Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

The headline:  “Just 2 handfuls of pistachios daily could help protect your eyesight.”

Really?  Let’s take a look.

The Study: Pistachio Consumption Increases Macular Pigment Optical Density in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.  Scott, Tammy M et al.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 155, Issue 1, 168 – 174. 2024 Oct 18:S0022-3166(24)01099-X.   doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.10.022.

Background: Pistachios are a bioavailable source of the xanthophyll lutein. Along with zeaxanthin, these plant pigments are major components of macular pigment (MP) in the human retina. MP can be non-invasively measured and is referred to as MP optical density (MPOD). MPOD is modifiable with dietary interventions that include lutein and zeaxanthin (L/Z). Higher MPOD protects the eye from light damage and is positively associated with eye health.

Objectives: This dietary intervention study aimed to evaluate the effect of pistachio consumption on MPOD.

Method: This single-blinded, randomized controlled trial compared a 12-week pistachio intervention (2 oz/d) with usual diet (UD) on MPOD and serum L/Z in middle-aged to older healthy adults (n = 36) in a 1:1 randomization scheme.

Conclusions: The results of our study demonstrate that a dietary intervention with pistachios is efficacious in increasing MPOD in healthy adults selected for habitually low intake of L/Z and low baseline MPOD. This suggests that pistachio consumption could be an effective dietary strategy for preserving eye health. Future studies need to evaluate the generalizability of our findings to other populations.

Funding: This project was supported by the American Pistachio Growers, who had no role in the final design, conduct, or interpretation of this study. The project described was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Award Number UM1TR004398. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Conflict of interest: Tammy M Scott reports financial support provided by American Pistachio Growers. The other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Comment: When I saw the title, I wanted to know immediately, “Who paid for this?”  If you eat foods containing lutein and zeaxanthin, the levels of those factors will increase.  No surprise.  Are pistachios the only or best way to do this?  That’s not what this study aimed to find out.  This, as is true of much (most) industry-funded studies, this one is more about marketing than science.

This index, the fifth annual,  from the Access to Nutrition Initiative evaluates 30 food and beverage manufacturers on how well they are doing to improve access to nutritious foods.

Here’s what it finds about corporation’s share of portfolios from healthy foods.

ATNi finds some progress since it started doing this “but bolder action is needed from industry, policymakers, and investors to shift the needle towards the production of healthier foods and the promotion of healthier diets.”

Well, yes.

But how, given the prioritization of returns to investors.

ATNi resources 

PFAS (highly fluorinated “forever” chemicals) are in  the news practically every day.  PFAS Central, a project of Green Science Policy, tracks this news.

I do too to a lesser extent.  But I sure noticed this one in the New York Times: Their Fertilizer Poisons Farmland. Now, They Want Protection From Lawsuits.

The company, Synagro, sells farmers treated sludge from factories and homes to use as fertilizer. But that fertilizer, also known as biosolids, can contain harmful “forever chemicals” known as PFAS linked to serious health problems including cancer and birth defects.

Farmers are starting to find the chemicals contaminating their land, water, crops and livestock. Just this year, two common types of PFAS were declared hazardous substances by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Superfund law.

Now, Synagro is part of a major effort to lobby Congress to limit the ability of farmers and others to sue to clean up fields polluted by the sludge fertilizer, according to lobbying records and interviews with people familiar with the strategy. The chairman of one of the lobbying groups is Synagro’s chief executive.

Even as PFAS has turned up in wastewater, the government has continued to promote the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.

Also from the New York Times: What We Know (and Don’t Know) About ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Food

exposure can increase the risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers. The chemicals have also been linked to low birth weight, birth defects and developmental delays in children, as well as thyroid disease and high cholesterol.

This year, the Environmental Protection Agency said there’s no safe level of PFAS exposure for humans and imposed limits on some PFAS in drinking water.

