Growing pains for an open-air food market

Porta Palazzo: The Anthropology of an Italian Market is Boston University anthropologist Rachel Black's study of cultural changes in a large open-air market in Turin.

Black described her work at a dinner event hosted last night by Kitchn Table, a Boston-based event/class series organized by Wheeler del Toro (author of an ice cream cookbook, The Vegan Scoop).  

What happens if there is no Farm Bill?

Many farm programs and policies have never been permanently authorized, so, if there is no Farm Bill, policy reverts to a messy jumble of past authorities from more than 60 years ago.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has clear and detailed answers to 15 questions about Congress' failure this year to pass a Farm Bill.  Here is an example.

What happens if we ... revert to the 1949 Farm Bill?

If a new farm bill is not enacted or the current farm bill is not extended for a period of time, the farm bill commodity programs revert to permanent law contained in the 1938 and 1949 farm bills. Each successive farm bill since that time has suspended permanent law for the period of time provided for the newly enacted farm bill. But the permanent law provision is scheduled to pop back up and become the law of the land again if Congress does not enact a new bill or extend current law.

This peculiar feature normally induces Congress to get its work done on each new farm bill in a timely fashion. Without a 2008 Farm Bill extension or a new farm bill, dairy policy reverts to permanent law on January 1, and grain and other commodities do so once the new 2013 crop is ready for planting.

Beef Trends

As I mentioned in my last post, I'm just back from West Virginia where I attended the Certified Angus Beef conference. It was a great opportunity to meet with chefs, talk to butchers and learn more about beef--the trends, the choices and what's on the horizon. When it comes to beef, just like chocolate or wine or coffee, the more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn. 

First a few common misconceptions, when it comes to beef:

Only some beef is grass fed. Actually all beef is grass fed. It's just a question of how it's "finished" Certified Angus Beef is finished on a feed lot and eats grain to bulk up in size and improve marbling of the meat. If you want to buy grass fed, pay attention to how it's finished. Some beef being sold as grass fed is not the same as "grass finished." 

Grass fed beef is healthier. I used to think so, but it turns out the evidence is mixed. While grass fed beef does have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, it's not a great source of them. And as an article in the New York Times concluded, " it’s not clear whether the nutritional differences in the two types of meat (grass fed versus conventional) have any meaningful impact on human health." Meanwhile other research challenges the benefits of grass fed over grain finished. I think the jury is out on this one.

Fresh beef is better than frozen. Not really. Freezing actually improves the tenderness of beef, since ice crystals penetrate muscle and research shows there is no real moisture loss difference between fresh and frozen meat. Beef, like chicken and pork are expected to go up in price in the coming year and since meat prices vary throughout the year, take advantage of the cost savings and consider buying frozen beef. You won't be sacrificing quality. 

And the trends….

Bone in steaks! I saw this when I dined at Sidecut at the Four Seasons Whistler where a 52 ounce porterhouse, a 36 ounce rib eye and a 36 ounce strip steak are all served bone in and carved table side. This is a fun way to dine! I haven't done a side by side taste test of steak cooked on the bone versus off the bone, but generally speaking, meat on the bone tastes better. 

Signature grinds are a trend that is due to the popularity of gourmet burgers. It's not just the coarseness of the grind, but the very mix or meats such as short rib, prime rib, brisket or strip steak. What makes some burgers taste better than others? One secret is oleic acid. Oleic acid is the primary mono- unsaturated fatty acid in beef and accounts for about 33% of the fatty acid in beef (it's also found in olive oil) research shows that monounsaturated oleic acid does not raise cholesterol. It's this fat that is partly responsible for making meat taste so good and is found in higher percentages in very marbled beef. There is some very interesting research on this topic. Other ways burgers become "gourmet" include seasonings, fillings and toppings. My favorite to date has to be the marrow burger which is off the menu at Luella. But burgers with bacon, cheese and caramelized onions (and ground bacon in the grind), like the one at Marlowe are pretty spectacular too. 

