Vitamin D is such a hot topic for its purported role in preventing or treating coronavirus infections that I seem to have written about it four previous times.  These are here, here, here, and here.

Now, a group of 120 scientists has called on world governments to get their populations to increases vitamin D consumption to 2000 to 4000 units per day, five to ten times higher than current recommendations.  Their letter is here.

This is especially interesting because nutrition and health societies in the UK  advise quite the opposite: no change in the usual recommendation for vitamin D intake (400 units/day).  Their report says (my emphasis):

• Do not offer a vitamin D supplement to people solely to prevent COVID-19, except as part of a clinical trial.
• Do not offer a vitamin D supplement to people solely to treat COVID-19, except as part of a clinical trial.

I’m always interested to see what ConscienHealth has to say about such things.

The passion of the vitamin D fan club is striking. However, neither passion nor speculation should be a substitute for facts. Right now, the facts tell us that the reason to take a vitamin D supplement is to protect our muscles and bones. Any thought that it will help with COVID-19 is speculation, and taking too much would be quite unwise.

My sentiments precisely.

Is it good for any society to have people as rich as Bill and Melinda Gates?  Fairness is one thing, but the hazards of that much power are quite another.

The latest concern comes from the realization that the Gates’s own more American farmland than anyone else—242,000 acres.

According to the Realtors’ Land Institute’s The Land Report,

In 1994, the Gateses hired the former Putnam Investments bond-fund manager to diversify the couple’s portfolio away from the Microsoft co-founder’s 45 percent stake in the technology giant while maintaining comparable or better returns. According to a 2014 profile of Larson in the Wall Street Journal, these investments include a substantial stake in AutoNation, hospitality interests such as the Charles Hotel in Cambridge and the Four Seasons in San Francisco, and “at least 100,000 acres of farmland in California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, and other states … .” According to the Land Report 100 Research Team, that figure is currently more than twice that amount, which means Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego: Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America.

Forbes’ account of this highlights that the largest holdings are in Louisiana (69,071 acres), Arkansas (47,927 acres) and Nebraska (20,588 acres).

According to AgFunder News’ discussion of these observations,

Agrifood is one area where the couple have sought to put their substantial wealth to work. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated almost $20 million to the International Rice Research Institute between 2007 and 2010, in part to support its development of fortified rice varieties. It has also invested at least $100 million into the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which aims to enhance smallholder productivity using science and technology.

The Gates’ have also invested in agrifoodtech startups, either through their private foundation or via other investment vehicles, including crop protection companies AgBiome and Enko Chem, dairy data platform Stellapps, food waste reduction player Apeel Sciences, biotech startup Gingko Bioworks, and ‘lab-grown’ meat maker Memphis Meats.

Other concerns have been raised about Gates’ holdings and philanthropy—“philanthrocapitalism.”

• Gates to a Global Empire: This Report by Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya gathers evidence and throws light on the dangers of philanthrocapitalism, which is boosting the corporate takeover of our seed, agriculture, food, knowledge and global health systems, manipulating information and eroding our democracies. Read more / Watch video 
• Letter to WHO from 60 individuals and groups concerned about Gates’ holdings in food.
• Paper by Anne-Emanuelle Birn and Judith Richter on philanthrocapitalism by Gates and Rockefeller Foundations.

These raise important questions that deserve serious considerations.

The USDA’s now-crippled Economic Research Service has published some reports on farm income.

This is Big Ag, of course.  As the Heritage Foundation enjoys pointing out:

Another reason why Big Ag is doing so well is the amount of money poured into it by the Trump administration.  Recall this Wall Street Journal chart from a previous post.

Oh for an agricultural policy that supports growing food for people, not feed for animals or fuel for cars.

Biden administration: get busy!

Why, you must be asking, am I even asking a question like this?

Because of this study, obviously, which I somehow missed when it came out in August (thanks to toxicologist Marc Stifelman for sending it to me).

The study: Cabbage and fermented vegetables: From death rate heterogeneity in countries to candidates for mitigation strategies of severe COVID‐19.  Bousquet U, et al.  Allergy.  2020 Aug 6;10.1111/all.14549. Online ahead of print.

The hypothesis:

CAUTION:  Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.  The diets—and other lifestyle characteristics—of people in Romania and Latvia differ from those in the UK and Italy in other ways besides diet; other differences might well account for these variations.

Personally, I love cabbage in any form.

But for prevention of bad outcomes from Covid-19, I’m counting on vaccination, not kimchi or sauerkraut.

FAO has this eye-catching new teaser for its new report on water and agriculture.  Check out the teaser first.  Its graphics move (the blades on the wind turbinesshow below turn, for example)

Its main point:

Everyone needs to pay attention to water use, and the teaser and the report state the policy recommendations.

