I learned about this one from a press release: “Can eating mangoes reduce women’s facial wrinkles?”

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, finds eating Ataulfo mangoes, also known as honey or Champagne mangoes, may have another benefit — reducing facial wrinkles in older women with fairer skin. The study was published in the journal Nutrients.

Postmenopausal women who ate a half cup of Ataulfo mangoes four times a week saw a 23 percent decrease in deep wrinkles after two months and a 20 percent decrease after four months.

Surely, this can’t be serious?  Who paid for this?

The study: Prospective Evaluation of Mango Fruit Intake on Facial Wrinkles and Erythema in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study.  Vivien W. Fam, Roberta R. Holt Carl L. Keen, Raja K. Sivamani .  and Robert M. Hackman.  Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3381; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113381

Method: Women were given either 85 g or 250 g of mangos to eat every day for 16 weeks.  Their wrinkles were photographed and measured before and after.

Conclusion: “The intake of 85 g of mangos reduced wrinkles in fair-skinned postmenopausal women, while an intake of 250 g showed the opposite effect.”

Funding: “This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Mango Board (NMB)…which also supplied the fresh mangos for the study. The NMB had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.”

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment:  I love mangos (despite being somewhat allergic to them), but come on.  According to the press release, the researchers “said it’s unclear why consuming more mango would increase the severity of wrinkles but speculate that it may be related to a robust amount of sugar in the larger portion of mangoes.”  Another interpretation is that mangos have no effect (which makes more sense).  In any case, this study did not compare mangos to any other fruit.  This is a classic case of an industry-sponsored study coming out with results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and allowing those interests to be announced in a press release.  The authors may think industry sponsorship does not create a conflict of interest, but much evidence strongly suggests that it does (I reviewed that evidence in my book, Unsavory Truth).

I am a big fan of Howard Bauchner, the editor-in-chief of JAMA, who not only promotes science but also seems to have a lot of integrity.  I think it’s worth reading his new year’s wish list for medicine and science.

What concerns him, and what’s on his list applies just as well to food and nutrition.  He says, for example,

An increasingly important question is whether, in a country in which “profit” dominates, it will be possible to have a fair and equitable health care system. Has profit, self-interest, and greed come to dominate the landscape of US medicine? And as the Great Pandemic of 2020 has demonstrated, health care disparities remain a fundamental problem in the US health care system.

Here are some of the items on his wish list:

• Respect for science, the individuals who pursue scientific discovery, and the federal agencies that support and conduct scientific research.
• A comprehensive, coordinated, and effective national response to the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by science and evidence, and based on solid clinical and public health principles, including prevention and widespread vaccination.
• A true national commitment to health care as a right and not a privilege.
• A national debate about a single-payer (Medicare for All), universal health plan that includes private insurers, a public option, further expansion of Medicaid, and lowering the age of Medicare to 60 years.
• Reducing administrative costs and eliminating barriers to health care access to ensure that millions of individuals can be insured without increasing overall health care costs.
• A national campaign to identify and treat every individual with hypertension in the US.
• That the US returns to a time of civility, healthy debate, and respect for the opinions of others.

Amen.

And to his final comment—“This list is my hope for 2021 and beyond: a respect for science, scientists, and public health officials, healthy and civil debate, and a fundamental commitment that no individual in the US should be without health insurance”—I would add: a food system designed to prevent food insecurity and promote health for people and the environment.

A scientific report in Proceedings of the National Academies titled Livestock plants and COVID-19 transmission,” demonstrates the impact of Covid-19 on workers in meat and poultry processing plants.

Our study suggests that, among essential industries, livestock processing poses a particular public health risk extending far beyond meatpacking companies and their employees. We estimate livestock plants to be associated with 236,000 to 310,000 COVID-19 cases (6 to 8% of total) and 4,300 to 5,200 deaths (3 to 4% of total) as of July 21….This study shows that meat and poultry slaughter plants were in fact vectors of the disease…Researchers found that poultry plants showed a significant relationship with COVID-19 cases, with pork plants showing the strongest relationship. Beef plants showed the strongest relationship with deaths from the illness.

