Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

A reader from Phoenix, AZ, Maria Zafonte, sends this from a local Safeway:

From her standpoint—and mine—this is a great way to encourage overeating.

As she explained, if she bought just one bag of chips, each would cost $5.99.

But if she bought four, the unit cost was only $1.97 each.

As she put it:

The problem is what am I going to do with four bags of Doritos?? The healthier choice is financially penalized. It is very frustrating!

Indeed, it is.

One of the hallmarks of ultra-processed food products is their enormous profitability.  You can bet that Safeway is not losing money on 4 bags at $1.97 each.

Even if this is a loss leader (a gimmick to get you into the store), it’s an incentive to overeat.

Caveat emptor.

I see stores selling Kratom all over my downtown Manhattan neighborhood and am curious about it (no, I have not tried it, nor do I intend to).

I took a look at the websitesof the American Kratom Association (AKA) and the FDA’s Kratom page.

The AKA describes itself as “a consumer-based, nonprofit organization, focuses on setting the record straight about kratom and gives a voice to those who are suffering by protecting their rights to possess and consume safe and natural kratom.” It says:

Natural kratom comes from the mitragyna speciosa, a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family native to Southeast Asia…Naturally occurring Kratom is a safe herbal supplement that behaves as a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist and is used for pain management, energy, even depression and anxiety that are common among Americans. Kratom contains no opiates, but it does bind to the same receptor sites in the brain. Chocolate, coffee, exercise and even human breast milk hit these receptor sites in a similar fashion.

Thus, according to the AKA, Kratom is something like chocolate or breast milk.

The FDA, in fact, defines Kratom in much the same way:

Kratom is a tropical tree (Mitragyna speciosa) that is native to Southeast Asia…Kratom is often used to self-treat conditions such as pain, coughing, diarrhea, anxiety and depression, opioid use disorder, and opioid withdrawal. An estimated 1.7 million Americans aged 12 and older used kratom in 2021, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

So far so good.

But the AKA is calling on the FDA to regulate Kratom.  This may sound highly responsible, but the AKA is doing this because the FDA refuses to have anything to do with this product and warns against its use.

The FDA says:

• Kratom is not an approved drug: “There are no drug products containing kratom or its two main chemical components that are legally on the market in the U.S.
• Kratom is not an approved dietary supplement: “FDA has concluded from available information, including scientific data, that kratom is a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.’
• Kratom is not an approved food additive: “FDA has determined that kratom, when added to food, is an unsafe food additive.”
• Therefore, kratom is not lawfully marketed in the U.S. as a drug product, a dietary supplement, or a food additive in conventional food.

The FDA’s Q and A:

• What can happen if a person uses kratom?  FDA has warned consumers not to use kratom because of the risk of serious adverse events, including liver toxicity, seizures, and substance use disorder (SUD). In rare cases, deaths have been associated with kratom use…However, in these cases, kratom was usually used in combination with other drugs, and the contribution of kratom in the deaths is unclear.
• How is FDA protecting the public from the risks of kratom?   FDA has also taken steps to limit the availability of unlawful kratom products in the U.S. We will continue to work with our federal partners to warn the public about risks associated with use of kratom.

The AKA says its mission is to

• Support Consumers. The FDA does everything it can do to interfere with the right of consumers to make informed choices about products they use for their health and well being, and their war on kratom includes distributing disinformation on kratom that materially misleads consumers and policy makers. Our goal is to change that.
• Educate. Kratom is a natural plant that helps consumers improve their health and well being for centuries. Our goal is to educate all Americans with the truth about kratom — from potential consumers to regulators and everyone in between.
• Speaking the Truth on Kratom. We represent millions of Americans that each have a story to tell. The FDA wants to drown out the individual voices, but we will raise those voices and together we will be heard across America.
• Global Awareness. Anti-kratom detractors are trying to expand kratom bans across the world. We hope to demonstrate responsible use and the health benefits of kratom will convince other countries to responsibly regulate kratom, not ban it.
• Protect Natural Resources. Kratom is a precious natural resource that is an important part of our global ecosystem. We support and advocate for sustainable harvesting techniques and reforestation protecting existing kratom forests to protect the climate and the invaluable carbon exchange kratom trees contribute to the environment.

