The walnut industry must be desperate for greater market share.  Walnuts are great and make a terrific snack if you don’t eat too many of them (calories!).  But this is one-food research.  Can one food really make an important difference to health (yes, if you are seriously deficient in essential nutrients but most Americans are not).

One-food research has to be about marketing more than science.

To wit:

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Association of Walnut Consumption with Obesity and Relative Fat Mass among United States Adolescents and Young Adults in NHANES (2003–2020).  2024 Current Developments in Nutrition.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104407

Conclusions: For adolescents girls and young women, dietary intake of walnuts combined with other nuts has the strongest inverse association with measures of obesity.

Funding: This study was funded by the California Walnut Commission.

Comment

The study does not find an association between eating walnuts and obesity in adolescents.  I would not expect it to.  People do not eat that many walnuts.  They get most of their calories from fast and ultraprocessed foods.

The California Walnut Commission would like you to think the calories in walnuts do not count.  In a press release, it points out

Nuts, including walnuts, are nutrient dense and considered a key component of many recommended dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean and vegetarian diets. They are also recommended for daily consumption in the latest U.S. Dietary Guidelines.³ Despite the recommendations, nuts remain under-consumed by the U.S. population,³ perhaps due to nuts being calorie dense, leading to potential concerns that including nuts in the diet could promote weight gain. But new research suggests people, especially Gen Z and millennials, should reconsider nuts, like walnuts.

All true, but nuts in general, not specifically walnuts.  This is about increasing the market share for walnuts as opposed to other nuts.

A reader suggested this report for weekend reading:  Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals : Threats to Human Health: Pesticides, Plastics, Forever Chemicals, and Beyond.

Among the report’s key takeaways:

• EDCs in the environment may contribute to disorders with hormonal underpinnings such as diabetes, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, inflammation, and compromised immune functioning.
• EDCs do not behave like other chemicals, and current regulatory practices do not account for the ways that EDCs can pose health threats. EDC exposures at even extremely low dosages can alter biological outcomes and the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs.
• Products that may contain EDCs include furniture, toys and children’s products, food packaging, electronics, building materials, cosmetics, and many others. People can also be exposed to EDCs from pesticides, air pollutants, industrial waste, and other pathways.

The report reviews the research on pesticides (e.g., glyphosate), plastics and plasticizers (bisphenols, phthalates), household chemicals (arsenic), industrial chemicals (PFAS).  These show up in food and water, which is why they are matters of food politics.

This whole topic can be confusing: so many chemicals, so many effects, so much misinformation (especially from industry)—and you can’t see, taste, smell, or avoid them.

This report explains what everyone needs to know : the science, exposures, health effects, (especially in children), and regulatory needs.

This is a great place to start, troubling as it is to know about EDCs and how little is being done about them.

 

A reader, Katya Bloomberg, suggested I take a look at Bored Cow, “animal-free dairy milk” pumpkin spice flavored, no less.

Animal-free dairy milk sounds like an oxymoron.  What could this be?  Mostly, the website says what it does not contain.

So what’s in this?  The website doesn’t say, but Target’s does.

Ingredients: water, cane sugar, whey protein (from fermentation), sunflower oil, less than 1% of: cinnamon, vitamin a, vitamin b2 (riboflavin), vitamin b12 (cyanocobalamin), vitamin d2, citrus fiber, salt, dipotassium phopshate, acacia, gellan gum, mixed tocopherols (antioxidant), calcium potassium phosphate citrate, natural flavor.

An ultraprocessed drink, for sure, with 20 grams of sugar per 12 ounces.  The whey (the main protein in milk) is made by microorganisms, not cows. 

The process is called precision fermentation.  It involves 5-steps:

• Genetic modification of bacteria or yeast (the Bored Cow website says nothing about this)
• Cell growth
• Protein production
• Purification (centrifugation, homogenization, filtration)
• Whey production

How precise is the fermentation?

