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?

Stevia Beverage Consumption prior to Lunch Reduces Appetite and Total Energy Intake without Affecting Glycemia or Attentional Bias to Food Cues: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial in Healthy Adults.  Nikoleta S Stamataki, Nikoleta S Stamataki, Corey Scott, Rebecca Elliott, Shane McKie, Douwina Bosscher, John T McLaughlin. The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 150, Issue 5, May 2020, Pages 1126–1134.

Method: This randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study gave 20 healthy participants water or beverages with various sweeteners before lunch.  The investigators measured how much participants ate after consuming each drink.

Conclusion:  “This study found a beneficial and specific effect of a stevia beverage consumed prior to a meal on appetite and energy intake in healthy adults.”

Conflict of interest statement: “This study was supported by funding from the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) through a BBSRC Case Studentship awarded to NSS. Cargill prepared and provided the test products free of charge.  Author disclosures: DB and CS were employed by Cargill during the preparation of this manuscript, and Cargill produces stevia. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Comment:  The artificial sweetener Stevia is manufactured by Cargill.  Two of the authors work for Cargill.  Cargill has a vested interest in demonstrating that consumption of Stevia helps people lose weight.  Whether artificial sweeteners help with weight loss is a question much debated.  Industry-funded studies like his one tend to find benefits.  Some independently funded studies do too but others do not.

My guess: artificial sweeteners might help some people, but their overall benefits, if any, are small.

My take: one of my food rules is not to eat anything artificial, so Stevia is off my dietary radar from the get-go.

The Mexican state of Oaxaca became the first to ban the sales of junk foods to children under the age of 18.

The state of Tabasco did the same.

A dozen other Mexican states are considering similar actions.  The rationale is clear: the health consequences of obesity in general and with Covid-19 in particular.

One-third of Mexicans aged 6 to 19 are overweight or obese, according to UNICEF. They may not be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 now, but they can suffer myriad health issues, especially in adulthood.

And Mexico’s new warning labels are now in effect and will be required for all packaged foods by the end of the year.

Mexico has been able to implement these measures despite overwhelming food industry opposition.

How?  I credit the outstanding advocacy work of the Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and the consumer coalition, Alianza por la Salud Alimentaria.

Berkeley, California, ever at the cutting edge of public health nutrition policy, is banning junk food from checkout counters and aisles.

The new policy will require retailers larger than 2,500 square feet to stock healthy food at the register and in areas where customers wait in line, instead of items like chips, soda and candy. It forbids food items with 5 grams of added sugars and 200 milligrams of sodium, chewing gum and mints with added sugars, and beverages with added sugars or artificial sweeteners. In Berkeley, the policy will affect stores like Safeway, Monterey Market, Whole Foods and Berkeley Bowl.

As a result of efforts like these—public health campaigns, soda taxes, and other initiatives—heavy consumption of sugary drinks (more than 500 calories/day) is declining.

According to a recent study, the percentage of children who drink more than 500 calories worth of soft drinks a day declined from 11% to 3%  from 2003 to 2016, and the percentage of adult heavy consumers declined from 13% to 9%.

This trend is in the right direction.

Some parts of government are still functioning the way they are supposed to.

The U.S. Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) says USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has violated the Hatch Act and has to repay the US Treasury.

In letters to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and to Representative Marcia Fudge,  the OSC says

Secretary Sonny Perdue violated the Hatch Act on August 24, 2020, when he spoke in his official capacity at an event in Mills River, North Carolina (the “August 24 event”)…The event generally related to USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program…Because he was on taxpayer-funded travel when he engaged in the political activity at issue, the U.S. Treasury must be reimbursed for the costs associated with his political activity.  Provided that immediate corrective action is taken and the U.S. Treasury is reimbursed for such costs, OSC will decline to pursue disciplinary action and instead consider this file closed with the issuance of the cure letter.

As the letter explains,

The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President.  As the Secretary of Agriculture,
Secretary Perdue is covered by the Hatch Act and prohibited from, among other things, using his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.  Under this provision, Secretary Perdue may not use his official title while engaging in political activity or his official position to advance or oppose candidates for partisan political office.

In his speech at the event, Perdue congratulated President Trump for authorizing an additional billion dollars to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program

you just authorized another billion dollars for the hungry people of this country and to keep our farmers there. And we’ve never seen an outpouring of compassion like that for people who matter, because people matter to you. And that’s what’s important to me. And that’s what’s going to continue to happen—four more years—if America gets out and votes for this man, Donald J. Trump.

This is a particularly clear violation of the Hatch Act.  The OSC is right to call Perdue on it and insist that he repay taxpayers.

This is also yet another example of how the Farmers to Families food box program, about which I have written repeatedly, is more about politics than feeding the hungry.

The OSC investigation resulted from a complaint from Representative Fudge and several colleagues in Congress.   It’s also good to see them doing their job.