Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows and I cannot get my head around the MAHA hearings last week.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has posted a video of the health and nutrition roundtable he held Monday with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the former presidential candidate now supporting former President Trump, and others including Vani Hari, the “Food Babe.”  He listed participants in a press release.

Vani Hari posted her own video on Twitter (X): “American food companies are making a fool out of us. They are knowingly poisoning us. It’s time for this to stop. Our movement is growing like I have never seen before. It’s going to be historic! This is a clip from my Senate testimony in Washington DC yesterday, watch the whole thing.”

Another Tweet pointed to testimony by Jillian Michaels: “This is one of the best overviews I’ve ever witnessed on how the whole system has been rigged, in what is essentially a ‘bad health by design’ framework As Jillian Michaels says emphatically – People have been ‘sacrificed at the alter of corporate greed.”

This is amazing!

What I find most remarkable is the lack of mainstream nutrition science in this lineup.  The speakers are mainly influencers and not among the most recognized nutrition scientists.  Nearly all havie some decidedly non-mainstream interpretations of nutrition research and the history of federal nutrition policy.

BUT: They are calling for fixing the food system, doing something to coordinate and address diet-related chronic diseases, stopping corporate power, eliminating conflicts of interest between industry and government, getting toxic chemicals out of the food supply, and doing everything possible to refocus the food environment and dietary advice on health.

Try this: “Ultra-processed foods are the new cigarette for my generation,” said Grace Price, described as an 18-year-old social media influencer.

These are things I’ve been writing about here for years.  It’s hard to argue with any of this and I won’t.

But where are my nutrition scientist colleagues?

As Jerry Mande wrote to me, referring to the PCAST report I talked about yesterday:

How did it come to this? We have the nation’s top nutrition scientists afraid to demand action and Senators turning to nutrition influencers for advice. I must admit the influencers did a better job than the WH science advisors stating the urgency of the problem and demanding action.

In Food Fix, Helena Bottemiller Evich described the experience as “rather disorienting.”

I’ve been covering food policy in Washington for 15 years, and I would have never expected this cast of characters to be together in the Senate – and hosted by Republicans, no less. (It was hosted by Johnson, but Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) also attended. Both said they’d changed their diets to improve their health.)  As I noted recently, there is a political realignment happening here. Many of the concerns discussed during this roundtable – lack of food chemical regulation, metabolic dysfunction, pesticide exposure, lack of focus on nutrition in medical school, etc. – were previously common policy fare on the left. That’s all been shaken up by Johnson’s office.

Could it be that we are heading for bipartisan support for addressing epidemic obesity and diet-related chronic disease?

If so, it’s about time and I”m all for it.

But the mind boggles.

PCAST, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, has released its REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT A Vision for Advancing Nutrition Science in the United States.

I learned about the report from a Tweet (X): 

I wrote about an earlier draft of the report in a previous post: The federal vision for chronic disease prevention: individual behavior, not the environment.  I called for the report to take on the need for fundamental improvements in the food environment aimed at preventing obesity-influenced chronic diseases.

If you read the fine print, the report has indeed done some of that.  It now mentions ultra-processed foods, for example,

people’s food selections are complex, influenced by various factors in a multifaceted U.S. (and global) food ecosystem, with many of these factors beyond an individual’s control, e.g., increased production and availability of ultraprocessed foods which are associated with overconsumption and obesity. In addition to widespread availability of inexpensive ultra-processed foods, the U.S. food environment has undergone huge changes in recent decades, including easy access to low-cost fast food and eating away-from-home becoming much more common…in the era of widespread internet and digital technology access and use, people’s food habits increasingly are influenced by advertising and social media, which are sources of both facts and misinformation. Acknowledging and understanding these factors and their intersections is critical to addressing nutrition-related health disparities.

It also says useful things like these:

• new emphasis must be placed on nutrition research that can equitably and effectively help all Americans achieve better health.
• [needed is an] equity focus that particularly considers those who are disproportionately affected—racially, ethnically, and socially minoritized groups—due to long-standing and structural inequities which make it hard for many people to eat healthy and be physically active.
• For such a highly developed nation, the U.S. has distressingly high rates of food insecurity, imbalanced nutrition, and inequities in food access, all further exacerbated by the pandemic.  With diet-related disease rates increasing, we have responded by focusing resources on costly medical treatments, further widening disparities and directing efforts away from prevention or addressing social determinants of health and a food environment that for too many Americans does not provide or promote good nutrition. The only way to reverse these trends and achieve robust health for our nation is to focus on prevention, which will require significant modifications of our overall food environment and must be informed by improved nutrition research.
• Preventing diet-related chronic diseases is among the most urgent public health challenges facing the nation.

