Here’s my piece from The Guardian, April 2, 2016.
Food-Navigator USA publishes occasional “special editions” with collections of articles on similar topics. This one is on how food companies are dealing with weight management: “With almost two thirds of Americans overweight or obese, weight management is still a huge market opportunity for food and beverage manufacturers. However, messaging is moving away from diet-based concepts to more positive messages about food quality, satiety, and overall health & wellness.”
I’m having a hard time keeping up with these, but here are five more industry-funded studies with results favorable to the sponsor, bringing the total of industry-positives to 124 since last March, versus just 12 with unfavorable results. This percentage is lower than that found in more systematic studies. If you know of such studies, please send.
In the meantime, here’s the next set.
A randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a high carbohydrate and high protein ready-to-eat food product for weight loss. N. R. Fuller, M. Fong, J. Gerofi, L. Leung, C. Leung, G. Denyer andI. D. Caterson. Clinical Obesity. Article first published online: 19 JAN 2016. DOI: 10.1111/cob.12137
Obesity, Fitness, Hypertension, and Prognosis: Is Physical Activity the Common Denominator? Carl J. Lavie, MD, Parham Parto, MD; Edward Archer, PhD. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):217-218. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7571.
Dietary anthocyanin intake and age-related decline in lung function: longitudinal findings from the VA Normative Aging Study. Amar J Mehta,, Aedín Cassidy, Augusto A Litonjua, David Sparrow, Pantel Vokonas, and Joel Schwartz. Am J Clin Nutr February 2016 vol. 103 no. 2 542-550
The effects of lutein on cardiometabolic health across the life course: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Elisabeth TM Leermakers, Sirwan KL Darweesh, Cristina P Baena, Eduardo M Moreira, Debora Melo van Lent, Myrte J Tielemans, Taulant Muka, Anna Vitezova, Rajiv Chowdhury, Wichor M Bramer, Jessica C Kiefte-de Jong, Janine F Felix, and Oscar H Franco. Am J Clin Nutr February 2016 vol. 103 no. 2 481-494
Dietary protein intake is associated with body mass index and weight up to 5 y of age in a prospective cohort of twins. Laura Pimpin, Susan Jebb, Laura Johnson, Jane Wardle, and Gina L Ambrosini. First published December 30, 2015, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.118612. Am J Clin Nutr February 2016 vol. 103 no. 2 389-397
If you are a maker of processed foods, and have exhausted low-carb and low-fat marketing options, all you have left is proteins—the hot new marketing tool. Protein-supplemented products are all over supermarket shelves. Never mind that most Americans get twice the protein required, and that even vegans can easily meet and exceed protein requirements.
As FoodNavigator-USA puts it, “manufacturers are now competing to impress shoppers with how much they can pack into bars, beverages and yogurts. In this FoodNavigator-USA special edition we’ll look at what protein options are available for formulators, from new insect and algal-based proteins to pea, soy, and dairy-based proteins.”
Just remember: Diets adequate in calories are highly likely to be adequate in protein, and average protein intake in the population is twice the amount required. From the standpoint of nutrition, protein is a non-issue. But that doesn’t stop marketers from looking for ways to push it.
Every now and then something reminds me about food nanotechnology, the use of molecular size nanoparticles to whiten or improve the safety or shelf life of processed foods (see previous posts on the topic).
What brought this on is a recent report from Australia that sounds all too familiar. Friends of the Earth commissioned tests and found “nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and silica in 14 popular products, including Mars’ M&Ms, Woolworths white sauce and Praise salad dressing.” Australian regulators, however, have denied that nanoparticles are in use “because no company had applied for approval.”
Last year, Friends of the Earth did the same in America. Its report, “Tiny Ingredients Big Risks,” documents nanomaterials in more than 90 food products, among them Jet Puffed Marshmallows, Trix Cereal and Nestle Original Coffee Creamer.
Nanoparticles are really small (10-9 meters, or one millionth of a millimeter). How they work and what they might do to the human body is greatly in need of research.
The FDA’s guidance to industry—nonbinding and, in my opinion, not particularly helpful—says nanoparticles are safe in foods but that companies using them should let the FDA know about it.
It is prudent practice for you to do so, particularly when the manufacturing process change involves emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology…The consequences (to consumers and to the food industry) of broadly distributing a food substance that is later recognized to present a safety concern have the potential to be significant…FDA does not categorically judge all products containing nanomaterials or otherwise involving application of nanotechnology as intrinsically benign or harmful. Rather, for nanotechnology-derived and conventionally-manufactured food products alike, FDA considers the characteristics of the finished product and the safety of its intended use.
