Transcripts For CSPAN2 Consumer Federation Of America Hosts Food Policy Conference 20170411

Of our Advisory Committee members. I just would like to say thank you to her excellent Advisory Committee. One of the great ideas that came out of our Advisory Committee meetings this year was to try Live Audience polling, get into the new millennium son going to test that out now. If you look up the screen behind me, we have our first Live Audience polling question, the least important question that you answer at this years conference. But i think it would be, it will be interesting to see how we feel about it. So there are two ways that you can participate in this Live Audience polling. You can get on your phones, browser, your laptop come your tablet browser and put in pollev. Com food policy or text food policy to the number 22333 and so right out food policy in the message of the text, and as you see somebody coming must be a millennial already got on, answered. Were going to try this out, see if we get any yeses and let you experiment with that. While you experiment with that, i do want to reflect a little bit on understanding our 40th Anniversary National food policy conference and what a Great Program we have this year. In a few minutes congressman jim mcgovern will be talking with you. Later this afternoon we are pleased to have doctor susan mayne, director of u. S. Food and Drug Administrations center for food safety and applied nutrition. Tomorrow well start the program with chuck conner, president and ceo of the National Council Farmer Cooperative spirit also a former acting secretary of agriculture and the member of president trumps agriculture Advisory Committee. That will be followed by a conversation with esther dyson who is an entrepreneur in Angel Investor and whose initiative helping five community to shift resources towards quote producing Health Rather than trying to recover it. Part of that strategy has a lot to do with changes to the food supply. I think its going to be very interesting. Lets check in on our poll. Okay, have to interpret that as a lot of disenchanted all right isolationists. Or another interpretation. I think we can close the door on this one. This final question. Continue with our experiment id like him to give us a better sense of audience today. The food policy conference what we are proud to track a very diverse mix of folks. You guys are ahead of the curve. Our interests tend to fall in these three categories. Ill give you some time. I know i wouldnt have responded by now. I want to recognize some of the people that made this conference possible over the years. 40 years ago alan haas started this conference while she was with a group called the Community Nutrition institute. And for many years after that art jaege yeager kept it going. He also ran an awards ceremony called the golden carrot awards during the 90s which i know was very popular. And it has become a really beloved institution, a lot of folks that attend, as a question that indicates we have a mix of interests represented at the food policy conference. It started as a very nutrition focused event, and so its not surprising that a lot of us are most interested in nutrition. But we have a large food safety contingent as well, and i think that reflects in no small part the influence of carol tucker foreman who ran the conference and played a big role in Consumer Federation of america for many years and had an outside effect on food policy generally, but food safety in particular. I should also hasten to add a lot of our program for everyone that in each of these interest groups, dont feel bad if youre a food safety minority. Okay, so get me off the stage. We will move on to our final polling question, to test out. All the features of our platform here and i should do the number, dont write in and, this is sort of a word cloud feature. It would not have occurred to me to say zero, because you are here now. So thats one. But i know, i know that at least 13 i believe it was 13. Im thinking of Chris Waltrip who, i know for a lot of you, chris has been the face of the food policy conference for as long as you have attended, before he took over from last year chris had organize the food policy conference for 13 years pics i know he has attended at least 13 pick in last year he took a welldeserved break, really glad to have them back for this years event. I just wanted to say thank you to chris for being such an invaluable member of our Advisory Committee, a lot of the program reflects his input and for that matter whats in your packet today reflects, i go back and forth with chris and hes been very generous in his time sharing the wisdom he accrued over those years of leading this event. I dont know, what food policy was in response to . So we will be ironing out the kinks of a Live Audience over the next day and a half, but thank you for participating in that. And thank you for being here. Whatever you do, wherever you are from, this conference is a great opportunity to mingle and network with a Diverse Group of folks. And thank you for joining us here, and we hope you enjoy the program. We hope you enjoy the networking reception that weve added to the program at the end of the day. Please make sure you hang around for that. If any of you are on twitter, you can follow us cfafoodpolicy, and a hashtag for the conference is cfa2017. We are in the ballroom, this is where well be having lunch and where are networking reception will be at the end of the day. Two of the Breakout Sessions location on this floor. So 1e is out to my right, and the london breakout room is out to the left. And then our third breakout room is on the third floor where it says health club and pool on the elevator. So keep that in mind. Give yourself a little bit of time to get up there. You can take the stairs but its a bit of an adventure. Restrooms are located out the door to my left. Theres a map in your packets if you get lost, but you can also go to the Registration Table and we can help you. Theres also a description of the panels if youre having trouble deciding, you can consult that with a few exhibit tables outside the registration area. To my right over there. We have exhibitors from the union of concerned scientists, the National Association of county and city health officials, dupont, the interNational Food information council, the u. S. Food and Drug Administration and Usda Economic Research service. We also have a table for General Information if anyone has reports, brochures or hand out thethere would like to make available to your fellow attendees. Id like to take a minute to thank our sponsors. Theyre listed on the back of your printed program. We are very grateful to all our sponsors for their support for these companies and organizations rarely recognize the importance of supporting an event like this where we can foster an open and vigorous exchange of ideas on important food policy topics. So thanks to all our sponsors, come in particular id like to thank this years underwriters and benefactors including cardio, the International Dairy foods association, dupont car deal general mills, mars, Pew Charitable trust and walmart. Id also like to thank Sally Squires and 13 for their promotional support, begin this year. Using the excellent design work over the past several months and the registration emails and the Cultural Program and brochures on it. And finally special thanks to the cfa staff. They put an enormous amount of work to register all the participants, prepare the conference, materials, deal with much of the logistical work to help make this conference happen. So i like to especially thank annamarie lowery and the rest of the cfa staff that are here today. [applause] and i like to think all of you very much for being here, and once again welcome to the 2017 National Food policy conference. Now to kickoff the program i am thrilled to present our opening keynote speaker. He is a native of worcester massachusetts, which he now represents in congress along with the rest of the Second District of massachusetts. Since being elected to congress in 1996 he has been a leader on food policy issues come and take a outspoken on hunger issues. He has promised one hell of a fight to those proposing cuts to food aid programs and the accounts among his policy successes expanding the mcgoverndole international for education and trot child nutrition program, program that recently gained notoriety as a target for elimination in the Trump Administration proposed budget. He is at the second ranking democrat on the house rules committee, a member of the house agriculture community, the democratic Ranking Member on the House Committee on agriculture subcommittee on nutrition, and culture of the house hunger caucus, among many other credentials. Since 2013 as part of his hashtag into hunger now campaign he has given nearly weekly speeches focus on Food Insecurity in america on the floor of this house of representatives. We are happy to have him talk about hunger and other food policy related issues with us today. Please welcome congressman jim mcgovern. [applause] good morning, everybody. I know its not easy to get up early in the morning. The only thing worse is being the first speaker of the morning. But thomas, than thank you very. I want to thank the Consumer Federation bringing you all here today, represented from consumer advocate organizations with Food Industry, nonprofits as well as governmental officials and come together get some important conversations about agriculture and food policy and nutrition. So i welcome the opportunity to be here. I probably should say at the outset that sometimes people think because my last name is mcgovern that im related to George Mcgovern who was the senator from south dakota and ran for president in 1972. While i worked as an intern in his office in the senate one i was in college and a beacon when a major strength in the world, a great inspiration can we are not related. I say that because when i was giving a coffee in the lobby somewhat in the camp came up and said they were longtime supporters and my dad. And they seemed a little shocked when i said thank you. My dad owns a liquor store in worcester, massachusetts, and hope youll keep on supporting him. [laughing] so i thought i should just cler the air on that. Look, you know, i welcome the opportunity to talk about the issue of hunger and Food Insecurity