Here’s what started all this:

P&G, Coca-Cola make Olympics promotional push: Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola are among the companies making a promotional push around the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. P&G is planning to focus its efforts on specific brands such as Pampers diapers and Gillette razors, and Coca-Cola has plans for over 70 markets. Sponsors of the International Olympic Committee have spent 18% more than they did for the Tokyo Games in 2021, Comcast reports.

And here’s the response:

TODAY, the global digital campaign, “Hey Big Soda!”  was launched demanding an end to Big Soda’s sponsorship of sport…Please share the campaign with the hashtag #KickBigSodaOutofSport!

Sign the petition from Kick Big Soda Out urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to terminate the Coca-Cola Company’s sponsorship.

For more information: info@kickbigsodaout.org.

In its Week #2 report, Kick Big Soda Out says:

Over 34,000 people have signed the petition, and 60 organizations from 21 countries have endorsed the campaign as Campaign Partner Organizations!

Partner materials are here.

Examples from the Mexico team:

• A demonstration, featuring the campaign and organized by El Poder del Consumidor and other Mexico partners, was held in front of Mexican Olympic Committee Headquarters on July 23. Multiple publications covered the event including Greenpeace Mexico, Aristegui Noticias, Cronica and 24 Morelos, among others.
• Simón Barquera, took to Instagram and Twitter to urge his followers to sign and share the “Kick Big Soda Out of Sport” petition. https://x.com/SBarquera/status/1815410422490825089

Food Politics in action!  Join the campaign.

The latest outbreak of illnesses caused by Salmonella in raw milk means it’s time to talk about that again.

To start:

Food safety lawyer, Bill Marler, takes a dim view of how the California Department of Health is handling this outbreak:

California Department of Health still silent on 165 ill from consuming Raw Milk: Over the last 30 plus years of practice I have been a vocal advocate for robust public health involvement in disease – especially food borne illness prevention. It is beyond me to comprehend why public health would remain mute in the face of at least 165 sick, 20 hospitalized and 40% of the ill five… Continue Reading

He takes even a dimmer view of how the producer of the raw milk has responded.  The Raw Farm producer is Mark McAfee.

Mark, you are as full of shit as your milk is:  Mark, first, my beef is with the California Sate Health Department that spiked that your products sickened at least 165 people in four states with a combination of Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli (you are not illegally selling raw milk across state lines again?).

Comment

What to say about raw milk?  No question, it’s risky.  How risky?  As with so much else in nutrition, it depends on point of view.

Federal agencies and public health groups warn against it.

• The FDA rebuts all claims made for raw milk:  “None of the claims made by the raw milk advocates that we have examined for you can withstand scientific scrutiny. Unfortunately, the false “health benefits” claims of raw milk advocates may cause parents to give raw milk to their children and prompt immuno-compromised people, such as pregnant women, the elderly, and hospitalized patients, who want better nutrition, to also start consuming raw milk. It is these very same sub-groups of the population, however, that are most at risk for becoming ill or even dying from foodborne illness as a result of consuming adulterated raw milk.”
• Harvard Health: Why drinking raw milk can be dangerous: take heed of the research, be aware of the risks associated with drinking raw milk, and in general, avoid drinking it.
• Physician’s Weekly: Less than Half of Adults Know Dangers of Raw Milk:  “It is important that anyone planning to consume raw milk be aware that doing so can make you sick and that pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illnesses,” said Patrick Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.

Lawsuits seem to be the only disincentive; sellers of contaminated raw milk do not go to jail, apparently, even when deaths are involved.

Owner of raw milk creamery behind fatal outbreak sentenced to probation.  A man who owned a raw milk creamery behind the deaths of two people has been sentenced to probation. U.S. Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks in New York sentenced Johannes Vulto on July 9 to three years probation, a $100,000 fine and 240 hours of community service. Vulto and his… Continue Reading

Risk warnings are not pausing raw milk consumption:  At a time when friends don’t let friends drink raw milk and some world-renowned scientists with deep expertise in the H5N1 virus think the situation is serious enough that it should be illegal to sell milk products that are not pasteurized, not much is happening. The raw milk business is… Continue Reading

If you must drink raw milk, know your farmer, make sure the milk is fresh and comes from one cow, and use it right away.  The risk goes up the more it is pooled and sits around.

Raw milk is always risky.  How risky?  No way to know.

I prefer Pasteurized.