Despite these statements, its two recommendations say nothing beyond the need for coordination aimed at addressing that challenge.

1. The Administration should implement a coordinated and sustained federal interagency effort, co-led by HHS and USDA, to strengthen the nutrition science base for current and future public and private sector actions to reduce the burden of diet-related chronic disease and maintain momentum toward the President’s 2030 goal.

2. To ensure equitable access to the benefits of nutrition research, federal agencies should prioritize equity in nutrition research, focus research on improving program delivery, continue efforts to diversify the nutrition science and dietetics workforce and engage the academic and private sectors in multisector research and intervention initiatives.

Yes, coordination would be a big help.  Nutrition research is all over the place at the federal level.  So would increased funding for nutrition research aimed at improving the food environment to prevent chronic disease.  Only a tiny fraction of the NIH budget goes for this purpose.  NIH’s main nutrition focus is “precision nutrition” aimed at individuals, not public health.  And much of the USDA’s nutrition funding goes to the kinds of industry-funded studies I post here on Mondays.

The report mentions what’s needed in theory; it ducks dealing with the tough politics of chronic disease prevention.

And alas, it did not cite my suggestions for what is needed (which I had sent to the committee).

So where is leadership for chronic disease prevention at the federal level?  It’s in an odd place at the moment, as I will discuss tomorrow.

I read about this one in NutraIngredients.  To its credit, it identified the funder right in the headline:

Krill oil may boost skin health measures, say two new RCTs from Aker BioMarine: Krill oil supplementation may strengthen skin barrier function and improves hydration and elasticity of the skin in healthy adults, according to data from two new pilot studies.

I went right to the study: Krill oil supplementation improves transepidermal water loss, hydration and elasticity of the skin in healthy adults: Results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding pilot studies.  Katina Handeland PhD, Mike Wakeman MSc, MRPharmS, Lena Burri PhD.  J Cosmetic Dermatology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.16513

Purpose: to see whether krill oil, which contains omega-3 fatty acids, improves skin hydration and elasticity.

Methods: in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot studies, participants consumed 1 or 2 g of krill oil or placebo daily.  The outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks.

Results: the group supplemented with krill oil did better.

Conclusions: “Daily oral supplementation with 1 and 2 g of krill oil showed significant and dose-dependent improvements in skin TEWL, hydration, and elasticity compared to placebo that correlated with changes in the omega-3 index.

Conflicts of interest: “KH and LB are employees of Aker BioMarine Human Ingredients AS that has provided the krill and placebo oil and funded the study.”

Comment: Krill oil?  That’s a new one for me.  Krill are crustaceans, plankton, at the bottom of the marine food chain; they are a primary food source for baleen whales.  I quickly found krill oil supplements to be widely available (“dynamic,” “antarctic,” “help to reduce heart disease, strokes, inflammation”) at impressive cost.  Despite claims for a vast array of benefits, I’m dubious about the value of getting omega-3s from supplements.  The manufacturer of these supplements did this study to back up another sales pitch.  As I keep saying, these kinds of studies are primarily about marketing, not science.

James Merchant and Robert Martin, eds. Public Health Impacts of Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024.

I served on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production with both authors about 15 years ago and was happy to do a blurb for their book.

This hard-hitting book defies meat industry pressure and obfuscation to document the devastating effects of its current production methods on the quality of air and water and on human health.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  Here’s a roadmap for a healthier and environmentally sustainable meat production system.

The book begins with an account of meat industry interference with the work of the Pew Commission and researchers investigating the health and polluting effects of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Our experience, and that of several of the authors of the 12 chapters in this book, have encountered considerable interference with their academic freedom as exerted directly by industrial agriculture or its pressure on academic administrators. Ensuring academic freedom, unbiased funding and unbiased research is critical to a sustainable environment and to protect the public’s health…. The pressure included industry harassment and intimidation of community residents, industry intrusion seeking to identify study subjects and research records, pressure applied to University administrators, and intimidation and litigation threats.

