Nicolas Rasmussen.  Fat in the Fifties: America’s First Obesity Crisis.  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019.  

I wrote a blurb for this book:

Fat in the Fifties is a riveting analysis of the rise and fall of early concerns about the health consequences of obesity.  Rasmussen’s history is indispensable for understanding the social, psychological, political, and environmental origins of today’s obesity “crisis.”

Even though the prevalence of obesity was quite low—by current standards—in the 1950s, Rasmussen documents widespread professional and public concern.  These concerns drifted away in the 1960s and 1970s, overtaken by efforts to prevent coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death.   At the time, obesity did not seem to be an important coronary risk factor.  Rasmussen explains how all this happened, and does it well.

I had a personal interest in this book.  My father died of a heart attack in 1950—at age 47.  It was no coincidence that he was also an extremely overweight chain smoker.  Rasmussen’s book provides the context for this particularly tragic aspect of my family history and I found his analysis helpful.

I often get messages from PR people representing one food product or another.  This one, from Greta Skridailaitė of the Blue Oceans public relations firm, caught my eye.

Hello Marion​,

In order to satisfy the rising need for instant food in the European FMCG retail market KG Group – one of the biggest agriculture and food groups in the Baltic States – is launching a modern instant noodle production facility in Alytus city, Lithuania, having attracted 20M EUR investment.

Global Instant Noodle market is growing despite the Covid-19 turmoil and is predicted to reach USD 32.1 Billion by 2027. Until recently, most of the instant food has been produced and imported from different Asian countries.

Exclusive reliance on Asian suppliers has shown its drawbacks as supply chains were cut or unreliable during the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, many companies began exploring local production options, seeking to alter their supply chains and be less dependent on Asia, especially China.

Below, please find a press release with comments from the Chairman of the Board of KG Group, Tautvydas Barštys.

Please advise if you have additional questions for the KG Group representatives – we’d be happy to help facilitate an interview.

Kind regards,

Greta

Really?

• Rising need for instant food?
• 20 million Euro investment?
• $32.1 billion in instant noodles by 2027?
• Fears of not being able to get them from China?

I live on an entirely different food planet, alas, but I particularly loved this one because my grandparents came to the US from Lithuania in the early 1900s.

A reader, Betsy Keller, forwarded a message she received because she belongs to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, (formerly the American Dietetic Association), the professional association for Registered Dietitian Nutritionists.

From: “Today’s Dietitian” <todays_dietitian@gvpublishing.com>

Subject: Questions about pesticides and food? We have answers.

The message originates from Bayer, the German drug company that bought Monsanto a few years ago.

Monsanto invented the herbicide glyphosate, which is used to kill backyard weeds as well as those that occur in fields of GMO corn and soybeans,.

Glyphosate has been linked to cancer risk, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Tens of thousands of people with non-Hodgkin lymphoma are suing Bayer for glyphosate-related damages.  The courts have ruled in favor of several such plaintiffs.

Bayer has agreed to pay $10 billion (!) to settle these lawsuits.

In the message to dietitians, Bayer says:

Pesticides enable farmers to produce safe, quality foods at affordable prices.They also help farmers provide an abundance of nutritious, all-year-round foods, which are necessary for human health. Crop quantity and quality rely on crop protection. For example, a U.S. study estimated that without fungicides, yields of most fruit and vegetables would fall by 50-90 percent. Moreover, pesticides decrease exposure to food contaminated with harmful micro-organisms and naturally occurring toxins, preventing food-related illnesses.

Oddly, the Bayer message says not one word about glyphosate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or the lawsuits.

Bayer must want dietitians to reassure their clients that pesticides like glyphosate are safe.  Bayer must not want dietitians to link glyphosate to cancer risk.

I can’t help thinking that Bayer must have paid Today’s Dietitian to send this message to the AND membership.

I can’t think of any other reason why this association would allow a message like this to be sent to its members.

Correction

Several readers wrote to point out that the Bayer message comes from Today’s Dietitian, not from the Academy.

For example, Nancy Teeter, RDN, gave me permission to quote her:

Thank you for all you do to keep the public informed.  As a registered dietitian nutritionist, I was appalled that Bayer sponsored an educational program for us. I believe you are correct when you say follow the money. Today’s Dietitian is a private company and appears to accept advertising dollars from anyone. AND charges organizations for the use [of] the mailing lists, so everyone wins financially. At the same time, the reputation of our organization is diminished.

She points out: “They also sell their email lists to advertisers.”

Mary Purdy, MS, RDN, who also gave permission, writes:

Thank you for spreading the word about this.  A group of dietitians (myself included) are formulating a letter in response to this and I have already been in touch personally with Today’s Dietitian about this issue which I find extremely concerning.