Smaller portions. Hallelujah!  When I go to a steak house I typically order the smallest steak, or hope someone will share a large one with me (bone in perhaps?). Frankly I get tired of eating beef after about three to four bites. And I really get tired of having filet mignon be my only option for something more petite. As demand grows for smaller steaks, different cuts are showing up such as the culotte or top sirloin cap, filet of rib, cap of rib, sirloin end, chuck eye and they are very flavorful unlike the less flavorful yet tender filet mignon. For me good quality beef is a treat and a little goes a long way.

New cuts. The way beef is butchered or fabricated, is constantly evolving. Some cuts you may not have seen yet include the braison and merlot, also known as "heel" of the beef round. Both will be less expensive cuts, the braison is best for braising and the merlot can be grilled or cooked whole. 

It strikes me that there is something for everyone whether you want a big hunk of meat on the bone a gourmet burger or just a smaller portion. Which trends are you most excited about?

Disclosure: I learned about the trends at the Certified Angus Beef conference where I was a guest and my travel expenses were covered. I was not paid to write this or any other post. Special thanks to Kyle Miller and Michael Ollier for their terrific educational session and meat cutting demonstration.
 

Chefs on Beef

When it comes to beef, the kind of you choose is truly a matter of taste and personal preference. There are different cuts, different preparations and of course different breeds. Me? I care about humane treatment of animals and healthy eating, but first and foremost I want something that tastes really good. And so do chefs. One the last day of the Certified Angus Beef conference in West Virginia I got to hang out with chefs at the bucolic Ironside Ranch. It was a great opportunity to eat, talk and learn what cuts and types of beef they serve and sell.

I spoke with three outstanding and award-winning chefs--Govind Armstrong who has been involved in a variety of different restaurants including a chain of burger joints, Keoni Chang, a corporate chef with a supermarket from Hawaii, who has a CIA culinary degree and a restaurant background and Matt Hill, a steak house chef who has also worked in fine dining and also has a CIA culinary degree. I learned while they each have their personal preferences, ultimately they all believe in offering variety to their customers.

Govind Armstrong, Post & Beam (and 8 oz Burger Bar), Los Angeles CA

I was excited to meet chef Govind Armstrong, especially after enjoying a fantastic meal he served the night before. His beef preparations included a sous vide then seared dry aged filet of strip and crisp smoked beef bacon. Govind told me he has been using Certified Angus Beef for many years, he first learned about it when he worked with chefs Mary Sue Milliken and Susan Feniger. He was impressed with the quality and has used it ever since. He appreciates the consistency and though he uses different cuts at the different restaurants he is affiliated with, he's a fan of the culotte. The tenderness and consistency mean "it's one less thing I have to worry about." 

He enjoys good quality meat and told me he has spent time in Argentina where all beef is  strictly grass fed and finished. The beef is a different texture, but one he appreciates saying it's grassier but that it's not what he wants everyday. He uses the middle meats such as the strip loin and barrel cut (a marbled part of the rib eye). He's a fan of cooking beef sous vide and adds seasonings and clarified butter to add flavor and richness. He noted different in some places like Mississippi and Louisiana, everyone tends to want their beef well done and that affects his choice of beef as well. 

Keoni Chang, Foodland Supermarkets, Honolulu HI

Keoni, a chef with a fine dining background told me he was brought on board at Foodland to improve the quality of the perishable food in the supermarket from the bakery through to the deli. The store was offering mostly Select grade beef and he felt it was important to expand the options. He likes the Choice grade and tried another company's product before settling on Certified Angus Beef. His stores also carry local and grass fed beef. The population in Hawaii is used to often using thinner cuts for Asian preparations but he says they are starting to want more thick steaks they can grill too. 

