CRAIG: I AM CRAIG LEMOULT.

TONIGHT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOOD.

FIRST, FOODS FOR SECURITY.

THE PANDEMIC ERA EXPANSION OF SNAP BENEFITS EXPIRED FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE FAMILIES ALREADY STRUGGLING TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE?

WHAT CAN THE STATE DO TO HELP?

WHAT MAKES FOODS HEALTHY?

THE FDA IS WILLING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION TO EXCLUDE PRODUCTS THAT ARE HIGH IN SALT, SUGAR, AND SATURATED FAT AND LOW IN NUTRIENTS.

BUT DOZENS OF FOOD MANUFACTURERS ARE FIGHTING BACK.

CRAIG: FOR FAMILIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND ACROSS MASSACHUSETTS, PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE COULD GET EVEN HARDER.

SINCE MARCH OF 2020 WHEN PANDEMIC RELATED CLOSURES AND LAYOFFS ROCKED THE ECONOMY, MORE THAN 600,000 MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES HAVE RELIED ON EMERGENCY EXPANSION OF SNAP, FORMALLY KNOWN AS FOOD STAMPS, WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO RECEIVE MAXIMUM BENEFITS THROUGH THE PROGRAM UNTIL FOUR DAYS AGO WHEN THE EXPANSION EXPIRED.

LEAVING FAMILIES IN THE STATE WITH AROUND $150 LESS PER MONTH AT A TIME WHEN INFLATION HAS SENT FOOD PRICES EVEN HIGHER.

AND MADE HISTORICALLY AFFORDABLE STAPLES LIKE EGGS SEEM LIKE A LUXURY.

WHAT OPTIONS DO THOSE FAMILIES HAVE NOW?

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS OUR STATE SENATOR SAL DIDOMENICO, ASSISTANT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND COCHAIR OF THE MASSACHUSETTS FOOD SYSTEM CAUCUS, AND CATHERINE LYNN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE GREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

CATHERINE: THANK YOU.

SEN. DIDOMENICO: THANK YOU.

CRAIG: SENATOR DIDOMENICO, CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE CHANGE THAT HAPPENED DURING THE PANDEMIC?

THE BOOST IN THESE BENEFITS, AND HOW SIGNIFICANT THAT WAS?

SEN. DIDOMENICO: THIS WAS A LIFELINE FOR FAMILIES, PARTICULARLY IN MY DISTRICT AND ACROSS THE STATE.

THE S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS ALLOW THEM TO NOT MAKE AS MANY TOUGH CHOICES BETWEEN FOOD, RENT, MAKING SURE THAT THEY GET FRESH PRODUCE INTO THE HOMES OF MANY OF THESE FOLKS THAT HAVE LIVED WITHOUT THAT PRIOR TO THAT.

.

THE PANDEMIC CAUSED A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, BUT ONLY EXACERBATED THE PROBLEMS IN THE AREAS WE NEED TO HELP THE MOST.

THIS IS WHY THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT CAME THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS.

THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO OFFSET THAT COST.

THE GAPS GREW WIDER AND WIDER FOR MANY FAMILIES, AND THIS WAS ABLE TO BRIDGE THAT GAP.

CRAIG: CATHERINE, AS WE SAID, A DROP OF $150 A MONTH FOR A FAMILY ON AVERAGE.

HOW MUCH IS THAT GOING TO BE FELT?

CATHERINE: IT'’S GOING TO BE HUGE FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE STATE AND THE NATION.

FOOD BANKS ARE BRACING THEMSELVES FOR THAT IMPACT TO TAKE THE BRUNT OF TRYING TO FILL THAT GAP THAT THIS BENEFIT HAS FILLED.

FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

.

THERE HAS BEEN HISTORIC ENROLLMENT IN S.N.A.P.

IN MASSACHUSETTS.

WE KNOW OFTENTIMES, A LOT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE ALSO SEEING -- GOING TO A PANTRY TO SUPPLEMENT ALL OF THE NEEDS.

WE ARE REALLY WORRIED THAT OUR PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING HIGH DEMAND ARE GOING TO SEE EVEN MORE.

