Why Americans Should Take Notes on the French Diet

More than 1/3 or 34.9% of the American population is considered "obese" (A person is considered obese if they have a BMI of over 30) in 2014 according to the CDC.  This is shocking statistic. It tends to be correlated with Americans consuming foods that contain too much sodium and too many calories from solid fats, along with little exercise. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggests that Americans need to increase their nutrient consumption and limit their intake on sodium, solid fats, added sugars, and refined grains, and increase their consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk, seafood, lean meats, eggs, beans, peas, nuts, and seeds. With efforts like this, as well as banning sodas and junk food from schools and more clarity on food labeling - there has been evidence of obesity stabilization recently in the United States! While the obesity rate is at its highest it has ever been, continual efforts are at least stopping it from reaching a greater percentage of the American population.

More than 1/3 or 34.9% of the American population is considered "obese" (A person is considered obese if they have a BMI of over 30) in 2014 according to the CDC.  This is shocking statistic. It tends to be correlated with Americans consuming foods that contain too much sodium and too many calories from solid fats, along with little exercise. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggests that Americans need to increase their nutrient consumption and limit their intake on sodium, solid fats, added sugars, and refined grains, and increase their consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk, seafood, lean meats, eggs, beans, peas, nuts, and seeds. With efforts like this, as well as banning sodas and junk food from schools and more clarity on food labeling - there has been evidence of obesity stabilization recently in the United States! While the obesity rate is at its highest it has ever been, continual efforts are at least stopping it from reaching a greater percentage of the American population.

In comparison, French people are considered the "slimmest" Europeans, followed closely by the Swiss and the Italians. But in France the percent obesity doubled from 5.5% in 1995 to 11% in 2004, almost ten years later. Why then, while the obesity in France and the United States has both increased, do French people tend to have less health issues than Americans? Today France is considered the least obese country in Europe. Two observations can be made from these facts - Although the French obesity rate is increasing, it is also increasing in all countries with the increase in fast food, frozen food, and availability to food. So, while the French rate of obesity is increasing, France has remained one of the lowest % obesity countries in Europe for over 20 years. 

Another is a question - why has the obesity rate increased in France at such a fast rate? McDonalds is the most profitable in France than in any other country in Europe! According to most health professionals, the blame has been put on fast for, prepared food, sedentary lifestyle, and the loss of a "common food culture," meaning that the prevalence of not opening the refrigerator between meals is not as high as it used to be. The fat content of foods usually seen in the French diet has increased as well, directly correlating with the obesity increase. 

France immediately took action when its obesity rates began to rise - including banning soda- and snack-selling machines in 2005 from public schools, as well as adding a 1.5% tax on food companies' budgets who do encourage healthy eating.  Like I mentioned before, Americans have also taken similar measures of action, but the United States came to these actions much more slowly than France. So why is France still so healthy and slim, even with an increase in obesity? 

The reason why French obesity is so much lower than American obesity can be due to a number of issues. One - French people value their cuisine and food so much more than Americans. A meal is more than a quick snack, or whatever is easier and cheapest to a French eater. In general, French people tend to value quality over quantity, price, or quickness of preparation in comparison to American people, who tend to value the later three qualities over quality. France also has more strict regulations on organic food and the use of GMOs in agriculture than in the United States, which may increase the quantity of fresh produce consumed in a French eater's diet in comparison to an American eater's diet. French people also tend to eat less during their meals, and eat meals less frequently. A breakfast meal for a person in France could be considered a small pastry and a coffee. While a coffee, with cream and sugar, and a pastry, probably containing a lot of sugar - may not be considered the healthiest breakfast, since it is in a smaller quantity than a large stack of 10 pancakes (even if they are low fat or using whole grain) an American may consume for breakfast, in the end the French eater may benefit with a smaller calorie and more efficient meal.

A very confusing aspect of the French diet is the "French paradox." This paradox, coined in the 1980s, is the curious observation that while in general French people have a low occurrence of coronary heart disease (CHD) while having a diet that consists of very high levels of saturated fats, which are usually considered a risk factor for CHD. While there are many possibilities that explain this phenomenon, most tend to fall under two categories. Either saturated fats are not as linked to CHD as previously thought, or there are other lifestyle choices French people make that allow them to live healthier lives. 

