The Trump Administration has poured billions of dollars into supporting Midwest producers of industrial corn, but to date is not doing anything in particular to help producers of corn-based ethanol.  Because Americans are not traveling as much, demand for gasoline is down and so is demand for fuel ethanol (required by law to comprise 10% of automobile fuel).

The ethanol industry is unhappy about this situation, and is accusing the Trump Administration of reneging on its promises.

This secret list of promises, the vast majority of which have not been fulfilled, was first reported by Reuters today and offers powerful evidence of the Trump administration’s failure to support ethanol, despite his rhetoric. This secret list also highlights how Senator Ernst and Grassley have failed to follow through on their own promises to fight for Iowa farmers with this administration, despite their rhetoric. Just last week, Senator Ernst touted herself as a “tireless advocate” for the ethanol industry yet by never releasing the list of White House ethanol promises she has avoided having to call out the President for the full extent of his failures.

What’s all this about?  Money, of course.

But I don’t have much sympathy for ethanol producers.

I don’t think corn—a food mainly for animals but also for people—should be used as fuel for cars.

For one thing, it takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as it does to produce gasoline.  The best that can be said is this:

Energy is required to turn any raw feedstock into ethanol. Ethanol produced from corn demonstrates a positive energy balance, meaning that the process of producing ethanol fuel does not require more energy than the amount of energy contained in the fuel itself.

If you want details, see the USDA’s report on ethanol energy balance.

An astonishing 40% or so of US corn is grown to produce ethanol.

I’m not the only one who thinks growing food to fuel cars is ridiculous, or—more politely—needs rethinking.

As a crop, corn is highly productive, flexible and successful. It has been a pillar of American agriculture for decades, and there is no doubt that it will be a crucial part of American agriculture in the future. However, many are beginning to question corn as a system: how it dominates American agriculture compared with other farming systems; how in America it is used primarily for ethanol, animal feed and high-fructose corn syrup; how it consumes natural resources; and how it receives preferential treatment from our government.

Another reason, as the USDA puts it: “Strong demand for ethanol production has resulted in higher corn prices and has provided incentives for farmers to increase corn acreage.”

Neither of those is good for the health of people or the planet.

Growing corn for ethanol makes no sense to me.  It’s too bad that the companies that invested in ethanol plants are hurting, but hey: that’s how capitalism works

My colleague Lisa Sasson, who is a member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association), sent me a copy of its September 11 newsletter.  This, she pointed out, contains this advertisement for  Canadian maple syrup.

Maple syrup, delicious as it is, is basically sugar(s) in liquid form.

But “health and performance benefits”?  They have to be kidding.  I clicked on Give it a turn!

The first thing up: “Pure Maple Syrup is packed with nutritional benefits.”

Oh come on.  We’re talking sugars here.

But the hype continues:

• Pure maple syrup from Canada contains vitamins and minerals – at approximately 110 calories per serving (2 tablespoons).  It is an excellent source of manganese and a good source of riboflavin. Pure maple syrup is also a source of calcium, thiamin, potassium, and copper.
• Scientists have identified more than 67 different plant compounds, or polyphenols, nine of which are unique to pure maple syrup. One of these polyphenols, named Quebecol, naturally forms when the sap is boiled to produce maple syrup.

I went to the USDA’s food composition database to see what it says about maple syrup.  Its figures are pretty close to what’s given in this ad, but so what?  Manganese and riboflavin are hardly nutrients of concern in American diets—many foods have plenty—and all the other nutrients listed are in too small amounts to bother to count.

But it continues:

Maple Syrup for Fitness

• Pure maple syrup can be a natural endurance booster for athletes because it is made primarily of carbohydrates. Since carbohydrates are the primary fuel for the body, it can help give athletes the energy they need. Use in homemade sports drinks and energy snacks for a readily available supply of energy that helps maintain your stamina.
• Pure Maple syrup contains manganese, which may help support healthy muscles.

Translation: Eat sugar!

