While Congress debates how to cure America’s massive debt problem, let me offer a doctor’s prescription: five smart cuts could save taxpayers $383 billion and make Americans healthier at the same time.
Right now, the U.S. government spends billions subsidizing the least healthful foods, fueling America’s obesity epidemic and escalating healthcare costs. In contrast to federal nutrition guidelines that emphasize healthful vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, federal subsidies go in the opposite direction, supporting meat, dairy products, and sugar, and all the cholesterol, fat, and calories that are packed into them. This, despite abundant scientific evidence showing that increasing consumption of animal products is associated with obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and certain forms of cancer, among other health problems.
So here’s where to put the scalpel:
1. Cut Junk Food from SNAP
The government provides food for economically disadvantaged people through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly the Food Stamp Program). One in seven Americans now draws SNAP benefits.
The enormous size of the program — $65 billion a year — is not a testament to the political clout of SNAP recipients. Rather, it’s the food manufacturers who are profiting, as SNAP supports a growing market for candy, soda, fatty cheese, and specialty meats as much as it does for healthier foods.
SNAP perpetuates food deserts — geographic areas with inadequate availability of healthful foods. Because shelf-stable junk food is covered on the same basis as perishable fruits and vegetables, grocers have little incentive to stock healthful foods, and providers of fresh fruits and vegetables operate at a disadvantage.
A vanishingly small number of Americans currently suffer from hunger, defined as an inadequate caloric intake. Instead, a great many suffer from poor nutrition — too much fat, cholesterol, and overall calories, and not enough of the fiber, vitamins, and minerals provided by vegetables and fruits.
SNAP also has an unintended demeaning feature in that it tacitly suggests that economically disadvantaged people view unhealthful foods as necessities. I don’t believe that for a minute. Everyone, regardless of their income, recognizes that unhealthful foods are not to be parts of our daily routine and that a continued supply of these foods is to our detriment.
Here’s a better SNAP structure: SNAP should be limited to truly healthful staples: oats, rice, and other grains, dry beans, fruits, and vegetables, which could be fresh, frozen, or canned. Participating grocers could be required to stock certain items, such as no-salt-added canned beans and vegetables.
With these nourishing foods, an adult’s monthly food costs would total approximately $134, which is one-third less than the $200 benefit provided by the most complete current program coverage. Were SNAP to be reorganized in this way, we could cut costs by $24 billion annually. For once, we could wipe out both hunger and malnutrition at the same time.
2. Prioritize Health in Commodity Purchases
American children today are in the worst physical shape of any generation in the nation’s history. One in three is overweight. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in three children born since the year 2000 will develop diabetes at some point in his or her life. As the years go by, the drain on America’s health care resources will only escalate.
Contributing to this problem is the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture routinely uses school meal programs and other food assistance programs as a dumping ground for agricultural commodities. When cheese prices fall, the USDA buys up millions of pounds of cheese. When beef prices fall, it buys up beef. School menus then feature cheeseburgers, cheese pizza, and Salisbury steak. These purchases are designed to boost agribusiness income, but they do children no favors.
In fiscal year 2009, USDA spent more than $1.4 billion on commodity purchases of meat, dairy products, and eggs — twice what it spent on all fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and oils combined. If USDA were to base commodity purchases solely on health value, we could reduce expenditures by about $14 billion over the next decade, save on medical care costs, and improve children’s health.
3. Eliminate Direct Payments to Agribusiness
Food producers currently receive yearly checks in a direct-payment program set up as part of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. These payments are based on the historic use of land. That is, if you used to grow feed corn for livestock, you’ll still be paid today. The direct payment program makes it profitable to keep land dedicated to the production of feed grains for livestock, and program restrictions block the growing of vegetables and fruits. Eliminating direct payments would save approximately $50 billion over the next decade.
4. Let Producers Buy Their Own Crop Insurance
Weather happens. When rain fails or floods arrive, food producers need to be insured against losses. All industries protect themselves against shifting profits and costs, and agribusiness is no different.
The cost of crop insurance programs was approximately $7.3 billion in 2009, and approximately 80% of crop-insurance costs are borne by the U.S. government. Unfortunately, these programs favor feed grains for livestock (especially corn and soybeans), providing a de-facto subsidy for meat production. It is difficult to argue that taxpayers should shoulder these costs. Privatizing crop insurance would save an estimated $70 billion over the next decade.
5. Make Polluters Pay
Feed-grain production and concentrated animal feeding operations create wastes that pollute rivers and streams. Government programs cover much of the clean-up costs, becoming yet another de-facto subsidy. In 2010, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program cost $839 million.
Producers raising crops for animal feed or raising livestock under intensive conditions should pay for their own waste clean-up. At the same time, governmental agencies that oversee environmental protection must have authority to enforce appropriate regulations to ensure a healthful, clean environment. Privatizing farm clean-up operations would save $9 billion over the next ten years.
Do the Math
Adding up our savings, we reach $383 billion over the next decade. But wait, there’s more. As we stop promoting unhealthful foods, our healthier population will need less medical care. Today, the medical costs attributable to meat consumption are approximately $60 billion to $130 billion every year. If we can trim even a little of that, we’re talking real money.