Therefore, the evidence has given the public mixed results. It is difficult to distinguish as to why the French are considered so much more healthier than Americans. While we can offer reasons such as the French having less food at meals, better quality of foods, and less frequent meals, or perhaps just living healthier lifestyles, we cannot pinpoint one reason as to why there is a difference in health between the two countries, and fix that one issue. Who knows, perhaps all Americans can do to have a more "French" lifestyle besides taking on the changes that come with the differences between French and American lifestyle and diet is to … eat a croissant. 

Solutions for a Safer Food Supply

Food is mandatory for life, so it is extremely important that our food supply is safe.  But what if contaminated food could cause as many as 76 million Americans to get sick every year?  Unfortunately, this statistic is true.  With products getting recalled and outbreaks of illness frequently seen in the news, much of America has lost confidence in the safety of our food supply.

So what can be done to improve the safety of America’s food?  One answer to this question is preventing outbreaks from occurring.  There are various programs used by companies to assure safety and quality of their products, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP).  HACCP programs identify points in production where significant threats to food safety or quality could occur.  Limits are established on these control points and procedures are put in place to document when the limits are met.  Corrective actions are created in case a deviation from the limit occurs, and records are kept up to date on production.  These records can then be inspected by USDA or FDA officials.

Food processing facilities can also be inspected by the USDA and FDA.  Currently, the USDA is required to inspect meat and poultry facilities more often than the FDA is required to inspect other plants.  Additionally, the FDA does not inspect the majority of imported food – in fact, less than 1% of imported food is inspected!  With these suppliers creating their own laws for quality and safety, the United States should be more critical of imported foods.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest suggests that the FDA should create a system to certify the safety of imported food.  If this certification was seen on food packaging, consumers could also feel more at ease purchasing foreign products.

In recent years, new legislation has been signed into law to improve food safety.  The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) enhanced FDA requirements in outbreak prevention, facility inspection and compliance, food imports, and other areas.  Food facilities are now required to create preventative control plans like HACCP.  The FDA also had to establish production standards for food production.  There were multiple changes to import regulations.  The FDA now has more authority in food imports, including the ability to require further certification of products and deny imports.

While a consumer like yourself may not be able to create food safety laws, there are many actions you can take against foodborne illness!  One action that may seem obvious is washing your hands when preparing food, and this is especially important when handling meat.  Also, separate cutting boards should be used for meat and ready to eat foods to prevent the spread of bacteria.

Cooking and storing food at the proper temperature is extremely important!  Bacteria that cause foodborne illness thrive in the temperature range between 40°-140°F.  To prevent illness, refrigerators should be kept a few degrees below 40°F.  Food thermometers should be used to monitor the temperature of meat and poultry while cooking as well.

Foodborne illness will always remain a concern to our country.  However, new legislation has been able to improve the FDA’s authority in inspecting domestic and international foods.  Requirements for food production facilities have also been improved to ensure a safer food supply.  The FDA and USDA are not the only ones who can take action against foodborne illness.  If consumers follow some easy tips, they too can prevent foodborne illness.

Food Safety

Over the past few decades, Congress and food inspection agencies have been battling with how to resolve the United State’s food safety problems. An estimated 5,000 people in the United States die each year due to food-borne illness. Food-borne illness is 100% preventable with the proper processing and handling of food.

"5,000 people in the United States die every year due to food-borne illness"

There are three main agencies that are involved with food safety- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The US Department of Agriculture is in charge of inspecting meat and poultry, the Food and Drug Administration overseas all other foods and the Environmental Protection Agency sets tolerances for pesticides in food. At the start of the new millennium, Congress cut spending on food safety, which took an immediate toll on the FDA. The FDA only inspects food processing facilities once every ten years. With the rising concerns from consumers, Congress finally developed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). It was signed by President Obama on Janurary 4^th. The new act helps to strengthen the food safety system. It is based more on prevention than a “clean-up" of the system. Although, there are parts that help the FDA respond better to problems when they do occur.

Here are some important implications of the FSMA:

Prevention

Food facilities are required to have a written preventive control plan, like a Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. They will also be required to keep detailed records of production, and minimum standards for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables are implemented.