Which is best? He says it comes down to a lifestyle choice for most people and he wants to satisfy as many customers as he can. He focuses on the sub primals such as the top sirloin, rib eye, strip loin and one of his favorite, the boneless short ribs off the chuck which he says has great marbling. When it comes to the Choice grade, he points out there is a lot of variation from beef that is just a cut above Select to beef that is almost Prime. With Certified Angus Beef, he says "we are getting close to the Prime experience."

Matt Hill, Charlie Palmer Steak, Washington DC

Matt told me he chooses Certified Angus Beef for the consistency it provides. He appreciates the higher level of marbling and tender product. In taste tests he preferred Certified Angus Beef dry aged strip loins to American wagyu beef, referencing the mouthfeel in particular. 

He also buys locally raised grass fed quarters and whole animals and enjoys breaking down the product in his restaurant. For grass fed he prepares carpaccio and charcuterie, while for Certified Angus Beef he is particularly fond of the culotte. He also admitted that farm to table is easier to do with pork than with beef. 

Note: Matt was one of StarChef's Rising Stars in 2010 and has just left Charlie Palmer Steak to work at a new concept. Stay tuned! 

Disclosure: I was a guest at the Certified Angus Beef conference and my travel expenses were covered, however I was not paid to write this or any other post.

After WIC package revisions, mixed changes in breastfeeding outcomes

A Tufts press release last week describes recent research by Ann Collins, Meena Fernandes and Anne Wolf at Abt Associates, and myself, which was published in the September 2012 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) (may be gated). 

In 2009, the federal government’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) changed the make-up of its food packages to meet several nutritional goals, including stronger promotion of breastfeeding. For new mothers participating in WIC, there were mixed outcomes after implementation of the policy change, according to an analysis from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science Policy at Tufts University and the global research and program implementation firm Abt Associates.

WIC provides three main food packages for mothers and infants: a full breastfeeding option with no infant formula but more supplemental food for the mother, a partial breastfeeding option with some formula, and a full formula option with less supplemental food for the mother. Among other changes, the new 2009 policy, called an “interim rule,” lowered the amount of infant formula in the partial breastfeeding option.

By studying administrative records of more than 206,000 mother-infant pairs from 17 local WIC agencies (LWAs) nationwide, the researchers found that more mothers received the full breastfeeding option after the 2009 package change but more mothers also received the full formula option. Fewer mothers received the partial breastfeeding option.

In the first four weeks following birth, the percentage receiving the full breastfeeding option increased from 9.8% to 17.1% and the percentage receiving the full formula option increased from 20.5% to 28.5%. The percentage receiving the partial breastfeeding option fell from 24.7% to 13.8%. The remaining mothers fell into other miscellaneous classifications.

After the implementation of the interim rule, there was a small increase in the amount of infant formula provided in the first month of life (548.6 fluid ounces to 559.6 fluid ounces per mother). The percentage of mothers who “initiated”, or reported trying to breastfeed the infant at least once, remained unchanged at approximately 65%.

“There had been some hope that breastfeeding initiation would increase after the policy change,” said Parke E. Wilde, Ph.D., corresponding author and an associate professor at the Friedman School. “While this did not happen, the good news is there was no decrease in the breastfeeding initiation, and more mothers did, at least, adopt the full breastfeeding package.”

The article in the AJCN also discusses opportunities for WIC to make further progress in breastfeeding promotion.

“We asked WIC participants about the point in time when they made their decisions about breastfeeding and what helped them when they made their choices about the decision to breastfeed,” said senior author Ann Collins, a principal associate at Abt Associates.  “More than three quarters of the women reported that they had decided before delivery how they wanted to feed their baby. What’s more, more than 84% of women reported that information on breastfeeding from WIC was ‘important’ or ‘very important.’ These findings suggest that special efforts by WIC agencies to reach out to WIC participants during pregnancy with information on breastfeeding could be very beneficial.”

The analysis does not account for all factors that changed during the same time period, for example the volatility of the 2009 economy. The study compared outcomes in the three months before the policy change and the nine months afterward.

