Foods marketed to kids are an enormously profitable enterprise, but most foods marketed to kids are ultraprocessed junk foods.  Companies are scrambling to come up with profitable food items for kids that might actually be good for them.  Hence: “healthy” kids food.

By the way, kids don’t need special foods designed for them; they are perfectly capable of eating anything that adults eat, cut or smashed to size and in smaller portions, of course.

This collection of articles is from FoodNavigator.com, an industry newsletter that I find highly informative.

Special Edition: Healthy kids food

From fussy eaters, to early years nutrition, allergies and healthy snacks for kids, we take a look at the latest developments in children’s food and profile innovation for the next generation.

• Danone talks early life nutrition: The first 1,000 days can influence health for a lifetime:  Early life nutrition – from pregnancy to around two years – is a ‘critical period’ that can ‘positively influence health for a lifetime’, Danone Senior Medical Affairs Manager of Specialised Nutrition UK & Ireland, Zoe Ellis, tells FoodNavigator. What research, trends and opportunities does the French food giant believe will shape future innovation?.. Read
• Fruit snacks under fire: Is Action on Sugar’s call for ‘honest labelling’ justified?  Action on Sugar wants a ban on the use of claims such as ‘one of your five a day’, ‘naturally occurring sugars’ or ‘made from real fruit’ on fruit snacks for children that can contain the equivalent of five teaspoons of sugar. Are these misleading or truthful statements?.. Read
• Bite-sized NPD: The latest in kids snacking to hit UK shelves:  How can brands encourage children to eat ‘healthier’ snacks? Nestlé’s approach is to create breakfast cereal in the shape of a bear, Cadbury is shrinking its portion sizes to cut calories, and Kellogg is personalising covers on Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies. Swipe through the photo gallery for the latest innovations in bite-sized NPD… Display
• Children with food allergies face ‘staggering’ lack of choice:  With one in 40 kids suffering from cow’s milk allergy alone, and with food allergies more prevalent in children than adults, food companies are way behind in servicing the demand for healthy free-from children’s products, says the founder of UK dairy-free children’s brand Little Bandits… Read
• Challenger baby food brand spots gap for ‘truly organic’ premium baby formula:  Piccolo is countering falling baby food sales in the UK as a whole by successfully tapping into the desire for ‘truly organic’ baby products from consumers prepared to pay a premium for it… Read
• Baby food sector is neglecting infants’ nutritional needs, says start-up:  Little Tummy hopes to disrupt the UK baby food sector with paediatrician-developed meals with more micronutrients and less sugar than other brands on the market… Read
• Milking it? Free school milk under fire from plant-based backers:  A group of UK doctors has hit out at the provision of milk in schools arguing dairy is ‘not an essential part of school nutrition’. But do their claims about health and sustainability stack up – or would children lose out?.. Read
• Kids most exposed to junk food advertising in France, finds public health agency:  A fresh study has revealed that children in France are most exposed to advertising for products with a Nutri-Score ranking of D and E – meaning foods of lower nutritional quality. The findings, says Santé Publique France, support the need for food marketing restrictions… Read
• Study: Kids’ ‘pester power’ can promote healthy family eating habits:  Could children’s pester power (the influence kids have over their family’s eating behaviors) be a force for promoting positive and healthy eating behaviors at home?.. Read
• Children and adolescents are ‘less sensitive’ to sweet taste: study:  Children and adolescents are less sensitive to sweet taste than adults, new research finds… Read
• Pester power: ‘Peppa Pig, Disney, and Star Wars have no place on unhealthy food and drink’:  The association of cartoon characters with HFSS food and drink must end, according to a fresh report out of the UK which has called on parents to share their view on child-friendly marketing… Read

And while we are on the subject of “healthy” kids foods, what about what General Mills is doing?

General Mills is bringing back its classic recipes for four of its cereals: Cocoa Puffs, Golden Grahams, Cookie Crisp and Trix, according to a release. This reformulation back to retro ’80s recipes is permanent and is now available at retailers nationwide.

Just what kids do not need.  Sigh.

The FDA has a new Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative to teach the public about GMOs.

Its “Feed Your Mind” Initiative  provides webpages, fact sheets, infographics, and videos developed jointly with the USDA and EPA.

What is this about?

in 2017, Congress provided funding for an Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative, which calls upon FDA to work with EPA and USDA to share science-based educational information about GMOs, beginning with answers to some basic GMO questions.

Some of this is useful.  For example:

If you want details about any of  FDA-authorized GMOs, you have to go to this obscure website on “completed consultations.”