in this country and around the world because i think it is an important issue, and its one of those issues that is maddening because its solvable. I tell people all the time that hunger is a political condition. We have the money. We have the resources. We had infrastructure. Where the brainpower. We have everything, but we dont have the political will. And i have a tough time grasping why that is the case. We live in the richest country in the history of the world, and we have 42 million americans who are hungry for food insecure and the United States of america. And as a United States congressmen come as a citizen of this country, im ashamed of that. I find that so unacceptable. It is unconscionable. With all of our riches in this country come with all of our knowhow and all of our ingenuity, that is the reality. We talked about hunger. Its more than just about talking about people who dont have enough to eat. There are other issues related to it. There are Health Issues related to people who on a regular basis go without food. Your child who misses meals on a regular basis, you show up in school, youre less likely to be able to learn. You are more likely to have developmental challenges in your lifetime. If you are a pregnant mother and you cant get the adequate nutrition, that oftentimes results in the birth of an unhealthy baby. If you are a worker who, on a regular basis, goes without food, you will be less productive in the workplace. So there are all these avoidable costs that are associated with hunger. And so when we talk about it i think we need to look at not just the immediate problem but the impact that this has on our country and on so many people who live in this country i have had a blessed life. Im not talking at getting elected to congress. I do know if its a blessing or a curse some days, but i have had a blessed life in the sense i have never had to worry about basic necessities. Ive always had a home. Ive always had shelter. Ive always had enough to eat. Ive never been hungry. But i believe that those of us who are blessed, have blessed lives come have a special obligation to make sure that we worry about and care about those who are having challenges. I think thats just the decent thing to do. Whether its in our communities or whether its in congress, i think this is a matter of decency to address issues like hunger. I get frustrated in congress because while i think this issue should not be a partisan issue, and for many years it wasnt, George Mcgovern and bob dole worked together in a bipartisan way during the 1970s to strengthen our nutrition and antihunger programs. We are actually on her way to eliminating hunger in this country. Then we began to reverse some of the progress we made. And now what i find is that this issue has become a very polarizing. You are never going to find a member of congress is going to tell you that they are prohunger. Prohunger. They will never say that to you. When you look at the voting records at some of my colleagu colleagues, i dont know how you could come to any other conclusion. Because what instep happening is that they are chipping away at programs that provide the basic necessity of food to our children and to parents and two older people. When i look at the president s budget, we are told in that budget their may see cuts to programs like wic, womens infants and children program. Basic nutrition for pregnant mothers for their Young Children after they are born. I mean, it is important. It is important because if we neglect that we will end up having to pay in other ways down the line it and again i to talk about this in terms of the bottom line in dollars and cents, we should be moved to do something because its our moral obligation because what to prevent human suffering in this country. I get the feeling sometimes thats not enough. I get to become friends, after, when i was running, when i first got elected with john kenneth galbraith, the great economist and a great fish there. I remember him saying to me one time, ill ask you to go out and comfort the afflicted, but in these days that might be considered a subject. I will go out and ask you to afflict the comfortable. I think thats the mode were in right now. We had to go out and afflict some of the comfortable and get them to talk to start responding in ways to make progress on issues like hunger. We have these debates in congress its always about the fact that the people who need these programs get characterized as somehow lazy or somehow undeserving, or their poor because they want to be poor. Ive never met anybody who wants to be poor. Ive never met anybody who wants to be hungry. And by the way, just so that the facts are clear, when we talk about snap, a majority of people on staff our children. They are Senior Citizens. There are people who are disabled. Of those who can work, the majority works. So why isnt the question in washington how can it be that somebody who works is still so poor, but they need to rely on snap to put food on the table . Why we talked with increasing wages in this country so people can actually earn and livable wage and afford to put food on the table and the kinds of foods that they wanted. Instead we tend, the debate tends to be, tends to demonize the most Vulnerable People in this country. And it is frustrating because it is, because a perception in washington is so different from the reality all throughout this country. We talk about we want people to make better choices. We want people to make healthier choices. Absolutely. By the way we all need to make healthier choices. Not just people who are on snap it with studies that show those of us who are able to afford our own food make lousy choices, too. So we need to have, and better and more Effective National dialogue on nutrition. But with regard to snap recipients, i serve on the nutrition subcommittee. I dont know how many hearings we had come i think i lost count after 20 come i dont know. We had so many hearings i dont know, ive lost count. During one of the last hearing someone raise the issue, why dont people make better choices . The reason why, and its very simple is at the average snap benefit is about 1. 40 per person per meal. I bought a Starbucks Coffee on the way in here, you know, that was more than 1. 40 and thats a small one. The fact of the matter is that the benefits we provide people are inadequate. What we should be talking about is making sure that our social safety net is a safety net, that it provides what they need to be able to put nutritious food on the table. We ought to be talking about increasing the benefits of snap, not talking about decreasing it or putting more hurdle in place to make it more difficult for people to obtain the benefit. We are having to debate about ablebodied adults without dependent on whether they should will will will be things like that, they need to feel the pain because it is creating a lot of pain. If you are going to vote to make hunger worse they will let your constituents know and make sure you are helping to be accountable at the ballot box. One thing democrats and republicans have in common is to get reelected. I think in the issues of hunger and Food Security, we need to elevate this issue, there. The other thing i will say, to spend more time, i would prefer too because i hear myself talk all the time. The other thing we need to grapple with in addition to preventing cuts to snap is the issue of food waste. We have 40 , we dont eat, oftentimes it is thrown away. I have visited supermarkets, i go and try to look at the dumpsters in the back of supermarkets, perfectly good food being thrown away. Some doing a good job trying to recapture that food but we need a National Policy on this. We have farmers who dont have infrastructure or manpower or womanpower to capture food they dont think would be sellable at their local supermarkets, we have to have an apple that looks like it came out of snow white. If theres a little bump in it we dont want to buy it so often times those fruits and vegetables are discarded. Sometimes used for animal feed and in some places used for compost and sometimes put in landfills which is a bad idea but this is where can we can recapture perfectly good food for schools and Senior Centers and food banks and we need to think outofthebox and creatively how to put together this infrastructure to recapture the food on our farms and supermarkets. Lets not waste it. My grandmother used to say to me if i didnt eat all my food that it is a sin. I had to fear god to finish my food but she is right in a way especially when the need is so great. One final thing. The National Food for education program, this is a Global School feeding program. Basically what we learned, in any of the poorest countries of the world kids dont go to school because their parents are working in fields or some other capacity so they can have enough for people to feed them. You introduce a nutritious meal in a School Setting somebody more kids go to school. More girls go to school because in some countries education for girls is not a priority but put a meal at that school, parents will send their girls to school. Girls who go to school are less likely to get married at an early age, less likely to have as many kids and heres the other benefit boys and girls who go to school, learn to read and write, could be future leaders of these countries, these developing countries are not going to develop with a lower population. When i saw Donald Trumps budget and he zeroed out the School Feeding program i was flabbergasted because to me that is the best of america. By the way the food served in these schools, some is produced here but we dont want to disrupt markets but you can buy food locally, support markets globally. But that to me represents what i believe this country is all about. I visited mcgoverns will feeding Program Unity that is a displaced community in colombia. A young mother introduced me, Us Ambassador at the time took her 11yearold son and said i want you to know something. Every day in this slum one of the armed actors comes through, rightwing paramilitary, they asked me, this 11yearold boys mother to give my son over to them. They say to me if you do, we will give him something you cannot do. We will give him food every day. So close to giving up my 11yearold boy to one of these armed groups but now i dont have to because of what the people of the