Chefs Best has issued a short, handy guide to making health claims in advertising that will stand up to the Federal Trade Commission’s scrutiny.

The guide divides advertising claims into three categories.

How can you tell if your claim is OK?

First, consult with competent legal counsel. The FTC advertising substantiation policy states, “Objective claims
for products represent, explicitly or by implication, that the advertiser has a reasonable basis supporting these
claims”. It goes on to state, a “reasonable basis” means “objective evidence that supports the claim” and “at a
minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has.” “If the ad is not specific, the FTC looks
at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed
to support the claim.”

Good luck with that.  The FTC generally goes along with what the FDA says about health claims.

As for those of us who are the target of health claims: it’s best to remember that health claims are about marketing, not health.

I cannot resist sharing this item from BakeryAndSnacks.com:

Waste not, want not: Bizaare [sic] ingredient adds nutritional and environmental benefits to our daily baguette:  French scientists claim that baking bread with wheat fertilized with human urine could slash nitrogen usage from artificial fertilizers, cut costs for farmers and boost yields, and retain nutrients often lost…. Read more

French scientists can’t bear the thought of wasting all the nitrogen excreted in urine, and have done a study showing its nutritional and ecological value.

Valoriser l’azote et le phosphore de l’urine pour une meilleur sécurité écologique et alimentaire. Pruvost-Bouvattier, M., Vialleix, M., Jovéniaux, A., Exculier, F., 2020. Note rapide de l’institut Paris région n°858.

I suppose we could all go out and pee on our gardens if it weren’t for those pesky pathogens we might be excreting.

Bizaare is not the name of the company eager to do this.

Well, it’s been a bizarre kind of week.

Stay healthy.

RC Rybnikar sends these photos (thanks!) of examples from USDA’s Farmers to Families program.  The label.

What’s inside:

Looks good to me.

And now the USDA is expanding its list of commodities in the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP).

Additional details:

• Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).  
• Final Rule Correction
• www.farmers.gov/cfap.

Here’s what’s been added:

alfalfa sprouts, anise, arugula, basil, bean sprouts, beets, blackberries, Brussels sprouts, celeriac (celery root), chives, cilantro, coconuts, collard greens, dandelion greens, greens (others not listed separately), guava, kale greens, lettuce – including Boston, green leaf, Lolla Rossa, oak leaf green, oak leaf red and red leaf – marjoram, mint, mustard, okra, oregano, parsnips, passion fruit, peas (green), pineapple, pistachios, radicchio, rosemary, sage, savory, sorrel, fresh sugarcane, Swiss chard, thyme and turnip top greens.

Here’s what’s been expanded: apples, blueberries, garlic, potatoes, raspberries, tangerines and taro (Why?  Because USDA found these commodities had a 5 percent or greater price decline between mid-January and mid-April as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Let’s hope this helps small- and medium-size producers of these foods, and the foods get to people who need them.

The USDA has a pilot program that permits most low-income families enrolled in SNAP (formerly food stamps) to use their benefits to buy groceries online.

This could be convenient and protect participants from Covid-19 exposure.

But food will be more expensive: SNAP does not cover delivery costs.

Only a few retailers at the moment can accept SNAP benefit payments: Amazon, Walmart, Fresh Direct, and Safeway/Albertson’s.

This situation has induced the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) to publish a research report that raises some serious questions.

According to the press release, the pilot program exposes SNAP participants

to a loss of their privacy through “increased data collection and surveillance,” as well as risks involving “intrusive and manipulative online marketing techniques.” The report reveals how online grocers and retailers use an orchestrated array of digital techniques—including granular data profiling, predictive analytics, geolocation tracking, personalized online coupons, AI and machine learning —to promote unhealthy products, trigger impulsive purchases, and increase overall spending at check-out….The increased reliance on these services for daily food and other household purchases could expose these consumers to extensive data collection, as well as unfair and predatory techniques, exacerbating existing disparities in racial and health equity.”

On the basis of this report, several advocacy groups jointly wrote the USDA Secretary to make sure that these retailers do not unfairly target or take advantage of SNAP participants.

Our request is based on a new study by the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), which finds that leading online grocery and e-commerce companies…are engaged in extensive data profiling, and deploying geolocation tracking, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and behavioral science techniques to track and target consumers, promote unhealthy products, and trigger impulsive purchases. Most of these operations are largely invisible, and CDD’s analysis of the companies’ privacy policies reveals that they fail to protect consumers from these data collection, targeting, and predatory marketing practices.