Are they really safe? Nobody knows, leaving much room for unease, as Twilight Greenaway pointed out in Grist in 2012. Her Grist colleague Tom Philpott wrote about this question even earlier—in 2010: “The strategy seems to be: release into the food supply en masse first; assess risks later (if ever).”
This is not reassuring
Web MD suggests that “while researchers are still sorting it out, avoid heavily processed foods, and read labels if you’re concerned.”
Good advice, and another reason to avoid heavily processed foods.
Let me start with a reminder that since mid-March I’ve been collecting examples of studies funded by food companies or trade associations that come up with results favorable to the sponsor’s interests. I post them five at a time. I am having a hard time finding industry-funded studies that do not favor the sponsor’s interests. If you run across any, please send. Here’s the latest collection.
Mediterranean Diet and Invasive Breast Cancer Risk Among Women at High Cardiovascular Risk in the PREDIMED Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD; Jordi Salas-Salvadó, MD, PhD; Carolina Donat-Vargas, PharmD; et al. JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 14, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4838
Evaluation of 4-methylimidazole, in the Ames/Salmonella test using induced rodent liver and lung S9 Carol Beevers1,* and Richard H. Adamson. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., Article first published online: 10 SEP 2015. DOI: 10.1002/em.21968.
Reduced Symptoms of Inattention after Dietary Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation in Boys with and without Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Dienke J Bos, Bob Oranje, E Sanne Veerhoek, Rosanne M Van Diepen, Juliette MH Weusten, Hans Demmelmair, Berthold Koletzko, Monique GM de Sain-van der Velden, Ans Eilander, Marco Hoeksma, and Sarah Durston. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Sep; 40(10): 2298–2306. Published online 2015 Apr 22. doi: 10.1038/npp.2015.73.
Milk Modulates Campylobacter Invasion into Caco-2 Intestinal Epithelial Cells. Rogier Louwen, R. J. Joost van Neerven. European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology 5 (2015) 3, pp. 1–7 2015. doi:10.1556/1886.2015.00019.
Effect of the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12®, on defecation frequency in healthy subjects with low defecation frequency and abdominal discomfort: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Dorte Eskesen, Lillian Jespersen, Birgit Michelsen, Peter J. Whorwell, Stefan Müller-Lissner and Cathrine M. Morberg. British Journal of Nutrition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515003347 , 9 pages. Published online: 18 September 2015.
Don’t miss the article on the front page of today’s New York Times about Coca-Cola’s paying scientists who argue that obesity is more about exercise than diet (I’m quoted).
Last week, I posted two industry-funded studies with results that must have made their sponsors extremely unhappy.
But results like that are rare—so rare that the Washington Post wrote about one of them.
Today, I’m doing another in my series of posts of 5 (sometimes 6) studies sponsored by food and beverage companies for the purpose of obtaining results that can be used in marketing.
Since March, the count is 42 studies with results favorable to the sponsor but only 1 unfavorable (the other was from last year).
If you run across either kind, but especially industry-funded studies that don’t produce expected results, please send.
Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Berger, S., Raman, G., Vishwanathan, R., Jacques, P.F., Johnson, E.J., 2015. Am J Clin Nutr ajcn100305. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.100305.
Milk intake is not associated with low risk of diabetes or overweight-obesity: a Mendelian randomization study in 97,811 Danish individuals. Helle KM Bergholdt, Børge G Nordestgaard, and Christina Ellervik. Am J Clin Nutr. doi: 10.3945/ajcn. 114.105049
Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet retains effectiveness to reduce blood pressure when lean pork is substituted for chicken and fish as the predominant source of protein. R Drew Sayer, Amy J Wright, Ningning Chen, and Wayne W Campbell. Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 102:302-308 doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.111757
Relationship between lifestyle behaviors and obesity in children ages 9-11: Results from a 12-country study. Katzmarzyk PT, Barreira TV, Broyles ST, Champagne CM, Chaput JP, Fogelholm M, Hu G, Johnson WD, Kuriyan R, Kurpad A, Lambert EV, Maher C, Maia J, Matsudo V, Olds T, Onywera V, Sarmiento OL, Standage M, Tremblay MS, Tudor-Locke C, Zhao P, Church TS; ISCOLE Research Group.