Iowa-based Health Research Institute (HRI) tested a Bored Cow product, which is described as “a milk alternative made with milk protein from fermentation instead of cows.” Using full spectrum molecular analysis technology, HRI found 92 small molecules in the product that are unknown to science, according to John Fagan, chief science officer at HRI.

Katya points out:

People are still largely confused and have no understanding what a bio-identical whey protein created by means of fermentation is. Largely though people also think that fermentation is good for health. Many vegans think this milk is vegan since it’s animal free, but it wouldn’t be a good choice for those on a plant based diet as it’s identical to actual cow milk protein. Not to mention that it’s a mix of protein with water and added oil which is hardly good for anyone… It’s a milk information war at its finest!!! Just keep confusing the consumer.

So how does this stuff taste?  I went to the Ithaca Target to look for it but could not find it.  If you can and try it, let me know.

 

The USDA announces updated guidelines for substantiating claims on meat and poultry labels in these categories.

• Animal Welfare Claims
• Breed Claims
• Diet Claims
• Living or Raising Conditions Claims
• Negative Antibiotic Use Claims
• Negative Hormone Use Claims
• Source and Traceability Claims
• Organic Claims
• Environment-Related Claims

It says:

Animal-raising claims, such as “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Grass-Fed” and Free-Range,” and environment-related claims, such as “Raised using Regenerative Agriculture Practices” and “Climate-Friendly,” are voluntary marketing claims that highlight certain aspects of how the source animals for meat and poultry products are raised or how the producer maintains or improves the land or otherwise implements environmentally sustainable practices…FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] last updated its guideline on these claims in 2019.

USDA’s new guidance says it “strongly encourages”

• The use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims
• Substantiating “no antibiotics” claims by testing for antibiotics or using a third-party certifier who does the testing
• Providing data on soil or air quality studies to substantiate environmental claims

Comment

This guidance is voluntary.

This raises immediate questions about the antibiotic claim.  A study conducted by researchers and policy experts at George Washington University found 20% of cattle marketed as “raised without antibiotics” to have been treated with antibiotics.

You would think that fixing this situation requires mandatory regulation, not voluntary.

Groups concerned about animal welfare also object.  The Animal Welfare Institute wants stronger standards.

The ASPCA issued a press release: “ASPCA Condemns Long-Awaited USDA Guidelines that Fail to Meaningfully Improve Oversight of Animal Welfare Label Claims”

ASPCA’s labeling guide points out that claims for cage-free, humane-raised, and pasture-fed, for example,

which often appear on the packaging of meat, egg and dairy products, may indicate better animal welfare but lack strong standards and have no on-farm verification processes, meaning farm conditions and the treatment of animals vary widely across producers.

Voluntary means that producers can voluntarily ignore such guidelines.  Plenty of evidence suggests that many do.

We need a better system.

• The full guidelines.
• The advance Federal Register notice.

A reader writes:

Can you address the current food crisis outlining the many foods, long time frame, economic impact, and personal effort involved in this event?

I did not realize until I read the NPR email news brief this morning that one factory is the source of nine  deaths,  that multiple meat products are suspect, that many stores are involved, that sell-by dates extend into October, that products may be in appliances at home, and that all food in the appliance must be disposed of and that the empty appliance must be thoroughly cleaned.

My immediate response was to say that this is yet another recall due to foodborne illness and I’ve written previously about lots of these.  But this one is especially tragic.

• The products—meat contaminated with Listeria—killed people who ate them.
• The plant in which they were produced is inspected daily by an on-site USDA inspector.
• Even so, the plant was especially dirty and unsafe.

The CDC reports: “Epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback data show that meats sliced at delis, including Boar’s Head brand liverwurst, are contaminated with Listeria and are making people sick.”

This particular outbreak began in June.

The USDA issued a recall notice at the end of July.

FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ refrigerators and in retail deli cases. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them and retailers are urged not to sell these products with the referenced sell by dates. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Consumers who have purchased these products are also urged to clean refrigerators thoroughly to prevent the risk of cross-contamination.

Boar’s Head published a list of the recalled products.  These include several brands and product types.