Oh dear.  While this disagreement continues, Kratom is readily available in shops that sell CBD and other cannabis derivatives.

What’s especially interesting about this difference of opinion is that the FDA usually keeps hands off —says not one word about—products sold as dietary supplements.  It stays quiet about them as a result of court decisions following passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which essentially deregulated herbal supplement products.

But the FDA has plenty to say about Kratom.  That the agency argues that Kratom is not a drug, supplement, or food additive, means that it views Kratom as demonstrably harmful.

In situations like this, I tend to invoke the precautionary principle: see proof of safety before using it.  I prefer to head off trouble whenever possible.

But this situation raises an interesting question.  If the FDA thinks Kratom is all that bad, why isn’t it acting to take it off the market?  Or stating that it wishes it could but DSHEA won’t let it.  When the FDA tried to ban potentially harmful supplements, the makers of those supplements took the FDA to court.  The courts generally ruled in favor of the supplement makers.  Go figure.

Caveat emptor.

Let’s do two at once—studies funded by gthe beef industry.

I.  BEEF AND MUSCLES

I learned about this one from a headline in Food Navigator — Europe’s daily newsletter: Muscle protein synthesis more successful with beef than plant-based protein in older people, study finds

One look at the headline and I wanted to know: Who paid for this?

The study:  Higher Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates Following Ingestion of an Omnivorous Meal Compared with an Isocaloric and Isonitrogenous Vegan Meal in Healthy, Older Adults.  Journal of Nutrition.  2023. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.11.004.

Purpose: Plant-derived proteins are considered to have fewer anabolic properties when compared with animal-derived proteins…So far, no study has compared the anabolic response following ingestion of an omnivorous compared with a vegan meal.

Methods: In a randomized, counter-balanced, cross-over design, 16 older (65–85 y) adults (8 males, 8 females) underwent 2 test days. On one day, participants consumed a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef as the primary source of protein (0.45 g protein/kg body mass; MEAT). On the other day, participants consumed an isonitrogenous and isocaloric whole-food vegan meal (PLANT).

Results: MEAT increased plasma essential amino acid concentrations more than PLANT over the 6-h postprandial period (incremental area under curve 87 ± 37 compared with 38 ± 54 mmol·6 h/L, respectively; P-interaction < 0.01). Ingestion of MEAT resulted in ∼47% higher postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of PLANT (0.052 ± 0.023 and 0.035 ± 0.021 %/h, respectively; paired-samples t test: P = 0.037).

Conclusions:  Ingestion of a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef results in greater postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of an isonitrogenous whole-food vegan meal in healthy, older adults.

And now to answer my question:

• Conflict of interest:  [two of the authors] received research grants, consulting fees, speaking honoraria, or a combination of these for research on the impact of exercise and nutrition on muscle metabolism. A full overview on research funding is provided at: https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/l.vanloon. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Funding:  This study was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff, Denver, USA, and Vion Food Group, Boxtel, The Netherlands….The funders had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comment:  The Beef Checkoff is the USDA-sponsored research-and-marketing program which taxes beef producers and uses the funds to promote beef sales.  Maybe the funder had no role as stated, but the checkoff is unlikely to fund research that is not in its best interest.

The meat industry wants everyone to believe that meat is superior to plants, as food, and eating vegan diets is hazardous to health.  Hence, this research.

Something is seriously wrong when it is this easy to guess who paid for a study from its title alone.

II.  BEEF AND  MENTAL HEALTH

Just when I was ready to post that item, I ran across another one.

The study: Meat consumption & positive mental health: A scoping review. Preventive Medicine Reports. Volume 37, January 2024, 102556.

Highlight: “The majority of studies showed no differences between meat consumers and meat abstainers in positive psychological functioning.”