United States have provided. We talk about National Security all the time and donald trump says his budget is a National Security budget, let me make a suggestion, the term National Security, the definition of National Security needs to be expanded. It needs to mean more than just the number of weapons in our nuclear arsenal. It needs to mean more than the number of military bases we have around the world. It needs to mean things like combating extreme poverty and hunger around the world, to make sure every Single Person in the United States of america has access to good nutritious food because food out to be viewed as a fundamental right for every human being on this planet, it out mean job, superstructure, 1000 other things to improve the quality of life for people and i think this is the time likeminded people need to come together and steer this discussion because if not you are going to see budget past that are heavy on increased military expenditures and Everything Else gets cut. This is a time if not you will see a farm bill, blot granting snap, more hurdles for people to jump through just to put food on their table. This is the time to engage because our travel and nutrition programs are School Feeding programs, programs for our elderly. We are even having a debate about lowering nutritional spending in school. Honest to god. It would be laughable if it werent so tragic. Between what is talked about in washington and what goes on back home somebody said to me one time kids dont like to eat apples, they throw them away. I went to the school where they told me they were doing that. Everybody raised their hand when i asked if they like apples, how many dont like apples . One kid. I am being told you throw away your apples. Tell me why you throw away the apples. He raised his hand and said by the time i get through the line to get my lunch i have ten minutes to eat so i eat my sandwich quickly, take a bite of the apple, cant bring it to class because they tell me it is disruptive and throw it away. If i have three or four more minutes you eat the apple . Absolutely. I visited a school with George Mcgovern when he was still alive in a town in my district where this was before the upgrade in nutritional standards in the School Feeding programs, the sloppiest sloppy joe you have ever seen, look like an oil spill. It had a rainbow on it, french fries and there was an apple. This was a group of second or third graders. The person overseeing the meal wont eat the apples. George mcgovern said do you have a knife . He cut the apple up in little pieces and brought it around at all the kids ate the apples. I said that is amazing. Some of these kids are losing their teeth. It hurts to bite into an apple. Know your audience. Those are the kinds of things that are so readily understandable when working in the field, in schools, working closely on these programs but not so clear in washington. I am sad to say. It is important you engage all of us in the coming weeks and months so we continue to move forward and not go backward. It is too important and let me finish with this. Some people say i am a bleeding heart. I will tell you honestly my heart does bleed for people i bump into. When you see a child who is hungry it breaks your heart. When you see Senior Citizen who is regularly going without food and trying to afford prescription drugs in their food it breaks your heart but we can fix it and so i believe we can end hunger in our lifetime not only in this country but around the world. If we just had the political will so thank you for having me here. [applause] we will do some q a now. Representative mcgovern has an appearances. Two microphones, you can come up and fire away. We have 15 minutes. Im noticing some really good panels coming up, the conference will increase with some off the stage. Any questions on this or anything else . Tell me who you are. It was a tough question i will yield to thomas. I am with Johns Hopkins. Thanks for the talk. It was great. In your debates with colleagues on the other side of this have you found any arguments or types of arguments effective if not convincing, sifting the tone of the conversation. I have a lot of what i found works with my skeptical colleagues is stories. We constantly are handing people pages of statistics and data which is important, we need statistics and data but something members of congress have lost the ability to feel. When i say 42 Million People are hungry it is hard to wrap your arms around that or feel the magnitude of that. I thought about an individual story, individual child i met will Senior Citizen i met on meals on wheels tour it begins to change things and a lot of the conversations i am having with somebody on the other side of the aisle the conversations are turning to i get it but do something. What can we cut and reform so we can say we cut and reform something . I am trying to say there is no place to cut. 1. 40 per person per meal comes down to 1. 20 . Really . The problem is this. For many years we have allowed this perception to grow that the population who benefits from nutrition programs are somehow undeserving or somehow their goal in life is to be for enough to be on snap or these when there is abuse of the program and sometimes there is but it is so minuscule compared to any Government Program we exaggerate it so we find you are abusing the program everybody must be abusing the program and that has been reinforced on talk radio, reinforced on fox news, reinforced on speechs in the floor and theres a base out there that has bought into that and one of the challenges we have right now is getting members of congress to that particular base and say wait a minute, i looked at this and some of these perceptions are wrong. And to take a stand based on that. I dont think the situation is hopeless. I think we have a hell of a fight ahead of us but we can win some of these fights and it is a very interesting coalition of people, we have farmers, people in industry, people in the medical profession as we have new players coming up and advocating on these programs, i stories, reallife stories that the best way to move people. This is a followup, i am director of the National Center for children in poverty. You talked about what you can do with your colleagues but also mentions building the will for the change we need. Talked about what the public needs, criminally inclined, we want to be poor. What is it, the same kinds of stories, the public make the difference for representatives like you . Absolutely. I met with a group of doctors recently, talking about this issue and a nice report they did, i said this is great. What i suggest is representing different parts of the country, go back to your home state and congressional district, the beneficiaries of the nutrition programs, go visit your local representatives and do a little press conference. Not a threatening press conference but here is the benefit, here is why it is so important and we are asking congress to support it. Just to set the stage and raise local Public Awareness because if they vote to cut these programs you will need this to go back and do the same thing. There needs to be an increase in the level of political activism on this issue. We need to step it up. If not we are in danger of going backwards. I said to a group of faithbased leaders who came to see me and did a bunch of visits, priest, ministers, rabbis, visited one member of congress who was particularly difficult to deal with, how did the meeting go . We made our case, said we are going to pray for them and hope for the best and then what happened . We said goodbye. I am probably not the one to say this but every once in a while you can say go to hell if you are going to do bad things because there needs to be some meaningful pushback, i will consider it a victory on the next farm bill if we dont make things worse in this country. I want to eliminate it but i understand the political realities. Lets not make it worse. Lets not increase it. How hard can that . How difficult is that to explain back home . And yet that is going to be a tough goal to achieve. My question is about food deserts. There is a native American Indian and other groups of people who are isolated from nutrition and basically buying out grocery stores, native American Indians, some tribes where at the age of 18 many of them develop diabetes because of that. It seems to me there should be partnerships between government and industry to solve this, amazon and walmart shifting food, why not government partner with industry to send nutrition into these areas to seniors and other people isolated from Good Nutrition . We should. No reason why we should as we when it comes to food deserts, i visited some of the Stores People purchase their food in in these food deserts, they are small, dont have refrigeration, dont have space to add more nutritious options. We ought to find a way to incentivize or provide funding to help local businesses expand so that the food can be there. Any outofthebox Publicprivate Partnership to get better nutrition to people, i am all for and i tell people the biggest struggles with regard to food and security, we have serious issues in urban areas but those rural areas where the transportation is difficult and there arent many places to get food and we absolutely should. That may cost some money up front but i will argue with you every step we take in the direction of better nutrition, lower healthcare costs. It is dramatically, this is a win win win win and i think part of the problem in washington is the way we do the budgeting. The issue of hunger and Food Security is not as multiple committees and the administration, not one agency, multiple agencies so sometimes the coordination is in there. I tried unsuccessfully for eight years to get president obama to to do a white house conference on food nutrition and hunger. I thought bringing the best minds together, locking them in a room and not get out until we have a comprehensive holistic plan to fix this problem and solve it and go out and hold people to account and implemented, would have been a good step for us to take. It didnt happen. I dont know whether i want this administration to do that or not but the point is we need a plan. When you go to war you have a plan although i dont think we have a plan in syria but put that aside. You are not going to be successful unless you