The multi-authored chapters document the extensive damage to health, the environment, and social justice caused by CAFOs, and recommend ways to deal with it.

Enforcing existing laws about air, water, soil, odor pollution, and animal welfare would be a good starting point.

Cell-culture isn’t just for beef anymore.  I’ve been collecting items…

FOIE GRAS:  ProVeg hails application for EU approval of cultivated foie gras: French company seeks approval for product made from cultivated duck cells.

EEL:  Cultivated eel that ‘melts in your mouth’? How Forsea mimics ‘tender, succulent’ texture of fish and seafood:  Eel meat is unlike any other: it is fatty, tender, and ‘almost melts in your mouth’, explains Roee Nir, co-founder and CEO of Forsea Foods. The start-up is working to mimic these attributes with stem cells in a lab…. Read more

COFFEE:  A cup of lab-grown Joe: researchers release proof of concept for cell-cultured coffee: Dr. Heiko Rischer and his team at VTT Technical Research of Finland published its cell-cultured coffee recipe, highlighting the opportunity to strengthen and reinforce the global coffee supply chain…. Read more

BREAST MILK: Cell-based breast milk in development to replace ‘suboptimal’ bovine infant formula: Can the complexities of breast milk be replicated by cows? France-based Nūmi doesn’t think so. The start-up is turning to cell culture to develop the ‘closest thing possible’ to breast milk…. Read more

PET FOOD: Cultivated meat pet food gains UK approval in world first:Meatly has announced that it has received regulatory clearance to sell cultivated meat for pet food in the UK…. Read more

PROTEIN: Beyond Meat launches ‘first of its kind’ protein to appeal to health-conscious consumers:  The company’s latest product is not intended to replicate beef, pork or chicken. It comes amid a sharp downturn in plant-based meat consumption.

MEAT AND SEAFOOD: Cultivated meat and seafood watch: What’s the latest in cultivated?  Cultivated meat, despite only being on the market in one country (Singapore), is on the rise…. Read more

AND THE POLITICS, OF COURSE: Nebraska governor says no to lab-grown meat: If Gov. Jim Pillen has his way, Nebraska legislators will pass a law banning the sale of “lab-grown meat” — the industry prefers the term cultivated meat — during its next session. Florida and Alabama enacted state bans on the alternative meat this year, and Iowa has barred school districts and publicly funded colleges from buying the meat.

I first read about this in a daily newsletter I subscribe to, Bakery and Snacks:   The Doritos effect: How tartrazine turns tissues temporarily transparent. When a study draws parallels with H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man, you know it’s bound to be captivating. Could this scientific leap bring us closer to achieving a real-life version of Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak?… Read more

An ingredient in Doritos — tartrazine or Yellow 5 — is helping scientists see through the skin of mice. While they can’t see through human skin (it’s thicker and less permeable), this could be helpful in the future for early skin cancer detection. Imagine if it could replace a mammogram? On the other hand, Doritos food coloring is a chemical that the scientists said might not be totally harmless. (And to think so many people are eating it?) Read the Popular Science article about it. It’s fantastic.

Popular Science: The dye in Doritos can make mice transparent.  ‘It’s not magic, but it’s still very powerful.’

Because of a counterintuitive fundamental physics principle [selective absorption and scattering of light], Tartrazine, also known as Yellow 5, can temporarily turn biological tissue transparent to the naked eye, as described in a study published September 5 in the journal Science. 

The Science study: Achieving optical transparency in live animals with absorbing molecules.  Science.  Vol 385, Issue 6713.  DOI: 10.1126/science.adm6869

We next sought to demonstrate the ability of absorbing molecules to achieve tissue transparency in the mouse abdomen. Specifically, when a tartrazine solution was topically applied to the abdominal skin of a live mouse under anesthesia and gently massaged on the skin (Fig. 1, G and H), the abdominal skin not only darkened in color but also became more transparent in the red window (fig. S8). This transparency effect can be readily visualized with the naked eye and does not require any specialized imaging equipment…The transparent abdomen allowed us to directly observe internal organs, including the liver, small intestine, cecum, and bladder (Fig. 1, I and J). Moreover, we could also discern their movements, such as peristalsis, as well as motions synchronized with the heartbeat and breathing (Movies 1 and 2). The achieved abdominal transparency can be reversed by rinsing and massaging the skin with water (fig. S8).