As for manganese,

Manganese is present in a wide variety of foods, including whole grains, clams, oysters, mussels, nuts, soybeans and other legumes, rice, leafy vegetables, coffee, tea, and many spices, such as black pepper [1,2,5,10,11]. Drinking water also contains small amounts of manganese at concentrations of 1 to 100 mcg/L [5]. The top sources of manganese in the diets of U.S. adults are grain products, tea, and vegetables [4].

Maple syrup is delicious and I love it, but it is not a health food and should not be advertised to dietitians as such.  The ad is misleading and makes the Academy look like it’s not on top of efforts to mislead its members.

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.

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!

My new book with Kerry Trueman is published today: Let’s Ask Marion: What You Need to Know about the Politics of Food, Nutrition, and Health.

It’s an unusual book for me.

• For one thing, it is small, 4″ x 6,” and under 200 pages of good-size print.
• For another, it’s a Q and A.  Kerry asked the questions (there are 18, 6 each on the politics of personal diets, community food politics, and international food politics).  I answered them in short essays).

The Table of Contents is here.

You can read the Introduction here.

The back cover blurbs:

• “Marion Nestle has emerged as one of the sanest, most knowledgeable, and independent voices in the current debate over the health and safety of the American food system.”––Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals 
• “When it comes to making sense of the unclean politics of national and international food policy, exposing the motives of corporate food giants, and helping us make the right choices about what we eat, Marion Nestle is a fierce and reliable voice of reason, and her new book is approachable, focused, and hopeful.”––Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, and owner of Chez Panisse Restaurant
• “There is no one better to ask than Marion, who is the leading guide in intelligent, unbiased, independent advice on eating, and has been for decades.”––Mark Bittman, author of How to Cook Everything

More information is here

• About the Book
• About the Author
• Reviews
• Related Books

Buying options

• UC Press
• IndieBound
• Bookshop
• Powell’s
• Barnes & Noble
• Amazon

Enjoy!

I am indebted to DairyReporter.com for this item, which especially interested me because one set of my grandparents immigrated to the United States from Lithuania in the very early 1900s.  Perhaps this explains why I like ice cream so much.

The item:”12 bizarre ice cream flavors from Lithuania.”

It seems plain vanilla ice cream might soon be out of fashion in Lithuania, where chefs are experimenting with natural flavors, including plenty not normally associated with ice cream.”

He’s not kidding.  Try these:

• • Pine needle
  • Peony
  • Carrot
  • Rhubarb
  • Beetroot
  • Lavender
  • Quark and nettle ice cream (I had to look up quark.  No, not a subatomic particle: a curd-type cheese).
  • Linden honey and dill
  • Seaweed and caviar
  • Spinach and tarragon
  • Beer

• Smoked mackerel

Coca-Cola, which bought Odwalla juices in 2001, is discontinuing the brand and getting rid of 300 jobs and 230 trucks.

Why?  People aren’t buying it: too much sugar, and too much competition.

This is the end of a long saga.  Odwalla started out selling unpasteurized juices and was doing fine until it got too big.

Against company policy, it used apples that had fallen on the ground to make apple juice.  Some were contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, which carried a shiga toxin that caused illnesses and deaths.  In 1998:

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler, who represented some of the victims, some of whom have lifelong complications, says  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

During the course of the litigation, we uncovered that Odwalla had attempted to sell its juice in 1996 to the U.S. Army – no, not as a biological weapon – but to be sold in base grocery stores to our men and women service members and their families. The Army rejected the product – because it was not fit for military consumers.

His post includes the Army’s letter of rejection:  “We determined that your plant sanitation program does not adequatel assure product whoolesomeness for military consumers.”

It also includes some emails suggesting that Odwalla did not want to test for pathogens because they might find some:  “IF THE DATA is bad, what do we do about it.  Once you create a body of data, it is subpoenable.”

I wrote about the Odwalla events in my book, Safe Food.

The Odwalla outbreak provided convincing proof that unpasteurized and uncooked “natural” foods could contain the same pathogens as meat and poultry if they had the bad luck to come in contact with contaminated animal manure or meat.  For the industry, the lessons were mixed.  If food companies failed to reduce pathogens, their liability costs could be substantial–in money, time, legal penalties, and reputation—but these problems could be temporary and soon overcome (p. 99).

The end of a saga, indeed.