A reader, Philly Nassau, sent me the ingredient list of several “immune-boosting” supplements, in quotes because I am a supplement skeptic in general, and of immune supplements in particular (I favor eating healthfully and staying active).

Immune supplements claim to be “Nootropics and Brain Supplement for Memory, Brain Support, Clarity, Focus, Mood Boost, Anti Anxiety & Stress Relief.”  Nootropics?  These are defined as drugs or supplements capable of enhancing memory, concentration, or other cognitive functions and of preventing cognitive decline.  How I wish.

But first, the science.

• Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status.  “The data highlight how coupling dietary interventions to deep and longitudinal immune and microbiome profiling can provide individualized and population-wide insight. Fermented foods may be valuable in countering the decreased microbiome diversity and increased inflammation pervasive in industrialized society.”
• The Stanford press release on this paper. A fermented-food diet increases microbiome diversity and lowers inflammation, Stanford study finds.  Stanford researchers discover that a 10-week diet high in fermented foods boosts microbiome diversity and improves immune responses.
• The New York Times account: How Fermented Foods May Alter Your Microbiome and Improve Your Health.  Foods like yogurt, kimchi, sauerkraut and kombucha increased the diversity of gut microbes and led to lower levels of inflammation.

Beyond eating healthfully and including fermented foods in the diet, here’s what’s being said about diet and immunity.

• Immune health is a marketing opportunity: Given current events, it’s likely that there has been no greater focus on immune health amongst consumers than right now. The market opportunity in this space is staggering, with immunity supplements showing an explosive 72.3% growth in 2020.
• Euromonitor Immunity Report: How to appeal to the holistic health shopper:  As consumers search for holistic and natural ways to improve their immunity, Euromonitor has published a new white paper examining how brands can appeal in a competitive and confusing market…. Read more
• Is immunity really the top functional choice for consumers in a pandemic era?  It sounds pretty logical – the pandemic has prompted increased interest in immunity across F&B. But is it really top dog in the world of functional beverages – or are there other claims consumers are more interested in?… Read more
• Parents are looking for immune-boosting options for school kids. Grocery retailers and packaged food and beverage brands should brace for another significant shift in consumer shopping habits this month as many families with students returning to in-person school after a year or more of distance or hybrid learning look for more on-the-go, budget-conscious and immune-boosting breakfast and lunch solutions.
• Immunity in a glass: Orange juice bioactives may bolster immunity and reduce inflammation:  The micronutrients and other bioactives contained in a glass of orange juice is sufficient enough to shore up the immune response and tackle oxidative stress and inflammation, a review concludes…. Read more  
• Beyond immunity: What ‘superpowers’ do today’s consumers want from their beverages?  The pandemic has propelled immunity to the top of the functional beverage agenda. But that doesn’t mean interest in other functional beverages has disappeared. We ask the experts what trends are bubbling away beneath the pandemic headlines – and will become all the more important to everyday heros in the coming years…. Read more  
• Shiitake happens: Mushrooms to play key role in immunity nutrition and health, concludes report:  Concerns over immune health and the pandemic has thrust the humble mushroom into the spotlight as experts hail the fungi’s ability to interact with gut microbes that influence healthy immune and inflammatory responses…. Read more  

The long-awaited UN Food System Summit takes place today.  The programme includes announcements from more than 85 heads of state and government.

The UN Food Systems Summit was announced by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, on World Food Day in October 2019 as a part of the Decade of Action for delivery on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The aim of the Summit is to deliver progress on all 17 of the SDGs through a food systems approach, leveraging the interconnectedness of food systems to global challenges such as hunger, climate change, poverty and inequality. The Summit will take place during the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday, September 23. More information about the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit can be found online: https://www.un.org/foodsystemssummit

Despite its focus on food systems approaches, it is highly controversial—as I explained in previous posts.

• The UN Summit on Food Systems 1: The UN Version
• The UN Summit on Food Systems 2: The Critique
• The UN Food Systems Pre-Summit starts in Rome TODAY: Online Access
• Weekend reading: A call to the UN Food Systems Summit: Ultra-processed foods

In preparation for today’s events, Lela Nargi of The Counter provides a thoughtful summary of the issues: “The UN is holding a summit on building a sustainable future for food and ag. Why are so many people upset about it?”