The study also is a "recent featured journal article" on the Abt Associates front page.  The analysis was conducted with the support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.  [Minor edit Sep 27:] The views and opinions expressed by the authors of the journal article do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

There is a lot happening on the topic of further improving WIC's impact on breastfeeding.  Here are some links.  A longer report (.pdf) from this same research effort is available on the USDA FNS website.  An excellent literature review (.pdf) by Silvie Colman and coauthors helps put the new study in the context of a larger body of research.  In another report, Nancy Cole and colleagues explain the various detailed options selected by different states (.pdf), which is important for understanding how the changes actually were implemented.  A workshop summary (.pdf) posted on the FNS site describes a wide variety of ambitious options for future research.

Figure 1.  Food packages issued to new mothers, by age of infant.

(click for larger image)

Lawsuit challenges pork board purchase of "Other White Meat" slogan

A lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charges that the $60 million sale of the pork industry's "Other White Meat" slogan illegally diverts money to the lobbying efforts of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

One of the plaintiffs is Harvey Dillenburg, a pork producer in Adair County, Iowa.  Mr. Dillenburg is not a member of the NPPC.  He is required by law to pay a portion of every sale to the National Pork Board, which is supposed to use the money for promotions and advertising.  The National Pork Board is not allowed to lobby.  In 2006, the National Pork Board agreed to pay the NPPC $60 million in return for the property rights to the "Other White Meat" brand.  The resulting payments of $3 million per year for 20 years help fund the NPPC's powerful lobbying machine.

Think about how this arrangement looks from the point of view of Mr. Dillenburg.  Although he does not choose to support the NPPC, the federal government forces him along with all other pork producers to pay the National Pork Board, which in turn pays the NPPC.

The other plaintiff is the Humane Society of the United States, a leading animal welfare organization.  As the Congressional Research Service (.pdf) explains, the HSUS recently brokered a successful agreement with egg producers, reaching a judicious compromise about what type of cages seem ethically acceptable for hens.  Although the leading trade association for egg producers is now working with HSUS to get this balanced policy approved by Congress, the agreement faces implacable opposition from the NPPC.  The egg agreement causes no harm to pork producers, but the NPPC is worried that the precedent of a successful egg agreement will generate unrealistic hopes for similar good-faith negotiations about gestation crates for pork.  It is not surprising that HSUS has been looking into how the federal government's pork board -- which is not supposed to support lobbying -- helps fund the NPPC's efforts to spoil the egg agreement.

This blog, U.S. Food Policy, began covering the tale of the "Other White Meat" sale in a June 2006 blog post, which called for greater transparency about the terms of the sale.  When nobody would give me the documents voluntarily, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  USDA initially turned down my request, arguing that the information was "pre-decisional and deliberative".  When I appealed, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service in December 2006 released partly-blacked out versions of the key documents.

Although AMS hid critical details, enough information was revealed in 2006 to suggest that this was a poor use of pork producers' money.  For example, I pointed out accounting flaws in the supposedly independent appraisal upon which the $60 million sale price was based.  In the HSUS and Dillenburg lawsuit today, I learned for the first time that Mark Williams, who is largely responsible for pulling together the supposedly independent price appraisals, actually has been responsible for developing the "Other White Meat" branding since its inception. 

The HSUS explains further:

Through months of research, The HSUS uncovered glaring legal violations, conflicts of interest, and an exorbitantly over-inflated $60 million price tag associated with the deal. Much of the extraordinarily inflated value of the slogan resulted from 20 years of promotional campaigns funded entirely with pork producers’ own checkoff funds: roughly half a billion dollars. In essence, NPPC charged pork producers twice: once to make The Other White Meat successful, and again to pay for the value of that success.

Now, the case against this sale has only gotten stronger.  The National Pork Board has largely retired the "Other White Meat" slogan, in favor of the new "Be Inspired" slogan, and yet the pork board continues to pay the NPPC $3 million each year for the nearly worthless old slogan.  The NPB has an escape clause allowing it to cancel the payments, but it chooses not to exercise this clause.