It is very important to clarify that this message came from Today’s Dietitian, (https://www.todaysdietitian.com/) which is a totally separate entity from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.  https://www.eatright.org/

The Academy has its own set of issues, but I wanted you to be sure that your readers understand that the pesticide info from Bayer came from an eblast from the publisher and business ” Today’s Dietitian”.  This org definitely needs to be held accountable  for this kind of irresponsible corporate sponsorship that spreads erroneous and harmful information so thank you for your efforts here.

She adds: “I also let Today’s Dietitian know that I would be unsubscribing from their eblasts and have encouraged others to do so as well.”

She also adds: “And yes, you are right.  Bayer is an official sponsor of Today’s Dietitian and pays them. They were also one of the sponsors of their recent symposium (At which I spoke… ironically about environmental chemicals and supporting detoxification and elimination organs with diet!).  Here is the website:  you can go to “Sponsors” and see Bayer there among others. https://www.todaysdietitian.com/ss20/”

And she forwarded the letter she received from a rep from Today’s Dietitian.  Here are the relevant excerpts:

Thank you for reaching out and expressing your thoughts and concerns regarding the Bayer ad and Today’s Dietitian….Having been a friend of TD  for so long, I’m sure you are aware that the primary support for the publication comes from advertising revenue. Without advertisements, TD does not exist. That said, as with other advertising-driven business models, TD does not endorse or support any product, service, or entity advertised in the magazine or its brand extensions. TD simply offers vehicles for advertisers to reach the brand’s audience.

While you may not agree with the advertisement in question, the advertiser obviously finds value in reaching registered dietitians. Otherwise, they would not be interested in promoting to this professional audience. Just as any other audience that consumes advertising can use its own judgement to decide whether or not to explore an advertised item, so too can the TD readership decide whether or not to pursue any further engagement with the advertiser.

Dietitians: here’s your chance.  Act now.

• Unsubscribe to Today’s Dietitian
• Tell AND you do not want your contact information sold to advertisers.

Sigh.

According to Business Wire, Kraft Heinz, the company that owns Capri Sun, is donating “5 Million Pouches of CAPRI SUN Filtered Water to School Districts as Schools Turn Off Water Fountains”

Shouldn’t we be happy that the company is donating water, and not the typical Capri Sun sugary drinks?

No.  Why?

• This is marketing aimed at children (children can’t tell the difference between information and marketing, unless taught).
• This is marketing a sugary beverage brand to children (children are highly susceptible to this kind of marketing).
• This is marketing packaged water to children (tap water is drinkable in most places in the U.S.  If not, schools should be providing readily available urns of water).
• The total value of the sweepstakes prizes is $400 spread across five “winners”(pretty cheap)
• Capri Sun markets its products as juice drinks (but typically have 10% or 0% juice)

I was curious to see what the company says about its products, and looked up this one.

Doesn’t this look healthy?  Here’s what’s in it (note: concentrates are a euphemism for sugars):

FILTERED WATER; SUGAR; PEAR AND GRAPE JUICE CONCENTRATES; CITRIC ACID; ORANGE, APPLE, AND PINEAPPLE JUICE CONCENTRATES; NATURAL FLAVOR.

One pouch contains 13 grams of added sugars.

These are ultraprocessed sugary drinks, best avoided or consumed only rarely, and never marketed to children.

This is the day to honor the farm, meatpacking, slaughterhouse, grocery,  and other low-wage food system workers deemed essential during the Covid-19 pandemic.

And this seems like good advice.

Enjoy the day!

The American Journal of Public Health has just published an editorial I did with Nick Freudenberg, who directs the Urban Food Policy Institute at the CUNY School of Public Health.

“A Call for a National Agenda for a Healthy, Equitable, and Sustainable Food System” [it’s open access and you can read it at that link]

Here’s the abstract:

In less than a month, US voters will choose their next president and Congress, creating the opportunity for food, farm, and social justice activists to shape a new federal food agenda. Whether Democrats sweep the election or Republicans retain the Senate or White House, the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the deepening economic crisis, and the continuing disruptions from climate change demand rethinking how federal food policies can contribute to improved human and planetary health. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 27, 2020: e1–e3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305926)

Our goals:

1. Reduce hunger and food insecurity
2. Dismantle systemic racism in the food system
3. Make healthy affordable food available to all Americans
4. Reduce burden of diet-related diseases
5. Support agricultural practices that reduce carbon emissions and other forms of pollution
6. Protect food workers
7. Promote food democracy

Let’s catch up on what’s happening with cell-based meat, so far still in development, regulated jointly by FDA (pre-harvest) and USDA (post-harvest), but not yet approved for human consumption.

