At last, a presidential candidate interested in food.

The Harris-Walz agenda aims to lower costs for Americans, food costs among them.

Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will work to enact a plan in their first 100 days to go after bad actors to bring down Americans’ grocery costs and keep inflation in check. They will work with Congress to:

• Advance the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries;
• Set clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries.
• Secure new authority for the FTC and state attorneys general to investigate and impose strict new penalties on companies that break the rules.

Furthermore,

Vice President Harris will also direct her Administration to crack down on unfair mergers and acquisitions that give big food corporations the power to jack up food and grocery prices and undermine the competition that allows all businesses to thrive while keeping prices low for consumers.

And her plan will support smaller businesses, like grocery stores, meat processors, farmers, and ranchers, so those industries can become more competitive….More competition means lower prices for you and your families.

Unfair mergers?  Mars had just proposed to buy Kellanova, and I discussed the Kroger-Albertson’s proposed merger yesterday.

At a campaign event in North Carolina, Vice President Kamala Harris again discussed food prices.

A loaf of bread costs 50 percent more today than it did before the pandemic.  Ground beef is up almost 50 percent.  Many of the big food companies are seeing their highest profits in two decades.  And while many grocery chains pass along these savings, others still aren’t.

…My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules, and we will support smaller food businesses that are trying to play by the rules and get ahead.

…We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.  More competition means lower prices for you and your families.

Good, but these are campaign promises that necessarily depend on Congressional support.

As Politico explains,

…it’s unlikely Democrats will have the votes to pass price-gouging legislation in Congress. Her proposal essentially mirrors a bill from Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) that has stalled amid GOP opposition.

And Harris’ pitch, which includes giving the FTC more resources to investigate major acquisition deals in the food sector, would need GOP buy-in so Democrats can swing extra FTC resources via spending fights in Congress.

The food industry, of course, protests.

The Food Industry Association blames higher prices on inflation.

The National Grocers Association says its profit margins are already too thin.

I have no idea how any of this will play out, but it’s terrific to see food issues on the agenda.

Recall that the large grocery chain, Kroger, proposed a couple of years ago to acquire another large grocer, Albertsons, for about $25 billion.

The FTC did not think this was a good idea.  It FTC filed a suit to prevent the proposed merger on the grounds that it would make the US supermarket landscape even less competitive than it already is.  It would be likely to raise prices for consumers, reduce wages for employees, and (as I’ve written previously) lead to the closure of many stores.

Kroger is fighting back.  It filed an injunction arguing that blocking the merger violates the constitution. 

In its news release, Kroger said

“The merger between Kroger and Albertson’s is squarely focused on ensuring we bring customers lower prices starting day one while securing the future of good-paying union jobs,” said Rodney McMullen, Kroger Chairman and CEO. “We stand prepared to defend this merger in the upcoming trial in federal court – the appropriate venue for this matter to be heard – and we are asking the Court to halt what amounts to an unlawful proceeding before the FTC’s own in-house tribunal.”

In the meantime, BIG, a newsletter on the politics of monopoly power, reports

After two years of investigations and negotiations over court logistics, next week, the Federal trial for the $24 billion Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger begins. And this one’s really bitter, with new revelations emerging a few days ago from the Federal Trade Commission that a group of Albertsons executives, including CEO Vivek Sankaran, have been deleting text messages relevant to the trial that the court ordered them to preserve. That’s a big legal no-no.

A big legal no-no indeed. This from the FTC’s complaint (references omitted)

On January 17, 2024, the FTC requested a detailed accounting from Albertsons about how responsive documents were lost and what efforts had been taken to recover lost documents. Albertsons did not respond for nearly four months. When they finally responded, they detailed efforts to recover deleted messages from Mr. Broderick’s and Vivek Sankaran’s phones. . Although Albertsons was able to recover approximately 70 text messages from Mr. Sankaran’s phone, further efforts proved unsuccessful…For months, Plaintiffs have tried to seek information about the extent to which Albertsons’ text messages were deleted, obtaining a court order in the Administrative Adjudication requiring production of texts from potential trial witnesses,  and raising repeated inquiries about inexplicably missing documents.

This is what the USDA says consolidation in the grocery industry looks like now.  The proposed merger will only add to monopoly power int he grocery industry.  For the record, Walmart accounts for about 25% of grocery sales int he US.

Is the Kroger-Albertson’s merger likely to be good for the public?  The FTC does not think so and neither do I.

Nutrients, a journal that requires authors to pay CHF 2900 ($3400) for their articles, does publish the most amazing studies, ostensibly peer-reviewed (I’ve heard mixed things about its process).  This journal is a source for many of my Monday posts, each more creative than the next.

This is a good one. 

