Archives

Here is another collection of Food Navigator articles on special topics from a food-industry perspective.

Special Edition: Sugar reduction and sweeteners

Food and beverage manufacturers have a far wider range of sweetening options than ever before, from coconut sugar to allulose, monk fruit and new stevia blends. This special edition looks at the latest market developments, the changing political landscape, formulation challenges and consumer research.

• FlavorHealth seeks to commercialize novel natural high intensity sweetener with a more sugar-like taste than stevia: New Jersey-based FlavorHealth – best known for using high-throughput cell-based screening to identify natural compounds that enhance sweetness and saltiness and reduce bitterness – is aiming to commercialize a novel natural high-intensity sweetener with a flavor profile it claims is much closer to sugar than stevia… Read

• Cargill launches EverSweet fermented steviol glycosides: EverSweet – the hotly-anticipated ‘next-generation’ Reb D and Reb M sweetener from Cargill and Evolva produced via fermentation – is now available in commercial quantities, say the partners, who have also struck a deal to explore whether other high intensity sweeteners could be produced in the same way… Read
• Icon Foods CEO: ‘Out of all of the projects that are in the R&D queue right now, allulose is dominating’: Allulose is the sweetener generating the most buzz among food formulators right now, although many are waiting to see if the FDA exempts it from sugar labeling (it’s technically a sugar, but it’s not metabolized like one), before launching products featuring the ingredient, says Icon Foods CEO Thom King… Read
• Stevia outshines aspartame as high intensity sweetener of choice in global new product launches in 2017: Mintel data* shared by stevia supplier PureCircle shows the number of global new product launches containing stevia grew by 10% in 2017, with stevia utilized in 28% of new products containing high intensity sweeteners, slightly ahead of aspartame – which featured in 25% of launches… Read
• Does diet soda promote weight gain? Debate rages in the courts as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, challenge ‘outlandish’ lawsuits: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have urged courts to toss claims in a series of lawsuits* alleging consumers are being led to believe that diet sodas “will assist in weight loss or management,” when in fact the opposite may be true… Read
• Kill Cliff exec shares challenges in marketing specialty carbohydrates in age of sugar reduction: Atlanta-based Kill Cliff, a sports beverage brand focusing on clean label formulations, launched a new line of sports drinks called Endure, which features a slow-burning specialty carbohydrate, at the Natural Products Expo West show. However, the carbohydrate may be a double-edged sword….. Read
• ‘Entirely new’ approach to sensory testing is a gamechanger for taste evaluation, claims Opertech Bio. Opertech Bio has developed a novel approach to sensory testing utilising games and rewards, which it claims enables human testers to analyze hundreds of samples in a fraction of the time – and with a greater degree of accuracy – than is possible using traditional taste panel testing… Read
• Ongoing ‘war on sugar’ is not cause for ‘panic just yet,’ stakeholders say: Despite the escalating ‘war on sugar,’ including so-called sin taxes and manufacturers’ efforts to cut-back on the ingredient in some products, industry stakeholders remain confident sugar can hold its own against competing sweeteners and reduction efforts in the coming years… Read
• Mediterranean Umami may help savory applications reduce sugar and sodium: Salt of the Earth’s Mediterranean Umami may allow simultaneous sodium and sugar reduction in clean label foods like savory sauces… Read
• Yooga has ‘drastically less sugar’ than other plant-based yogurts, claims CEO: Multiple exhibitors at the Natural Products Expo West show were showcasing plant-based yogurts this year, but each with a slightly different slant, says Jody Polishchuk, who claims his product – Yooga – delivers on taste and nutrition, without as much sugar… Watch now
• New products from KIND Snacks offer reduced sugar for healthier alternatives to competing options: For KIND Snacks, rising consumer concern about sugar and upcoming changes to the Nutrition Facts panel that will more boldly highlight the nutrient represent an opportunity – rather than a threat – to set itself apart from the competition with new products that have reduced sugar but not reduced taste… Watch now
• Sugar taxes: The global picture in 2017: Sugar taxes have continued to gain momentum in 2017, but the introduction of new legislation is rarely straight-forward. We take a look at countries around the globe where sugar taxes have been making headlines this year… Read
• Pyure Brands: Amazon can be an ‘insanely disruptive’ platform for challenger brands: Amazon can be an “insanely disruptive” platform for challenger brands willing to put in the time and effort to understand how to maximize their prospects on the site, says Pyure Brands, which is giving far larger rivals a run for their money in the stevia-based sweeteners market… Read
• HEYLO! There’s a new sugar replacer in town… and this one’s a game-changer, says ex-PepsiCo exec: The term ‘game-changer’ is bandied around with wearying regularity by food start-ups, but HEYLO – a patented combination of acacia fiber and stevia promising to blow rivals out of the water in the sugar replacement stakes – may actually warrant this moniker, argues the firm behind the new clean label ingredient… Read
• Where next for natural sweeteners? In conversation with Layn USA: Monk fruit is still more expensive than stevia, but significant progress is being made on tackling the pricing and regulatory issues that have historically held the market back, says Layn Corp, a leading supplier of monk fruit and stevia based natural sweeteners… Read