I subscribe to Obesity and Energetics Offerings because it’s a great way to keep up with current research and commentary on just about anything related to diet and activity.

One of the things I particularly like about it is its section called “Headline vs Study.”

Here is its most recent example:

• Headline: New Study Reveals COVID-19 Pandemic Fueling Pet Obesity.
• Press-release: No Formal Study Report Found. Survey of Pet Owner and Veterinarian Perception of Eating Behavior and Pet Obesity Patterns. No Pet Obesity Reported.

The headline, from Pet Food Industry magazine (an  unusually well written and edited source of information about this industry), refers to a survey of veterinarians done by Hill’s Pet Nutrition, a maker of pet foods.

According to veterinarians, more than 71% of pet professionals say the pandemic has impacted the way pets eat…Since the start of Covid-19, one third (33%) of pet parents with an overweight pet say their pet became overweight during the pandemic…veterinarians state that only 12% of pet parents proactively flag concerns with their pet’s weight. Moreover, nearly two in three veterinarians say pet parents act surprised (64%) or defensive (64%) upon learning about their pet’s weight issues.

Pet parents?  You know who you are.

What is this about?

IRONICALLY, TOO MUCH “TREAT LOVE” DURING THESE DIFFICULT TIMES IS THE MAIN CULPRIT.

Treats, as Mal Nesheim and I explain in our book about the pet food industry, Feed Your Pet Right, have calories, and those calories—just like the ones from any snack—add up.

Obesity in pets does just what it does in humans; it raises the risk of chronic disease, especially type-2 diabetes

A new study just out in the BMJ, which compared obesity in dogs to that of their owners, says:

Data indicated that owners of a dog with diabetes were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes during follow-up than owners of a dog without diabetes. It is possible that dogs with diabetes could serve as a sentinel for shared diabetogenic health behaviours and environmental exposures.

Pet parents: Walk those dogs!  Love them some other way!

I post often about conflicts of interest in nutrition research, mainly because I worry about how to  improve the quality of nutrition research studies.  Nutrition research is under attack for weaknesses well known to nutrition researchers, but recently rediscovered by critics outside the field who do not, unfortunately, propose meaningful alternatives (see this, for example).

Mainstream nutrition researchers have called for a new approach to nutrition research.

“The time has come for a national ‘moonshot’ on nutrition research,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, chair of the session. “A strengthening of federal nutrition research has significant potential to generate new discoveries to improve and sustain the health of all Americans, reduce healthcare costs, improve health disparities, create new businesses and jobs, reinvigorate farms and rural communities, strengthen military readiness and optimize use of our natural resources.”

These researchers called for two priorities: a new authority for robust cross-governmental coordination of nutrition research; and strengthened authority and investment for nutrition research within the NIH.

It looks like they got it!  The NIH has proposed to transfer its existing Office of Nutrition Research into the NIH Director’s Office.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed to transfer the Office of Nutrition Research (ONR) from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI) within the NIH Office of the Director. DPCPSI was created by Congress to enhance NIH-wide coordination of cross-cutting research topics.

This proposed move follows two reports from NIH about nutrition research:

• 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research
• Nutrition for Precision Health, powered by the All of Us Research Program

And now NIH says it is doing this!

The response from the public and the nutrition research community was overwhelmingly supportive. Such a move was also supported by the Council of Councils, an NIH advisory group, during a special meeting on December 30, 2020.

I’m pleased to share that this week, NIH has begun the official transfer of ONR to DPCPSI. This reorganization positions ONR to enhance engagement of the NIH Institutes and Centers in implementing the 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research to develop new collaborations and relationships focused on nutrition research within and outside NIH, and to ensure coordination of and leadership for nutrition research across the agency.

Will this strengthen the quality of nutrition research?  I certainly hope so.

Coca-Cola, according to an account in the Wall Street Journal, announced that it is cutting 2,200 jobs globally, including 1,200 in the U.S., as a result of the pandemic-induced closure of the places where its products are sold: restaurants, bars, movie theaters and sports stadiums.

The company expects to save $350 to $550 million annually as a result.

Let’s put these savings in context.  Coca-Cola brought in $37.27 billion in revenues in 2019.

For the company, the eliminated jobs mean “less decision making, less bureaucracy and ultimately less people.”

Corporations, as I have reported previously, have pledged to consider social values—like fairness to employees—in their day to day operations as much as they consider returns to stockholders.

If they are going to make such promises, they need to be held to them.

Hence: the global campaign for Corporate Accountability.