have a plan. I am speaking thrilled to suggest this to you personally. When you call from food swamps because there is food that is bad why not create within congress a school food day where everybody goes home to his or her constituency, find one of the poor schools and has to eat lunch with the kids . The School Nutrition association i wish i had talked before i could have suggested that, that is a good idea. You get elected to congress and never visit the school meal program. You can get elected to congress and never go on a meals on wheels visit. You can get elected to congress and never talk to anybody on snap. I think the assumption that because you get elected to congress that you know everything is just wrong. Hate to burst your bubble but intelligence is not a prerequisite for getting elected to congress and the way you combat ignorance is we need people locally to bring us in, invite us to the schools, invite us to the food banks, invite us to meals on wheels, invite us to a hospital emergency room where they are noticing an uptick in hunger and Food Insecurity related illnesses. I that a woman a few years ago, elderly woman in the hospital emergency room because she was taking her medication on an empty stomach. When the medication said take with food but she didnt have the money and i think those that would be a great idea. I have a day job. I am a graduate student at the Charles School of policy at george mason, you spoke about the need for foodbased policy so how do you envision that happening . Look. What i have when i get to the Agriculture Committee i represent primarily in urban suburban district, i get redistrict it and there are a lot of rural areas in massachusetts too, lots of farms and i understand the connections here, i think you all are you already know. Everything is related. We need to support our farmers and make sure we have a 50 state farm policies that we need Sustainable Agriculture in every state. It is important. It is a security issue, food safety issue and also a nutrition issue. We need we need to better integrate nutrition in our educational systems. Learning about Good Nutrition and at an early age and developing those good habits at an early age is easier to ensure you are going to follow up in developing better nutritional habits at my age. Getting, understanding that everybody has a role to play this issue, not just elected officials but community leaders. It is a local issue as well. Hospitals, veterans component to this too. We are getting complaints from the military that people who want to join the armed forces are way overweight. There was a time it was the opposite. These discussions, one of the reasons i wanted this white house conference was i needed somebody who has the authority to kind of put this together, put the pieces together, connect the dots and i think there are a lot of think tanks and people in this room doing that, but i think we need to have that approach. Nutrition is my background, nutrition and Public Health and i want to say thank you for your efforts because i am a Firm Believer that nutrition can be medicine or poison including lack thereof or presence of nonnutrient dense food so i want to say thank you for your efforts. Thank you, i appreciate your being here and thank you for your work. [applause] beach is great stuff. I feel inspired. We are just in time, i would like to invite speakers for our next panel to come to the stage, we will get set up here. See our moderator is vigorously networking. So i would nametags. [inaudible conversations] i would like to introduce you all to our moderator for the first panel of the morning, scott favor, getting situated here, scott is a familiar face in food policy circles, many of you have a history with him, the environmental working group, Vice President of Government Affairs and in that capacity many consumer Public Health advocates myself included know him as a leader on issues like gm oh labeling and Regulatory Reform and members of the audience will recognize scott for this time, at the Grocery Manufacturers Association and is so happens when scott was gm a they were our partners at the conference and when he left it is on its own. It cant be a coincidence so without further ado, scott, thank you. Thank you. [applause] what a terrific allstar panel and an honor to stage with jim mcgovern. I will probably it group that needs no introduction and i will do introductions and ask each of our speakers to spend a couple minutes blaming the administrations food policy priorities should be. Going down the line, the founding principle attorney, michael jacobsons founder and president of science and Public Interest. Joe leavitt, partner at hogan novels, and susan pittman, founder and executive Vice President food mines, and what you think this administrations food policy should be. Thanks so much. My name is rick frank. And it was the golden carrots. And my few moments of brief remarks are the swinging pendulum, based on eight years of barack obama. What i was going to say you may not like, not my opinion of what was going to happen but my what is going to happen. The obama administration, when that wasnt cohesive, frequently policy emanated for president of the United States and the first lady of the United States. And even the chef of the United States. How about an example . Dietary guidelines, handpicked advisors, fairly balanced, did a good job. 2015 there were no industry people on the dietary guidelines. This was stacked and packed with a highly agenda. What did we get out of it . Recommendations from the Advisory Committee far outside anything we had seen in the dietary guidelines, sustainability. Not a bad thing but certainly not within the dietary guidelines. How about a recommendation for soda taxes. Does that need to show up in the dietary guidelines . The answer is no. We also got six years of the war on sugar. I am old enough to remember the war on fat, the war on salt, the war on eggs. We now have the war on sugar. This was done in a way that i have never seen. Maybe joe can comment on this. This was done with mediocre science at best, no iom report at all looking at the science. With a procedure that happened so quickly you could hardly blink. They wanted to get it done before the next administration so it wouldnt fall within that six month period before the end of the administration. It is probably going to go into effect today, a lousy rule, not necessarily for an outcome but the procedure established to set up drv for added sugar as opposed to total sugar is totally unique, unprecedented and for the first ladys office. The potential will swing back to the right whether we like it or not. Less regulation, less activism, less funding. Look at the key players, trump, price, or do, godly. I dont think the people in this room should have a lot of heart looking forward to the next four years. You have a lot of fun in the last eight. Isbar has general support among everybody for food safety. Maybe labeling, maybe okay, maybe not okay, probably okay, generally wide support. Biotech for the first time, strong support. You didnt see much of that out of obama. The Regulatory Environment could roll back some stuff. He will definitely see an increase in state and local activity, somewhat of an application from washington. When that happens, to the state and local governments, this is a good idea, those are the percolators of new ideas. Classaction suits will continue. The only other matters, all the import tariffs and hiring freeze, shift back to less robust, less activist regulatory philosophy and i think this is a natural inevitable consequence of eight years of barack obama. I disagree with everything rick just said. The first test of all the reasons and stuff but i do agree with what is going to happen, between the Trump Administration and congress. This is a disaster for anybody who cares about a healthy environment, civil rights, down the list. You asked what should the policy be of the Trump Administration . That is an irrelevant question. You look down that whole which what they will be, suggesting it is going to be deregulatory, not addressing public Health Issues. We focus mostly at the fda, i dont know what they are going to undo is the budget where trumps skinny budget proposed 1 billion reduction on fdas budget to the fda, they will be devastating and paralyzed. Wont be able to do any enforcement to initiate new regulations, even if they have funding, very important things the fda is in the midst of or the drawing board, one of the most worrisome, the fda sodium deposits. And familiar to everybody, Familiarity Breeds disinterest. People dont understand how dangerous high levels of sodium in the american diet our. If we could reduce sodium consumption by 50 that would save close to 100,000 lives a year. It is extraordinary, far or damaged and practically Everything Else in the food supply put together. The fda might left those proposed targets languish or could recent them. And unsafe Food Additives, food dyes. Pretty confident the fda is going to be less aggressive in rooting out dangerous Food Additives, hard to be less aggressive because they have never been very aggressive at all that category of ingredients generally recognized as safe which used to be things like vinegar and citric acid, totally safe substances, the Chemical Industry crams Everything Possible into that category instead of going through the food additive route. I dont think this fda is going to revise the grass category and how it regulates them. Something on fdas agenda was packaged labeling, simple nutrition symbols like a smiley face or green dots on the Healthy Foods and either nothing or a red dot on the unHealthy Foods or ratings from one to 100, cant imagine this administration moving along on that front with the Food Industry largely opposed to. Where things happen with many of us in this room, a lot of us will be fighting everything we can the congress is proposing and the administration will push for. We will see a lot more grassroots activism in cities and states pushing for guidance in cooking classes in schools and getting different labeling laws adopted. Many National Groups will be looking at the state level as rick suggested. We have a bill in congress that would requiring California Legislature warning notices on died foods with food that affect kids behavior. And also more litigation, i dont know the