The 2018 Farm Bill is due in six months but it impossible to follow without a scorecard.  Fortunately, we have help.

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

• Legislative proposals
• Agenda for the 2018 Farm Bill

Harvard’s Law School Food Law & Policy Clinic in collaboration with a group of other law-school programs has produced a series of reports on its Farm Bill website.

• Diversified Agriculture Economies
• Food Access, Nutrition, and Public Health
• Productivity and Risk Management

These are grounded in history and organized by issue and goal.  They are a great place to start to understand the issues.

One of the ways I keep up with current issues is through daily newsletters focused on the food industry.  This example comes from GlobalMeatNews.com.

Global Meat News: Focus on Brazil

One of the major players of the global meat industry comes under the spotlight. Brazil is always near the top of the list when it comes to production and exports, and it’s a nation that other countries pay close attention to. This special focus on Brazil looks at some of the top news stories to come out of the country’s meat sector over the past few weeks.

• ABPA calls for swift solution to BRF exports embargo: The Brazilian Association of Animal Protein (ABPA) has expressed confidence that “immediate and effective solutions” will be put in place by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply in order to resume BRF exports to the EU following recent revelations… Read
• Brazil: Focus on sustainability: Brazil has hit the headlines once again for the wrong reasons but while one processor is under investigation, the entire meat industry is working to make the sector sustainable for the future… Read
• European Commission steps up action against Brazilian meat fraud: The European Commission wants to delist all companies involved in the latest cases of fraud in Brazil’s meat sector from having access to European Union (EU) markets, the EU executive’s spokesperson for health and food safety Anca Paduraru has told GlobalMeatNews… Read
• Brazilian meat industry under further investigation: Brazilian authorities have re-ignited their investigation into the meat industry, with a probe into processor BRF SA as well as laboratories accused of covering up salmonella in chicken… Read
• Meat equipment manufacturers join Anutec Brazil: Anutec Brazil takes place this summer and some of the major players in the global meat industry are already involved… Read
• Brazil hits back at ‘health risk’ chicken claim: The Brazilian Association of Animal Protein (ABPA) is “appalled” by allegedly defamatory remarks made by South Africa’s Fairplay Movement on the quality of Brazil’s chicken… Read
• Trade deals pivotal for 2018 beef production: A series of trade deals set to be completed in 2018 are expected to be key turning points for beef production this year… Read
• Banking heavyweight Gabriel Sanint Jaramillo joins Minerva’s board: South American finance executive Gabriel Sanint Jaramillo has joined Brazilian meatpacker Minerva Foods’ board of directors… Read
• Brazil overturns short-lived cattle export ban: The Brazilian government has overturned a two-day injunction on live cattle exports, imposed after animal activists claimed cows shipped thousands of miles abroad faced cruel treatment upon arrival… Read

Outbreaks of foodborne illness occur frequently but some of them grab my attention more than others.