Sourdough Bread with Different Fermentation Times: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Subjects with Metabolic Syndrome. Pérez-Vega KA, Sanllorente A, Zomeño M-D, Quindós A, Muñoz-Martínez J, Malcampo M, Aldea-Perona A, Hernáez Á, Lluansí A, Llirós M, et al.. Nutrients. 2024; 16(15):2380. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16152380

Rationale: The Mediterranean diet, featuring sourdough bread, shows promise in managing metabolic syndrome.

Method: In a double-blind clinical trial, participants randomized to consume either Elias Boulanger^® long-fermentation (48 h) sourdough bread (EBLong) or Elias Boulanger^® short-fermentation (2 h) sourdough bread (EBShort) over a two-month period.

Results. EBShort bread was effective in reducing some inflammation markers.

Conclusion.  The consumption of sourdough bread may offer potential benefits in reducing inflammation markers in individuals with metabolic syndrome; however, longer fermentation times did not show additional benefits.

Conflicts of interest: “I.E. and N.EM. were employees of Elias–Boulanger and received funding from RTC-2017-6467-2 program. They had no role in the collection, analyses, and interpretation of data or in the decision to publish the results. The rest of the authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Comment: I’ll bet they didn’t.  Sourdough bread is responsible for the benefits of the Mediterranean diet?  That’s news to me.  The bread is healthier if its fermented for a shorter time?  Also news.

The paper does not describe the taste or texture of the bread.

• Ingredients EBLong: whole-grain flour, water, yeast, salt [in other words, real bread].
• Ingredients EBShort: refined wheat flour, water, yeast, salt, wheat gluten, xanthan gum, emulsifier E471, antioxidant E-300 [this is ultra-processed bread].

Thus, the underlying purpose of this study must be to give Elias-Boulanger an excuse to cut down on fermentation time and claim the cheaper, ultra-processed bread is healthier. Count me as dubious, on taste grounds alone.

But isn’t this a great example of marketing research in action?  You can’t make this stuff up.

ADDITION

A reader points out that Nutrients is not alone in requiring Article Processing Charges (APCs) for open-access publication.  Prestigious journals charge much more.

• Nature:  $12,290

• BMJ: £5408 / €6154 / $7159 $7,159 

• Lancet:  $6,000 – $7,000:+

Susan Greenhalgh. Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola.  University of Chicago Press, 2024.

This terrific book picks up where I left off with Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning) (2015) and Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat (2018).

Susan Greenhalgh’s focus, however, is on ILSI, the International Life Sciences Institute (now renamed the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences).  ILSI is a classic industry front group,  It was created originally by Coca-Cola to make sure science promoted corporate interests.  It is funded by big food companies.  It positions itself as an independent think tank.  Hence: front group.

Soda Science documents how ILSI, working through personal connections (guanxi) at the Chinese Ministry of Health, convinced the Chinese government to target obesity prevention measures at physical activity (“move more”), rather than diet (“eat less,” or “eat better”).

The first half of the book tells the story of ILSI’s role in the Global Energy Balance Network, a group outed as funded by Coca-Cola (I wrote about this in 2015, particularly here, here, and here in The Guardian).

The second half gives an intimate, first-hand account of how science politics works in China.

Greenhalgh is a distinguished anthropologist.  She retired from Harvard as as the John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Research Professor of Chinese Society (she is an expert on China).  She uses social science methods—interviews and qualitative research as well as document review—to study this particular example of soda politics.

• The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI): true colors revealed (October 3, 2019)
• ILSI tracked media responses to my book, Unsavory Truth (February 22, 2023)

The story she tells here is fascinating in its own right and a great read.

It also makes one other point: social science methods are really useful in getting information unavailable any other way.

I say this because bench scientists tend to look down on qualitative research and consider it non-research.  I disagree.  I think qualitative research is essential, and has plenty to contribute.  This book is a great example of why.

While I’m on the topic of AI—a hot issue in the food business—here are a few items I’ve collected recently.

• AI watch: The latest on artificial intelligence in food: While some fear artificial intelligence spells the end of humanity, others back its potential for positive disruption. How’s this playing out in food and drink? We bring you the latest…… Read more
• Study: AI-assisted personalized diet program supports weight loss and gut microbiome health: A dietary and lifestyle program tailored to individuals’ genetics and gut microbiome, as well as self-reported and wearables data, had a positive effect on the gut microbiome and showed significant associations between the gut microbiome and weight loss, according to a study by Digbi Health in the USA, reported in Frontiers…. Read more
• AI Drives New Era in Food and Beverage: Experts at Monday’s IFT FIRST keynote panel agreed that artificial intelligence is and will continue to be a transformative force reshaping the science of food industry.
• Coca-Cola leverages AI, technology to drive sales, volume in difficult economic climate: The Coca-Cola Co. is “leveraging digital and tech-enabled innovations” in marketing and price-pack architecture to drive incremental sales and volumes of new products in the critical second year after launch – helping the CPG giant beat expectations in its second quarter despite price hikes and ongoing financial pressure on some consumers, according to company executives…. Read more
• Danone partners with Microsoft on AI project: Danone has partnered with tech giant Microsoft on a multi-year collaboration to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the manufacturer’s operations…. Read more