A systematic review of the cost and cost effectiveness of using standard oral nutritional supplements in community and care home settings. M. Elia, C. Normand, A. Laviano , K. Norman. Clinical Nutrition 2015, online ahead of print. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2015.05.010
Federal court officers are recommending what attorneys are calling an “unprecedented” sentence of life in prison for a Stewart Parnell, the former owner of the Peanut Corporation of America. He was convicted last fall of selling bulk peanut butter from his plant in Georgia to food processors—even after the peanut butter tested positive for Salmonella.
The CDC associated the tainted peanuts with the deaths of 9 people and illnesses among more than 700.
The government’s sentencing recommendations say:
The Government submits that the U.S. Probation Office correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines adjusted offense level for Stewart Parnell to be 47 with criminal history category I, which results in a life sentence Guidelines range; for Michael Parnell, to be adjusted offense level 37 with criminal history category I, which results in a 210 to 262 months Guidelines range; and for Wilkerson to be adjusted offense level 30 with a criminal history of I, which results in a 97 to 121 months Guidelines range.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Bill Marler’s discusses of the legal issues related to this conviction as opposed to the results of similar cases. Marler is usually unsympathetic to owners of companies producing foods that kill people, but in this instance he says:
I find it a bit hard to parse out why some have been targeted – OK, perhaps the Parnell prosecution is a bit easier because it was so clearly intentional – and some have not, or at least not yet. Honestly, what are the differences in prosecuting the Jensens, DeCosters and ConAgra and leaving the others – so far – unmolested…Is it the number of sick, the number of dead? Is it the economic consequences? What really are the criteria, or, should it simply be left to the discretion of the prosecutor as to who or what feels the sting of the criminal justice system?
Americans these days don’t want artificial and unsustainably produced ingredients in the food they buy and eat. For the makers of highly processed foods – ultraprocessed in today’s terminology – there isn’t a lot that they can do to make the products appear fresh and natural.
But Campbell’s is certainly trying. A few months after announcing that it will phase out genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the iconic soup company said on Friday that it will remove Bisphenol-A (BPA) from its cans by next year.
BPA, you will recall, is a chemical typically used in polycarbonate plastic containers and in the epoxy linings of food cans. It’s also an endocrine disrupter, which means it can interfere with the work our hormones are doing. Some research finds BPA to have effects on childhood development and reproduction.
Although the FDA doesn’t believe evidence of potential harm is sufficient to ban BPA from the food supply, the agency discourages use of BPA-polycarbonate or epoxy resins in baby bottles, sippy cups or packaging for infant formulas. For the past year or so, other retailers have been working hard to phase out BPA and to reassure customers that their cans and packages are safe.
All of these companies sell highly processed foods in an era when the public is demanding – and voting with their dollars – for fresh, natural, organic, locally grown and sustainably produced ingredients.
They can’t provide those things, but they can tout the bad, or unpopular, things that aren’t part of their product, the “no’s”: no unnatural additives, no artificial colors or flavors, no high fructose corn syrup, no trans fat, no gluten and, yes, no GMOs or BPA.
Let me add something about companies labeling their products GMO-free. In my view, the food biotechnology industry created this market – and greatly promoted the market for organics, which do not allow GMOs – by refusing to label which of its products contain GMOs and getting the FDA to go along with that decision. Whether or not GMOs are harmful, transparency in food marketing is hugely important to increasing segments of the public. People don’t trust the food industry to act in the public interest; transparency increases trust.
Vermont voted last year to mandate GMO labeling in the state – the US Senate rejected a bill in mid-March attempting to undermine it – and food conglomerates such as Campbell’s, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogg and Mars have committed to labeling their products as containing GMO.
In addition to removing BPA from packaging and GMO from products, at least 11 other companies have announced recently that say they are phasing out as many artificial additives as possible, as quickly as they can.
Taco Bell, for example, will get rid of Yellow Dye #6, high fructose corn syrup, palm oil and artificial preservatives, and replace them with “natural” ingredients. Huge food companies such as Kraft, Nestlé (no relation) and General Mills are heading in the same direction.
All this may well benefit consumers to an extent. It also makes perfect sense from a business perspective: the “no’s” sell. But what everyone needs to remember is that foods labeled “free from” still have calories and may well contain excessive salt and sugars. The healthiest diets contain vegetables and lots of other relatively unprocessed foods. No amount of subtraction from highly processed foods is going to change that.