The HSUS and Dillenburg lawsuit (.pdf) is well written, with astonishing details beyond what can be described in this space.  It was covered today in Feedstuffs and other trade publications.  I encourage everybody interested in U.S. Food Policy to read it in full.

Hill District supermarket is delayed by multiple challenges

The supermarket that is planned for the Hill District neighborhood in Pittsburgh has been delayed by serious challenges. The project requires several million dollars in public and non-profit financing, in addition to the usual private sector financing, but not all of the expected money has been confirmed. The opening had been expected in November 2011 but is now scheduled for spring 2013.  Neighborhood residents are angry and frustrated.

This blog reported in July 2011 on early plans for the supermarket.  I viewed the cleared building site and took a long walk through the Hill District while visiting Pittsburgh for the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association annual meeting that summer.  I was interested in this particular supermarket because it will be the subject of economic analysis in Rand's Phresh study, comparing food and health outcomes before and after the introduction of the supermarket.

The Hill District is famous for its jazz history and as the setting for the plays of the great American playwright August Wilson.  There is some question about whether the Hill District meets official definitions of a food desert, because some parts of the neighborhood do have other supermarkets less than a mile away, but these official definitions cannot easily adjust for the steep hills that give the neighborhood its name.  Some federal financing sources seek to target neighborhoods that meet a technical definition.  Any visitor on foot would immediately recognize the Hill District as an exceptionally impoverished neighborhood, which seems like a food desert in laypersons' terms.

Even as recently as September 30, 2011, a report (.pdf) from the Reinvestment Fund, a neighborhood financing initiative, seemed to expect the store to open in November 2011.  However, the report did explain just some of the challenges facing the Hill House Economic Development Corporation (HHEDC), which played a central role in organizing the supermarket project.  About $6.8 million in financing was anticipated from multiple sources, which may have been difficult to coordinate.  The Reinvestment Fund wrote, "Despite a strong board and significant community support, a project of this scale was still a daunting task for HHEDC as a small [Community Development Corporation]."

These challenges have worsened.  Julie Matthews, who had led the Hill House development arm, was fired on February 9 this year, a day before she was scheduled to make a presentation about the project's financing.  In April, Matthews filed a whistleblower lawsuit, alleging that Hill House used restricted funds from the Reinvestment Fund and the Mellon Foundation in other unspecified ways. I have no information other than the news report about this allegation.  This week I noticed that the Reinvestment Fund's website has a whistleblower policy (.pdf), making clear that people involved in projects financed by the fund, who become aware of any misuse of funds, are obliged to report the misuse.

It seems likely that the project will go forward in 2013 despite these challenges.  Politicians and institutions in both local and national food financing initiatives would lose face if this high-profile project failed.  It is possible that resolving all the problems will require even more public and non-profit financing than initially expected.

Nobody should judge major national policies from one example, but this episode is likely to contain some cautionary lessons by the time it is over.  Though I fear some readers might think me an incorrigible economist for saying so, I think we should ask why supermarket chain managers could not make this project work using purely private financing, or even with just $1 or $2 million in public financing.  Supermarket chains are astute judges of local food retail conditions and market demand.  Just to take one example, they must recognize that not all Hill District residents will use the local market even after it arrives.  Despite the very high level of poverty, about a third of local resident households own an automobile, and even more have some access to shared automobile transport for grocery shopping.  One reason a supermarket may require a large public subsidy before choosing a particular location may be that they anticipate a tough competitive environment when they start operating. 

If the public bill reaches $6 or $8 million for a single supermarket, and even then the project is stressed by financial management challenges and delays, it raises hard questions about this supermarket-centered and high-budget approach to addressing food retail problems in low-income neighborhoods.

Pittsburgh, July 2011 (Wilde)