CBS used FOIA to request USDA’s records of Boar’s Head inspection results.  These take up 44 pages.

Food Safety News did a summary: “Inspection report reveals history of sanitation issues at Boar’s Head plant linked to deadly Listeria outbreak.”

Over a year of repeated sanitation failures — totaling 69 violations — at Boar’s Head’s Virginia plant, appears to have fueled the ongoing Listeria outbreak that has sickened 57 people across 18 states and claimed nine lives…The violations documented in the report include the presence of mold and mildew on surfaces that employees use to wash their hands, on the outside of steel vats and in holding coolers between smokehouses. These conditions are particularly concerning given the ability of Listeria monocytogenes to thrive in cold, moist environments.

CBS did a news video on the inspection results: “Mold, mildew and bugs linked to listeria outbreak, records show.”

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler is calling for a Congressional Investigation.

…years of inspection reports leave little doubt that the Boar’s Head plant’s HACCP [required safety plan] must have been either non-existent or used for toilet paper. It is hard to wrap your head around how food could be produced in these conditions by this company and under the un watchful gaze of FSIS inspectors.

Today’s New York Times points out that food safety recalls have additional consequences.  The economic viability of the town that houses this Boar’s Head plant depends on it for employment and purchases of local services.

Comment

Few of the food safety issues I’ve written about recently involve meat.  This is because of a major overhaul of USDA requirements for meat safety in the 1990s.  Once the USDA required meat producers to develop and use HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point] safety plans, outbreaks due to contaminated meat declined.  When done right, these plans are highly effective.  They require producers to identify places in production where contamination could occur, take steps to prevent contamination at those critical control points, and monitor to make sure those steps were taken.  USDA inspectors are supposed to make sure all that happens.

But the inspection system has a built-in conflict of interest.  The system is voluntary.  The USDA cannot force compliance or order recalls.  All it can do is to withdraw its inspectors, thereby forcing the plant to close.  Nobody ever wants to do that.

The food safety system, divided between two agencies as it is (with different legislative mandates and different powers), needs an overhaul.  Lives are at risk.

If you have any Boar’s Head products in your freezer, better take a look at what they are and get rid of any on the recall list.

And let your congressional representatives know that you want better food safety oversight.

Additions

Thanks to Michael Jacobson for sending a link to the Boar’s Head website and the company’s promotional video.  After seeing it, this feels like even more of a tragedy.

Here’s Bill Marler’s legal complaint, just filed.

7-31-24: USDA withdraws inspectors

9-13-24: Boar’s Head announces plant closure

The FDA is once again asking food companies to voluntarily reduce the sodium in their products.

It says that 40% of food categories have done just that.

Prior to 2021, consumer intake was approximately 3,400 milligrams per day on average, far higher than the limit recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans of 2,300 milligrams per day for those 14 years and older.

If finalized, the new set of voluntary targets would support reducing average individual sodium intake to about 2,750 milligrams per day. This reduction is approximately 20% lower than consumer intake levels prior to 2021.

it has published a report on this progress.

A quick reminder: salt is 40% sodium.  The Dietary Guidelines upper limit target of 2300 mg/day sodium means nearly 6 grams of salt per day, or 1.5 teaspoons.

As for why this matters, Sodium Reduction Is A Proven Strategy That Saves Lives—More Work Is Needed To Hold Industry Accountable.

In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) embarked on a sodium reduction strategy, only to meet repeated political hurdles…there has been little industry engagement, minimal public reporting, and no consequences if targets are not achieved.

Salt reduction across the entire food supply is the only measure that will help people reduce sodium intake.  This issue has been around for a long time.

Voluntary reduction is nice, but does not go nearly far enough and it can always be reversed.

The FDA could and should do more.

OK, granted.  Political opposition to salt reduction is fierce—if foods aren’t salty enough, people might not buy them.

But the FDA also has a long history of protection of commercial interests, which it claims it cannot share because it is obliged to protect trade secrets.  It’s time for that to change too.