By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which said that the courts were required to uphold regulatory decisions of federal agencies unless Congress said otherwise.  The court majority called the doctrine “fundamentally misguided.”

The decision involves food politics in two ways: (1) the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involved fishing, and (2) it has profound implications for food regulations.

(1) The case, as described in SCOTUSblog: “Can fishermen be required to pay for federal monitors? And by the way – should Chevron be overruled?”

Summary: The National Marine Fisheries Service had been requiring “the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing… the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.”  Commercial fishing companies, which do not like having observers on board, challenged the Chevron doctrine.  Koch Industries paid for the challenge, as part of its long-standing deregulatory agenda.

Significance: businesses objecting to agency regulations can sue the agencies and let judges decide.

The courts (politically appointed judges) can overrule the agencies ‘ public health and safety regulations.

(2) Implications for food, nutrition, and public health regulations

The decision is widely interpreted as putting food and nutrition policies at grave risk, particularly those of the FDA.  Here is a preliminary list of what is at stake.

• FDA: food safety, sodium, front-of-package nutrition labeling, the healthy front-of-package label claim, GRAS determinations, dietary supplements, chemical toxins.
• Many of these proposed regulations were already at risk because of disinterest or lack of understanding by agency officials who seem unwilling to argue forcefully for public health measures.  This lack is seen most clearly in a Wall Street Journal interview with Jim Jones, the FDA’s new Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, who appears uninterested in taking on regulations to reduce production as well as consumption of ultra-processed foods. [this discussion runs from 13:20 to 17:02].
• USDA: meat and poultry safety, Salmonella and E. coli as adulterants, pesticides, herbicides, meat industry consolidation reduction, safe handling instructions, labeling requirements.
• EPA: slaughterhouse pollution, water quality, PFAS
• FTC: dietary supplement health claims

Comment: There are undoubtedly more regulations in play that I haven’t thought of.   Food companies (like businesses in general) do not like being regulated.—too cumbersome, too expensive, too intrusive, too limiting on profits.

Now, a company fviewing any of these rules as inconvenient can take the FDA to court.  Doing so:

• Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges.
• Ties up federal agencies in legal challenges.
• Reduces agency resources for inspections and other regulatory work.
• Casts a chill on developing new regulations development.

This decision has been applauded by the business community.

For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

I’ll bet we won’t have to wait long for the first cases to be filed.

I just ran across this one.  The Prune Study?  To prove that prunes prevent osteoporosis?  Who could possibly be paying for this?

The study: Koltun, K.J., Strock, N.C.A., Weaver, C. et al. Prunes preserve cortical density and estimated strength of the tibia in a 12-month randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women: The Prune Study. Osteoporos Int 35, 863–875 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-024-07031-6

Method: “evaluate the effects of 50 g and 100 g of prunes vs. a Control group on vBMD, bone geometry, and estimated strength of the radius and tibia via peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in postmenopausal women. Women (age 62.1 ± 5.0yrs) were randomized into Control (n = 78), 50 g Prune (n = 79), or 100 g Prune (n = 78) groups.”

Results: “The most notable effects were observed at the 14% diaphyseal tibia in the Pooled (50 g + 100 g) Prune group, in which group × time interactions were observed for cortical vBMD (p = 0.012) and estimated bone strength (SSI; p = 0.024); all of which decreased in the Control vs. no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.”

Conclusion: “Prune consumption for 12 months preserved cortical bone structure and estimated bone strength at the weight-bearing tibia in postmenopausal women.”

Funding: “We thank the California Prune Board (Award Number: 180215) for the funding and prunes.”

Comment: The California Prune Board is working hard on this.  I’ve posted at least one previous study on the same theme.  I’ve read the Results several times and still am not getting what’s claimed versus ‘no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.'”  But even if there is an effect, the question is: compared to what?  Do other dried fruits provide similar effects?  What about whole fruits?  This is a one-food study designed to produce results that can be used in marketing.  What’s going on here?

We Work Hand-in-Hand with California’s Prune Growers and Handlers

The California Prune Board (CPB) works to unite California’s diverse prune growers and handlers around activities that benefit the industry today and pave the way for its bright future. As we all know, California Prunes are the best in the world – and CPB serves the industry by helping to drive demand and premium value.

Doing a good job?  You decide.

FoodPolitics is taking the 5th off.  Back on Monday.  Enjoy the weekend.  And a fruit serving!

I saw this headline in the Washington Post: Bayer lobbies Congress to help fight lawsuits tying Roundup to cancer.

The biotech giant Bayer has lobbied Congress over the past year to advance legislation that could shield the company from billions of dollars in lawsuits, part of a national campaign to defeat claims that its weed killer Roundup causes cancer in people who use it frequently…By erecting new legal barriers to bringing those cases, Bayer seeks to prevent sizable payouts to plaintiffs while sparing itself from a financial crisis.

Apparently, the House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision—drafted by Bayer—to protect the company against further lawsuits claimng that the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other cancers.

Bayer helped craft that measure, then circulated it among lawmakers to rally support before later pushing the House to add it to the farm bill, the people familiar with the effort said.