Most GMOs are crops grown for animal feed (or ethanol for cars).

So the only GMO products you are likely to find at supermarkets are papayas, potatoes, squash, and apples.

How can you tell?    If the papayas are from Hawai’i, you can assume they are GMO.

As for the others, you have no way of knowing unless they are labeled, and good luck with that.

GMOs are supposed to be labeled starting in 2020 and definitely by 2022 (unless overturned by litigation).  The label is supposed to look like this:

The FDA website says nothing about GMO labeling.  It also says nothing about GMO monoculture, corporate control of the food supply, pesticide resistance, or pesticide harm.

But it does have all this:

• Two videos
  • Why do we have GMOs?
  • Do GMOs Affect Your Health?
• Four new fact sheets
  • GMO Crops and Food for Animals
  • GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development
  • Types of Genetic Modification Methods for Crops
  • Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?
• Spanish translations of the fact sheets and infographics
• High school curriculum Science and Our Food Supply: Exploring Food Agriculture and Biotechnology

Evidence is pouring in that people with adequate vitamin D status seem to be better protected against harmful effects of Covid-19.

This is not surprising; people who practice healthful lifestyles—eating well, being active, getting out in the fresh air, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, not drinking too much—generally survive this infection more easily.

Vitamin D, I must remind you, is not really a vitamin.  It is a hormone induced by the effects of sunlight on skin.

Sunlight is by far the most effective way to get it.   Foods provide much less.

As for supplements, it’s hard to say.  They are under investigation.

I’ve been collecting items:

• An account of a clinical trial in Italy published in Medium: “Among the 26 hospitalized people who received standard care alone, fully half went on to the intensive care unit (ICU) because their disease had worsened. Two of them died. But among the 50 people who received the vitamin D treatment on top of standard care, only one person ended up in the ICU. None died.”  The study itself concludes: “…administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D…significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19. Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease, but larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer.”
• Medium’s discussion of what is known about Vitamin D supplements and Covid-19: “If we ask the question “Does vitamin D prevent/treat COVID-19?” the only real answer is “How could you possibly know?””
• Consumer Reports on whether you should be taking vitamin D supplements: its not-particularly-helpful conclusion: “Ultimately, whether to get tested or take a supplement and how to do it comes down to having a discussion with your doctor.”

As always with supplements, a market is involved.  This one is not trivial, even in the UK.

• Vitamin market set to hit £500m but where are the new users?  Use of Vitamin D supplements is growing fast thanks largely to growing media attention during the pandemic but interest in nearly all other single vitamins has dropped, and there’s still a lack of new consumers entering the market, according to new data from Mintel…. Read more

An obesity newsletter I subscribe to—Obesity and Energetics Offerings—provides items suggesting that conflicts of interest may be involved.

• Vitamin D deficiency linked to 54% higher SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate: Study: “The associations between vitamin D status and COVID-19 risk continue to strengthen, with new data from Quest Diagnostics and Boston University indicating that people with deficiency in the sunshine vitamin may have a significantly higher positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.“
• The study in question, Evidence That Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths, reports conflicted interests: “W.B.G receives funding from Bio-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. (Fayetteville, AR). H.L. sells vitamin D supplements. GrassrootsHealth works with various supplement suppliers to test the efficacy of their products in various custom projects. These suppliers may be listed as sponsors of GrassrootsHealth.”   Basically, it’s industry-funded.
• One letter in response to the study points out that “the efficacy of high-dose supplementation of vitamin D₃ in reducing risk of COVID-19 infection is mere extrapolation of currently available evidence, which is often conflicting, on the effectiveness of vitamin D3 in reducing risk of other respiratory tract infections.”
• To this, the authors have a lengthy rebuttal.

My bottom line at the moment: the science is still unfolding.  What to do while waiting for further research?  I like these Considerations for Obesity, Vitamin D, and Physical Activity Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic:

Until further breakthroughs emerge, we should remember that modifiable lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity should not be marginalized. Decades of empirical evidence have supported both as key factors promoting health and wellness. In times of crisis, whether it be real or perceived, there is something to be said about the benefits of empowering people to actively preserve their own health.

Get outside, move around, expose some skin to sunlight.  Even in winter.

The potato industry has a problem.  Some nutrition experts do not recommend them and argue that potatoes—especially French fries—raise blood sugar levels and should be excluded from recommendations to increase vegetable intake (I love potatoes in any form but try not to overeat them—everything in moderation if you can manage that, and I can).

In any case, the The Alliance for Potato Research & Education (APRE) is devoted to protecting the reputation—and sales–of potatoes, and funds research for that purpose.