CRAIG: HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE RISE IN FOOD PRICES FOR FAMILIES RIGHT NOW, AND THE COMBINATION OF THIS REDUCTION WITH THOSE PRICES BEING AT HISTORIC HIGHS?

SEN. DIDOMENICO: THIS IS THE PERFECT STORM.

INFLATION BEING WHAT IT IS TODAY, WE HAVE HAD PROGRAMS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO ON THE STATE LEVEL FOR THE LAST SEVERAL SESSIONS.

AND WITH INFLATION, THAT INCREASE HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE OF THAT.

THE FACT THAT FOOD PRICES INCREASING, USING S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS, AND NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALSO COMING OFF LIFELINE, IN THE PANDEMIC ERA PROGRAMS THAT THEY BELIEVE NOW SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE IN THEIR MIND, THE PANDEMIC IS OVER, WHICH IS NOT TRUE, WE ARE IN WORSE SHAPE IN MANY SITUATIONS.

THIS IS REALLY A TIME WHERE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WE ARE HAPPY THAT WE WILL GET TO IN A MINUTE, THE SUB BUDGET IS PUTTING MONEY IN THERE.

THE GOVERNOR, SENATE, AND THE HOUSE HAVE AGREED THAT IT IS TIME TO PUT MONEY THERE TO ALLEVIATE THE EFFECTS OF THE CLIFF EFFECT, OF THIS COMING TO DENNY AND TWO SUDDENLY -- COMING TO AN END SUDDENLY APPEARED MY HOPE IS TO INCREASE OTHER PROGRAMS TO HELP FAMILIES THAT NEED HELP THE MOST.

THIS IS A ONE-STOP APPROACH NOW BUT IT IS A HOLISTIC APPROACH WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UNIVERSAL SCHOOL MEALS, ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, AND GET MORE S.N.A.P..

IT IS A FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT WILL MEAN MONEY ON THE TABLE IF WE DON'’T ACCESS THAT.

CRAIG: I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET.

BUT AS YOU SAID, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY, PEOPLE ARE NOT LOSING S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS.

IT IS A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT MANY HOUSEHOLDS ARE RECEIVING.

THIS EXPANSION HAPPENED AT A REMARKABLE TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

WHEN PEOPLE WERE DEALING WITH ALL KINDS OF STRESSES FROM THE PANDEMIC.

AND AS HE SAID, WE ARE NOT DONE WITH COVID.

BUT WE ARE NOT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT WE WERE WHEN THE EXPANSION HAPPENED.

COULD AN ARGUMENT BE MADE, OR SHOWED AN ARGUMENT BE MADE, THAT THE EXPANSION IS NO LONGER AS NECESSARY AS IT ONCE WAS?

CATHERINE: I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT WHEN THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED, YES, WE WERE IN CRISIS MODE.

THAT'’S FOR SURE.

BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE ARE MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS AND REMOVING BENEFITS, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A VERY DIFFERENT STATE THAN IN MARCH 2023 THAN WE WERE IN MARCH 2020.

IT IS NOT JUST COST OF FOOD.

THAT IS DEFINITELY A DRIVING FORCE, BUT DIDOMENICO PERFECT STORM.

THE AFFORDABILITY OF EVERYTHING IS UP.

I THINK WHEN WE THINK ABOUT TAKING AWAY BENEFITS, WE HAVE TO REALLY LOOK AT HOLISTICALLY, HOW ARE WE REALLY POSITIONING PEOPLE TO THRIVE AND GET BACK ON THEIR FEET AND RECOVER INTO AN ECONOMY WE WANT TO SEE FOR THE FUTURE?

CRAIG: SENATOR DIDOMENICO, ABOUT THAT BUDGET, THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED $130 MILLION TO GO TO S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS TO HELP THOSE FAMILIES.

BUT IT IS NOT INDEFINITELY, IT IS ONLY FOR THREE MONTHS AND WOULD COVER 40% OF THE AMOUNT BEING LOST.

I KNOW THE HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY I THINK I THINK PROVED THAT SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET.

THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE THAT UP THIS WEEK, IF I'’M NOT MISTAKEN.

DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO PASS AND WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD THAT MAKE?