• USDA to launch rulemaking process for labeling of cell-cultured meat; ‘success will turn, in large measure, on the nomenclature used,’ says attorney: How should meat grown from cultured animal cells be labeled? In a joint FDA/USDA webinar, officials said they would work together to come up with joint principles to govern the labeling of products under their respective jurisdictions (FDA: seafood; USDA: livestock & poultry) before launching a rulemaking and comment process, although no firm timetable has yet been established. … Read more
• Cell-based meat ‘won’t be mainstream for 20 years’, claims report:  Cell cultured meat won’t be bought by mainstream consumers until 2040 and will only account for 35% of global meat intake even then, according to the findings of a new report…. Read more
• Mission Barns tests cell-cultured pork fat with leading pork producer; gears up for hybrid plant/animal bacon tasting: Berkeley-based startup Mission Barns – which is carving a niche in the nascent cell-cultured meat industry by focusing on animal fat – is in talks with leading food companies about incorporating animal fat grown in bioreactors into a range of hybrid meats combining animal- and plant-based components…. Watch now
• Cell-based tortoise, yak and lion? Australia’s Vow seeks to create exotic cultured products:  Australia’s Vow is pledging to take the cell-based sector a step further by creating cultured versions of unconventional exotic animals – such as tortoise, yak and lion…. Read more

I think I can wait.

It’s not enough that the meat industry is attacking plant-based alternative meat products (see my post on how the Zombie Center for Consumer Freedom took on that job).

Now, to my amazement, one brand is attacking another and in a full-page ad in the New York Times, no less.

Here’s what it says:

Enough.  Enough with the hyper-processed ingredients, GMOs, unnecessary additives and fillers, and fake blood…People deserve plant-based protein that is developed in a kitchen, not a lab.

Really?  Lightlife burgers taking on Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods?  This so reminds me so much of the sugar industry taking on corn syrup and vice versa.

Does Lightlife have a case?

Food Navigator has a terrific comparison of the ingredients of plant-based burgers.  These are just the ones at issue here (there are more).

OK.  Lightlife has fewer ingredients, but it still looks plenty ultraprocessed.  Like the others, it:

• Does not resemble the foods from which it is derived.
• Is industrially produced.
• Contains unfamiliar ingredients (e.g., pea protein, natural flavors, modified cellulose)
• Cannot be made in home kitchens (unless you happen to have those ingredients as well as beet powder and cherry powder handy).

I don’t buy that there is a significant difference here.

Impossible Foods calls this ad “cynical and disingenuous.”  It also wrote an open letter of rebuttal.

The campaign leans on spurious arguments typically used by the meat industry: Attack Impossible’s products not based on their indisputable quality, nutrition, wholesomeness or deliciousness, but based on the number of ingredients — a logic-defying concept with zero relevance to health or product quality, intended to distract consumers from the obvious inferiority of Lightlife and Maple Leaf’s products.

Beyond Meat sent a statement to Food Dive

If Lightlife were clear on our ingredients, they would see that our food is made from simple, plant-based ingredients. With no GMOs. No synthetic additives. No carcinogens. No hormones. No antibiotics. No cholesterol. Our foods are designed to have the same taste and texture as animal-based meat, giving more consumers more options that are better for them and the planet.

From my standpoint, the differences between these products are minimal.

The real questions are about the relative benefits of meat versus plant-based alternatives.  A recent review in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems addresses those questions.  In my original post, I said “At best, it finds moderate benefits for nutritional vlue, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, but no to limited benefits for the other measures it evaluated.  It found even less benefit for cell-based meats (which are not yet on the market).”  This, as explained below, misrepresents their findings, which refer only to the state of the research literature.

My bottom line?  These products fall in the category of ultraprocessed and are off my dietary radar.  I can hardly believe that attacking each other does any good for them or anyone or anything else.

Correction

Brent Kim, one of the authors of this study writes:

We wanted to clear up some confusion that seems to have arisen around one of our tables…Table 1, cited in your post, describes the degree to which those different impacts have been characterized in the literature. “Limited,” for example, indicates that there has been a limited number of studies on the topic. It does not reflect our findings about the relative benefits.

To clarify, here’s what we found:

• Plant-based meat substitutes offered substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and land use relative to farmed beef. The benefits compared to other meats (e.g., pork, chicken, fish) were less pronounced.
• For cell-based meat, the potential environmental footprints were generally lower than those of farmed beef and comparable to or worse than those of other farmed meats and seafood… although further research is needed.
• There has been limited research on nutrition, chronic disease, and food safety implications associated with consuming meat alternatives, and occupational and community health implications associated with their production.
• For example, it is unknown whether replacing farmed meat with plant-based substitutes would offer similar nutritional and health benefits as compared to less-processed plant foods.

I stand corrected and reproduce this with Dr. Kim’s permission.  To my bottom line above, I should have added: more research needed!