 

Response

Before FSMA, the FDA was only able to advise a food facility to recall an infected product. Under the new law the FDA can issue a mandatory recall.

Imports

Under the prior law, less than 1% of imported food was inspected in the US. Now importers have an explicit responsibility to verify how their suppliers ensure food safety. The FDA has the ultimate power to refuse imports from facilities that won’t allow them to enter and inspect.

Hopefully with the FSMA the United States can start to make big strides in the improvement of food safety!

Biofuels

As with any agricultural shift, there are pros and cons to be discussed with the increasing standard of biofuels in use. Biofuels are proven to be a cleaner source of power and as we have already learned, the agriculture industry (especially beef) is a big producer of CO2 and really needs to evaluate how it can reduce its carbon footprint. Biofuels would be a great way for the industry to do this and help contribute to the cause. Although the increase use of crops for biofuels will decrease the use of crops for food and many communities are not happy with this change. With less crop yield being put toward food the prices in the market are up higher than ever and many citizens who already spend 80% of their income on food are nervous of how they will be able to support their families. Although it seems like it should be the answer to climate change and all of our problems, biofuels will hurt the socioeconomic status of many countries and communities that can't really handle many more hardships.

The EU is not pleased with the results of first generation biofuels and have decided they need to make some policy changes to decrease the initial 10% use of biofuels in 2020 to 5%. They thought that the use of biofuels would greatly reduce CO2 emissions and help this planet but they were found to be no better than some fossil fuels. First generation biofuels will no longer be subsidized by the EU unless they can be proven to greatly reduce greenhouse gases. These changes have caused many proponents and environmentalists in a fuss. Biofuel proponents are unhappy because they see this as a sign that the EU cannot stick to what they say and that their policies do not hold water. The environmentalists are unhappy with this change because they see this as a mistake for the EU, they believe that there is a cleaner way to implement biofuels, the EU just hasn't worked hard enough at it. And all of this fuss over first generation biofuels throws shade at the use of second generation biofuels. Second generation biofuels could be a great improvement and take away some cons of the use of biofuels because they are not food crops so they wouldn't drive up the price of food like first generation biofuels have.  

Ethanol production is not hitting its highest note in the fuel industry right now, it is going through a bit of a drought that is causing many production plants to close and is leaving barrels of ethanol in storage. The fuel industry is not yet comfortable having more than 10% ethanol in their gasoline mix even though many cars have been approved of up to a 15% mix. This is really hurting the ethanol industry because they saw such a rapid growth in their ethanol usage and were greatly benefitting initially, that this drop has caused many layoffs and left only a few productions to stay open. The plant in Macon, Missouri has decided to renovate production plants to be more efficient and be more cost-effective. They are hoping to take big steps in the production of ethanol and see great results in the work they have put into their production.

The EPA has made a big statement in the ethanol industry by stating that a 10% mix is the new standard because that is all the more an average car absorbs. This has upset producers and environmentalists because it will hurt production and it is not improving the clean fuel initiative. Farmers are producing barrels of ethanol at low costs and are having great crop yields, so being told that their hard work is unwanted is upsetting and will alter the lives of those in the community. The environmentalists see ethanol as being a great improvement in reducing greenhouse gases and are upset that the EPA feels the need to hold back on such a great resource. The EPA is only doing what it is doing because cars can't use all the ethanol being put into them and it seems to be a waste. There are definitely two sides to every story and biofuels are really feeling the harsh truth with the many pros and cons they have to offer. 

Biofuels, too good to be true?

A biofuel is defined as "a fuel derived from biological materials, such as plants, and animals." There are many schools of thought regarding the production, use, and merit behind using biofuels as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels. The main proponents of biofuels advocate their environmental benefit in helping to phase out the use of traditional fossil fuels which are typically not renewable and generally have a large impact on the environment due to the emissions they create when used.  However, there is a growing movement against biofuels due to the massive land allocation that would be needed to make the production of biofuels feasible and worth producing. But before we dive into the issues surrounding biofuels we should probably gain a better understanding of what biofuels really are and how they could be utilized in today's fuel driven society.