SEN. DIDOMENICO: I DO EXPECT IT TO PASS.

IT IS HAPPENING ON THURSDAY.

THIS HAS BEEN A PROGRAM THAT THE SENATE HISTORICALLY HAD BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF.

OBVIOUSLY, THE GOVERNOR SAW THE NEED, THE HOUSE MEMBER SOLVE ANY, AND THE SENATE SEES THE NEED.

WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO ALLEVIATE THE EFFECTS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING.

TO TAKE AWAY A BENEFIT FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS RELYING ON THAT, THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR FAMILIES TO COUNTERACT.

THE DEPENDENCY ON THESE BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION THEY ARE IN, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, I WOULD ARGUE FAMILIES ARE IN WORSE SHAPE THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PANDEMIC AND NOW TRY TO RECOVER AND MAKE UP GROUND FROM WHERE THEY LEFT OFF HAS PUT THEM IN A DEEPER HOLE THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC.

WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE COULD LET THIS HAPPEN, AND LET THIS EXPIRE.

OR WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT TO ALLEVIATE THE EFFECT OF IT AND TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OVER TIME.

THAT IS MY HOPE THAT WE DO OTHER THINGS GOING FORWARD, TO COUNTERACT THIS AND BRING MORE RESOURCES TO FAMILIES, FAMILIES LIKE EVERETT AND CHELSEA AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES THAT ARE TRYING TO FIND THEIR WAY AFTER EXPERIENCING TREMENDOUS LOSS.

NOT JUST FINANCIALLY BUT ALSO PERSONALLY.

PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE THEY HAD NO WAY OUT.

S.N.A.P.

IS ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS THAT WE CAN RELY ON, AND THE BENEFIT NOW EXPIRING, THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT EXPIRING, IS A HIT TO A LOT OF FAMILIES AND WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT UP.

CRAIG: CATHERINE, YOU TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE IN BENEFITS TO BE ON FOOD BANKS?

AND WHAT IS YOUR ABILITY TO MEET AN INCREASED DEMAND?

CATHERINE: A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE THING THAT I KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT IN HISTORY, WHEN WE HAVE A CRISIS, IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THE DEMAND FROM THAT CRISIS TO GO AWAY.

WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, WE WERE JUST RECOVERING FROM PRE-PANDEMIC -- I'’M SORRY, PRERECESSION, 2008 RECESSION NUMBERS.

IT TOOK US ALMOST 10 YEARS TO CLAW BACK TO A PLACE WHERE WE WERE ONE IN 8, 1 IN NINE, WE ARE NOW SEEING ONE IN THREE PEOPLE ARE FOOD INSECURE.

I THINK THAT HAS TO BE A REALITY AND RECOGNITION THAT IT TAKES TIME, AS SENATOR DIDOMENICO IS SAYING.

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF LOSS AND HURT FINANCIALLY.

AND ECONOMICALLY.

AND IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME.

WE KNOW THIS AND WE ARE SEEING IT REFLECTED IN THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW.

WE SAW A 60% INCREASE TO THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE SERVED IN THE PANDEMIC, AND THAT HAS BEEN CONSTANT.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS CHRONIC NEED.

WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BENEFITS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RELYING ON, IN SOME WAYS, ALMOST KEEPING THEM FROM RELYING ON THE FOOD PANTRIES EVEN MORE, WE KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO TURN TO US.

THEY ARE TO NEED MORE HELP.

WE ARE WORRIED.

I THINK THAT IS WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE THIS HOLISTIC CONVERSATION.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO SUPPORT PEOPLE HOLISTICALLY.

I REALLY -- THE GOVERNOR FILED THIS SUPPLEMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TAKING IT UP, AND MY HOPE IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATION OF HOW WE CAN SUPPORT PEOPLE.

CRAIG: THAT SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCREASED FUNDING FOR FOOD BANKS LIKE YOURS TO HELP PEOPLE WHO MAYBE NEED TO RELY ON FOOD BANKS MORE.

IS IT YOUR HOPE THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE MIGHT STEP UP AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROGRAMS?