For more information on how to optimize your health, visit NealBarnard.org
Sometimes doctors have to be a bit blunt in order to make a point. My organization recently produced a TV spot that shows a dead man on a gurney clutching a half-eaten cheeseburger. The golden arches appear above his feet. The ad ends with the words, “I was lovin’ it.” The commercial has aired in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, and it has been viewed more than 1.4 million times on YouTube.
This ad is definitely morbid. But over time, a burger-and-fries diet leads to heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other serious risks. Researchers have found that even a single fatty meal can raise blood pressure, stiffen major arteries and cause the heart to beat harder. As a physician and nutrition researcher, I think it’s critical that Americans know the dangers.
Cardiovascular disease kills thousands of Americans every day, and early signs of heart disease are showing up in children. In fact, one in five teens already has abnormal cholesterol levels. One in three children born in 2000 will develop diabetes at some point in life.
McDonald’s continues to fill its menu with the very foods that have led to our country’s obesity and heart disease epidemics. The Big Mac, the chain’s signature sandwich, packs a walloping 540 calories and 29 grams of fat – but it is hardly the most unhealthful item on the menu. Even many McDonald’s items that consumers may believe are healthful – salads, for example – are generally high in calories, fat and sodium. Some of the chain’s kids’ meals have about as much sodium as a child should consume in an entire day.
Fast-food consumption is strongly correlated with weight gain and insulin resistance, according to a 2005 study in the journal The Lancet. This suggests that fast food consumption could lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes, which are both heart attack risk factors. Mortality and admissions for acute coronary syndromes are higher in regions with more fast food restaurants, according to a 2005 study in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
Our ad encourages viewers to consider eating less fast food and more vegetarian meals. That’s because conclusive scientific evidence finds that vegetarian and vegan diets can help prevent and even reverse heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some other chronic diseases. And unlike prescription drugs, plant-based diets have only positive “side effects.” Diets made up of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes have been shown to help people maintain a healthy weight, lower their cholesterol and lower their blood pressure.
Our commercial may not please fast-food industry executives, but we will keep spreading the message about good nutrition because consumers deserve to understand how what they eat affects their health and well-being.
As the new year begins, Congress will take up the thorny issue of animal testing. A proposed bill, the Safe Cosmetics Act, would require that cosmetics and their ingredients undergo extensive toxicity tests, many of which will involve animals.
The ethical issues around animal testing are obvious – should we really be killing animals for the newest holiday-scented lotion?
These tests can be profoundly inhumane. The Draize eye test, for example, involves smearing a substance into the eyes of a restrained rabbit. Rabbits are used in part because they don’t shed tears and therefore can’t wash the irritating substance from their eyes. Developmental toxicity tests done in rats and rabbits involve feeding ingredients to pregnant animals. Then, when the babies are born, they are dissected.
There are also scientific issues with animal testing. Data from animal tests does not reliably predict human health effects. In addition, many animal tests take years to complete and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A single developmental toxicity test, for example, can use up to 1,400 animals and is highly unreliable as a predictor of human health because rabbits’ placentas are very different from those of humans.
The Safe Cosmetics Act would require that millions of cosmetics ingredients be tested for numerous health effects that could occur at various life stages and levels of exposure. Given the time and cost of animal tests, it is simply impossible to meet the testing requirements of this bill using traditional animal methods.
There is a solution. Cell- and computer-based methods can provide more accurate data on a greater number of human health effects. And these methods are much faster and more affordable than traditional animal-based methods, making it possible to assess infinitely more cosmetics and ingredients.
The Safe Cosmetics Act does encourage the development of new methods, and it includes a promising section on animal testing alternatives, which supports the use of non-animal testing methods where available and effective. But the bill must take an even stronger stance in favor of modern science to meet the goal of better human health protection.
My organization, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), is working to ensure that new cosmetics-testing legislation includes additional provisions to support the development and use of further non-animal test methods.
To foster the scientific advancements necessary for reliable and timely assessment of potential health hazards posed by cosmetics, Congress should provide funding and incentives for the development and use of cell and computational methods.
PCRM is pushing for commonsense safety testing by urging legislators to support testing tailored to an ingredient, rather than a one-size-fits-all checklist of tests. In addition, PCRM scientists are calling for a mandate that the Food and Drug Administration and cosmetics companies consider all existing data on an ingredient to determine whether additional information is needed.
PCRM is also encouraging lawmakers to follow the approach taken by the European Union (EU) by banning the testing of cosmetics on animals. The EU ban, along with significant government funding and support for method development, has driven remarkable technical innovations.
Non-animal cosmetics testing would save millions of animals’ lives, and it would help make sure that cranberry spice body wash is free of harmful ingredients.
For more information on PCRM’s chemical policy work, click here.
Researchers in the United Kingdom are now suggesting that fast food chains should hand out cholesterol-lowering drugs with cheeseburgers, milkshakes, and other menu items to combat the effects of these fatty foods. But they also say that statins don’t stop all of the unhealthy effects.