Results: “Eight of the 13 studies demonstrated no differences between the groups on positive psychological functioning, three studies showed mixed results, and two studies showed that compared to meat abstainers, meat consumers had greater self-esteem, ‘positive mental health’, and ‘meaning in life.'”

Conclusion [a positive spin]: “Although a small minority of studies showed that meat consumers had more positive psychological functioning, no studies suggested that meat abstainers did.”

Funding source: This study was in part funded via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Declaration of competing interest: [The first author] previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Comment: This review caught my attention because it found a null result: beef eating has no effect on mental health.  This is unusual for industry-funded studies.  But the article contains a positive spin:  some studies do in fact find benefits of beef eating whereas none find this result from not eating beeef.  Make of this what you will.  I think the Highlight says all you need to know.  Industry funding muddies interpretation of research results.  It’s best to avoid taking it.

I am endlessly fascinated by the plant-based industry producing products to substitute for animal foods.  Here are a few samples of what’s happening in this area.

Domestic

• Dairy and plant-based organizations go head-to-head over FDA’s plant-based milk labeling guidance:  More than 900 comments have been submitted to the FDA over its proposed labeling guidance for plant-based milk alternatives. From Danone North America to the Plant Based Foods Association, we round up some of the key arguments from both sides…. Read more
• ‘It is crucial for consumer acceptance’: Replacing animal fats in plant-based food:  While with any food, ‘taste is king,’ texture is also extremely important, especially in products aiming to mimic meat. For optimal texture, many manufacturers argue, animal fats, which contribute significantly to the texture of real meat, must be replicated for plant-based meat…. Read more
• Plant-based products and health: Study reveals nutritional shortfalls, but saturated fat benefits:  The nutritional value of plant-based meats is limited by lack of key micronutrients, although they contain significantly less saturated fat, indicates an assessment of products on the Hong Kong market…. Read more
• Start-up’s chickpea-based protein isolate boosts protein content in dairy-free cheese:  Israel-headquartered plant-based ingredients start-up ChickP has developed a chickpea-based protein isolate that can be incorporated into a range of cheese substitutes…. Read more
• Beyond Meat slashes workforce as business model is under fire:  The plant-based giant continues to face headwinds as consumers prioritize affordability.

International

• Denmark unveils the ‘world’s first’ action plan for plant-based foods: Eighteen months after the Agreement on the green transformation of Danish agriculture was approved by the Danish Parliament, Food Minister Jacob Jensen has launched the government’s new action plan for plant-based foods…. Read more  
• Green Queen: South Korea Unveils National Plan to Promote Plant-Based Food Industry:  South Korea becomes the second nation to announce a national plan dedicated to boosting local plant-based food production and consumption. Read More
• Start-up’s chickpea-based protein isolate boosts protein content in dairy-free cheese: Israel-headquartered plant-based ingredients start-up ChickP has developed a chickpea-based protein isolate that can be incorporated into a range of cheese substitutes…. Read more
• Clean and clear: China’s Haofood optimistic about plant-based growth despite dwindling hype:  China-based clean label brand Haofood is putting extra efforts into innovation while maintaining focus on taste and affordability to boost consumer adoption of plant-based diets. Read more

I think it’s time to start a new “of the week” series of posts—this one on egregiously marketed food products.

Thanks to Jerry Mande, who sent me this email:

Are you writing about Veggie Cheerios? An especially egregious case of misleading marketing. This could be Rob Califf’s Citrus Hill Fresh Choice moment. Particularly troubling is that original Cheerios, a go to finger food for moms of infants and toddlers, is lower sugar and higher in fiber than Veggie Cheerios  –  which only have 2g sugar plus 4g fiber. These new Cheerios have 8g sugars – from corn syrup – and only 2g fiber. Certainly, adding ¼ c. fruit & veggies shouldn’t cause the fiber to go down!

I hadn’t run across this version during my What to Eat revision visits to supermarkets, although I was aware that Cheerios, that old reliable cereal for kids, now came in more than 20 options—line extensions to take up more supermarket shelf space; the more shelf space, the more get sold.