exact figures, the number of class actions against Food Companies skyrocketed going up tenfold in the last we 10 years. That will continue when the federal government doesnt enforce, keep the Food Industry under control, they will try everything they can to trick us into buying their products. And it will be exciting, it is certainly interesting, very busy. And a little optimism to make progress. I mentioned at fda, i worked there for 25 years, 1978 which means i lived through every president ial transition since the one from carter to reagan. Every one of them has its unique aspects. There were a lot of commonalities. I was a director the last time we went from democrat to republican from the Clinton Administration to the george w. Bush administration, came up with three points that should be the highest priorities. Number one, really, the highest priority is value of the fdas mission as leading Consumer Protection and Public Health agency in america, an agency that literally affects every single american every single day. The importance of the fda to america cannot be understated. Number 2, taking that on correctly starts with leadership. Scott is an excellent choice to lead the fda, he served fda and understands the mission of the fda was a protege of a strong supporter of the fda and i think his experience as fda commissioner hit the ground running. I work for every fda commissioner for 20 years and when a new commissioner comes in, especially the fda on the inside it is a long learning curve, and much more rapidly. Very optimistic about that in todays time. A moment to recognize one who has performed admirably as acting commissioner, acting his second time in that instance, the distinguished background will carry him over to be one of Scott Gottliebs cheap advisers moving forward. This is been mentioned already, kias funding. The fda is unlike most federal agencies, almost all the money goes to paying people who worked so when budget cuts drop, all of fda, what fda does starts with people that work there. The alliance for stronger fda has been in place over a decade. Bipartisan, represented by consumer groups, industry groups. And with key appropriators the fda budget, something is very important to preserve and even grow when possible. That history again is going to be very important as we go forward. It is a 3part play mission, leadership funding that could lead to good things. Good to be here. The last comment before we get to conversation. A minor spoiler alert, you may hear some things you already heard from analysts or representative mcgovern prior to this but i will go through my remarks and ask the conversation. It is fair to say us politics is elevated to a new level of divisiveness. In the heated conversations, food policy has taken a backseat and every conversation i had in dc trying to anticipate what is going to happen, i think the main point of conversation is we dont know yet because there has been no telescoping exactly of what is going to happen. We are getting a sense now that we see some people put into positions but as a conversation raised earlier, food policy itself in all the various issues not yet elevated to the National Conversation and yet how food is grown has enormous impact on health, economy, environment and security of america. There has been a lot of speculation on what might happen. I do think we can expect to see many functions of food and nutrition policy to be reviewed and analyzed based on costs and need. This may make changes in standards and funding as requirements for National Food assistance programs. Trump has a vision to cut regulations and renegotiate trade deals, create jobs and support american agriculture, growth through exports. He has made immigration a major part of his efforts which will impact migrant farm labor in ways that are yet to be determined and while we can expect regulations and policies to delay or star, it is entirely possible as mentioned already on this panel that local and state governments will take matters into their own hands and pursue actions that the state and local level such as what we are seeing on soda taxes and warning labels and gardens and other opportunities so we will see increasing activities in best practices among Community Groups and advocates to be successfully replicated across the country. We know food policy plays an Important Role in ensuring access to safe healthy food especially vulnerable populations like mothers and infants and lowincome individuals and families in the community. I want to reiterate the biggest priority should be we should have a conversation around these issues elevated to the National Level and everybody in this room becoming engaged and reactivated on the issues to be sure what we gain where there is opportunity to make improvements we look at those opportunities as well. It is important. Every american eats three times a day for the most part. One in two babies in the United States is affected, ag and food sectors are the most significant sources of labor providing 11 of Us Employment with a significant portion of gdp. And essential to our collective qualityoflife and diet is a key driver of promotion of these preventions, so it is fair to say improvement will help keep the country secure and prosperous, not just for this generation but future generations. We have discussed under president obama we saw significant changes, and the typical pendulum swift, trump is intent on doing the opposite of what president obama did and we will see relaxation and reversal of obama era nutrition policies and how we activate around these issues. And and i want to see some improvements. If trump wants to employ and american first policy on food attrition policy and all the important sectors and impact from consumers that happen to be suitors food workers and nurses and doctors and the Food Industry should be priority initiatives and Healthy Eating and access to food nutrition can be a bipartisan effort and given the early signals coming out as far as how these will be done we probably shouldnt be encumbered by past approaches as a blueprint what is going on going forward. It may be an opportunity to forge new thinking and new ways of working together to pursue Common Ground and shared opportunities. Your allstar panel, we have asked our experts to opine on what they think the food priority should be for the administration. Now we ask your help, thomas will make sure this works, we have you to answer the question which of these should be the biggest food policy priority and we have given you a sample and thomas will explain how you can help respond. Text the letter, they have to do on the browser, go ahead and experiment with that. Another ten seconds. All right. Okay. Hunger, food safety, nutrition, Adequate Funding for fda and usda, all right, one area of that, a lot of agreement going around on this panel is the need to continue to implement the food safety modernization act. I throw the first question to joe. How can this administration make progress on food safety and what challenges will they face as they implement. Mike taylor with fda and all the regulations through, he held a kind of dual priority approach, one, high food safety and, regulations workable for the Food Industry. If it wasnt practical it wasnt going to happen but if it didnt achieve a good result it wasnt worth it. He had that exactly right. Fdas First Mission is to carry through that vision to its implementation. With inspections that are skilled and evenhanded looking at the food Safety System as a whole, not picking on Little Things but big things that matter. I think that the inspections will be important, fda could not do that alone. And large in the role of the states, a strong advocate of, it does need funding, that is part of the funding picture. In largest scope by manyfold, it is a lost opportunity if not done. It does require funding but that is key. One of the things that was not completed in the last administration is a series of guide to implement deregulation. And i think everybody is hopeful that those will emerge because they fill the picture. Followup question, maybe you can help folks understand how budget cuts might ultimately interfere with the ability of the agency to meet the inspection mandate and develop guidance. The way the fda budget works is almost all the money goes not like nih but a lot of money goes outside, also important but it doesnt back the people inside working. If the inspectors are fda employees, a few of them do inspections but i think the big up is going to be the state involvement. Fda has started slowly training its own folks, and there was concern whether the state inspectors would be as rigorous so they have a plan to do that but also need money to do that. It is a questionable followthrough. Scott used to be acknowledged for his role, really one of the key causes, it took four or five years to pass but in four or five years for regulations to come through, take another four or five years to get the inspection systems, but building capacity throughout so each step of the way, enhancements are being made. Do you want to add anything to this scenario where there might be bipartisan agreement that the resources to fully implement this . If you mean bipartisan among industry and consumers, yes. Democrats and republicans, it is budget budget budget. Budget budget budget. What is the administrations attitude . Will it be strong enforcement or come on, joe, you can do a better job next time. We will let those tainted peanuts produce georgia go through. Very briefly. There is no question but nothing has changed in the past 20 years, one of the top three priorities, food safety, what dont you understand about food safety, i dont think that will change. In terms of what mike just said, history suggests a 180 difference, republicans enforced democrats regularly. You may see a fair amount of enforcement, that is what republicans do. Speaking of regulations, this morning, other groups released a letter urging Food Companies and retailers to oppose regulatory accountability act, the bill that passed the house that would require formal rulemaking and congressional approval for all major rules and major guides. I wonder if you could talk a little more about what Regulatory Reform might mean for implementing laws like this and other food safety laws. Hr 5 is a bill the house passed, 48 page single spaced bill. I