More and more information is available all the time about the various health benefits of a plant-based diet. Among the many resources are national and local organizations, books by medical doctors and nutritionists, a plethora of cookbooks and several specialty magazines. But where does our most influential institution-the federal government-stand when it comes to nutrition policy? Pretty much where it did 30 years ago, when interest in the causes of chronic diseases and their prevention was on the rise. Despite all that was known then, and has been learned since, about the deleterious health effects of a meat-centered diet, government nutrition policies have remained largely unchanged. While some small gains have been made-such as the transition from the "Basic Four" food groups to the Food Guide Pyramid-progress has been painfully slow.

Although the reasons for government's inability to keep in step with known scientific evidence are varied and complex, one federal agency that clearly deserves much of the responsibility is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Originally created to support and promote farmers' interests, the USDA has also taken on the role of advocating consumer interests, through food assistance programs and by setting nutrition standards. This dual mandate creates an inherent conflict of interest that explains why the meat and dairy industries continue to wield tremendous influence over government policies, and why Americans are not told the whole truth about their food choices.

It's no secret that our taxpayer dollars are hard at work promoting the meat and dairy industries. In May, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman proudly announced that his agency had purchased 8 million pounds of beef and pork commodities at a cost of approximately $9 million. These purchases are part of the USDA's $30 million pork and $30 million beef bonus annual buyouts. At the same time, the USDA announced plans to purchase up to $8 million of lamb products to offset that industry's surplus. "These bonus buys support the livestock industries by bolstering producer prices," said Glickman in the announcement. The beef, pork and lamb are to be distributed to the National School Lunch Program and other food assistance programs to increase their stocks of "high-quality protein" items.

Dairy farmers also benefit from the USDA's generous bailouts. Typically, the USDA purchases 73 million pounds of cheese annually to help boost sagging dairy prices. With dairy prices falling about 30 percent in 1996, a number of U.S. senators and representatives asked Glickman to help the dairy industry by purchasing large amounts of cheese for use in the 1997 "school feeding programs."

The fishing industry is an equal beneficiary of the USDA largesse. As recently as August 27, 1998, the agency announced a $10 million purchase of salmon products from the 1998 harvest to help reduce excess supplies and support the Alaskan salmon industry. And the USDA has special plans for getting salmon into school lunches. According to a report in 1994, kids rejected the odd salmon products fed to them in school cafeterias. Lunchroom workers noted that the fishy smell in the air during cooking drove away customers. Nevertheless, the USDA is still determined to continue dumping salmon on schools. In this recent buyout, $1 million worth of salmon nuggets will be distributed to the National School Lunch Program based upon testing done last year that yielded favorable responses from students and food service personnel. Apparently, the USDA's solution to get kids to eat unpopular products is to "nuggetize" them, the theory being that a kid will eat anything if you hide it in enough greasy batter.

It is quite disturbing that the government can justify supporting these industries that engage in poor management and unsustainable business practices by dumping their unhealthy food products on those individuals-children and the poor-who are least able to choose what they will eat.

The USDA's reach into the nutritional needs of Americans is far and wide. The agency is responsible for 15 distinct food assistance programs, serving 1 in 6 Americans, including The National School Lunch Program, the Nutrition Program for the Elderly, the Homeless Children Nutrition Program and the Special Milk Program. Unfortunately, the USDA's dual role to promote consumer interests and to also promote agribusiness results in many of these programs becoming pawns of the meat and dairy industries.

The origins of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) date back to 1946, when Congress' goal was not only to promote good nutrition, but also to support farmers by providing more markets for the excess food they produced. This dual purpose explains much about why the NSLP has failed miserably to provide school children with nutritious lunches. The government supports the NSLP through purchases of commodity food items, which schools depend upon heavily, typically comprising 20 percent of the foods they serve. And many of these foods are the unhealthy meats and cheeses gained from the USDA's industry bailout system. But why doesn't the government simply support industries that could provide schools with healthier alternatives?

