestyle problems. Many of these ideas have been shuttled back and forth among food policy advocates, but by being heard through the office of America’s #1 doctor, awareness and change would be better guaranteed.

Firstly, a new campaign of health warnings pinpointing the perils of the average American diet should be considered, similar to the Surgeon General health warnings seen on alcoholic beverages, and most popularly, on packages of cigarettes. Although issuing warnings on items like cigarettes is a much easier task than enforcing rules on a vast array of retail foods, more attention should be given to finding effective ways to re-launch health warnings in a modified approach (e.g. levels of saturated fats in certain foods).

Secondly, the Surgeon General’s post could do a lot more to communicate the realities of food subsidies to the American mainstream by educating the public about how inexpensive, processed foods enter our food system and how important it is to promote healthy fruits and vegetables instead.

The Surgeon General could speak more powerfully on issues relating to fast-food outlets in urban areas and their proximity to schools, portion sizes and television advertising of processed foods to children. He or she could push for better front-of-package nutrition labeling (favored by almost 75% of American and developed for use in the U.K.), a redesigning of the Food Pyramid, and more research in the areas of local and sustainable food.

In general, the Surgeon General could be an invaluable teacher and poster child for the education of sustainable food to the masses by acting as the sole arbiter in the constant debate surrounding diet and health made more confusing by public misunderstandings over scientific findings, mixed messages from the media and a deluge of health claims pushed by corporate marketing initiatives.

Whatever the final agenda, the post of the Surgeon General needs to be rejuvenated and empowered with a new view of food policy in relation to public health. Although Admiral Galson (acting Surgeon General) has been seen very recently speaking about childhood obesity and their “Healthy Youth for A Healthy Future” initiative, these efforts are extremely weak and don’t go to the heart of the matter – changing our food system.

By choosing the next Surgeon General based on ideas relating to sustainability the Obama Administration and Congress can tackle a wide array of problems such as climate change, national security, and energy policy in addition to healthcare, as positive changes in the way Americans eat will have domino-like affects on many sectors and of society.

The time is now to harness attention and concern over the President’s next pick for the Office of Surgeon General and a remaking of its agenda based on the interconnected themes of sustainability, health literacy and disease prevention. Food policy advocates and the sustainable food community should make a push as well, for this post may be exactly what the movement needs in terms of mainstream awareness and government support. By capturing the momentum for change brought on by the Obama administration, a revitalized and progressive Surgeon General post can prove to be a wondrous agent for good food, good health and prosperity in our country.