urge everybody to try to read it. It is a complicated system of bureaucratic hurdles that would have to be overcome to adopt regulations. It is basically paralyzing the government, not just food but across regulatory fronts the government has. Mine safety, employment discrimination. It flew through the house, now it is before the senate and hopefully the senate will tone it down a little bit and trump will undoubtedly sign the bill. Dont know if the democrats would filibuster. And a bunch of other organizations urging industry to oppose it even though industry, the trade associations like the chamber of commerce are supporting the regulatory accountability apps. Thinking about i would like to amend what i said in the beginning about Public Interest side, government side, there are two a couple of driving forces here are going on that are kind of the inexorable driving forces. One is scientifically Scientific Research showing something is good, something is bad, something is safe, something is not safe. Continuing pressure. Antiregulatory Administration May be able to resist that for a while but some point the dam is going to break and people will understand there is a real problem that has to be dealt with. Keep that in mind that that is a major force and a second thing is what we have seen in the last 20 years is a more progressive Food Industry sometimes with a little countenance, the natural Food Companies, thriving, catering people who are more concerned about Public Health and the environment, and doing progressive things. They mention unilever, if you others, and the Big Companies but little countries. And some of the Big Companies, i see somebody from mars here, mars has been supportive of things like nutrition labeling and sodium guidelines and added sugar labeling. So we are seeing those industries, more Progressive Companies and energy also with climate change. Some companies are willing to admit this is the 21st century and i willing to stick their neck out and do more progressive things. To pick up on something michael just had is that i think this administration will want to spur innovation. And the innovation track right now is something that i think is moving in a direction that a lot of people can support. Consumers are kind of demanding a change in food supply and companies are responding to that. But we need a Regulatory Environment that accepts that embraces that nurtures that anything that is something that this administration could well embrace. What are some examples of things this administration could do to spur innovation that help support healthier diets . I mean come exactly what was just said. When you think about how ive been lucky not the situation and how do you marry up the shared values are intersecting agenda. So its an administration that is interested and spurring innovation and helping the industry, but also says that air interested in helping the american consumer. So how do you marry up the Public Health goals of the interest of the industry . I would agree that weve got Many Companies that have stepped forward and taking some really great opportunities to develop programs that have done just that, looked at here is the opportunity that we need or that there is in the publichealth environment, but a company and so lets figure out to build on what michael said as well as nonconsumer sort of lucky not in demanding different choices. A survey called food temperance in america. We did for a couple years, last september we did our fourth wave. Right before the election. Its a little outdated, but what was interesting to isolate early in our survey, in the early years what did people think about Government Intervention are making choices or do people like this primary . We look at along the political lines. Democrats versus republicans. You would expect republicans wanted to be put on individual choice did the democrats wanted more to be put on other factors and other segments of society around them. When we just did our most recent wave, we did see were converging of democrats and republicans supporting the idea of creating healthier environments through other opportunities. To be short, republicans still are interested in more favorable toys choice, but more towards the line of seeing what the opportunities are for creating programs and policies. The fda has been taking comments on the definition towards natural, healthy, is that an area where industry might support finally drawing a clear line around what those words mean and also an opportunity to provide consumers more clarity. While a man, the opportunity to evolve on what the current science is telling us and how consumers are perceiving consumer diets. That is one area where the going to be challenging given the various aspects going into it. I dont know how fast that will happen, but they do think that maybe one area where there be an opportunity for industry to be calling itself the beginning consumers with the need from a legal standpoint and looking at how to develop that evolved. Should fda define natural . No. In a word. Its kind of an amorphous term that has gotten to its lowest common denominator in many ways and im not sure you can lift it up to a new standard. When i came to washington in 1976, a woman named judy macri, i hope shes still with us, worked for the ftc and she was writing a definition and she was on page 650 of several registers for how the ftc was going to prescribe and it never saw the light of day and it probably shouldnt have because it was too much. Classaction lawyers for scene in favor, part of them are useful in many of them are parasites. What they do is they file a lawsuit and then they negotiated settlement for themselves. They are not really trying to make a law here. They rarely go after a company that is capable of fighting what they are doing. It is a way to raise money. It is amazing how willing they are to roll over. So i dont think they will. One point on h. R. Five, h. R. Five strikes me as the pendulum may be swinging too far to the right. Thats the beauty of washington d. C. Is obama will take it too far to the left with a bunch of executive orders and be if the first lady wants to vilify sugar. But then republicans not to be outdone by the silliness will try and get legislation which makes it impossible to regulate. That doesnt make sense either. If you look right now whos running omb and whos running all ira, do you really think there will be progressive regulations the next four years . The answer is a resounding no. Politically it wont happen. But washington should go back and forth and we should be people shouldnt be in a laboratory, but we should test things to see what works. I think that type of legislation is that it goes too far. I dont think you need to go that far and i think its an overreaction to all executive orders and pushed the regulations that we saw in the last year of the obama administration. I think one thing to keep an eye on is that there is a lot of very general across the board rhetoric legislation like was just discussed and so forth. But the unit da program at least so far its not like Immigration Reform or things like that. And i think therefore, you know, it sets the groundwork for a sensible policy moving forward, including areas where Prior Administration was not able to do anything. Not that i think it would be easy and not that i think any resolution would be widely applauded because you cant satisfy everybody im not i guarantee you. One thing it would do presumably would put an end to all of that classaction litigation which i will tell you is an enormous diversion. But for lawyers. But it an enormous diversion. Companies only have so much resources and id rather see them put that money and food safety and innovation than to defending and settling lawsuits over natural. So maybe its worth it for the greater good, to get something behind us. Another labeling question. Gma has signed a letter urging the fda to delay the implementation date of the electrician back panel until 2021. Maybe going down the line here, should we delay implementation of Nutrition Facts Panel and should we delay it to sync up implementation of anp with the requirements of the new gm of disclosure law . Yes and no word. I would go one step further. I would ask for there to be a study on whether or not fda adoption of the added sugar provisions was done procedurally in an appropriate way, scientific and an appropriate way. Im not saying it wasnt good im just saying it was rammed through and for anyone who has a different nature in, if this is the way it can be done politically, everything is at risk. Nutrient of the month could immediately have added sodium, sodium. They should be more thoughtful. The one outside concern about marrying those two issues is god knows when well see a gml regulation. I know congress had a date, the congress that lots of dates and are not always followed. Yes, we should only have one label change. Its about a billion dollars per change. The billion dollars pass on to consumers who need to buy food. Two is 2 billion. The nutrition tax deadline for companies july 20 teen should be cap for smaller companies. Companies can do it. They are facing some time pressure, sure. They could do it so that the public could reap the benefit of having those better labels indicating big prints calories, having the added sugars and they went through noticing, or making tons of comment that there is an enormous amount of Scientific Research that has accumulated in the past 15 years, documenting the harm from added sugars and the innocence of naturally occurring sugars because they come with things like fruits and vegetables. You are right about linking it to gml labeling means delaying that perhaps forever because we have no idea if the gml labeling will happen, how many years its going to take to develop regulations and so on. So yes, lets get the labels moving. Its nice to see some of those labels in the marketplace already. I think the companies are proceeding on the assumption that they are going to have to provide labels by july 28 teen but hopefully it will be complete. I think number one if i understand the letter correct way of, gma asked for a delay but did not ask for a change, just to be clear. Probably number one im in favor. Number one, the fda probably was a little unrealistic with the twoyear deadline. Theres tons more labels out there and it like going