Jennifer Raymond, M.S., a nutritionist, author and chef who has been trying for several years to get soy protein approved by the USDA for school lunches, tells an interesting tale of politics and greed. In the summer of 1996, prior to the fall elections, the USDA was just about to adopt a new regulation that would have made schools' use of soy protein 100 percent reimbursable. The regulation was inexplicably shelved. Then, last May, Raymond met with USDA officials, along with a small group representing the soy industry, in an attempt to persuade the agency to release the previously- stalled soy protein reimbursement regulation. Raymond described the scene: "After we had all made our pitches, one of the USDA aides asked, 'Have you met with the cattlemen? You know you need to do your homework and meet with them, because unless they approve this, we can't.' I was blown away! I mean, we all know who's really in charge, but to have him come right out and say it was mind-boggling! Most people have no idea about the money and politics behind the food that's served in the school cafeterias around the country." That a USDA official would openly admit to the unfettered power of the meat industry over a major food assistance program is disturbing evidence indeed of the politics of food in this country.

Over the past 30 years, Congress has enacted legislation explicitly authorizing the USDA to administer national generic promotion programs for 20 separate farm commodities, including meat and dairy products, as well as fruits and vegetables. Commonly known as "check-off" programs, all major producers are required to pay an assessment tied to each unit they market. The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service does incur some administrative costs, but these are reimbursed by industry. While a variety of commodity products participate, the larger and richer meat and dairy industries clearly benefit the most.

The ubiquitous dairy industry "milk mustache" campaign began in 1996 with a budget of $110 million, increasing to $190 million in 1998. The marketing mission in the first year was to attack four misconceptions about milk: that it's fat-laden and unhealthy; that it's only for kids; and that it's good only as an accompaniment for high-fat foods like cookies. The force behind this campaign is the USDA-administered National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, which was created to strengthen the dairy industry's market position. According to a 1996 USDA report, the program is quite successful. Generic advertising, of which the milk mustache campaign is an example, raised fluid milk sales an estimated 1 billion pounds, or 4.4 percent, in one year alone. And it's no coincidence that the USDA's major food assistance programs, such as school lunches, require that milk be served.

More recently, government promotion of this commercial product has become even more obvious, with the milk mustache campaign expanding beyond celebrities to government officials-right up to the president himself. Can you imagine Secretary of Human Health and Services (HHS) Donna Shalala doing ads for Coke or McDonalds? And yet log onto the web site www.whymilk.com, and hers is the first "mustache" you see. Plus, her ads are running in major magazines such as Health, with a circulation of over 1 million. While some consumer groups have questioned this blatant government promotion, a HHS spokesperson defended the ad, saying no money was accepted and no ethics rules were breached. What a coup for a huge industry to get the president and the highest-ranking government health official to endorse its product - and for free.

Yet another way the USDA supports the meat and dairy industries is through cash grants. On June 16, 1998, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman announced $500,000 in awards to seven states to develop a wide range of projects for improving the marketing and distribution of agricultural products. While much of the money did go to plant-based projects, two grants did not:

1) $68,161 to the Texas Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with Texas A&M University, to assess opportunities for cooperation among small Texas meat processing plants in the expansion of the processed meat market; and

2) $70,300 to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin, to identify marketing opportunities for "healthier" red meats, including farm-raised deer, elk, bison and ratite (emu and ostrich) in the natural, health and gourmet food marketplace. These grants represent a disturbing tax dollar trend toward government-industry partnerships which promote questionable practices.

Having the same government agency charged with educating Americans about healthy eating also promoting industry interests is an obvious conflict of interest and explains in large part why the American public is not being told the entire truth about the nutritional value of its food choices. Big business has much at stake when it comes to maintaining the status quo. Until the USDA is reorganized to split these two competing interests, the American public will continue to be fed misinformation and unhealthy foods, resulting in ongoing high rates of chronic disease and related suffering. On the other hand, if consumers rise up and demand that government be made accountable to the people it is supposed to be serving, perhaps then we can begin the necessary changes towards improving nutrition policy in this country.

Michele Simon is a lawyer and writer specializing in food and nutrition policy in Oakland, CA. She can be reached by e-mail at: msimon@igc.org.