Facts

• Nearly all Americans carry PFAS in their bloodstream.
• As many as 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS through tap water.
• Consumer Reports detects PFAS in some milk

The politics: from Civil Eats: Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Laws to Address PFAS? In Maine, Maryland, and beyond, the industry is using a well-worn playbook to slow legislators’ attempts to get forever chemicals out of food and water.

• CropLife America and RISE hire local lobbyists, some of whom also head up farmer organizations and represent local farmers in comments, hearings, and meetings with legislators.
• RISE also deploys a “grassroots network” of individuals who work in and with pesticide companies—e.g., retailers, golf courses, and landscapers—to contact their state lawmakers using tested “key” messages and encourages them to emphasize their personal experiences as citizens.
• Beyond PFAS, when state lawmakers introduce bills to restrict pesticide use in other ways, CropLife America and RISE often utilize a similar playbook to influence legislation.

As for getting rid of PFAS: Groundbreaking study shows unaffordable costs of PFAS cleanup from wastewater

A new report published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) finds that technologies and expenses needed to remove and destroy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from certain wastewater streams across Minnesota would cost between $14 and $28 billion over 20 years.

Comment: We had best get started on that now.  And stop making more PFAS products.  Also, stop exposure:

The main ways people can be exposed to PFAS include:

Things we can’t control, really:

• Drinking contaminated municipal or private well water.
• Eating fish with high levels of PFAS.
• Eating food grown or raised near places that used or made PFAS.

These we can control to some extent:

• Eating food packaged in material made with PFAS.
• Swallowing contaminated soil or dust.
• Using some consumer products, such as ski wax, nonstick cookware, and stain and water repellant sprays for fabrics.

Obviously this is a tough one demanding tough regulations and forcing polluters to pay.

It’s a big worry.

From the Cleveland Clinic: Bird flu (avian influenza)

Bird flu (avian influenza) is an infection from a type of influenza (flu) virus that usually spreads in birds and other animals. Sometimes, humans can get bird flu from infected animals. Like the versions of flu that people usually get, bird flu can make you severely ill.

It has infected  and, in the case of dairy herds and poultry flocks, mass culling:

• Wild birds
• Domestic Chickens
• Domestic Turkeys
• Domestic Ducks
• Dairy cattle
• Raw milk
• Wild and captive mammals
• Pet dogs and cats
• People

What is the government doing?

• USDA Announces New Federal Order, Begins National Milk Testing Strategy to Address H5N1 in Dairy Herds
• FDA: Investigation of Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus in Dairy Cattle
• USDA: Detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
• CDC: H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation

The CDC says: “The best way to prevent H5N1 bird flu is to avoid sources of exposure whenever possible.”  Thanks a lot.

From the New England Journal of Medicine

• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus Infections in Humans
• The Emerging Threat of H5N1 to Human Health

Comment: For producers of dairy and poultry, H5N1 is already a disaster.  “Only” about 66 people have been infected and human-to-human transmission does not seem to be occurring—yet?  If ever a potential epidemic needed a coordinated response, here is a truly alarming example.

As for its effects on the food system?  Higher prices, for sure: Egg Prices Are High. They Will Likely Go Higher.

Charles Platkin sent me this  article from Food Manufacturing: “Eating pork linked with better handgrip strength, industry group says.”

I quickly found the The Pork Board’s press release.

And went right to the source.

The study: Jung A-J, Sharma A, Chung M, Wallace TC, Lee H-J. he Relationship of Pork Meat Consumption with Nutrient Intakes, Diet Quality, and Biomarkers of Health Status in Korean Older Adults.  Nutrients. 2024; 16(23):4188. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16234188

Objectives: We evaluated the association between pork meat consumption and nutrient intake, diet quality, and biomarkers of health among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) in Korea.

Methods: Our analyses utilized dietary and health examination data from the 2016–2020 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 2068).

Results: Pork consumption was associated with  a higher intake of energy and [some] nutrients…Diet quality was modestly higher among…pork consumers. Differences in biomarkers were clinically irrelevant…Handgrip strength was slightly higher.

