May
2000
Taking
on the "Sacred Cow": PCRM Challenges the Food Pyramid
The Satya Interview with Mindy
Kursban
|
|
|
Mindy S. Kursban, Esq., is a graduate
of the Emory University School of Law. She serves as legal counsel for
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group
of doctors and laypersons dedicated to promoting preventive medicine
in the U.S. and worldwide, and to addressing modern medical controversies.
Here, Kursban explains the PCRM lawsuit that is challenging the federal
Food Guidelines.
In a nutshell, what is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit is about how the federal government, in particular the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), illegally established and operated a federal
advisory committee chartered to make recommendations for revising the
current Dietary Guidelines. The revised edition of the Dietary Guidelines
are expected to be released by the government in May 2000.
The Dietary Guidelines is [are] the primary federal nutritional policy
document; and the familiar Food Guide Pyramid is a visual interpretation
of these Guidelines. PCRM’s lawsuit alleged that the committee
was improperly influenced by the food industry because over half of
the committee members had financial links to the meat, dairy and egg
industries; that the committee was not properly balanced because there
was not even one member representing the interests of those persons
most directly affected by the Dietary Guidelines, i.e., federal food
program participants; and that the committee did not comply with public
accountability requirements, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA).
How might the outcome affect the public in general, and vegans/vegetarians
specifically?
The Dietary Guidelines, including the Food Pyramid, affect all Americans
in one way or another. Children are taught in school that the most nutritious
diet is one that conforms with the Guidelines and Pyramid; nutritionists
and dietitians rely on the Guidelines in advising their clients; the
Pyramid is displayed on the packages of many food products sold in grocery
stores; and the Guidelines serve as the blueprint for all federal food
programs, including the Food Stamp Program, the School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs, commodity distribution programs, WIC (Women, Infants, Children)
and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
Over 26 million children a day eat a lunch provided under the School
Lunch Program. Schools—both public and private—that participate
in the school lunch program must serve lunches that are consistent with
the goals of the Guidelines. A school gets reimbursed for either all
or part of the cost of a "qualifying" meal.
Currently, vegetarian options are not required to be provided by schools.
Additionally, cow’s milk must be provided to every child at lunch.
Therefore, reimbursement is denied for a meal if an alternative to cow’s
milk is offered, rather than cow’s milk. If a student prefers a
milk alternative, he or she must have a special medical or dietary need
(such as an allergy or diagnosed lactose intolerance) and get a statement
signed by a physician or recognized medical authority. For those students
without a medical need, they have no choice. A change in the Guidelines
could result in having options, such as calcium-fortified juice, calcium-fortified
soymilk, or even water for students who choose, for whatever reason,
not to drink cow’s milk.
In light of the epidemic rates of diet-related chronic disease in this
country, federal nutritional policies should move away from the emphasis
on a meat- and dairy-based diet. The lawsuit is the first step in getting
the government to encourage Americans to consume a healthier, plant-based
diet.
How is the case proceeding?
There has been a significant victory in this case—the committee
recommended that soymilk be included in the "dairy group,"
thereby declaring that soymilk has the nutritional equivalency of cow’s
milk. In light of this recommendation, PCRM voluntarily dismissed the
portion of its lawsuit concerning the composition of the committee.
However, PCRM’s claims concerning the committee’s failure
to comply with the public disclosure requirements of FACA (open meetings
and disclosure of documents) remain pending.
There was also a setback. Although the committee declared that the foundation
of a healthy diet is plant-based food, the committee also recommended
removing the section currently in the 1995 edition of the Guidelines
concerning the benefits of consuming a vegetarian diet.
Can you give examples of the alleged conflicts of interest in the
advisory committee?
Six out of the 11 committee members had financial links to the
meat, dairy, and egg industries. No member had a conflict with any
other food
industry, for example, a fruit or vegetable association. We obtained
this information about the members’ conflicts of interest from
the members’ curriculum vitae. The government has withheld from
us, despite our request, the members’ sources of income as identified
on a Background Information Form that each member was required to complete
prior to their appointment to the committee. This matter is still pending
in our lawsuit.