CATHERINE: YEAH, WE ARE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

WE HAVE BEEN REALLY FORTUNATE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS STEPPED UP A TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO SUPPORT THE FOOD BANK NETWORK.

AND WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

WE ARE JUST ABOUT TO GO INTO FY 24 BUDGET CONVERSATIONS, SO WE WILL CONTINUE HAVING CONVERSATIONS.

I HAVE SENATOR DIDOMENICO'’S PHONE NUMBER.

[LAUGHTER] CRAIG: WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE SNAP BENEFITS, ABOUT 600 40,000 HOUSEHOLDS OR ONE MILLION RESIDENTS OF REP -- OF MASSACHUSETTS ARE GETTING FOOD THROUGH SNAP BENEFITS.

.

BY MY ROUGH MATH, THAT IS ROUGHLY ONE IN SEVEN PEOPLE IN MASSACHUSETTS.

IF THINK YOU TOUCHED ON THIS A MOMENT AGO, BUT I THINK THIS -- IT RAISES THIS QUESTION ABOUT FOOD INSECURITY IN THE STATE.

BEYOND JUST THE BENEFITS, WHY THIS MANY PEOPLE NEED ASSISTANCE, GETTING FED.

CATHERINE, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT BRIEFLY?

CATHERINE: WE LIVE IN A VERY EXPENSIVE REGION, IN THE STATE AND IN THE COUNTRY.

I THINK THAT IS -- AND THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES.

THERE IS NOT ONE SILVER BULLET.

I'’M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THAT THERE IS RECOGNITION OF THE INTERSECTIONALITY OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES, BETWEEN HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION AND MEDICAL COST AND CHILDCARE.

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO WHY AN INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILY IS NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD FOOD RIGHT NOW.

I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THAT, AND THINK IN THAT WAY, SO THAT WE CAN, LONG-TERM, REALLY ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF HUNGER.

BECAUSE IT IS AN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONDITION.

CRAIG: SENATOR, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?

SEN. DIDOMENICO: AND ALSO, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, AND OUR STATE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED A WEALTHY STATE AND WELL -- IN A WEALTHY COUNTRY, WE HAVE MANY PEOPLE BELOW THE DEEP POVERTY LEVEL, 50% BELOW POVERTY LEVEL.

YOU CAN'’T IMAGINE THAT IS THE CASE IN OUR STATE.

WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TACKLE FOOD INSECURITY WITH A THREE OR FOUR PRONGED APPROACH, WITH MORE CASH ASSISTANCE TO OUR FAMILIES, INCREASING S.N.A.P.

BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY, TRY TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MASS HELP WHO ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR S.N.A.P.

BENEFITS.

AND UNIVERSAL SCHOOL MEALS, WHICH IS GETTING A LOT OF TRACTION ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND IN OUR STATE IN PARTICULAR, ONE OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

THE STATE PICKED UP THE DIFFERENCE AND, TO THE TUNE OF $130 MILLION, IN HER SUB $65 MILLION TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH SHOWS KIDS ARE EATING IN OUR SCHOOLS MORE THAN EVER.

PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY OF TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO DO A MEANS TEST ON FOOD, THAT IS WHEN WE GET IN TROUBLE.

YOU CAN'’T PUT A MEANS TEST ON FOOD WHEN 25% OF THE STUDENTS WHO DON'’T QUALIFY ARE FOOD INSECURE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE STIGMA ATTACHED TO FILLING OUT FORMS.

PEOPLE DON'’T WANT TO SIGN DOCUMENTS.

IT IS AN ISSUE WE CAN'’T SOLVE WITH ONE APPROACH.

WE HAVE TO DO A MULTI-APPROACH AND TACKLE THIS WITH A HOLISTIC APPROACH.

WE ARE WORKING ON THAT IN THE SENATE AND LEGISLATURE.

CRAIG: STATE SENATOR SAL DIDOMENICO AND CATHERINE LYNN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.

NEXT UP, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR FOOD TO BE HEALTHY?

THE ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIFFERS FROM PERSON TO PERSON.

BUT THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HAS HAD RULES IN PLACE FOR YEARS ABOUT WHAT FOODS ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DON THAT LABEL.