As a doctor, I agree that statins are not the solution, and I’m calling for a reality check.
Decades ago, we learned that the fat and cholesterol in meat boost the amount of cholesterol in consumers’ blood. And that leads to heart attacks. So doctors advised us to cut back on meat and get to know vegetables.
Then it was carcinogens: As meat is grilled, cancer-causing chemicals called heterocyclic amines form on its surface, suggesting an explanation for the higher cancer rates in meat eaters compared with vegetarians. Chicken turned out to produce much higher levels of carcinogens than beef.
Then it was chemicals. Studies showed that mercury, other heavy metals, and various pesticides show up in animal tissue. Suddenly, fish was our worst nightmare. State and federal monitoring agencies issued strong warnings, especially for children and women in their reproductive years. Vegetables could be washed or peeled, but that wasn’t possible with fish or other meats.
Then it was germs. Salmonella and campylobacter from the meat counter ended up on our kitchen counters and caused thousands of cases of illness every year. The bacterial threat reached a new level when E. coli O157:H7 in hamburgers killed diners of the Jack-in-the-Box chain in the Pacific Northwest. These and other dangerous uninvited guests still turn up routinely on beef, poultry, and shellfish. And government agencies spend millions of dollars trying to contain the problem.
The headlines went a step further. Mad cow disease emerged in European and sporadically in North American cattle. It is not caused by fat, cholesterol, carcinogens, or germs, but by a rogue protein, known as a prion. Government and industry officials spend millions on testing and culling operations, and neurological researchers study the relationships between mad cow disease and rare forms of dementia. Meanwhile, scientists might observe that there is no mad asparagus or mad eggplant disease.
And there is no strawberry flu or avocado flu, either. But bird flu and swine flu have emerged as potential pandemics. Birds and swine carry viruses, just as other animals. Ordinarily they would pose no risk to humans. But our collective appetite for pork and poultry means millions of pigs and chickens are raised for meat. Once the H5N1 virus enters a poultry farm, it spreads rapidly. And overcrowded pig farms offer a breeding ground for new forms of influenza, like H1N1. For months last year, swine flu hovered just below pandemic level. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, all it takes to trigger a pandemic is for the bird flu to infect a person carrying a seasonal flu virus; the two viruses could spawn a disease vector like the one that killed 50 million people in the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918.
And now, in an attempt to counteract heart attack-inducing meat and dairy products containing saturated fat and cholesterol, we need to take a statin every day.
It’s time to wake up and smell the problem. Another study has shown that a vegetarian diet has essentially the same effectiveness as cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Millions of Americans now say no to meat. As they do so, their cholesterol levels plummet. Their coronary arteries open up again. Their waistlines shrink and their cancer rates drop 40%. A healthy vegetarian diet could revolutionize the health of the nation.
What is making Americans gain weight? Which foods are responsible for the obesity epidemic? Is it soda? Fast food?
In the May 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, I published a detailed analysis of how diets have changed over the past century, based on government records going back to 1909. The results were surprising—even sobering—and I thought I would share them with you. Here’s what we found:
Compared to a century ago, an average American now eats 75 pounds more meat every year. Although red meat made a big charge early in the last century, the recent increase has all been related to chicken. Convinced that chicken is somehow health food, Americans now eat more than one million chickens per hour. Perhaps surprisingly, its fat content is not much different from beef (about 29% for lean beef, 23% for skinless chicken breast, compared to less than 10% for typical vegetables, fruits and beans.)
Cheese intake back in 1909 amounted to less than four pounds per person per year. Americans had not yet discovered cheese pizza or cheeseburgers, or the fact that schoolchildren will happily munch on cheese day after day. Today, cheese intake is over 30 pounds per person per year. Unfortunately, typical cheeses are about 70% fat, as a percentage of calories, and most of that is saturated fat—the kind that raises cholesterol.
And along with our meat and cheese, we’re munching on French fries, which accounts for a 50-pound rise in oil consumption per person per year compared to a century ago. And we’re polishing our fries off with frozen desserts, particularly ice cream. The average American eats 20 pounds more ice cream per year than a century ago.
So, what’s behind these huge increases? Much of this change reflects the advent of fast-food and pizza restaurants, for which meat, cheese and fryer grease are staples. Also, government subsidies make meat, dairy products and sugar cheaper and more available than they would be otherwise, and government meal programs ensure that children consume these less-than-healthful foods in schools on a daily basis.
But what about sodas? They are commonly blamed for childhood obesity. It’s certainly true that soda intake is way up. But, among children, this rise has been partly compensated for by a drop in milk intake. Nonfat milk has about the same calorie intake as soda, and whole milk is denser in calories than soda. So, calorie-wise, it appears to be nearly a wash.
Bottom line: Americans were moderate meat-eaters a century ago, and are vigorous carnivores today. Cheese intake has exploded, and greasy, sugary foods are more prevalent than ever.
If we turn the clock back a bit, we might see the difference on the scale.