Take, for example, the Listeria outbreak still going on in South Africa, reasonably well understood, and now under litigation.

I’ve been tracking it by reading Food Safety News, following food-safety lawyer Bill Marler’s blog, and now keeping up with the class action suit filed in that country.

As of late March, the outbreak, which started in January 2017, has caused at least 982 cases of illness—and that’s just how many have been reported.

Of these, the final outcome is known for 70% (687 cases).  Among these, the death rate is distressingly typical for Listeria infections—28% (189 deaths).

The South African version of the CDC has produced an epi curve:

Note that products were not recalled until most cases were identified.  This outbreak was hard to solve.

Marler tweeted an Infographic on how the Listeria spread.

The good news: new cases are declining.

But in January this year, long before these figures were reached or the cause identified, the World Health Organization called this the largest Listeria outbreak ever recorded.

Its cause?  “Polony,” a ready-to-eat meat product produced by a company called Tiger’s Enterprise Food.  This company holds about one-third of South Africa’s $412 billion processed meat market.

A large number of meat products have tested positive for Listeria and have been recalled.  Tiger brands says cost of the recalls will be high.

More bad news:

Tiger Brands knew for at least a year that its polony had been contaminated with Listeria, but apparently even when warned in March that

listeria was rampant at its Polokwane factory, the Tiger Brands operation continued to churn out tons of potentially dangerous products, choosing to do only a  “silent recall” of one brand, Mielie Kip,  on February 14. The factory was shut down only last weekend, after the listeria strain was confirmed as being the deadly ST6.

South Africa had developed food-safety standards for the processed meat industry in 2014, but the industry blocked them.

Bill Marler has now teamed up with  Richard Spoor Incorporated Attorneys to file a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands.

A forensic investigator plans to bring murder charges against the company.

One other interesting aspect is the suspected ingredient in polony:

Remember “pink slime?”  Meet “white slime,” a slurry of chicken part leftovers (bone marrow, bone fragments, cartilege, and even meat) thought to be the cause of the outbreak and imported from Brazil, no less.

Brazil, however, pleads innocent and says its products are not to blame.

Marler has offered some free advice to the CEO of Tiger brands, but it may be too late.

Stay tuned.

Last week, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb spoke at the National Food Policy Conference in Washington, DC where he announced FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy.

His speech, Reducing the Burden of Chronic Disease, specifies five areas that FDA intends to consider (meaning, at best, proposing suggestions for public comment and going through FDA’s interminable rulemaking process):

• Modernizing health claims
• Modernizing ingredient labels
• Modernizing standards of identity
• Implementing the Nutrition Facts Label and Menu Labeling
• Reducing sodium

The documents:

• Commissioner Speech: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm603057.htm
• FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy: https://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ucm602651.htm

My immediate reactions: sounds good, but short on commitment.

I was impressed that Gottlieb focused on public health and prevention:

We can’t lose site of the public health basics – better diet, more exercise, and smoking prevention and cessation…The public health gains of such efforts would almost certainly dwarf any single medical innovation or intervention we could discover.

Yes!

I was particularly interested in two initiatives under consideration:

Front-of-package icon for “healthy”

This is to be based on a food-based definition that focuses on the healthful attributes of a food product—not, apparently, on its content of sugar, salt, or saturated fat.  Only healthful attributes?

This sounds like a highly pro-industry position, since research on front-of-package labeling is pretty clear that warning labels about unhealthful attributes (salt, sugar, saturated fat) are most effective in discouraging purchases of “ultraprocessed” foods.  The warning labels used in Chile, for example, are proving to be highly effective.

Gottlieb did not mention the the FDA-sponsored reports on front-of-package labeling performed by the Institute of Medicine early on in the Obama administration.  Those were serious attempts to develop an effective front-of-package labeling system that identified nutrients to be avoided.  The FDA seems to have forgotten about those reports.