NOTHING ARE LOOKING TO RAISE THE STANDARDS FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HEALTHY.

PAST REGULATIONS INCLUDED LIMITS ON THE CHOLESTEROL AND SODIUM, BUT NOW THE AGENCY IS LOOKING TO IMPOSE STRICTER LIMITS ON THOSE CATEGORIES.

NEW LIMITS ON SUGAR TOO.

THE NEW RULES WOULD REQUIRE PRODUCTS TO INCLUDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDED FOOD GROUPS LIKE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN ORDER TO BE LABELED HEALTHY.

IN AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE EATING MORE NUTRIENT DENSE FOODS.

THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE COMES IN RESPONSE TO THE LATEST SET OF FEDERAL DIETARY GUIDELINES, WHICH URGED AMERICANS TO LOOK AT THEIR DIET HOLISTICALLY, TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE EATING A WIDE VARIETY OF NUTRIENTS.

COMPANIES AND TRADE GROUPS FROM ACROSS THE FOOD PRODUCTION INDUSTRY ARPA -- ARE PUSHING BACK, INCLUDING THE CONSUMER BRANDS ASSOCIATION, AND ARGUES THE NEW RULES "COULD HARM THE CONSUMER AND THE MANUFACTURER."

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS OUR REGISTERED DIETITIAN NUTRITIONIST LAUREN MANAKER AND NICHOLAS FLORKO WHO COVERS THE COMMERCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH FOR STAT NEWS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

NICK, CAN WE START WITH YOU, HOW DID THE FDA PROPOSE UPDATING THE DEFINITION OF HEALTHY?

NICHOLAS: IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROCESS THEY WOULD GO THROUGH TO REGULATE ANY INDUSTRY.

THEY PUT OUT A PROPOSAL, USUALLY QUITE DETAILED, THEY GET COMMENTS FROM INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC, WHICH THEY ARE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH.

THEN THEY DECIDE IF THEY ARE GOING TO FINALIZE THE RULE.

AN WHARTON THING TO NOTE IS THIS PROCESS WAS SET OFF BY THE GRANOLA COMPANY KIND, WHO PETITIONED THE FDA QUITE A FEW YEARS BACK NOW BECAUSE THEY GOT A WARNING LETTER FROM THE FDA, BASICALLY SAYING YOU ARE CALLING YOUR FOODS HEALTHY, WE DON'’T THINK THEY ARE.

KIND URGED THEM TO UPDATE THAT RULE.

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW.

CRAIG: IT IS FUNNY THAT IT IS KIND OF OUR, OF ALL THINGS.

-- OF KIND BAR, OF ALL THINGS ARE THE ONES I HAVE ARE COVERED IN CHOCOLATE.

THEY ARE NOT BASICALLY WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE HEALTHY.

NICHOLAS: THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT KIND IS RAISING CONCERNS WITH THE NEW DEFINITION.

THEY GOT ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANTED, WHICH WAS LOOSER RESTRICTIONS NUTS.

AND SAID YOU CAN'’T ADD SUGAR TO NUTS.

WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE CHOCOLATE COVERED ALMONDS, YOU HAVE PROBLEMS.

CRAIG: HOW IS THE TERM USED BY BRANDS?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO USE THE WORD HEALTHY IN ADVERTISING, ON THE PACKAGING?

WHERE IS THIS AN ISSUE?

NICHOLAS: IT IS USED PRIMARILY IN MARKETING.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEVEL SET, BECAUSE THE FDA IS NOT SAYING HEALTHY FOODS CAN'’T BE SOLD, OR THAT BRANDS HAVE TO WARN CONSUMERS WHEN A PRODUCT IS NOT HEALTHY.

WHICH BY THE WAY THEY DO HAVE TO DO IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

THIS ESSENTIALLY IS SAYING, IF YOU DON'’T MEET THESE RESTRICTIONS, YOU CAN'’T CALL YOUR FOOD HEALTHY ON ITS LABEL OR IN ITS ADVERTISING.

BUT I WILL SAY, THAT IS A BIG DEAL FOR COMPANIES THAT HAVE STAKED THEIR REPUTATION ON BEING HEALTHY.