The USDA has done its own analysis: “The share of all COVID-19 cases in nonmetro [rural] areas has been growing since late March, increasing from 3.6 percent on April 1 to 15.6 percent on December 7.”

Among nonmetro counties, the highest COVID-19 case rates are found in farming-dependent and manufacturing-dependent counties. The high prevalence of COVID-19 in manufacturing-dependent counties is due partly to higher COVID-19 case rates in meatpacking-dependent counties (those in which 20 percent or more of employment is in the meatpacking industry), almost all of which are manufacturing-dependent counties.

But another USDA report, specifically about the meatpacking industry, looks to me as though it is hiding what is happening in those plants.  It includes a chart indicating no special increase in cases among meatpacking workers.  No surprise, if meatpacking plants are epicenters that spread the infection to the local community (but the report doesn’t say that).

What it does say is this:

The two-week moving average number of new daily cases rose in meatpacking-dependent counties through the remainder of April, reaching a peak of nearly 50 cases per 100,000 by the end of the month. This two-week moving average was more than 10 times the prevalence seen in other rural counties. Even though cases in meatpacking-dependent counties started to decline in the month of May, they remained significantly higher compared to other rural counties, falling to just under seven times the number of average daily cases by the end of May.​…Even though meatpacking-dependent counties are dealing with a second wave, the surge in rural new cases does not appear to be driven by new outbreaks in the meatpacking industry. Meatpacking-dependent counties have maintained an almost identical pattern to other rural counties for a fifth straight month.

Confused?  Me too.  This looks like a whitewash.

Is this one result of the USDA’s moving the Economic Research Service out of Washington DC to Kansas City, a move clearly meant to—successfully—decimate the agency?

Politico asks: can the ERS move be reversed?  Not easily, alas.

It’s a good thing independent scientists and investigators are keeping an eye on this situation.

Leah Douglas of the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) deserves much praise for tracking infections and deaths among farm and meatpacking workers.

I’m trying to make sense of the new $900 billion stimulus bill signed by President Trump a week or so ago.  This is not easy to do; it’s 5500 pages of government-speak.

• The entire bill can be accessed here
• Key provisions are here
• Congressional (non-binding) directives are here

The bill has $26 billion for food and nutrition, of which half goes to Big Ag (sigh) and the other half to food assistance (good, but not enough).

Why the sigh for farm aid?  Here’s what the accounting looks like:

Big Agriculture: $13 billion on top of what else it got in 2020

• $32 billion from the initial CARES Act
• $4 billion as compensation for the trade war with China
• $16 billion from the normal Farm Bill subsidies
• $13 billion from the new stimulus package ($1.5 billion is for buying food products, including seafood)

Small Ag:  $225 million (not billion) for growers of specialty crops like fruits, nuts and vegetables.

SNAP: a 15% expansion through June 2021.  This will mean a lot to recipients, but it’s still not enough.

SNAP Fruit and vegetable incentives: $75 million (not billion) for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program,

Pandemic-EBT: this authorizes extra benefits for families who have kids normally getting subsidized school meals (but this has been delayed)

Food banks: $400 million (not billion) for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, $400 million (not billion) for milk,

Disadvantaged, veteran, and beginning farmers: $75 million (not billion)

International Food Assistance: $1.74 billion for Food for Peace grants and $230 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program (note that this is the most the US has ever spent for these programs.

Pet foods: By congressional directive:

FDA is directed to provide an update on the investigation it is undertaking regarding canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and the manner in which it has released information to the public. The update shall include: the case definition FDA uses to include or exclude cases and the scientific work ongoing at the agency and with collaborating partners for identifying a causation of DCM; how FDA distinguishes cases of DCM due to genetic predisposition in certain breeds; how the agency plans to work with pet food companies and the veterinary cardiology community during the investigation; and the timing and nature of any future public reporting.