through a funnel. Theres only so many places that changed labels. Some will be first but a lot will be last. Companies are really fearful and they were from the beginning, long before the change of the administration. I think the gml ought to put pressure on usda to do it. Lets just label it. Lets just do it yet luscious get that out. Its okay to think about. But one shouldnt wait for the other. One should be accelerated so they too can come together in a reasonable time. I think a delay is reasonable and inevitable also, but i do think with the timeframe makes sense. I get an opportunity to work with companies on what you cannot embarrass a lot if any Company Might attest to. But i do think i know theres a lot of money put behind the labeling changes and companies are willing to move faster and get something in the marketplace, have an opportunity to be the dearest and do something different. I agree, the gma letter to my knowledge or my read is theres a faster a faster delay but not a change and its reasonable to sure its done right with the timeframe. We wanted to ask you what you thought about this question so we are going to put another pull up here. Lets go to the next one. There we go. Do you think fda and usda should align the deadline for contrition backspin update with the deadline for disclosing ingredients . While youre doing that, weve got about 15 or 20 more minutes. Why dont we invite folks. Weve got an amazing panel with great knowledge. And they vote to come to the microphones and ask your questions. We would love to get you involved in the conversation as well. How about one and then well go who are you and who are you with. [inaudible] because the consumer demands the idea is [inaudible] a lot more information that can be put on the label. Any comments about that . Might come if you want to talk about using Digital Solutions in addition to what is on the task . Well, it is nice to have more information and the web can provide endless information. I dont think that many people are going to use their smartphones to check out the upc label or the qr code. Just too much of a nuisance for information that most people are just not very in. Anyone else want to answer this question of the role of digital to supplement whats on the package . I think over time it will become more and more useful. I think studies have found that people who care most and will be impacted by Nutrition Information read it and people who dont really care arent impacted by it. And then you have things like total sugars, added sugars, total carbohydrate and fdas own study shows 35 of the respondents were very confused. If ever the ftc they would bring a case against q. Did the fda, no problem moving forward anyway. We should have let tonic. Should should it be the only vehicle in lieu of the labels . Maybe over time we can save that man. Hi, carol wilkie, insulting attorney in the boston area. Im really concerned about the privatization of law and pushing the limits of the nondelegation. Trends through adoption of voluntary codes of conduct or Regulatory Frameworks that are basically made out of cold cloth by private organizations and incorporated by reference. I am wondering if you all could speak about what you think the impact of requiring this one or two coming out, getting rid of two and one regulation if that is really going to accelerate rulemaking of the safe harbors where folks can adopt a comprehensive set of regulations that are actually on the federal book to basically self regulate potentially to the detriment of consumers. Two questions. One is about the role of private certification. Theres obviously maybe not obviously, but very little enforcement i ftc for fda around. Private certification but ultimately resold or used as a basis for legal claims. Is that something that should be addressed, there should be more oversight of . Are you and about that . The National Advertising division of the Better Business bureau has been around for 50 years. And they do a darn good job of policing that area. I dont think too Many Companies ever admit wrongdoing. They just continue the program. But it is a private mechanism to review a police advertising. Two for two for one, the bigger concerned they are as its more of a philosophy, guideline. I know its the executive order so it the rule. But i think its going to slow down all rulemaking as a general matter. Go back to my debate with mike about what they do with the nsc role. Theres a number of guidance is that havent been finalized yet. Said people really cant start until labels there shouldnt until those guidances are finished. The question is how quickly will fda be able to finish the guidance comic get it through omb and then get it back out. That could take months if not years. So there will be a political philosophical barrier with a two for one. Im not sure it will actually be a twoforone. I will add a footnote, which is a certifiable not require formal rulemaking for major rules. It would also require formal rulemaking for major guidances, which of course many of the companies will depend on whether its to implement and it gave the facts panel and so on. That is something to be thinking about. I just think thats another example of a broad ranging policy and how it applies to the food program is very much to be seen. The guidance issue is up for negotiation for the omb. Lets face it, the fda had a renaissance of nature regulations over the last eight years. On penetration facts regulations , which will go forward in the timetable. Washington knew that the headline from the new regulation, but you get the impact from the implementation. So one time on implementation of the huge regulatory agenda that was just rolled out, i would say thats a good thing. Hi, joseph john and with fitness and nutrition. My question is being a representative of a micro group that is impacted greatly by policy and nutrition. Despite the criticism of a shallow, what she did do is create a consciousness concern and health and wellness. How do we as evidenced by the panel, how do we get more qualified and capable women as the final decisionmakers with policies concerning nutrition and health and wellness. I would start at the current one, susan maine who is right for the Center Nutrition at the fda. Likewise. Yeah, amen, again continuing to work with women on the hill and in other venues that can help to lead the charge on his conversations. The act did this or the advocacy effort here in the room by organizations representative ingram, just making sure were having conversations with individuals in the leadership positions to make decisions or help make decisions. I think i susan said, most of the major leadership positions within fda and usda we will see. I certainly agree with your point that no one has done more to change the way americans think about who in the last decade or more than mrs. Obama. It is hard to imagine someone playing that role because she played it so well and had such an enormous ability to reach people in a way that wasnt perceived as lecturing or making us feel like they were being told why to me, but rethinking some of their choices about diet. In mac she is still continuing on the issues and even though she may not be as well, she still has a lot of sway with organization and crew that can have influence. I dont think we should assume that having a woman in place for automatically mean a smart policy. So we have sarah palin, michele bachmann, betsy devos, numerous other people. Michelle obama had a progressive philosophy. But i think kind of a larger thing going on in society, us guys, our 15yearold successors are playing with their smartphones and playstation and its women who are getting into medical school for moscows. I think theres now a majority in both. That is going to percolate up and when men will be having a much, much greater role in society than they have had in the past because of their efforts and because of men just playing around. [laughter] can i just comment . I had a point. The point is simply that could policy is not either obviously female or male issue. Not necessarily republican or democrat issue. By last year is marked for calling came in as commissioner his calling card was nutrition and he actually was a forerunner of what we are seeing today when he declared that consumers can do more good for the longterm health by making sound dietary choices than anything else. Thats because he was a health care economist. He was looking at the money and the budget on Health Care Costs and saying that Health Care Costs can only be brought down if people eat better. And so again, this opportunity in the administration if you think about it the right way. Hi, scott mcclure, doctoral student in Public Health. I was a food scientist for blue diamond almonds that the vermont gml labeling went through. And we were concerned not to much of the actual labeling that because the distribution we couldnt make a label just for one day. We have to make it for whole blocks. Both susan and michael mentioned potentially an increase state level labeling initiatives. How would you address concerns that may concerns that maybe states would make mutually exclusive or conflicting labels, but also allowing for that is a source of innovation . Well, i think that is what is going to happen and that might spur some activity than at the National Level. Maybe take gml labeling as an example of how statelevel activities it is challenging for companies to implement at the state level. Then it got punted back up and so maybe we will see similar type of patterns happening. It remains to be seen. That type of activity has good results and bad results. Before we had nutrition labeling, cspi basically went after claims that even Oatmeal Companies were making and they did it in texas, california. There were enough cases and enough state rules that ultimately industry came to washington and said enough. We will agree to nutritional labeling. We will agree to standards for claims, they give us one step. Congratulations. That was really well done. I dont think gmls was really well done. Gml is what i call the precautionary principle, guilty until proven innocent. Its almost impossible to prove anything except over a long period of time. If you give voters in one state or a legislator and wednesday trying to impose Something Like that, and industry may ultimately say enough, please. But a