I definitely wanted to read more of this article from the newsletter, NutrIngredients-Europe:

ASA targets menopause claims with AI assisted crackdown:  The UK’s advertising standards authority (ASA) has warned supplement firms they must remove ads which make claims to treat or cure the symptoms of menopause, as part of a wider AI-assisted campaign…. Read more

Apparently, the UK’s version of our Federal Trade Commission is using artificial intelligence to monitor supplement advertising claims.   The AI system picked up ads for supplements made by Rejuvit Labs and FemTech Healthcare.

An ad for Rejuvit Menopause Relief supplement

included a customer testimonial that stated, “round 2-8 weeks after my first capsule, I already had extra room in my pants (everyone was asking how I lost weight), I felt more energized, and the hot flashes [sic] were gone […] I just keep feeling better, healthier, and happier.”

The ASA stated: “We considered that consumers would understand these to be claims that the product could treat symptoms of menopause, including resolving menopause-related weight gain, increasing energy levels and stopping hot flashes.”

The ASA takes a dim view of non-medical “cures” for menopausal symptoms and is going after them.

With AI algorithms!

It’s a brave new world out there.

I was interested to see this report in the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): Revolving door: You are free to influence us “behind the scenes,” FDA tells staff leaving for industry jobs. BMJ 2024;386:q1418. doi: 10.1136/bmj.q1418.

The “Revolving Door,” of course, is the term used to describe how officials of federal regulatory agencies leave to take jobs with the industry they formerly regulated, and vice versa.  I’ve written about this previously. Others have written about the FDA’s “revolvement” with the drug industry.

You can easily imagine why a food company would want to hire a former FDA official.  That person will know how to deal with annoying regulatory issues, and will no doubt still have friends and former colleagues in the agency who can help smooth the way.aa

So what does the BMJ add to this?  Plenty, unfortunately.  Evidence from e-mails obtained through FOIA (freedom-of-information) requests.

Internal emails show that the US Food and Drug Administration informs employees leaving for industry jobs that, despite restrictions on post-employment lobbying, they are still permitted to influence the agency…The legal ability to work “behind the scenes” is enshrined in federal regulations2 and highlights a “critical, critical loophole” in US revolving door policy, says a leading consumer advocate.

Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the organisation Public Citizen, told The BMJ that the rules forbid various forms of direct lobbying contact but permit lobbying activity that is indirect. “So, people will leave government service and can immediately start doing influence peddling and lobbying,” Holman explained. “They can even run a lobbying campaign, as long as they don’t actually pick up the telephone and make the contact with their former officials—and that’s exactly the advice that’s being given here.”

The BMJ notes:

Since 2000 every FDA commissioner, the agency’s highest position, has gone on to work for industry. These include Robert Califf, the agency’s current chief, who re-established ties with industry in between his two stints at the agency’s helm.

One argument here is that the human resources folks are just explaining existing ethical requirements.

But a legitimate worry is corporate “capture.”  When federal regulatory agencies are “captured,” they neglect public interest in favor of corporate interest.

This has been a concern about the FDA for a long time.  The FDA needs to do all it can to restore public trust in its integrity.

I saw this announcement in Food Navigator: Study: Nutrient dense formula could improve cognition and behaviour in infants.

My immediate question: Who paid for this?

I went right to it.

The study: Schneider N, Hartweg M, O’Regan J, Beauchemin J, Redman L, Hsia DS, Steiner P, Carmichael O, D’Sa V, Deoni S. Impact of a Nutrient Formulation on Longitudinal Myelination, Cognition, and Behavior from Birth to 2 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Nutrients. 2023; 15(20):4439. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204439

Conclusions: The results suggest that brain development may be modifiable with brain- and age-relevant nutritional approaches in healthy infants and young children, which may be foundational for later learning outcomes.

Funding: This study received funding from the Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

Conflicts of Interest: This study received funding from the Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. The funder had the following involvement with the study: study design, study monitoring and oversight, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.

Comment: Some of the authors of this study are employed by Nestlé (no relation).  Their disclosure statement is unusually candid: the funder was totally involved in every aspect of the research.  It’s refreshing to see that dislosed.  But the underlying issue still holds: industry-funded reseach all too often produces results favorable to the commercial interests of the funder.

The concern here is that promoting infant formula as better than breast milk is a marketing strategy, as described in reports from the World Health Organization.  And see my previous post on this.