I went right to the link:

Sure enough.  1/4 cup fruit & veggies.   And you get blueberry, banana, spinach, carrot, and sweet potato.  Impressive!

Here’s what Walmart says about it:

Available exclusively at Walmart [no wonder I hadn’t seen it], a wholesome bowl of Blueberry Banana flavored Cheerios Blends Cereal contains 1/4 cup of fruit and veggies in every serving.*

Uh oh; a footnote.  I went right to it:

* Cheerios Blends Cereal is made with fruit puree and vegetable powder. See complete list of ingredients. It is not intended to replace fruit or vegetables in the diet.

Oh.

As for the ingredient list:

Whole Grain Oats, Corn Meal, Sugar, Sweet Potato Powder, Corn Starch, Carrot Powder, Canola and/or Sunflower Oil, Banana Puree, Blueberry Puree Concentrate, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spinach Powder, Vegetable and Fruit Juice Color, Tripotassium Phosphate, Natural Flavor. Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness. [the rest are added vitamins and minerals].

You want fruits and vegetables?  Eat fruits and vegetables.

You want Cheerios?  I vote for the boring original.

I think I will go to Walmart and buy a box.  I want this one for my cereal box collection.  I don’t think it will be on the market long.

Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report, to which I subscribe, often has information I would not otherwise see.  Here’s one example.

He reported that USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service finally released its analysis of dairy checkoff programs, supposedly due annually by law.  No reports were published from 2020 through 2022.

Some members of Congress complained in a letter to Secretary Vilsack.  That worked.

See: Report to Congress on the Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, 2020 Activities.

It makes interesting reading (to me, at least).

Checkoff—officially, research and promotion—programs tax commodity producers and use the funds for marketing purposes.  The programs are mandated and managed by USDA, but paid for by commodity producers (conflict of interest, anyone?).

Two Dairy Checkoffs exist.

346. The Dairy Research and Promotion Program (the Dairy Checkoff), funded by dairy producers and dairy importers to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy products. The program collected $346.8 million in assessments in 2020.
347. The Fluid Milk Processor Promotion program, also known as the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), is funded by fluid milk processors and “is designed to educate Americans about the benefits of fluid milk, increase milk consumption, and maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products in the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia.” This program collected $85.7 million in assessments in 2020.

What is this about?  At one glance:

On the other hand, dairy consumption as a whole—mainly because of cheese and butter—is going up.

The report says that for every dollar spent on generic marketing, the industry gets roughly $3 in return.

Checkoff programs raise lots of questions about whether the USDA should be sponsoring these kinds of marketing efforts for a small number of foods, and why the government should particularly promote consumption of dairy foods (or beef, for that matter), given concerns about their environmental impact, if nothing else.

The Agricultural Marketing Service is quite clear about its objectives: to promote consumption of U.S. agricultural products, no matter what they are.

The dairy industry must want these efforts to continue; it sees the decline in fluid milk consumption as a problem.

Given concerns about the waning health of Americans, the role of dairy checkoffs—and the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service—could use reconsideration.

A reader, Kris, sent me this query:

I hope in a future writing you can help sort out the mixed statements I’m reading  about how pasture-raised meat lines up in terms of environmental/climate change concerns, (particularly if it doesn’t involve extensive shipping). I’ve seen statements and studies on both sides of the argument and I’m having a hard time determining what is supported science vs wishful thinking or greenwashing marketing hype. (Links to 2 difference examples below).

I looked at her sources.

eFeedLink.com: Grass-finished beef operations found to have higher carbon footprint, study reveals. 

In a recent study published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the Breakthrough Institute in the United States, led by Daniel Blaustein-Rejto, present findings challenging the common belief that beef operations with lifelong grass-based diets have a lower carbon footprint than those incorporating grain-based diets, Phys.org reported.  Cattle raised on lifelong grass diets, termed “pasture finished,” have been traditionally thought to be more environmentally friendly. But the study delves into a more comprehensive analysis, considering factors beyond direct greenhouse gas emissions.