There are many types of biofuels including ethanol, biodiesel, vegetable oil, bioethers, and even solid biofuels. However, the most common and well known type of biofuel being used on a wide scale today is ethanol. Ethanol which can be produced from virtually any type of "feedstock", or a crop used to feed cattle, such as corn, wheat, barley, and switchgrass, with the most common type of ethanol being produced from corn. To produce ethanol from corn, the crop must be grown as if it were to be sent to your local supermarket. However, instead of sending it for human or livestock consumption it is first ground down to a meal, then it is fermented using yeast to extract the sugars and alcohol, then it is distilled which condenses and collects the ethanol, and finally the corn meal is dehydrated with the dried meal typically being used in animal feeds. Now obviously this is a very simplified explanation of the process of creating ethanol but the process produces one of the most widely used and debated biofuels in the whole of biofuel production. 

Ethanol, which we just learned is typically produced from corn, is used in a variety of ways; but the majority of its use is as a fuel additive in our gasoline. Ethanol is added to help boost the octane of the fuel which helps keep your car running smoother and longer from each gallon of gasoline. While ethanol could be used alone as a standalone fuel source the majority of cars cannot handle more then 10% ethanol to gasoline. So with the addition of ethanol to our fuel keeping our cars running cleaner and helping to reduce the amount of imported oil and gasoline refinement we need in the U.S., what could the issue be with ethanol and other biofuels? Land. Plain and simple, land is the driving factor in the fight against biofuels. With all the benefits of biofuels from reducing the amount of fossil fuels used in refinement processes to helping our cars run cleaner, how could land be such a detractor from the positives that come with biofuels? Well if we remember back to our brief overview of how biofuels are made we would remember that biofuels come from organic materials. These organic materials must be grown on land, they must be watered and cared for, they must be protected using herbicides and pesticides, and ultimately they must be harvested and processed using machinery that spits out the same emissions that biofuels are looking to reduce. Many who oppose biofuels site not just the production process but are more concerned about the land usage associated with producing the biofuels. If a typical field of corn could either feed a large ranching operation or supply the consumer corn market and is instead used for an entire year growing a crop that will ultimately not be used other then in the consumers gasoline, many feel as though that is a waste of usable land and a reduction in the amount of food that can be used worldwide. This is of great concern to those in countries who might not even get one square meal in a day, they miss a meal so our gasoline can make our cars run a little better. Clearly those against biofuels have a valid argument. However, on the other side of the coin is those in favor of biofuels and their argument is as compelling as those resisting the push towards cleaner fuel sources. As I mentioned above a main concern against biofuels is the land usage, and while it is a cause of concern if biofuels are supposed to take the place of more traditional fuel sources it may be of lesser importance if biofuels really do help reduce emissions a substantial amount. According to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, a study done at The University of Nebraska on the effect of  ethanol production and its emissions when compared to gasoline production saw a 54% reduction in the overall emissions throughout the ethanol production process. That is less then half the emissions of a typical gasoline refinement process to produce a product that reduces the need to even refine as much gasoline in the first place! 

Overall although there are advantages and disadvantages to the production of biofuels and more specifically ethanol when compared to typical fossil fuel sources, the debate for and against biofuels will rage on until a definitive advantage can be seen for one fuel source over another. Unfortunately that "definitive advantage" may not come until we have waited to long to make a choice one way or the other. But in my opinion the transition to biofuels is a necessary one that must begin to be taken as a more serious alternative to the environmentally unfriendly options we currently use. 

The Search for an Environment Friendly Burger

Gas and oil production, transportation, industry and deforestation; just a few of the more common causes of greenhouse gases. But, what about beef? As it turns out, meats such as beef are actually surpassing the amount of greenhouse gases produced by both industry and transportation. Through a combination of animal wastes, fertilizers, and more, the negative contributions of beef production have been reported as being responsible for nearly twenty-two percent of the thirty-six billion tons of these gases each year. 