THINK ABOUT HEALTHY CHOICE, FOR EXAMPLE.

HEALTHY CHOICE CAN'’T CALL ITS FOOD HEALTHY, THAT CREATES A BIG MARKETING PROBLEM FOR THEM.

CRAIG: LAUREN, THESE NEW REGULATIONS DON'’T -- THEY BANNED FOODS THAT ARE UNHEALTHY, CERTAINLY.

HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE DOES THIS MAKE IN TERMS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR?

ARE PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR FOOD-BASED ON THE USE OF A WORD LIKE HEALTHY?

LAUREN: I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON.

I THINK IT CAN FOR SOME.

AND I THINK IT CAN'’T FOR OTHERS.

I THINK WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO RECOGNIZE, WHICH IS YOU TOUCHED ON EARLIER, IS THAT IF YOU DON'’T SEE THE WORD HEALTHY, IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS UNHEALTHY.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS DIFFERENT NUTRITION NEEDS.

IT JUST DOES NOT CHECK ALL THE BOXES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT CLAIM.

WHICH IS NICE HAVING REGULATIONS AROUND A CLAIM, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER MARKETING TERMS LIKE CLEAN.

THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR THE WORD CLEAN WHEN IT COMES TO FOOD.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE HAVING A SET GUIDELINE TO REFER TO.

CRAIG: DO YOU FEEL THAT FOOD COMPANIES HAVE BEEN INACCURATELY USING THE WORD HEALTHY?

THE THINGS BEING LABELED HEALTHY THAT YOU DON'’T FEEL SHOULD BE?

LAUREN: I THINK THEY WERE COMPLYING WITH THE OLD GUIDELINES.

I THINK WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT IN THE NUTRITIONAL WORLD SINCE 1994, WHICH IS WHEN THE FIRST TERM -- FIRST DEFINITION FOR HEALTHY CAME OUT.

BEFORE WE WERE NOT EV -- EATING AVOCADOS AND WALNUTS BECAUSE THEY WERE HIGH IN FAT.

NOW WE KNOW THEY HAVE CERTAIN FATS THAT WE NEED.

NOW AVOCADOS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE CALLED HEALTHY, WHEREAS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY WERE NOT BEFORE.

WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE A FANTASTIC PART OF A HEALTHY DIET.

I DON'’T THINK THAT THEY ARE -- THAT THEY WERE WRONG.

I THINK THAT THEY WERE COMPLYING WITH WHAT THE GUIDELINES SAID THEY COULD USE AT THE TIME.

CRAIG: THESE REGULATIONS WERE PROPOSED IN SEPTEMBER, BUT NICK, YOUR REPORTING INCLUDED THE FACT THAT COMPANIES ARE PUSHING BACK NOW.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMPANY'’S OF THESE NEW REGULATIONS?

NICHOLAS: THERE IS A VOCIFEROUS PUSHBACK.

THE MOST COMMON ONE IS FRANKLY THAT FOOD MANY FRACTURES SAY THESE RULES ARE UNACHIEVABLE.

THAT ESSENTIALLY, A LOT OF THE FIELDS THEY OFFER, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE -- THEY COULD NOT BE LABELED AS HEALTHY ANYMORE.

PROBABLY THE MORE SALIENT OBJECTION TO THIS, WHICH IS WORTH NOTING, IS A NUMBER OF GROUPS ARE ALREADY RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

SORT OF VAGUELY THREATENING TO SUE.

AND SAYING THAT THIS COULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE FOOD MANUFACTURERS FIRST AMENDMENT'’S RIGHTS.

MY GUESS IS THAT IF THIS GETS FINALIZED AND THE FDA STICKS TO ITS GUNS AND SAYS WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, THIS IS GOING TO END UP IN A COURTROOM.

CRAIG: IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS WHAT THE ISSUE WAS.

THE ARGUMENT WAS THEIR ABILITY TO SAY THAT THEIR FOOD IS HEALTHY IS INFRINGED ON THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT NUTRITION GUIDELINES, IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

NICHOLAS: BASICALLY, THEY ARGUED THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE SIGN -- SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO SAY THEIR FOOD IS HEALTHY, THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT KEEP THEM FROM DISSEMINATING THAT TRUTHFUL AND NOT MISLEADING SPEECH.