This took me to the PLoS ONE article:  Carbon opportunity cost increases carbon footprint advantage of grain-finished beef.

We assess the carbon footprint of 100 beef production systems in 16 countries, including production emissions, soil carbon sequestration from grazing, and carbon opportunity cost—the potential carbon sequestration that could occur on land if it were not used for production. We conduct a pairwise comparison of pasture-finished operations in which cattle almost exclusively consume grasses and forage, and grain-finished operations in which cattle are first grazed and then fed a grain-based diet. We find that pasture-finished operations have 20% higher production emissions and 42% higher carbon footprint than grain-finished systems.

Agricltural Systems: Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems.

We used on-farm data collected from the Michigan State University Lake City AgBioResearch Center for AMP [adaptive multi-paddock] grazing. Impact scope included GHG emissions from enteric methane, feed production and mineral supplement manufacture, manure, and on-farm energy use and transportation, as well as the potential C sink arising from SOC [soil organic carbon] sequestration…This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.

Comment

I can understand Kris’s confusion.  The arguments about the environmental impact of grazing methods depend on assumptions about what needs to be measured.   There should be no argument, however, that pasture-raised animals are treated better and have better lives.  They enrich soil rather than polluting it, air, and water, as do animals raised in CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations).  When raised in a regenerative system, pastured animals replenish soil, cause carbon to be sequestered, and do other good things.  The downside?  Lower yields (but we overproduce meat anyway).  So, I’m all for pasture grazing.

The climate-change arguments depend on decisions about what gets counted; these vary depending on who is doing the counting.

Until everyone can agree on what has to be measured and included in climate-change assessments—and I see no sign of a movement to forge such an agreement—I’m voting for pasture-raised,.  Animal welfare and soil health are reasons enough.

Thanks Kris, for raising the issue so thoughtfully.

Here’s where I first saw this one: Antioxidant supplement improves sperm quality and pregnancy outcomes, research suggests: Supplementing men with a combination of micronutrients and L-Carnitine shows promise in improving sperm motility and pregnancy outcomes, a new study concludes…. Read more

I could not wait to fsee the research.

The study:  Effect of Micronutrients and L-Carnitine as Antioxidant on Sperm Parameters, Genome Integrity, and ICSI Outcomes: Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Antioxidants 2023, 12(11), 1937; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12111937

Rationale: Oxidative stress has been identified as a crucial factor leading to genome decay, lipid peroxidation, and nucleoprotein oxidation.

Method: double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to assess the effect of oral antioxidant treatment (Fertilis), which contains L-carnitine and some micronutrients, in the improvement of conventional sperm parameters, sperm DNA integrity and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes.

Results: The study outcome revealed a significant decrease in the DNA fragmentation index and a significant increase in sperm motility after 3 months of treatment (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Additionally, a significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rate (p = 0.01) and life birth rate (p = 0.031) was observed. No significant changes were observed in conventional sperm parameters (volume, count, and vitality) or sperm DNA decondensation (SDI).

Conclusion: Antioxidant therapy has a beneficial impact on achieving pregnancy, whether through spontaneous conception or assisted reproductive procedures (ART).

Funding: This research received received funding from the MEDIS laboratories.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank MEDIS laboratories, especially Mohamed Bouchoucha “the general director”, Sonia Hafaiedh “the Medical laboratory director”, Sami Bousetta “the clinical research associate”, and Anis Ghribi “the data manager” for the encouragement and support….

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment: The funder, Medis, is the maker of “High quality generic pharmaceuticals” like this supplement, no doubt.  Even though the supplement had no effect on the usual measures of sperm number and viability, women who took the suipplessment did better in achieving pregnancy.  I’d say more research needed on this one.  In the meantime, if you believe this result and want to up your sperm quality, eat your veggies!  Practically any fruit or vegetable is rich in antioxidants. Eat the ones you like.

As for “no conflicts of interest.” I respectfully disagree.  Funding from a company that stands to gain from a positive result clearly introduces conflicted interests.