This one was sent to me by a reader: Animal vs. Plant Protein: New Research Suggests That These Protein Sources Are Not Nutritionally Equivalent: Scientists found that two-ounce-equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods provide greater essential amino acids (EAA) bioavailability than the same quantity of plant-based protein foods. The study challenges the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which suggest these protein sources are nutritionally equivalent.

I went right to the study: “Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials” by Gavin Connolly, Joshua L. Hudson, Robert E. Bergia, Eric M. Davis, Austin S. Hartman, Wenbin Zhu, Chad C. Carroll and Wayne W. Campbell, 25 June 2023, Nutrients. DOI: 10.3390/nu15132870

Oh.  It’s in Nutrients, a journal that might as well be called “The Journal of Industry-Funded Research” (authors have to pay for publication of their articles in this journal–2900 Swiss Francs).

The study was designed to demonstrate that protein from animal sources is better than protein from plant sources, immediately raising the question: Who sponsored this study?

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

Do the authors report conflicts of interest?  Yes, they do:

Conflicts of Interets: When this research was conducted, W.W.C. received research funding from the following organizations: American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. C.C.C. received funding from the Beef Checkoff. R.E.B. is currently employed by Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM); the research presented in this article was conducted in a former role and has no connection with ADM. G.C., J.L.H., E.M.D., A.S.H. and W.Z. declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

I’m not going to bother going through the methods, results, or other details.  The point here is that industry-funded research has a high probability of producing results favorable to the sponsors’ interests, as happened in this instance.  The statement that the sponsors had no role may or may not be true; it’s hard to know without further investigation, but research on this question demonstrates that the statement is not always accurate.  Funding exerts influence, whether recognized by researchers or not.

Jennifer Grayson.  A Call to Farms: Reconnecting to Nature, Food, and Community in a Modern World.  Countryman Press, 2024.

What a great title! I did a blurb for Jennifer Grayson’s previous book, Unlatched: The Evolution of Breastfeeding and the Making of a Controversy, and was happy to have the chance to blurb this one too, not least because “A Call to Farms” is such a great title.  Grayson, as it happens, is one terrific writer.   

Here’s the new blurb:

In this deeply inspiring book, Jennifer Grayson examines the motives, practices, problems, and successes of a diverse collection of young small-scale farmers growing food sustainably and achieving enormous satisfaction and joy in the process. The farmers described in A Call to Farms, provide abundant reasons for hope in the future of food healthier for people and the planet as well as for its producers.  If you are looking for hope, here it is.

And here is a short excerpt capturing its essence:

A week into my first farm job, I realized it was the most joyful and fulfilling work I had ever experienced.  After two months of being outside all day, nearly every day, I felt the best—both physically and mentally—that I ever had in my life.  But the real transformation occurred as I began to meet and learn bout the new and driven farmers, graziers, and food activists emerging all over the country.  They hadn’t grown up in farming families; they came from backgrounds vastly underrepresented in agriculture; and many of them were far younger than I was, not to mention decades younger than the average American farmer.  I was awestruck by their intention and ingenuity.  They hadn’t turned to this way of life as some back-to-the-land fantasy.  They had chosen sustainable agriculture as a tactile way to effect environmental activism and food justice; for cultural reclamation; to reconnect to nature, food, and community; to live aligned with their values; to do, in the words of one farmer you’ll meet in this book, “something that means something.”

As I said, inspiring.  Get out there and farm!

I saw this on FoodNavigator–Asia, a newsletter to which I subscribe.

Red yeast rice impact: Kobayashi Pharmaceutical records nearly US$25m losses in Q1: Kobayashi Pharmaceutical reported an “extraordinary loss” of nearly US$25m (JPY$3.86bn) in its Q1 results due to the recall of its contaminated red yeast rice products, raw materials, and compensation of medical expenses. Read more

Red yeast rice is a dietary supplement with a statin-like component observed to reduce blood cholesterol levels, although not nearly to the same extent as statin drugs.  Consumer Lab tests show at least half not to contain what they say they do.

Now, on top of that, the supplements were associated with kidney disease (at least 50 cases) and deaths (at least 2) among takers in Japan.

Comment: Dietary supplements are the wild west of the food supply.  Anyone can make and sell them.  Because they are mainly harmless, nobody much bothers to test them, even major pharmaceutical companies.  Problems with red yeast rice supplements have been known for a long time.  As a result, supplements are risky.  How risky?  Nobody knows.  I don’t recommend them.