Reduce sodium

This is the item that got the most attention.  Gottlieb said: “There remains no single more effective public health action related to nutrition than the reduction of sodium in the diet.”

OK, but if that’s true, how about ensuring that food companies gradually reduce sodium in their products, as was done in the UK.  No such luck.  Instead: “I’m committed to advancing the short‐term voluntary sodium targets” (my emphasis).

I suppose “voluntary” could work, but if sodium reduction isn’t across the board, companies will have little incentive to risk changing their formulas.

In short, Gottlieb’s words reflect modern public health thinking the good news) and it’s great that FDA is considering taking these actions (also good news).  Now, let’s see what the agency actually does.

USDA has just published its latest overview of US food assistance.

Here’s what this is about:

These percentages apply to total USDA spending on 15 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs: $98.6 billion in FY 2017.

The bottom line: expenditures are down and have been declining for the past 4 years.  $98.6 billion is 4% less than in 2016 and nearly 10% less than the all-time high of $109.2 billion set in FY 2013.

How come?

Note: The prevalence of food insecurity has not changed.

Although USDA attributes the drop to improvements in the economy, the prevalence of food insecurity has not changed.

Therefore, we have to ask: Could tougher eligibility requirements and application procedures have anything to do with this?

USDA has just issued a revision to its food dollar series—its graphic explanation of how the U.S. food dollar gets spent.

This tells us that 15.8 cents out of every food dollar goes to the producer; the rest goes for marketing.

Oddly, the USDA does not provide an updated illustration of the marketing components from its previous version in 2006:

What this tells us is that 80% of the cost of food is accounted for by marketing.

Don’t farmers deserve more?

Last week, New York Times reporter Roni Rabin wrote how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) solicited funding from alcohol companies to fund—and, distressingly, participate in the design of—a study of the effects of moderate drinking on heart disease risk.

This is not the first time Ms. Rabin has written about this study.  In July, she described the study and its funding.

Since then, she has apparently been busy filing FOIA requests and conducting further interviews.  These reveal that the NIH actively solicited industry funding and input into this trial.

The [NIH] presentations gave the alcohol industry an opportunity to preview the trial design and vet the investigators. Indeed, the scientist leading the meetings was eventually chosen to head the huge clinical trial.

They also made the industry privy to pertinent details, including a list of clinical sites and investigators who were “already on board,” the size and length of the trial, approximate number of participants, and the fact that they could choose any beverage. By design, no form of alcohol — wine, liquor or beer — would be called out as better than another in the trial.

But it gets worse.  Boston University professor Michael Siegel tells his personal story of dealings with NIH’s National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

On January 16, 2015, I was called into the office of the Director of NIAAA and was essentially reprimanded for conducting NIAAA-funded research that was detrimental to the alcohol industry…At the meeting, I was told that I would never again be funded to conduct research on alcohol marketing, regardless of how highly my research proposal was scored by the scientific review panel.

Let me be clear: research ethics require funders to have no involvement in research design, conduct, or interpretation, lest they exert undue influence on the results.

Julia Belluz (Vox) put this study in context.  She describes how

The NIH is now investigating whether the researchers violated federal policy by soliciting donations, and they’re appointing outside experts to review the design of the study. We don’t yet know the full story, and there’s surely more to uncover.

Anheuser Busch InBev, Heineken, Diageo, Pernod Ricard, and Carlsberg helped pay $67.7 million of the $100 million government study, which is currently underway. And even more troubling is that if you were a patient looking to enroll in the trial through the online clinical trials registry, you’d have no way of knowing about the industry’s involvement because that funding is not disclosed there.

Although I do not have much to say about the alcohol industry in my forthcoming book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, I mention of this study as an example of how other industries skew research and also how pooling industry research funds is insufficient protection against conflicted interests (alcohol companies agreed to contribute 67.7% of the funding).

It’s good that the NIH has decided to investigate this dubious government-industry partnership, which so clearly seems aimed at marketing, not public health.