Bayer also

has sought to reshape federal, state and local laws, hoping to erect a blockade against future lawsuits. Over the past year, the company has helped advance bills in Idaho, Iowa and Missouri, according to state lobbying records, each of which could effectively immunize the company against allegations that its chemicals can cause cancer. Top company executives have promised to push these policies more aggressively — and in a wider array of states — in the coming legislative year.

Comment

In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion.  What was it thinking?  Lawsuits based on the health effects of glyphsate were already well underway, with the courts sometimes awarding plaintiffs millions of dollars in damages.

Thousands of such lawsuits are in play.  Bayer admits to 170,000 in total.  Bayer settled a lot of them for billions, but at least a third of these claims are still unresolved.

Bayer says glyphosate is not carcinogenic and the Environmental Protection Agency agrees.  But the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, identifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.”

Juries, appalled by evidence that Monsanto had hidden evidence of harm, sometimes rule in favor of plaintiffs.

Bayer’s stock prices have taken a hit.

It’s not clear whether the company will survive.

Bayer’s greed about monopolizing seed stocks brought on this problem.

The Farm Bill is not the place to solve it.

Bayer does not deserve this level of protection.

Food corporations should not be writing the Farm Bill.

Resource

Civil Eats did an investigation of Bayer’s legal strategies.  See this report here.

The headline in The Guardian: UK children shorter, fatter and sicker amid poor diet and poverty, report finds.

Here’s the report.

It’s principal findings:

• The height of 5 year olds has been falling since 2013.
• Obesity among 10-11 year olds has increased by 30% since 2006.
• Type 2 diabetes among under 25s has increased by 22% in the past 5 years.
• Babies born today will enjoy a year less good health than babies born a decade ago.

As it says in the introduction,

Crucially, the report not only highlights a deeply worrying increase in conditions driven by calorie dense diets such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, but also highlights the equally concerning and substantially less talked about results of poor-quality diets and undernutrition….All children should be able to eat in way that fuels their bodies and minds, giving them sufficient calories and nutrients to be free from hunger and diseases of nutritional deficiency, while being protected from the bombardment of ultra-processed, highly sugary and salty foods that most often contribute to excess calorie intake but lack vitamins, minerals, fibre, healthy fats and quality protein.

Comment

I’m guessing if a similar study were to be done in the United States, its results would be similar.  Children are the future of our nation and society; they deserve good health and protection against junk food.

I saw this one in a newsletter:

Ashwagandha intake linked to memory and attention benefits: Acute and repeated supplementation with liposomal ashwagandha may boost select cognitive effects, including memory, attention, vigilance and reaction time in healthy adults, says a new study…. Read more

The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements says

Several randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, most of them fairly small in size and of short duration, have found that ashwagandha may reduce perceived stress and anxiety and improve the quality and duration of sleep [6,7,31]. Because studies have used various ashwagandha preparations (with different extraction and standardization processes) and doses, it is difficult to identify specific extracts or recommended amounts [6,32]…In addition, ashwagandha may have potential adverse effects on the liver and thyroid and might not be safe for people with prostate cancer or those who are pregnant or nursing.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health says:

• Research shows that some ashwagandha preparations may be effective for insomnia and stress. However, evidence is unclear about its effects on anxiety.
• There is some limited evidence that suggests that taking ashwagandha for 2 to 4 months may increase testosterone levels and sperm quality.
• There isn’t enough evidence to determine if ashwagandha is helpful for any other health conditions, such as asthma, athletic performance, cognitive function, diabetes, menopause, and female infertility.
• There is not enough high-quality evidence suggesting that ashwagandha is helpful in treating COVID-19.

When it comes to supplements, evidence is not the issue.  Belief is what matters.  The mere suggestion that a supplement might work is all it takes to convince people to buy it.  And if nothing else, supplements have powerful placebo effects.  We could all use some of those these days.

The USDA has just summarized its accomplishments with respect to food and nutrition assisttance since the pandemic.  It’s an impressive list.

The report has loads of enlightening charts.  This one shows the substantial increase in spending on food assistance over the years, and recently.

This report has the advantage of putting everything in one place.

This report uses preliminary data from USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to examine program trends and policy changes in USDA’s largest domestic food and nutrition assistance programs through FY 2023. It also summarizes two 2023 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) reports including one that examines the prevalence of household food insecurity in the United States in 2022 and another that documents the share of households with school-aged children reporting difficulty paying for expenses after pandemic waivers allowing schools to serve free meals expired in 2022.

If you want to understand why food assistance is anything but a bipartisan issue, the facts and figures here tell the story.  I’m glad to have this one.

If you haven’t been worried about microplastics in your body, perhaps this study will get your attention.

Here’s the abstract:

Its alarming conclusion:

The detection of MPs in penile tissue raises inquiries on the ramifications of environmental pollutants on sexual health.
Our research adds a key dimension to the discussion on man-made pollutants, focusing on MPs in the male reproductive system.

Everyone is worried about the decline in male sperm counts.  Could endocrine disrupting plastics be a cause?  If so, it’s time to get serious about cleaning them up and not producing more.