With both beef consumption and population rates rising, it is proving to be more and more difficult to come up with environmentally friendly solutions. The current agricultural procedures are taking a toll on climate, ocean acidification, grasslands, freshwater, and much more. As alarming as this may be, no fix all plan has been made. One suggestion includes the use of CAFOs or concentrated animal feeding operations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines CAFOs as a compacted animal care facilities that reduce necessary land area, and concentrate both the animals and wastes. The EPA continues by stating two specific standards; "you confine animals for at least 45 days in a 12-month period, and there's no grass or other vegetation in the confinement area during the normal growing season". Although not perfect, CAFOs aim to decrease greenhouse gases by looking towards more efficient feedlot systems.

Other ideas also focus on the reduction of agriculture expansion, increasing the yields of current farm setups, minimizing the amount of meat consumption in diets, and lessening wastes. Even though these may seem like simple approaches, many must resort to newer tactics that are not yet widely accepted. For example, the increasing of crop yields might eventually include the usage of genetic modifications.

Conflicting opinions on what the "right" or the "best" approaches are for such a touchy issue are what makes the situation so strenuous. Do we enforce the push towards CAFOs and face accusations of animal cruelty? Do we put our effort into improving less established facilities and change the game of competition? Do we encourage the shift toward more scientifically advanced strategies despite the fearful consumer? Can we really tell the public that their meat purchases now have to be cut down? 

With all these questions and not enough answers, one thing that we can all agree on is that action needs to be taken and that it needs to be taken fast.

Agricultural Policy

Ever wondered about the process that goes into getting you your favorite snack or meal? Many consumers are unfamiliar with the procedures that bring foods from the farm to their dinner tables. Agricultural Policy, or regulations and laws concerning agriculture and food distribution, can be credited for the safe and efficient deliverance of each country’s various cuisines. These policies are usually implemented by the government with the intent of protecting the health and well-being of consumers.

Here in the United States, agricultural policy is regulated by Congress, with the passing of food bills that include the governance of everything from Food Stamps & Nutrition to Crop insurance. In accordance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for creating policies that protect and benefit the environment when it comes to agriculture and many other things.

In recent years, Congress has attempted to alter the current farm bill due to its expiration and their efforts to lower policy expenses. The replacement policy is projected to cost $956.4 billion, cutting costs by $16.5 billion over the next 10 years. These cuts are to be made in every area of US Agricultural Policy, with the exception of Crop Insurance, or the additional money provided to farmers to reimburse them for deductibles paid for insurance, and to protect farmers in the event of low prices or crop failure. Other areas of the farm bill include Food Stamps & Nutrition, which is the highest funded area, using $756 billion over 10 years. This focuses on providing food to individuals who do not have the income or purchasing power to do so on their own. Conservation ($56 B), the policy to protect farmers against soil erosion, trade ($3.5 B), and alternative energy use ($1.1 B), are also included in the bill as lesser, but still economically prominent funded policies.

With everyone sharing different views on what is important, this new bill has received mixed reviews, as many policies do. Some view crop subsidies as negative, believing it is unnecessary to pay farmers additional money to keep food prices low and protect farms. In the US, because of our country’s wealth and the small impact higher food prices would have on consumption, it is particularly viewed as unnecessary. Others are against the decline in Food Stamp funding, believing it to hinder the well-being of families who actually need assistance. Despite these arguments, the Senate and House have come to a compromise on what they believe to be in the best interest of consumers and farmers alike.

In contrast to the US, the European Union runs its policies through The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP instills policies in European countries that focus on European preference over international brands, communal treasury funding, a unified market, and equal income for farmers. With each country’s CAP funding different, France is currently allocated the most money. They are also responsible for the creation of Common Market Organizations (CMOs), which break various foods into categories and provide universal regulations for all farmers or producers of that food.

Similar to the US, CAP has recently proposed some changes to its current policies to diversify the agricultural economy in Europe and hopefully lower the high food prices, as well as to provide safe food, animal welfare and break the bond between subsidies and production. The implementing of these changes will come through a 300,000 euro cap on subsidies, assuring all state farmers receive 65% of funds allocated by the EU to farmers. They also intend to end sugar production quotas to aid those in less wealthy countries and to make strides in green agriculture. As opposed to the US, more shifts in funding are occurring as opposed to outright cuts. Currently the EU and CAP will be looking rearrange their 132.8 B Euro Agricultural Policy budget to hopefully better food production and consumption in Europe.