There are so many conflicts of interest that I will only list some of
them. Two of the members have served as visiting professors for the
National Dairy Council. Several members have received research funding
from the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, Dairy Management,
Inc., the National Live Stock and Meat Board, or the American Meat Institute.
Some of the members served as scientific advisors to the National Dairy
Promotion and Research Board or the Dannon Research Institute. One member
served on the American Egg Board Grant Review Committee.
Milk has been highlighted in the Dietary Guidelines even though
most people, and a disproportionate number of non-whites, cannot digest
milk products. Are there issues of racism and social justice at stake
here?
To quote Dennis Hayes, general counsel for the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), federal food policies
are an example of "rational racism," or the use of business
explanations to justify racist choices. The dairy industry has historically
wielded tremendous influence in the halls of Congress. This is evident
in all of the legislation that exists to protect the interests of the
dairy industry. Just take a look at those milk mustache ads. Most people
believe that those ads were put out by cow’s milk producers. That
is a mistaken notion. Actually, in 1990, Congress enacted legislation
that authorized the USDA to develop a coordinated program of promotion,
research and nutrition education to strengthen the dairy industry’s
position in domestic and foreign markets. To pay for that coordinated
program, the USDA assesses fees from the milk producers and then, with
that money, contracts with an advertising agency to produce and disseminate
these ads.
As a result of the strong political support for the dairy industry,
and despite the fact that the government has known about the high rates
of lactose intolerance in people of color since the 1960s, the government
still pushes each and every American to consume 2-3 servings of dairy
products each day.
What inspired you to focus your legal expertise on cases such as
this?
I started on the path to becoming a vegan 17 years ago, when I
stopped eating red meat for health reasons. Along the way, I became
educated
about the societal importance of consuming a vegetarian and vegan diet—for
health, environmental, and animal welfare reasons. After law school,
I began working for a law firm doing general civil litigation. I realized
I would be happiest and most effective working for a cause I believed
in, which led me to PCRM. I am thankful for the experience and knowledge
I gained in private practice, which enabled me to do what I am doing
with PCRM.
Why do you feel these issues are important?
I believe it is important to adopt a vegan diet for a number of
reasons. First, and most obvious through my work at PCRM, is the threat
to people’s health caused by consuming animal products. While
most people are now aware of the health risks from consuming beef,
they are
terribly unaware of the health risks from consuming chicken and fish.
More significantly, most people still believe that cow’s milk is
the perfect food—an essential part of the diet with no associated
health risks. As an aside, one of the most amusing yet disturbing beliefs
held by people, and one that the dairy industry has been very successful
at promulgating, is that cows are "milk machines" which exist
to produce milk for human consumption. Most people have no idea that
the cow must first get pregnant, just like a human, before she will
produce the milk that is intended for her calf.
Adopting a vegan diet is also equally important for protecting our environment
and preventing the horrific cruelty imposed upon factory-farmed animals.
On a broader perspective, I also feel that it is important to hold the
government accountable for its actions.
What can people do to help?
I believe that public opinion, support and pressure is absolutely
key to success. I can talk to members of Congress all day long (or at
least until they kick me out of their office) or file all the lawsuits
I want, but until the general public adopts these changes into their
own life and demands action, we are not likely to see any change. I
would encourage your readers to do any of the following:
First and foremost, stop consuming animal products. Also, please contact
your Congressperson and Senator and politely let them know that you
support changes in the Dietary Guidelines and federal food programs.
Encourage all of your friends to do the same.
Although the period for the public to comment on the committee’s
recommendations to the Guidelines has officially ended, send a letter
to the USDA and DHHS requesting changes to the Dietary Guidelines and
federal food programs [address below]. If you know anybody who works
for a federal food program, such as a WIC administrator, or participates
in a federal food program, ask them to let their Congressperson or Senator
know how the outdated and harmful food requirements in these food programs
affects them. Educate as many people as possible about this matter—write
a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, distribute literature
about vegetarianism to your local restaurants.
For information on this case, contact PCRM at (202) 686-2210 or visit
www.pcrm.org. Send letters to: Dan
Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
14th & Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250, tel. 202 720-2791;
Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC
20201, tel. 202 619-0257.