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl) chemicals in food packaging: “directs FDA to review any new scientific information pertaining to PF AS chemicals and determine whether food packaging continues to meet the safety standards of a reasonable certainty of no harm under intended conditions of use.”

Restaurants: they get whatever they can out of the $284 billion Paycheck Protection Program.  The trade association for independent restaurants points out that this is nowhere near enough.  Even the Wall Street Journal says restaurants need help; their situation is bleak.

Business lunches: the full cost can now be deducted as a business expense, but nobody expects this to help restaurants much.

There is undoubtedly more, but that’s enough for now.

Politico has done a great job of covering these provisions, but is behind a paywall.  The Counter also has an especially good summary..

I only have a few more comments about the Dietary Guidelines beyond what I posted last week.

One is my surprise that the USDA did not do a new food guide.  The existing one, after all, dates from the Obama administration.  It has not changed.

Here’s how it is explained in the new guidelines:

My translation: Eat more plant foods, eat less meat, avoid ultraprocessed foods (including sugary beverages).

This requires a translation because the guidelines say nothing about ultraprocessed junk foods, and they try hard to avoid singling out foods to avoid.

These guidelines are similar to those in 2015 and are, therefore, woefully out of date.

They do mention the pandemic, once:

The importance of following the Dietary Guidelines across all life stages has been brought into focus even more with the emergence of COVID-19, as people living with diet-related chronic conditions and diseases are at an increased risk of severe illness from the novel coronavirus (p. 4).

They do mention food insecurity several times, for example:

In 2019, 10.5 percent of households were food insecure at least some time during the year. Food insecurity occurs when access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is limited or uncertain. Food insecurity can be temporary or persist over time, preventing individuals and families from following a healthy dietary pattern that aligns with the Dietary Guidelines. The prevalence of food insecurity typically rises during times of economic downturn as households experience greater hardship. Government and nongovernment nutrition assistance programs help alleviate food insecurity and play an essential role by providing food, meals, and educational resources so that participants can make healthy food choices within their budget (p. 50).

And they do mention food assistance programs (on page 81), although they do not discuss how the USDA has been relentless in trying to cut those programs.

Nothing about food systems.  Nothing about the effects of food production and consumption on climate change and sustainablity.

Nothing about eating less meat other than implying that eating less processed meat might be a good idea.

One other point: the complexity is increasing.  Here is the history of the page numbers:

As I’m fond of saying, Michael Pollan can do all this in seven words: “Eat food.  Not too much.  Mostly plants.”

If we can’t do better than this 164 pages of obfuscation, isn’t it about time to stop requiring these things every five years?

Here’s what other people are saying about them

• New York Times report (I’m quoted)
• Wall Street Journal (quotes American Beverage and Beer Associations)
• New York Daily News (I’m quoted)
• CNN (I’m quoted)
• Bipartisan Policy Center [Dan Glickman (Dem) and Ann Veneman (Rep), former USDA secretaries]
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (accuses guidelines of racial bias)
• USA Today
• National Fisheries Institute 
• Produce for Better Health Foundation

 

With a new year comes a fresh start, and I find myself reflecting on how long I’ve been writing this blog and what it means for me and for readers.

For starters, this is post #4174 since I started doing this on May 29, 2007.

On the blog’s tenth anniversary, I posted a self-interview on what it is about.  Here is an update.

What do you do on foodpolitics.com?

Usually, I post only once a day, Monday through Friday, with occasional lapses.  As a general rule (but there are lots of exceptions), the week goes like this:

• Mondays: food company sponsorship of research or advertising
• Tuesdays and Wednesdays: current news
• Thursdays: collections of links to articles on a single topic
• Fridays: Weekend Reading—a book or report of interest

I also post current information about my books (under the Books tab), upcoming talks (Appearances), and links to interviews on radio, TV, or in print (Media).  The About tab has information about my biography , c.v., and conflict-of-interest policy.

I’m not keeping up with the other tabs very well, alas.