IT IS REALLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FDA'’S'’S RESTRICTIONS ARE SO STRINGENT THAT IT IS PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM BEING ABLE TO SAY A FOOD IS HEALTHY, WHEN YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT IS.

CRAIG: ONE OF THE FOOD GROUPS, THE ASSOCIATIONS, THE NATIONAL PASTA ASSOCIATION, THEIR ARGUMENT WAS PASTA IS HEALTHY BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO EAT PASTA AND TO HAVE BETTER DIETS, INCLUDING MORE VEGETABLES.

TO ME, SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE CONFLATING -- IT IS CAUSATION AND CORRELATION.

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO EATS PASTA ALSO EATS VEGETABLES DOES NOT MAKE PASTA HEALTHY.

NICHOLAS: YEAH.

THERE WAS A LOT OF VERY INTERESTING ARGUMENTS BEING OFFERED FOR WHY DIFFERENT FOOD GROUPS ARE HEALTHY.

ONE OF MY OTHER FAVORITES WAS THE PICKLE LOBBY, PICKLE PACKERS INTERNATIONAL WHO SAID, THEIR PRODUCTS ARE NOT HEALTHY UNDER THE FDA'’S RULES BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO MUCH SALT -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH SALT, BUT THEY SERVE AS A DELICIOUS CONDIMENT TO OTHER NUTRIENT DENSE FOODS.

WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF INTERESTING ARGUMENTS.

HONESTLY, THE MORE TELLING THING IS THE AMOUNT OF COMPANIES IN THE U.S. THAT PEOPLE THINK OF AS HEALTHY AND MAKING HEALTHY FOODS THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED HEALTHY UNDER THIS REGULATION.

COMPANIES HAVE BEEN OPENLY ADMITTING, A LOT OF OUR FEES WOULD NOT BE HEALTHY.

THAT TELLS US A LOT ABOUT OUR EATING HABITS.

CRAIG: WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE HEALTHY IS ANOTHER QUESTION ENTIRELY.

YOU MENTIONED THE HEALTHY CHOICE BRANDED IN PARTICULAR.

THEY SAID THAT THEY CANNOT ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO CALL THEIR PRODUCT HEALTHY CHOICE BASED ON THESE NEW GUIDELINES.

LAUREN, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, I THINK THAT SAYS MORE ABOUT WHY THEY FEEL LIKE THEY CAN'’T CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS PRODUCT WITHOUT ALL OF THAT ADDED SALT AND SUGAR.

ARE CONSUMERS SO PROGRAMMED TO EXPECT SALTY FOODS THAT THEY REALLY WOULDN'’T CHOOSE THESE PRAMS -- BRANDS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT ADDED SALT?

LAUREN: THINK NOT ADDING THE SALT IS CERTAINLY GOING TO AFFECT THE FLAVOR OF THE PRODUCT.

THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS THESE COMPANIES CAN USE.

BUT THAT IS THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO INNOVATION, THEY HAVE TO INVEST THE MONEY, INVEST THE TIME, THEY HAVE TO REDO THE PACKAGING IF THEY ARE CHANGING THE INGREDIENTS.

IT IS A BIG UNDERTAKING.

SAYING YOU HAVE A FOOD CHOICE, WHERE IN THE LABEL IT SAYS HEALTHY, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING THE TIME TO READ EVERY FOOD LABEL TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH SODIUM IS IN THEIR PRODUCT.

THEY ARE ASSUMING IT IS HEALTHY.

BY TAKING AWAY THE SODIUM, IT WOULD AFFECT THE TASTE, AND PEOPLE WOULD THEN MAYBE NOT WANT TO PURCHASE IT AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD.

OR MAYBE THEY WOULD.

THERE IS A LOT OF SPECULATION GOING ON.

WE DON'’T KNOW UNTIL WE TRY AT OUT.

CRAIG: OTHER COUNTRIES ACTUALLY GO FURTHER IN LIMITING OR REGULATING WHAT CAN GO IN FOODS THAN WE DO.

IS THERE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR THAT?