I subscribe to Pet Food Industry and greatly admire the superb quality of its reporting.

Here’s an example:

Pet obesity 2023: owners oblivious, vets scared to talk: Pet owners may be largely unaware that there is a problem, especially with their own dogs and cats, despite years of warnings.

Several items in this article got my attention.

A.  It is based on a survey by The Association for Pet Obesity (APOP).  Pet obesity is such a widespread problem that it has induced formation of a society to address it.

B.  Pet owners do not recognize that their pets are overweight.

The survey found only 28% of cat owners and 17% of dog owners to say their pets were overweight.  Instead,  84% of dog owners and 70% of cat owners said their pets’ weights were healthy.

Veterinarians say 59% of dogs and 61% of cats are overweight or obese, and percentages are rising.

C.  Veterinarians are reluctant to discuss obesity with pet owners.

Although the survey found 84% of veterinarians to report encountering “pet owners who appeared embarrassed or angry when told their pet was overweight,” only 4% of owners thought their veterinarian would be uncomfortable discussing the issue.

Comment

None of this should be surprising, as I think about it.  Doctors avoid discussing obesity with human patients (embarrassment, stigma, and lack of time, empathy, or satisfactory treatment approaches).  Obesity has become the “O” word.

An astonishing 75% of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, and children are also getting there.

We, as a society, need to prevent this kind of weight gain for ourselves, our kids, and our pets.

How to do this requires policies, and lots of them, all at once.  Policies require politics.  Politics requires advocacy.

We need all of these, and right away.

Resources

Sunday’s New York Times has an entire section on pets.

Information about my book with Malden Nesheim on pet food issues, Feed Your Pet Right, is here.

I’m always interested in the latest updates on progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

17 Goals to Transform Our World: The Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and environmental protection.

Thid new progress report is just out: Sachs, J.D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. (2024). Sustainable Development Report 2024: The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future. Dublin University Press. 500 pages (!).

Its first key finding:

On average, globally, only 16% of the SDG targets are on track to be achieved by 2030, with the remaining 84% demonstrating limited or a reversal of progress.

• Off track: SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG14 (Life Below Water), SDG15 (Life on Land) and SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).
• Reversal of progress: obesity rate (under SDG 2), press freedom (under SDG 16), the red list index (under SDG 15), sustainable nitrogen management (under SDG 2), life expectancy at birth (under SDG 3).

Its key finding specifically related to food:

SDG targets related to food and land systems are particularly off-track: Globally, 600 million people will still suffer from hunger by 2030, obesity is increasing globally, and greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) represent almost a quarter of annual global GHG emissions.

What needs to be done:

The recommendations:

Significant progress is possible but requires several dramatic changes:

1) avoid overconsumption beyond recommended levels and limit animal-based protein consumption with dietary shifts compatible with cultural preferences;

2) invest to foster productivity, particularly for products and areas with strong demand growth; and

3) implement inclusive, robust, and transparent monitoring systems to halt deforestation.

And how, exactly, are we to do this?  This, the report does not, and cannot, specify.

Report resources

• Website
• Data Visualization

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous forwarded this email she received from Kristen Hicks-Roof PhD, RDN, LDN, FAND , Director of Human Nutrition·National Pork Board.

Growing Strong: Animal-Source Foods’ Role in Childhood Development and Sustainable Food Systems

Childhood and adolescence are critically important periods for growth and development. These periods are also key for establishing healthy dietary patterns that can influence eating behaviors and health into adulthood.

During these stages, animal-source foods provide critical nutrients — such as high-quality protein, iron, zinc, choline, and B vitamins — that are not easily replaced from other sources.

In this webinar, Dr. Adegbola Adesogan will:

– Present evidence on the role of animal-source foods in childhood development and impact on future health outcomes

– Review how animal-source foods are a source of key nutrients that support health in children and adolescents

The CPE activity application for this webinar is pending review by the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR) and approval for 1.0 CPEU.

Comment

Presumably, the CDR will approve this for continuing education credits required for dietetic licensing.  Also presumably, participants will not learn about the polluting effects of Pork CAFOs or the community lawsuits against them for obnoxious odors and other offenses.  Or the way the pork industry fights back against such complaints.  Or the welfare issues about farrowing crates.  Or complaints about Pork Checkoff programs.

As I’ve noted previously, dietitians are able to fulfill all requirements for continuing education credits from industry-funded courses like this one.

Conflict of interest, anyone?