Tartrazine is FD&C  Yellow #5

Tartrazine is a synthetic food colorant classified as an azo dye. It is lemon yellow in color and water soluble. Tartrazine is approved for use as a food colorant in the EU, USA, Canada, and other parts of the world for use in food, cosmetics, and medications. Its use in foods includes dairy products, beverages, desserts, confectionary, spices, dressings, jellies and sauces…It is one of the most commonly used and best known food additives…Of the synthetic food dyes, tartrazine has been implicated most often as a cause of adverse reactions.

Here’s what CSPI says about it.

Yellow 5 can be found in many foods, including beverages, gelatin desserts, candy, and baked goods. It’s the second-most widely used coloring and sometimes causes allergy-like hypersensitivity reactions, primarily in aspirin-sensitive persons, and triggers hyperactivity in some children. It may be contaminated with such cancer-causing substances as benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl (or chemicals that the body converts to those substances).

CSPI has filed a petition to

Ban the Use of Yellow 5 and Other Food Dyes, in the Interim to Require a Warning on Foods Containing These Dyes, to Correct the Information the Food and Drug Administration Gives to Consumers On the Impact of These Dyes on the Behavior of Some Children, and to Require Neurotoxicity Testing of New Food Additives and Food Colors.

And now here’s another reason not to use it, even though it doesn’t do this in people, apparently.  Our skin is too thick.

Addition

A reader points out that tartrazine is on the list of food dyes now banned in California.  Good idea.

Here’s how I learned about this one: Unilever, Nestlé and Coca-Cola villainised for government scientist ties.  Mondelēz International, Tate & Lyle, Pepsico and a host of other global food and drink manufacturing majors face fresh scrutiny over their links to government-advising scientists…. Read more

Villainized?  Isn’t this just business as usual?

Not exactly.  An analysis in the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) says UK government’s nutrition advisers are paid by world’s largest food companies(see BMJ 2024;386:q1909).

The authors examined declared links between members of SACN (The UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) and the food and drinks industry.

:

The study found

More than half of the experts on the UK government’s advisory panel on nutrition have links to the food industry…Campaigners say that these conflicts of interests at the heart of policy making are detrimental to public health. Others say that they reflect the lack of funding for nutrition research and that removing experts with industry links from SACN would “diminish” its expertise..

Six members of SACN are members of the American Society for Nutrition, which is funded by Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and the Sugar Association, among others…SACN’s current work includes reviewing the evidence over ultraprocessed foods, artificial sweeteners, and plant based food and drink…Experts including van Tulleken and Percival say that SACN did not do enough to present the case for tougher regulation on ultraprocessed foods.

Two readers, Tara Kenny and Martin Caraher, sent this one:  Plant-based diets–impacts of consumption of little or no animal-source foods on human health.  by Alice V. Stanton  ^{Front. Nutr., 17 September 2024. Volume 11 – 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1423925}

The paper argues for the benefits of meat-based diets:

The protections provided by plant-based diets against NCDs [non-communicable diseases] appear to be more strongly associated with reduced intakes of calories and salt, and increased intakes of fruit, vegetables, nuts and whole grains, rather than with reduced intakes of ASFs [animal-source foods]. Any possible absolute adverse effects of red and processed meat consumption on NCDs are very small and uncertain…dietary guidelines should advise moderating excessive consumption, rather than substantially limiting or excluding ASFs from the human diet.

The author’s conflict-of-interest statement:

Alice Stanton was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition (2017–2023); and currently owns stock in Devenish Nutrition, an agri-technology company specializing in sustainable food solutions.

Comment

My readers point out that the author’s financial conflicts of interest are understated.  Devinish Nutrition is, in fact, a family business.  The company states it is “an innovator in animal nutrition by providing a wide range of products and services.”  It was acquired this year by EASY BIO a South Korean animal nutrition company.

Both readers also point out that Alice Stanton has pro-meat ideological conflicts of interest, but these concern me much less.  Everyone who does research has beliefs and hypotheses they want to test.  But not everyone stands to benefit financially from the outcome of their research or opinion, which is why full disclosure is so necessary.