The study: Daily intake of non-fried potato does not affect markers of glycaemia and is associated with better diet quality compared with refined grains: a randomised,crossover study in healthy adults.   EA Johnston et al.  British Journal of Nutrition (2020), 123, 1032–1042.

Results: “Compared with refined grains, the HEI-2015 Healthy Eating Index] scores..were higher following the potato condition. Consuming non-fried potatoes resulted in higher diet quality, K  [potassium] and fibre intake, without adversely affecting cardiometabolic risk.”

Financial Support: The Alliance for Potato Research and Education provided funds for the research conducted. Their staff were not involved in any aspects of conducting the study, analyzing the data or interpreting the results presented.

Comment: The APRE says it remains firmly committed to the scientific integrity of industry-funded research”  Its guidelines for research integrity sound good, but don’t address the inherent problems of industry-funded research: the well established “funding effect” that virtually guarantees that industry-funded research will produce results that favor the sponsor’s interests, and the also well established observation that investigator bias tends to occur at an unconscious level.  The exclusion of fried potatoes from this particular study suggests that the investigators know that frequent eating of French fries is a marker of poor diet quality.  I think potatoes have a place in healthy diets and that much depends on their particular role and preparation.  As with much in nutrition, the potato situation is complicated, and industry funding does not help with clarification.

Michael F.  Jacobson.  Salt Wars: The Battle Over the Biggest Killer in the American Diet.  MIT Press, 2020.

Michael Jacobson was one of the founders of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which he directed for more than 40 years.

His book comes with an introduction by Tom Frieden, former head of New York City’s Health Department and Director of the CDC.

I wrote a blurb for it:

Public health authorities advise eating less salt as a way to prevent high blood pressure, but a few scientists disagree. For anyone confused by these arguments, Salt Wars is a must read.  Michael Jacobson has been fighting these wars for decades, and his assessment of the research on both sides—and the policy implications–is exceptionally fair, balanced, and fascinating.

Here are a few excerpts:

• One reason that the debate has been so vigorous is that most journalists treat new reports supporting the conventional view on salt with a yawn.  Dog bites man?  Big deal.  What does capture the attention of journalists and headline writers are the man-bites-dog reports—those suggesting that eating less salt would be harmful—especially when they are conducted by credentialed researchers at prominent universities and published in respected journals…The poor consumer, lacking an advanced degree in epidemiology or nutrition, can get dizzy trying to follow the arcane biomedical and statistical jousting (p. xvi).
• I was sorely disappointed that the FDA was not setting mandatory maximum sodium levels.  Such limits for all foods in a category…have at least three advantages over a voluntary approach.  First, they would have teeth and ensure that all companies actually trimmed sodium in their saltiest products.  Second, the FDA could easily enforce them.  And third, they would provide a level playing field…I have since been persuaded that the voluntary approach was inevitable (p. 139).
• The process to propose sodium reductions was frustratingly slow, but there was no villain or cabal that sought to undermine the FDA’s effort to lower sodium consumption.  Rather, it was a case of how the Washington policy-making apparatus works when it comes to anything that is complicated, controversial, and consequential…It took the administration so long to propose the guidelines that there was no time to finalize them and the matter has languished for four years  (p. 143).

The USDA destroyed the ability of its Economic Research Service (ERS) to do investigations that might prove inconvenient for this administration (see my most recent post on this topic), but this agency is still producing reports on specific commodities.

Here are the latest dairy reports.  You have to be pretty nerdy to delve into these Excel spreadsheets but if you do, you will get a good idea of what ERS staff are doing these days as well as learn details about dairy production.  TMI?  Maybe.

Food Policy Action started keeping score on congressional votes on food issues in 2013, but the last time I wrote about its scorecard was in 2017.2020

It has just published its 2020 interactive Scorecard, which you can use to check how your state’s legislators score on food issues.

As Food Policy Action puts it, the “scorecard underscores Senate’s failure to feed hungry, protect workers.”

Food Policy Action identifies six ways Trump has hurt eaters, food workers and farmers.

The purpose of the Scorecard is to hold legislators accountable.  Now is the time to do that.

Vote with your votes by November 3.

I’m always interested to know how food and beverage companies spend money on candidates.  The Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets database is the best source that I know of for this information, but it takes work to find what you are looking for.

Food Dive has a summary of donations from ten leading food and beverage companies.

Food Dive’s explanation for why donations have dropped since 2016, especially to Republican candidates?  The companies think it works better for them to stay out of today’s polarized politics.

Or maybe they think the Deomocrats will win this time?