The concerns:

• Who is behind the Summit? [Proponents of industrial agriculture]
• Who sets the Summit agenda? [Ditto]
• What is excluded? [Indigenous practices, regenerative agriculture, agroecology]

While watching to see how this plays out, you can take a look at:

• Information about today’s #FoodSystems4People counter-demonstration
• Meat lobbying groups hard at work.  As The Guardian puts it,

Also from The Guardian:

• UN food summit will be ‘elitist’ and ‘pro-corporate’, says special rapporteur
• Corporate colonization’: small producers boycott UN food summit

And for why the issue of agroecology is so important, see Raj Patel’s discussion in Scientific American: Agroecology Is the Solution to World Hunger

Marcia Ishii asks: Could FAO’s partnership with CropLife International have anything to do with the disappearance of agroecology from the agenda?

I saw this headline in The Guardian.

I went immediately to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report:  A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems.

The trends emerging from the analysis are a clear call for action at country, regional and global levels to phase out the most distortive, environmentally and socially harmful support, such as price incentives and coupled subsidies, and redirecting it towards investments in public goods and services for agriculture, such as research and development and infrastructure, as well as decoupled fiscal subsidies.

The report detail the harmful effects of current agricultural subsidy practices in promoting crops that are harmful to human health and to the environment.

Most support worldwide, through price incentives, has been given to commodities with high GHG emissions such as beef, milk and rice, which have the largest carbon footprint.

In the US, the distribution of agricultural subsidies looks like this:

The main effect of subsidies is to cause farmers to plant more of whatever gets subsidized.  One result is that corn, a water-intensive crop, is grown in places where water is scarce.

Farm income reached record levels in 2020, but one-third of farm income came from government payments (nearly $46 billion in total), largely because of increases during the pandemic.

FAO’s Recommendations

• Phase out the most distorting and environmentally and socially harmful policies, such as price incentives or coupled subsidies.
• Repurpose support for high-emission or unhealthy products towards support that has environmental and health conditionalities and that promotes more sustainable food systems.
• Repurpose fiscal support to protect consumers and ensure food security and nutrition, especially for the poorest.
• Create fiscal space for agricultural support by tapping into new fiscal resources aimed at addressing climate change or stimulating the economy.

Good ideas, but good luck getting them implemented.  Lobbyists for corn, ethanol, soybeans, and the like prefer to keep those subsidies coming, and they have huge power over Congress.

Chronic (“noncommunicable”) diseases—heart disease, cancer, and diabetes—account for half of annual deaths in the United States at enormous physical and economic cost to individuals and to society.  These conditions are related to diet; obesity is a risk factor for all three.

Despite the widespread prevalence of obesity (the CDC says 73.6% of American adults are overweight or severely overweight) and its associated chronic conditions, no concerted government effort is aimed at prevention.

This is also true on the international level.  The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals barely mention reduction of noncommunicable diseases.  You have to go to the fourth sub-goal of SDG 3, Good Health and Well-Being, to find:

By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable disaeases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

Why is so little attention focused on diet-related conditions?  To prevent them, people have to eat more of healthier foods and less of unhealthier foods—public health measures strongly opposed by the food industry.  [For detailed evidence on this point, see Swinburn BA, et al.  The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report.  Lancet. 2019;393:791-846].

Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan have the same question.  They asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into government efforts to prevent chronic disease.

The result: Chronic Health Conditions:Federal Strategy Needed to Coordinate Diet-Related Efforts.

It’s not that the US government ignores chronic disease; on the contrary.  The GAO identified an astounding 200 federal efforts to reduce these conditions—but fragmented among an even more astounding 21 federal agencies.

Most of these are focused on research.

These programs are all over the place, and nobody is in charge.

Agency Officials Say They Lack Authority to Lead a Federal Strategy on Diet:  Despite their support for a federal strategy to coordinate diet-related efforts, no agency officials we interviewed asserted that their agencies had the authority to lead a federal strategy that would have reasonable assurance of being sustained across administrations. Officials from six agencies said they would not have the authority, and officials from the remaining 10 agencies said they did not know or were not in a position to comment. Some officials stated that they would have the authority to lead a strategy for their agency alone but not for the entire federal government.

The GAO came to the obvious conclusion.

Congress should consider identifying and directing a federal entity to lead the development and implementation of a federal strategy to coordinate diet-related efforts that aim to reduce Americans’ risk of chronic health conditions. The strategy could incorporate elements from the 2011 National Prevention Strategy and should address outcomes and accountability, resources, and leadership.

Leadership!  Here’s my list.

• Say what a healthy diet is in plain English.
• Tell the public to avoid or minimize ultra-processed foods.
• Establish policies—from agriculture to public health—to promote healthful diets and discourage unhealthful diets.

This will take courage.  Hence: Leadership.

A sharp-eyed reader, Paula Rochelle, sent me this one.  From the title alone, she suspected industry sponsorship.  Good thinking!