mandatory gml rule is really not a good idea at this point in time. They vilify something that is probably very good for the public and the world and that is not a good model for regulating. One response to that conceivably would be federal preemption that she had with the noaa and claims, possibly federal preemption that goes beyond that for things like gml is their god for bid california prop 65. But that type of regulation that goes to the states sometimes works and sometimes in my opinion can be very dangerous. I would just add thats not something we can advocate for. Its important to Pay Attention and be engaged in the dialogue is somebody whose representative of industry and knows the challenges that can happen if these changes are happening at state and local levels. Did you want to add something . Is a strategy, its a very valuable one and maybe we dont like one specific instance or another. But getting calories on restaurant menus, it was very effective where we saw new york city doing a first regulation including just calories in philadelphia and seattle required not just calories on menu boards, but on printed menus gave calories, carbs, saturated, sodium and trans. And that got restaurant clamoring for federal regulations that preempt the state differences. Getting those disparate laws at the local level are statelevel down there in the laboratory of democracy was ultimately a very powerful way of bringing in just her he to the table and agreeing on something good. Rick, you mentioned menu labeling in your introduction which of course is required under provisions in the Affordable Care at and it turns out whom to the Affordable Care act would be so hard to replace. Putting that aside, why do you think that sort of as you put it, will be as opposed to something that will have been. The vast majority of impacted players, whether it be the fast food chains or dining locations, they are ready to do it. I represent three large players in that space. When i thought there was an opportunity, i didnt recommend you should urge delay, but my job is to say theres an opportunity and they went three for three saying we are ready to do this. Lets go ahead and do it. So i think it will happen for that reason. A lot of these things, mike was saying how progress in some parts of the Food Industry are becoming. Thats a competitive issue. You can wear a white hat, then you may support what he wants. If youre nutrition profile is not dispositive, you may oppose it. Im not sure its necessarily because youre a good person and youre concerned. Its what you have to sell. Its interesting that morris and pepsi and mask layer three companies that have been pretty supportive of certain nutrition measures. And they dont exactly cater to the health food market. And i think that is where it was a strategy to think about okay, we know these are not row issues and how do we as a response about company im not suggesting this is exactly what happened, but its looking up where we can find intersecting agendas and put together programs and opportunities that will benefit the company and also address issues happening. Strategically, a confession is a snack excuse me come a treat, not a snack. Its important to characterize it that way. Philosophy of the Confectionery Industries be a retreat, which addressed properly is finding an overall diet. The pepsi situation, they have a wide variety of offerings. Anything from water to sugarfree to choose to their mainline pepsi. But they are diversified enough that they can support just about anything because they have a product to meet. You are seeing the maturing and growth to be able to do that. Coming back to send being used to say that she really wanted Food Companies can begin on the basis of nutrition. I think we are seeing now. Nurturing innovation, fostering that competition with todays Consumer Needs and demands has got to move everything in a good direction. Good morning. I am from Johns Hopkins university. My questions about those saved it, it seems to me that the panel is quite optimistic about food safety regulation implementation and enforcement rather than creating new regulation. I would like to understand why its so optimistic given that the announcement about water safety are somewhat concerning. For example, we know that the usda budget costs with the water and wastewater, bone and grant programs, which will affect negatively what are called the world communities and with respect to the epa, we know that government Enforcement Capacity that will also probably a fact the infections, for example. So why do you think that food safety will not be a fact day by the same type of policies . I think it is because that law was developed in a very inclusive way. It had both consumer and industry support and it was implemented in the regulation developed in the same way. Is it, perfect . Water quality something thats an issue in the Fresh Produce and after he signaled a willingness to look at that. But again, i think it comes down to if i was to draw a map on Regulatory Reform, it would be based on inclusiveness and workability. And high standards. Thats a winning formula. When people are complaining, you dont get up that. While were on that subject, curtis remains the leading source of illness at the produce safety world is set to go into effect soon. Maybe its a question for joe and mike. Do you foresee any challenges in implementing that rule . Farmers will have to Start Testing their Irrigation Water to ensure that their water is meeting certain standards. My crystal ball is murky. Much like the Irrigation Water. A lot of it is budget. Is there and enforcement, any pressure on farmers to do that . I think you have to take the long term picture. Youve got an enormous industry never before regulated by the fda. The fda is going to list an enormous amount of state power to oversee it. Rome was not built in a day. But youve got to think of it a decade from now. This is a time to think about implementation about the Initiative Study taken and put the same figure in implementation and i was developing the rules in the first place. Tweet them along the way. Why not. Why not make things better . So we just have a few more minutes but. I have to mark questions. One was not really touched on, but states are now beginning to get back to around the questions of Food Additives to ban foreign aid chemicals and food packaging. Where do you see that having . I think it will be a burgeoning area of interest and progressive state like california and vermont. Theyll see that the food and drunkenness or a shame or epa isnt doing its job and that they can step in to protect their consumers. Some of their actions might just have local impact. Others will have national impact. Maybe some of that will spur of the congress or regulatory babe to be more aggressive nationally. Well see. And is that an area, rick for joe, were there some chance the Food Industry might say rather than fighting and perhaps losing the site in states like california and vermont, it might make sense to come up with a system of review that would reassure consumers . I think definitely yes. This is one area whether it be crass or food additive for the federal government has acted that will be a barrier to the state doing very much. So if theres a particular heavy metal or something showing up in a product and california decides to take action against it, you may see the industry if they have similar concerns going to fda and say that the published the known background levels and what are safe levels. So they will go to the fda and ask them to do that. What overarching thought maybe my final for this group would be dont view these next four years or eight or whatever it may be necessarily as depressing and horrible. For you it is an opportunity. Dont yell and scream about everything that the president , hhs secretary, usda secretary ann the fda commissioner do. Pick and choose your fights. Lets go back to sound science. The sound science is not evolving science, not fringe science, the sound science should be the rule and make the republicans make this administration lived. Try and get them to stay in the middle im not. I think you saw some deviation in obama is going to call the pendulum swinging. Lets get that pendulum back to the middle for science rules, not politics. Im sure they were for revoke that that the science suggests. I know nothing about that. Just a view comments. They have some work for her. We have to fight on everything. This administration and this congress are total disaster from publicinterest give. There are a lot of different people. Some will have a concern about this issue or that issue. But we need to cover all the issues from different politically and with litigation to stop crazy rollbacks that are unfounded. So keep fighting. Well, i think i i think again having lived through many changes that the administration in both directions, i think every time. Has its own opportunities and i would urge people to both look for those that rally around those and again, use this as a time to solidify gains made and implement them while. Every hand is a winner, every hand is a loser. Take the hand and play it right. I would say that like i stated early on is i think that it is important for the discussions around food policy to make its way to front and center, which im not sure if its yet happen but that remains to be seen. I think that the recommendation also has to think about this is not Traditional Administration in many ways. I dont know whats going to happen. My crystal ball is murky as well. Take it as an opportunity to think about new ways of addressing issues that are important to everybody in this room the matter what side of the aisle you are on a no matter where youre coming from as an organization, think about the opportunities to create a path forward if not, i offer everybody, but more fewer people. They stated during his presentation and rally together and make sure voices are heard. Thats good advice. Lease join me in thanking our panel. [applause] is a great panel. We are going to have a short break now. At 11 15, the Breakout Sessions will begin promptly. You are going to need to take your rings with you. Folks are going to come in here and get this room ready for lunch. Please take your things with you. Weve got a spread that out. Some refreshments and and 11 15 promptly, you need to be in your breakout room