How did you get started?

As I discussed in a previous post, the publisher of my book, What to Eat, asked me to be a guinea pig for use of social media to publicize books.  It set up the site with the understanding that I would try it for six months.  It’s gone through some iterations, but I’m still at it.

What does it do for you?

I’m still doing it because I find it useful and well worth the time.  It is:

• An online file cabinet:  It ‘s quicker and less cumbersome than downloading paper and filing things in file cabinets.
• A way to link to original documents: I can find them right away.  Sometimes the site is the only place to find certain documents online.
• Tracing back history: WordPress has a superb search engine, so it is easy to find posts on specific topics right away.
• Informative for reporters: They can see what I’ve written and don’t have to call me.
• An incentive to keep up: It forces me to keep up with current topics in food and nutrition.
• A gift to students: If students are writing papers about food politics topics and need help getting started, I can refer them to the site.
• My private platform: I can say what I think.  I don’t have advertisers or sponsors to worry about.

You must have to spend a lot of time on it?

Not nearly as much as I thought it would take.  Once I figured out how to schedule posts, I tend to do them in odd minutes and set them up over the weekend for the entire week.

How do you know what to write about?

Food politics is a full-employment act.  There is always something.  I subscribe to a dozen or so daily newsfeeds.  Choice is a bigger problem.  Because I only post once a day, I pick the topic I find most interesting, outrageous, or funny.

Why don’t you allow comments?

I wish I could.  I would love to engage with readers—and used to—until the trolling got out of hand.  Readers insisted I stop the nasty personal comments about my age, looks, ethnicity, and opinions posted by anonymous writers who used false email addresses from IP addresses traced to a spam site.  I couldn’t think of a way to stop the incivility without stopping comments altogether.

Who pays for it?

Before I retired from NYU, the blog was part of faculty community service and I paid for it out of the fund that came with my Paulette Goddard professorship.  Now I pay for it myself out of retirement funds.

How do you handle the design and technological aspects?

As long-standing readers know, technology is not my long suit.  My site was designed and is managed by Rachel Cunliffe and Stephen Merriman of Cre8d-Design.com.   Their company is located in Auckland, New Zealand (of course!), but the time/date difference has never been a problem.   They are a pleasure to work with.

Is the blog useful to anyone else besides you?

This is for someone else to decide.  I certainly hope so.  I try hard to make it a worthy resource for everyone, but especially students.

Who reads it?

I don’t really know.  the statistics say it has a small readership of just a couple of thousand a day, but the posts go out over Twitter (@marionnestle) where I have 144,000 followers.  Readers tell me when I make mistakes, so I know someone must be reading it.

How long will you keep doing this?

I like doing it.  It’s become a habit, and an easy one to follow.  When it stops being fun to do, I’ll end it.

Tomorrow: back to food politics.

So much for my plan to take the week off.

The new 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines came out today.  See them at DietaryGuidelines.gov.  The new guidelines are much the same as the ones in 2015.

The big news: They paid no attention to the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (I covered this in a previous post).

USDA and HHS overrode the scientific decisions of the DGAC.  So much for “science-based” dietary guidelines.

I would love to know what the members of the DGAC think of this.

More later.  These come from the USDA’s press release.

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 along with companion pieces:
• Executive Summary of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
• The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About the Dietary Guidelines
• Make Every Bite Count with the Dietary Guidelines video
• The Dietary Guidelines Consumer Brochure: Small Changes Matter. Start Simple with MyPlate Today
• Dietary Guidelines infographic series on topics like:
  • Making Every Bite Count with the Dietary Guidelines
  • The Dietary Guidelines Can Help You Eat Healthy to Be Healthy
  • Public Engagement Strengthens the Process
  • USDA-HHS Process to Develop the Dietary Guidelines
  • What’s the Difference between the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report & the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
• Video of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 virtual event
• Press release announcing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025

And here’s the USDA’s explanation, such as it is, of why it overrode the decisions of the DGAC on sugar and alcohol