Conclusions: In Korean older adults, pork consumption may contribute to a higher intake of energy and most nutrients, improved diet quality scores, higher vegetable intake, and small improvements in health biomarkers.

Funding: Funding for this research was provided through an investigator-initiated educational grant from the National Pork Board (#22-056) to Think Healthy Group, LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the data or results. The authors and sponsor strictly adhered to the American Society for Nutrition’s guiding principles for private funding for food science and nutrition research. M.C. did not receive salary support or consulting fee from this grant.

Conflicts of interest”: T.C.W. has received scientific consulting fees as a current member of the Science Advisory Board for the National Pork Board. He has also received other investigator-initiated educational research grants from the National Pork Board. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Comment: Applause to Food Manufacturing for noting the industry  source in its headline: “industry group says”.  Note the effect size: “small improvements in health biomarkers.”  Nevertheless, the Pork Board thought it was worth a press release—it had paid for the study, after all.  The Pork Board runs a USDA-sponsored checkoff program; it collects fees from pork producers and uses them for purposes like these.  Worth it?  A lot of pork producers don’t think so, but the USDA insists and manages it through its Agricultural Market Service.  I wonder if the new administration will take interest in such programs…?

OOPS: A reader alerted me that all links have been taken down by the new administration.

In his last weeks in office, former President Biden issued a Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration. A reader, Ethan Wolf, sent in a link from the Wayback Machine. Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration

The Fact Sheet divides the achievements into several categories.

• Building new markets and income for farmers and ranchers
• Modernizing the middle of the agriculture and food supply chain: food processing, aggregation, and distribution
• Creating more fair and competitive markets
• Improving food access, nutrition security and health
• Enchancing food safety
• Supporting breakthrough agricultural rewearch and innovation

To highlight just one—food safety:

• USDA issued a rule to classify raw poultry products contaminated with specific Salmonella levels and serotypes as adulterated.
• USDA also finalized a rule declaring Salmonella an adulterant in raw breaded stuffed chicken products exceeding 1 colony-forming unit per gram.
• FDA launched the “Closer to Zero” initiative (C2Z), which sets forth a science-based approach to continually reducing exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury to the lowest levels possible in foods eaten by babies and young children.
• FDA has issued numerous action levels for toxic elements: draft levels for lead in juices; final levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young children; and a final level for arsenic in apple juice. 
• FDA revoked authorizations for the uses of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food because of the potential for adverse health effects in humans.
• FDA also revised its regulations and revoked prior-sanctioned uses of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) because studies consistently link consumption of PHOs (industrially produced trans fat) with heart disease. 
• Before the end of the term, FDA also plans to revoke the authorization of Red No. 3, a red dye used in certain medications and various foods and beverages, including candies, cakes, frostings, and frozen desserts, due to studies showing that the dye caused cancer [it did this].

Perhaps coincidentally, Lisa Held at Civil Eats published How Four Years of Biden Reshaped Food and Farming: From day one, the administration prioritized climate, “nutrition security,” infrastructure investments, and reducing food system consolidation. Here’s what the president and his team actually did.

Her categories are somewhat different:

• Taking on Consolidation and Corporate Power, and Supporting Farmer Livelihood
• Tackling the Climate Crisis
• Regulating Pesticides and Other Chemicals
• Focusing on Food Safety
• Linking Hunger, Nutrition, and Health
• Supporting Food and Farm Workers
• Advancing Equity

Here’s my excerpted summary of her analysis of Taking on Corporate Power.

With much fanfare, the FDA released its proposed rule for a new front-of-package summary of the Nutrition Facts panel.  I’ve written about the history of this previously.

Of all the options tested (Food Fix had the best summary), the FDA picked this one—not my first choice.

Why not?  I don’t think it’s much of an improvement over this one, produced by industry to head off something that might be more useful.  This one is easy to ignore and pretty much everyone does.  The FDA’s is a bit better, but not nearly enough.

