A new food movement manifesto

As It Appears in Formerly Known as Food

Predatory Marketing

Infant Formula

Warning Labels

The food industry follows the marketing playbook of the tobacco industry quite closely. When the tobacco industry saw its sales to adults were slowing because they understood the health effects of smoking, it targeted children and teens with much of its advertising, often airing commercials during popular children’s TV shows. (In 1998 Big Tobacco reached a settlement with forty-six state attorneys general in which it agreed to greatly curtail its advertising to children and teens.)

The food industry similarly targets youth, even toddlers as young as two, with its marketing. Like the food industry, the tobacco industry also targeted communities of color and placed more ads in those neighborhoods than elsewhere. The tobacco industry also used movie stars and athletes to hawk cigarettes, whereas today we have Beyoncé selling Pepsi, Taylor Swift selling Diet Coke, and LeBron James doing commercials for McDonald’s. Recognizing the threat to public health, in 1970 President Richard Nixon signed a law that banned the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio. Then in 1997, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement banned billboard and public transportation advertising, as well as ads that targeted young people in most states. The food and beverage industry should be banned from these kinds of practices as well.

Advertising of infant formula, the first processed food, should also have tight restrictions. With what we now know about the importance of breast milk for babies’ immediate and long-term health, parents should turn to infant formula only when it is medically necessary.

Although most hospitals prohibit the practice of handing new parents “goody bags” filled with formula samples, this practice should be formally banned, and we should also limit the kinds of advertising formula manufacturers use to reach new parents. Furthermore, the misleading labels on formula packaging should also be banned.

Warning labels would be much more effective than the nutrition panels and calorie counts that packaged foods carry today. Most consumers don’t know what to make of all that information, and packaging labels are misleading. A simple warning label, much like what is now required for cigarettes, should be prominent on industrial food packaging. The European Union already does this for particular ingredients, like certain food dyes. The label reads: “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

We could start by assembling an independent body of experts to determine the kinds of ingredients in industrial foods that warrant a warning label and what the label should say. Some of the worst offenders of the industrial food world should bear the simple label, “These foods may be harmful to your health.”

Stop the use of the thousands of chemicals in and on our food supply that independent, third-party testing has not proved safe.

No agency or law now ensures the safety of the chemicals in and on our food supply, which presents a grave threat to public health. We should create a completely independent, third-party verification system, based on the latest, most relevant science, that would rigorously test all chemicals that manufacturers wish to add to our food supply.

Demand easy and affordable access for all to chemical-free, healthy whole foods by creating a federal urban farm program.

By creating a federal urban farm program, we could provide whole foods in many areas of the country where they are hard to find. Improvements to public health could be substantial if the United States inaugurated a program based on Will Allen’s urban farms, which produce large quantities of affordable, healthy food, employ local community members, and provide food and environmental education hubs. In 2016 Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, introduced the Urban Agriculture Act to extend the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s farm loan programs to urban farmers, support farm co-ops, invest in urban agricultural research, and help improve access to fresh local foods. It has never made it out of committee. The bill is a step in the right direction but should be taken further if we hope to remedy our national health crises.

Demand nutrition and cooking education in all public schools.

We need a comprehensive curriculum in all public schools to teach the fundamentals of whole food nutrition (not those based on industry guidelines) and the basics of cooking and preparing whole foods from scratch. Many schools could also have a kitchen garden and use it to teach children about growing vegetables and herbs. Such hands-on learning experiences are invaluable and could easily be linked to science courses, making them relevant to students’ everyday lives.

Demand a universal basic income.

Nothing will change if most people do not have enough money to buy healthy foods. Having a basic income would mean that people would not have to choose between paying the rent, paying the bills, paying for medications, or eating healthy foods. Food is often the lowest priority on that list because it offers some flexibility, but that means people then buy the least expensive options— fast food and convenience foods. This is a vicious cycle because poor food intake leads to myriad health issues, which eventually exact their own financial burden and suffering. According to re- cent research, having a basic income does not reduce the labor sup- ply or encourage people to drop out of the labor force. Recipients also spend more money on higher-quality foods. In Canada the long-term tracking of providing citizens with a basic income shows that it results in healthier citizens, fewer hospitalizations, improved mental health outcomes, and improved school attendance, grades, and test scores. A basic income will also allow workers to reject the lowest-paying jobs in the agricultural and food industries, like those in slaughterhouses or farm work that entails dangerous pesticide exposure. Until everyone has equal access to healthy whole foods, we must provide money for people to buy them. Affording healthy food should be a right and not a privilege.

Demand payment for cooking and other household work.

To some this may seem like the most unrealistic idea, yet it is the most important. Gender inequality is one of the most intractable problems in our society, with women still earning only a fraction of what men make in the workforce, and even that fraction is significantly smaller for women of color. Ninety percent of all care- takers are women, and most are also employed outside the home. To truly address our national public health crises, we have to begin in the home. Without at least one parent with the time to shop, prepare, cook, and clean up after meals, telling people to cook more and eat healthy is futile. People must be financially able to do so. Therefore, a program that would pay people to cook at home, especially while taking care of small children, is crucial to improv- ing our individual health and the health of our society.

Demand a federal policy that requires employers to provide a minimum of six months’ paid parental leave, ensuring the option to breast-feed as a right.

Countries around the world offer both maternal and paternal leave, with great benefits to public health. In fact, the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not provide guaranteed paid parental leave. All major health agencies around the world, includ- ing the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, agree that a minimum of twelve months of breast- feeding is optimal for the health of both mother and baby. But in our current economy, many women who want to breast-feed are unable to because they would lose money they depend on. Because babies require only breast milk for all their nutrition needs during their first six months, six months’ maternity leave should be a basic right.