The Study: Dietary strawberry improves cognition in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in older adults.

Dietary intervention: For 90 days: “12 g of a lyophilised, standardised blend of SB sourced from equal parts of Albion, San Andreas, Camino Real and Well-Pict 269 varieties, twice daily (24 g/d, equivalent to two cups per serving of fresh SB).”

Results: “This study found that 90 d of dietary intervention with SB resulted in (1) improved word recognition and (2) improved spatial learning and memory in a virtual navigation task among healthy older adults.”

Conclusion: “In conclusion, these findings suggest that the inclusion of SB in the diet may aid in preserving some aspects of hippocampal cognitive function during normal ageing.”

Funding: The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and California Strawberry Commission.

Conflicts of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Comment: This study received partial support from USDA as part of its effort to promote fruit-and-vegetable consumption.  The California Strawberry Commission wants people to buy more strawberries.   It summarizes the research it sponsors on its website.  Everyone knows that eating fruits and vegetables is good for health.  Why does the Strawberry Commission go to all this trouble to demonstrate that strawberries are good for health?  My guess: to compete with blueberries for market share.  This, like other such studies, is about marketing.  The authors do not view strawberry industry funding as a source of conflicted interests.  They should.

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observations that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and that recipients of industry funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

Leonard Barkan.  The Hungry Eye: Eating, Drinking, and European Culture from Rome to the Renaissance.  Princeton University Press, 2021.  

What a treasure.

I still get asked all the time: “What is Food Studies?”

Leonard Barkan, Professor of English and Art, and my esteemed NYU colleague until he was seduced away by Princeton, directly answers that question in this book.

…food and drink can scarcely enter cultural discourse without forming either the center or the outer periphery of an argument.”  (p. 142)

Food, he insists, inserts itself into everything human.  The tension between its material (earthy) and metaphorical (symbolical) meanings makes food impossible to ignore.

Barkan reads for the food.  In doing so, he invents a new term,”fooding” (analagous to “queering” as an analytic technique), to explore and interpret art and literature.

This book does for food in art and literature what Sidney Mintz did for food and global politics in Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History.  It should be right up there with Mintz’s book as a foundational text of Food Studies.

Hungry Eye illustrates the concepts with hundreds (literally) of images of mosaics, drawings, and paintings—in full color.

One, to which Barkan often refers, is of a mosaic now in the Vatican, “Unswept Floor,” which depicts the detritus of a sumptuous dinner party.   It’s material meaning?  Garbage.  “…the Unswept Floor is a monument to the possibilities of rendering edibles as art” (p. 33).  Its metaphorical meanings?  Take your pick: wealth; power; disgust; eat or be eaten; here today, gone tomorrow. [And see Digression below at **]

The book’s them is illustrated with an etching from this painting of a bucolic scene titled “Pensent-ils au raisin?”

Barkan explains,

The cigar in this case is not just a cigar; it fact, it’s scarcely a cigar at all.  With this image in front of us and the question, “Are they thinking about the grapes?” having been posed, we know the answer: Hell, no!  Who would think of food at a time like this?

Clearly, I would. (p. 14)

Because he is reading for the food.

In this example, you might not pay attention to the old woman with a basket of eggs to the right of all the action in this painting by Titian.

But Barkan does.

But sometimes—and this will continue to be a recurrent theme of this book—food places a demand on the viewer that it be read as the thing itself.  What is utterly distinctive about Titian’s egg seller is her extraordinary frontal position in the painting…For me, this is not so ambiguous, nor it is merely an implication…What Titian was offering on behalf of his employers was, along with the representation of a sacred scene, some very familiar nourishment.  (p. 93-94)

He reads for food in the Bible,

I would argue that the Bible, and the traditions of representation that follow from it, display an interest in eating and drinking that is more constant than might have been noticed, and furthermore that there are ways in which those instances, taken together, can be seen as systematic rather than merely accidental or marginal.  (p. 95)

Eating and drinking, along with the practices that make them possible, are not exclusively metaphors, of course.  The New Testament never lets us forget that hunger and thirst are real.  Miracles like the filling of the disciples’ nets with fish or the feeding of the five thousand or the four thousand out of a diminutive supply of loaves and fishes, not to mention the rather less solemn instance of producing wine in water jugs when the booze has run out during the wedding at Cana, are significant because the functions of gaining nourishment and experiencing commensality are eminently worthy of the divide efforts undertaken by the Son of God.  (p. 99)

You are interested in botanical science or the Columbian Exchange?  See what he says about depictions of fruit and vegetables  in early 16^th Century Italian wall paintings.