I was hoping the FDA would at least use traffic light colors.  Even more, I wish the FDA had used “High in” warning labels used in Latin America.

These have been shown to be highly effective in discouraging purchases of food products high in sugar, saturated fat, sodium, and calories—the point of this exercise, after all (and why the food industry so opposes it).

Will this label do as well?  We will have to wait and find out.

In the meantime, this is your chance to comment.  Please do.

To Submit Comments

Comments on the proposed rule can be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov by May 16, 2025.

Written comments can be submitted to:
Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
All written comments should be identified with the docket number FDA-2024-N-2910 and with the title “Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information.”

So much is happening on the alcohol frontier these days that it is getting hard to keep up.  Let’s start with the multiplicity of reports on alcohol and health arriving one after another.  I’ve written about the NASEM and Surgeon General’s reports recently.  I’ve also written recently about their implications for the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines.

I.  The ICCPUD report.  Now we have yet a third report from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).  This one says:

• Males and females who consumed 1 drink per day had an increased risk of liver cirrhosis, esophageal cancer, oral cancer, and injuries, but a lower risk for ischemic stroke…females had a higher risk for liver cancer and a lower risk for diabetes mellitus when they drank 1 drink per day…even infrequent high per-occasion drinking may eliminate the lower levels of risk for ischemic stroke.
• Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type]). Increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use. Women experience a much greater risk of an alcohol-attributable cancer per drink consumed.

II.  The Alcohol industry’s reaction to the ICCPUD report. The reaction to this from a group of National Agriculture, Beverage and Hospitality Associations is pretty tough.  In an email and press release titled “New U.S. Alcohol Report Tainted by Bias, Conflicts,” its representative said:

The controversial report, which is based on observational studies rather than any randomized controlled trials, is blatantly biased, with many panel members failing to disclose conflicts of interest, including affiliations with and funding from anti-alcohol and international temperance organizations…it’s essential to consider the findings of the recent Congressionally-mandated report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Health (NASEM), which found moderate drinking may be healthier than teetotaling (Axios).

Its recommendation

We urge the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health & Human Services to uphold the integrity of the DGAs to promote informed and responsible decision-making around alcohol. The agencies should disregard the ICCPUD report in their final assessments for the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines.

III.  Call for public comment on the NASEM and ICCPUD reports

From the HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (I am an alum)

HHS and USDA will invite the public to provide input on two separate but complementary reports [ICCPUDand NASEM] on the relationship between alcohol and health starting January 15. These reports and the public comments received will be considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as the two departments collaborate to develop the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The comment period will close on February 14, 2025. Additional details on this public comment opportunity are available on DietaryGudelines.gov.

IV.  Treasury Department proposes new and more informative labeling of alcohol drinks, also with a call for public comment  

TTB Proposes Mandatory Disclosures of Major Food Allergens and Alcohol Facts in the Labeling of Wines, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages.

Allergens: In Notice No. 238, we propose to require a label disclosure of all major food allergens used in the production of alcohol beverages…labels must declare milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, soybeans, and sesame, as well as ingredients that contain protein derived from these foods, if used in the production of the alcohol beverage.

Alcohol Facts: In Notice No. 237, we propose to require Alcohol Facts label disclosures for alcohol beverages subject to TTB’s regulatory authority under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. This disclosure would include the serving size of the product; the number of servings per container; alcohol content as a percentage of alcohol by volume; the number of fluid ounces of pure ethyl alcohol per serving; the number of calories per serving; and the number, in grams per serving, of carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

Wow!  This has been a long time coming.

To comment:

• For Allergens see Notice No. 238 and/orDocket No. TTB–2025–0003 at Regulations.gov and this comment form. 
• For Alcohol Facts see Notice No. 237 and/or Docket No. TTB–2025–0002 at regulations.gov and this comment form.

Electronic comments submitted via Regulations.gov are due by 11:59 p.m. ET on April 17, 2025, and comments submitted by postal mail must be postmarked by that date.