LAUREN: AT THIS POINT, I DON'’T BELIEVE THERE IS.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SOME FOOD COMPANIES ARE ARGUING THAT IF THEY ARE LIMITING THE ADDED SUGAR THEY CAN PUT IN THEIR FOOD, ALL OF THAT -- ALL THAT IS GOING TO DO IS ENCOURAGE FOOD COMPANIES TO USE SUGAR ALTERNATIVES.

THEY WILL FIND A WORKAROUND TO ADD THOSE ADDITIVES AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORINGS, WHO KNOWS IF THAT IS A BETTER CHOICE.

I FEEL THAT THE FDA IS TRYING TO TACKLE ALL OF THESE HEALTH ISSUES WE HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I DON'’T THINK THEY ARE COMING FROM A BAD PLACE.

I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO STAY ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS AND HOW NUTRITION HAS CHANGED.

.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO KEEP AMERICANS HEALTHY.

CRAIG: THE CONSUMER BRANDS ASSOCIATION SAID 95% OF FOODS ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS HEALTHY UNDER THESE NEW REGULATIONS.

TO ME, MAYBE IT SUGGESTS SOMETHING MORE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE FOOD BEING SOLD TO US THAN IT DOES ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD HEALTHY.

LAUREN, CAN YOU SPEAK AT ALL ABOUT THAT?

ABOUT WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT WHAT WE ARE EATING IS A SIZE CITING -- AS A SOCIETY AND WHAT IS THAT DOING FOR OUR HEALTH?

LAUREN: I WOULD IMAGINE THESE FOODS ARE ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS AND THEY DON'’T HAVE THE BALANCE OF THE MACRO MICRONUTRIENTS, THAT PRODUCE AND DAIRY AND A LOT OF THESE OTHER FOODS HAVE TO OFFER.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM.

THEIR JOB IS TO SELL PRODUCT AND THEY DON'’T WANT ANYTHING TO GET IN THE WAY OF GIVING THE MESSAGE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR.

BUT I THINK WE ARE GETTING LOST IN THE WEEDS HERE.

BECAUSE THERE ARE FOODS THAT CAN BE LABELED AS HEALTHY, ACCORDING TO THE FDA DEFINITION.

THERE ARE OTHER FOODS LIKE A KIND BAR WHICH MAYBE WE CANNOT CALL HEALTHY, BUT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF NUTRIENTS IN THEM.

YES, THEY HAVE ADDED SUGAR.

IF YOU ARE EATING THAT AS PART OF AN OVERALL BALANCED HEALTHY DIET, BUT ULTIMATELY IS LOWER IN SUGAR, YOU CAN STILL HAVE IT.

YES, A LOT OF THE FOODS ON OUR SHELVES MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITION OF HEALTHY, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN'’T STILL EAT THEM.

WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE EATING.

WE DON'’T EAT IN A VACUUM.

WE ARE NOT JUST EATING THE KIND BARS AND THAT'’S IT.

CRAIG: YOUR ADVICE WOULD BE HAVE YOUR KIND BAR MAYBE, BUT MAKE SURE YOU ARE ALSO GETTING LOTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES?

LAUREN: THAT'’S EXACTLY IT.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE DIETARY PATTERNS AND NOT GET STUCK ON LOOKING AT THE INDIVIDUAL FOODS.

SAYING SOMETHING IS HEALTHY, TO ME, IT IS STILL A SUBJECTIVE WORD, AND WE ARE GOING OFF OF WHAT THE FDA IS DEEMING THE DEFINITION TO BE.

WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR ME MAY NOT BE HEALTHY FOR SOMEONE WHO IS MANAGING DIABETES, AND THEY DON'’T HAVE FUNCTIONING KIDNEYS.

I DON'’T THINK WE SHOULD REALLY GET STUCK ON THE DEFINITION.

I THINK IT MAY BE MORE OF A CONCERN FOR FOOD BRANDS THAT CANNOT CONTINUE TO GIVE MESSAGES THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO SAY.

CRAIG: LAUREN MANAKER AND NICHOLAS FLORKO, TAKE YOU FOR JOINING US.

THAT'’S IT FOR TONIGHT, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

GOOD NIGHT.