The range of species is astonishing: five types of grains, five types of legumes, eight forms of nuts, seven forms of drupes, nineteen forms of berries, six varieties of apple, and four types of aggregate fruits…What is even more remarkable is that we are able to identify each of these species…Up to date, it turns out, in the most radical way, as is clear from the presence of several species from the New World, including multiple types of squash or gourds…and, most astonishing to inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, zea mays…or corn on the cob.  As these representations appeared just over two decades from the date of Columbus’s first voyage, it seems that gastronomic news has traveled quite fast.  (p. 192)

The book shows many different representations of The Last Supper.  What were the artists trying to tell us about the relationship of the food on the table to Christian symbolism?

What kind of relation, then, might we postulate, in regard to food and wine, between the literal and the metaphorical?  There are, after all, seven sacraments, at least in the Catholic church.  None of them has undergone the wars of interpretation that the Eucharist has: that, I believes, is because it involves eating and drinking, because it consists of literal ingestion.  Once again, it’s the sign at the entrance to the gullet that reads, “The metaphor stops here.”  (p. 241.)

As for the literal and metaphorical meanings of the Eucharist itself?

Let us bring this discourse radically down to earth, from theology to experience and from medieval debate to twenty-first-century cyberspace,  One has only to google the question “Should I chew the host? To discover that hundreds, possibly thousands of Christians—mostly Catholics, it seems—have spent their time at the altar rail in a desperate state of uncertainty, not about the transcendental meaning of the sacrament or the precise reality of the real presence but about what they should be doing with their teeth and tongue.  The answer to this question (spoiler alert) is that   is to raise the question whether I am eating Jesus or eating dinner.  And the church is silent on this point.  (p. 246).

I could go on and on but everyone interested in Food Studies as a discipline, food in art, and anything having to do with food and culture will want to read this book—for its ideas, its gorgeousness, and for sheer pleasure.

I will never again ignore depictions of food in paintings or look at them in the same way.

Thanks Leonard.

**And here’s the digression: When I saw the photos of Unswept Floor, I thought immediately of the bronzed garbage embedded in the road at the site of Boston’s old Haymarket, which I just loved and went to admire  every time I went to Boston.  But the last time I looked for the pieces, they were gone.  I just looked it up—they will be resinstalled at some point—but the best part is that the entire installation was inspired by Unswept Floor, as described here.

I posted last week on meat-industry consolidation, an issue that has become so prominent that the White House is even talking about it.

The President understands that families have been facing higher prices at the grocery store recently. Half of those recent increases are from meat prices—specifically, beef, pork, and poultry. While factors like increased consumer demand have played a role, the price increases are also driven by a lack of competition at a key bottleneck point in the meat supply chain: meat-processing. Just four large conglomerates control the majority of the market for each of these three products, and the data show that these companies have been raising prices while generating record profits during the pandemic.

That’s why the Biden-Harris Administration is taking bold action to enforce the antitrust laws, boost competition in meat-processing, and push back on pandemic profiteering that is hurting consumers, farmers, and ranchers across the country.

Speaking for the White House, the director of the National Economic Council said:

When you see that level of consolidation and the increase in prices, it raises a concern about pandemic profiteering — about companies that are driving price increases in a way that hurts consumers who are going to the grocery store, and also isn’t benefiting the actual producers, the farmers and the ranchers that are growing the product.

The reactions

In a statement, Tyson’s Foods said “Tyson Foods categorically rejects the conclusions drawn earlier today by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the National Economic Council in a White House press briefing.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published a report detailing the drivers of consumer inflation in the food sector, none of which are related to industry consolidation or scale.”

Smithfield pointed to a statement from the North American Meat Institute.

And then there’s this @FarmPolicy tweet,

Interesting times, these.

Take a look at this.

The authors write:

It is clear that many (especially young) people no longer want to accept the profit-driven damage caused by the meat industry and are increasingly interested in and committed to climate, sustainability, animal welfare and food sovereignty causes. We consider this an encouraging step for our future and want to use this Atlas to strengthen their commitment with information.

This Atlas is intended to support all those who seek climate justice and food sovereignty, and who want to protect nature. Revealing new data and facts, and providing links between various key issues, it is a crucial contribution to the work done by many to shed light on the problems arising from industrial meat production.

They aren’t kidding about data, facts, and issues.  The graphics alone are worth viewing.  Three examples.

Pesticide applications, global:

Diseases transmitted by animals to humans: A chronological list

Trends and investment in plant-based meat alternatives

And here’s what The Guardian highlights: meat and dairy firms emit more greenhouse gases than Germany, Britain, or France.