Archives

The Study:  Prunes May Blunt Adverse Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Bone Health in Young Adult Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.  DeMasi, Taylor et al.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 9, 104417.

The rationale: Oral contraceptives (OCs) may promote bone loss.  Prunes may prevent that.

Objective: Will consuming 50 g of prunes daily prevent bone loss or increase bone accrual in OC users.

Methods: Ninety women were randomly assigned to a control group not using OCs (non-OC), an OC group not consuming prunes (OC), and an OC group consuming 50 g prunes daily (OC+P) for 12 mo.

Results:  Bone mineral density (BMD) did not change among groups, but ultradistal radius BMD increased over time within non-OC and OC+P groups. Trabecular density of the distal tibia decreased within the OC group.

Conclusions: OC use promoted minor negative effects on bone.  Consuming prunes “tended to provide a potential protective effect on trabecular density of the distal tibia and ultradistal radius in young women.”

Conflict of interest: “The authors report no conflict of interest.”

Funding: “This study was funded by the California Prune Board. The California Prune Board had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

Comment: I’ve put the wiggle words in red.  Why, you might well ask, would anyone expect two ounces of prunes a day to have anything to do with bone loss?  The authors do not say.  They merely observe an association of prunes with bone health in animals, and say they had seen minor prevention of bone loss in postmenopausal women in previous research.  I’m all for eating prunes if you like them, but bone health seems like a stretch.  So does the statement that the Prune Board had no role in the study.  It funded the study.  It is not going to fund studies that might not produce favorable results.  Industry funding exerts influence from the get go, whether or not recognized by authors as a conflict of interest.

The United Nations has issued a digital Food Systems Thinking Guide for UN Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams with tools and information for working collectively towards food system transformation.

It is intended as a working draft.  It provides an easy mechanism for immediate feedback.

You have to do a lot of scrolling.  When you do, you will get to key questions:

• What is a food systems approach and why does it matter?
• What is the state of food systems in my country?
• Who are the actors influencing the foods system?
• What are barriers and entry points to food system transformation?
• How can I integrate foods systems approach into programming?
• How can I communicate and advocate for foods systems transformation?

I took a look at the actors.  This section provides resources for engaging with stakeholders.

I also looked at barriers.  It lists things to consider and provides resources.

And I looked at communication strategies.  This one is much more complete and has useful videos and key messages along with the resources.

I see this as an advocacy toolkit focused on food system transformation.  Happy to have it.  Try it and give the UN some feedback on it to make it even better and more complete.

I was interested to see this item in Politico: Diet drug boom weighs heavily on state budgets.

Soaring costs of weight-loss drugs are leading some states to scrap the benefit for state employees…After Colorado’s spending on the highly effective but costly drugs classified as GLP-1s, which include Ozempic and Wegovy, more than quadrupled from 2023 to 2024 — with usage doubling every six months — the state health plan is proposing ending coverage, arguing it’s financially unsustainable….Michigan, which covers about 49,000 state employees, spent $5.2 million on weight-loss drugs in 2022. That number skyrocketed to $17.5 million in 2023 and $36 million in 2024.

Politico points out that “the number of Americans taking the drugs for weight loss rose more than 700 percent between 2019 and 2023.”

If the Republicans succeed in slashing Medicaid, those costs will also go to states.

Lilly is offering cost savings for some Zepbound users, but the drugs will still run around $500 a month—$6000 per year.

Making America Healthy Again means having a health care system—including drugs—that is accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Time to speak up everyone.

Phone numbers for leaving comments:

• The White House: 202-456-1111
• U.S. House of Representatives:  202-225-3121  Website: http://www.house.gov
• U.S. Senate: Telephone: 202-224-3121

USDA and HHS have announced an update on the dietary guidelines process.

A quick recap: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee released its report last year.  The agencies are responsible for writing the actual guidelines, based on that report or not.

The USDA Secretary, Brooke Rollins, writes:

Secretary [of HHS] Kennedy and I have a powerful, complementary role in this, and it starts with updating federal dietary guidance. We will make certain the 2025-2030 Guidelines are based on sound science, not political science. Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.”

Leftist ideologies?  She has to be kidding.  Since when did leftist ideologies influence the dietary guidelines?

Oh.  Wait.  Silly me.  I get it.  She means meat. 

Plant-based = leftist ideology.

You don’t believe me?  See Nina Teicholz’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal:  Meat will make America Healthy Again.

Ms. Rollins and Mr. Kennedy should reject suggestions from an expert committee that the 2025-30 federal guidelines place an even greater emphasis on plant-based proteins and that they recommend “reducing intakes of red and processed meats.” As the Agriculture Department found in 2010, there is either “no relationship” or a “limited inconsistent” relationship between any protein type and chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Protein, sure.  But meat?  Consistent evidence for years indicates that people in industrialized countries would be healthier eating less meat and more plants.  Less does not necessarily mean none; it means less than currently consumed and a lot less in some cases.

If USDA and HHS are serious about Making Americans Healthier Again, they will revise the Dietary Guidelines according to the science.  In my view, that means advising eating less of ultra-processed foods, as well as meat.

The White House posted this video last week.

I can’t figure out how to make it play on this site, but you can watch it at this link.

It’s worth watching:

• It comes straight from the White House.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, does not recognize or know how to pronounce the vitamin riboflavin.
• USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins appears in this as a self-identified MAHA mom.
• It makes the point that food labels are hard to read.
• It issues a direct threat to the food industry to get artificial colors out of their products.
• It’s fun.

It also says a lot about MAHA priorities.  I’m all for getting artificial colors out of the food supply, but I view other food issues as far more important.

I want to see RFK Jr videos about what FDA is planning to do to really Make America Healthy Again.  What, for example, is the agency planning to do about:

• Food safety
• Ultra-processed foods
• Food marketing to kids
• Toxic chemicals in the food supply
• Mercury in fish
• School food

These are all issues he has raised, many of them requiring collaboration with USDA, EPA, FTC, and other agencies.

Tomorrow: Dietary Guidelines.

Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America forwarded this email announcement sent to members of the American Society for Nutrition (I am a member, but somehow missed this).  It’s an example of how industry-funded research gets started.

This is a sponsored message from the American Pistachio Growers, an ASN [American Society for Nutrition] Sustaining Partner.

But you can see how this works.  The Pistachio trade association is looking for research to show how eating pistachios enhances sleep, improves performance, and supports weight management (like taking GLP-1 drugs).

If research proposals do not support these objectives, they won’t be funded.

I realize I’m posting this too late for you to apply and test this statement.  Sorry about that.  Next time!

I’ve written previously about the list of words that automatically disqualify applicants for federal grants, but the New York Times has now published a more complete list of about 200 forbidden terms, along with examples of editing of federal websites.

These are perceived as “woke,” which the Trump administration especially opposes.

But many of these terms describe reality.

As a long time public health advocate, I take this quite personally.

Now, you can’t research or write about anything having to do with underrepresented minorities or inequality, but you also can’t do anything related to terms like these.

• activists
• advocates
• at risk
• barrier
• climate science
• confirmation bias
• female
• health disparity
• institutional
• mental health
• political
• privilege
• sociocultural
• systemic
• undervalued
• women

This is right out of George Orwell’s 1984.  It would be funny, if it weren’t having an effect.  I know of at least one instance of a federal scientist had to remove his name from a paper because it dealt with inequity—a topic very much on this list.

This kind of group-think deserves ridicule and firm pushback.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I intend to keep writing about these issues and flaunt the scarlet A—for Activist and Advocate. (along with a W for woman).

Several groups under the auspices of Healthy Eating Research got together to produce this guide for kids ages 5-18.

To summarize:

• • Drink: water or milk
  • Limit: 100% juice (too much sugar), plant-based milk alternatives (except for medical reasons), flavored milk (too much sugar)
  • Avoid: beverages with caffeine and other stimulants, sugar-sweetened beverages, beverages with non-sugar sweeteners

Resources

• Press Release
• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Technical Report
• Summary
• Tips for Families
• Provider Toolkit

Translated Materials

• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Recommendations Graphic  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Added Sugars  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Caffeine Facts  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]