The letter has several “asks,” among them:

• Forbid the use of techniques that take advantage of consumers’ psychological vulnerabilities, or employ manipulative practices designed to foster impulsive behavior.
• Require participating retailers to prioritize healthier products in their ecommerce and online promotion efforts, discounts, and coupons.
• Facilitate the participation of smaller, independent retailers, farmers markets and other local produce suppliers.

These groups also plan to ask Congress to conduct oversight hearings.

It’s terrific that these groups are keeping an eye on this program.

I’m curious to see the percentage of SNAP participants who use the program and are willing to pay the higher delivery costs.

I imagine that the big retailers are for it.  As was documented in Michele Simon’s 2012 report—Food Stamps: Follow the Money—for some time, retailers are SNAP’s greatest beneficiaries.

Simón Barquera, who directs the Center for Research on Nutrition and Health at the National Institute of Public Health in Cuernavaca, sent me a copy of this letter, which he found on Twitter (but it’s no longer there):

It’s from the president of the Mexican Society of Nutrition and Endocrinology thanking Coca-Cola for donating Personal Protective Equipment to deal with Covid-19.

The Mexican Nutrition Society has a cozy relationship with Coca-Cola?

I wonder what that’s all about.

Conflicts of interest anyone?

Thanks to Nate Goldstein (@drnategoldstein), Mitchell Davis (@kitchensense), and the adorable Milo for this photo, discovered in my Twitter feed (@marionnestle).

Milo: Don’t eat my book!

OK, it’s ten years old, out of date, and out of print.  Mal Nesheim and I badly want to do an updated edition with a title that better reflects what the book is about.  It’s really an analysis of the pet food industry and what it produces.  We did include generic recipes for feeding dogs and cats, though, so you can make your own .

Anyone interested in taking on this project?  Let me know @marionnestle.

The report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is now available in online preprint.

It sets a record at 835 pages.

Its conclusions are highly consistent with those of previous Dietary Guidelines.

It recommends eating more of these foods:

Common characteristics of dietary patterns associated with positive health outcomes include higher intake of vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, low- or nonfat dairy, lean meat and poultry, seafood, nuts, and unsaturated vegetable oils.

It recommends eating less of these foods:

The Committee found that negative (detrimental) health outcomes were associated with dietary patterns characterized by higher intake of red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and refined grains.

It retained the recommendation: Eat less red and processed meats

It retained the recommendation to eat less saturated fat (replace with polyunsaturated or monounsaturated)

Thus, the Committee recommends that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake be as low as possible within a healthy dietary pattern, and that saturated fat intake be limited to less than of 10 percent of total energy intake, as recommended by the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This recommendation applies to adults and children ages 2 years and older.

It tightened up restrictions on alcoholic beverages from 2 drinks a day for men to 1 drink:

The Committee concluded that no evidence exists to relax current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations, and there is evidence to tighten them for men such that recommended limits for both men and women who drink would be 1 drink per day on days when alcohol is consumed.

It tightened up restrictions on added sugars, from 10% of calories to 6%:

After considering the scientific evidence for the potential health impacts of added sugars intake, along with findings from model-based estimations of energy available in the dietary pattern after meeting nutrient requirements, the Committee suggests that less than 6 percent of energy from added sugars is more consistent with a dietary pattern that is nutritionally adequate while avoiding excess energy intake from added sugars than is a pattern with less than 10 percent energy from added sugars.

What’s missing?

• Salt: The report says remarkably little about sodium beyond that it is overconsumed and people should “reduce sodium intake.”  It’s possible that I missed it, but I could not find suggestions for quantitative limits.
• Ultraprocessed: The word does not appear in the report except in the references.  A large body of evidence supports an association of ultraprocessed foods to poor health.  If the committee considered this evidence, it did not spell it out explicitly.
• Sustainability: This was off the table from the beginning but this committee recommends that it be considered next time in the context of a food systems approach to the Dietary Guidelines (p.771).

Comment

This is an impressive, solid, conservative review of the existing science highly consistent with previous Dietary Guidelines but with mostly stronger recommendations.

This committee was up against:

• A tight time frame
• A first-time mandate to review literature on infancy, pregnancy, and lactation in addition to that for adults
• A first-time process in which the agencies set the research agenda, not the committee
• The Coronavirus pandemic

At the outset, I was concerned that the committee members might be heavily biased in favor of food industry interests.  If they were, such biases do not show up in the final report.  I think this committee deserves much praise for producing a report of this quality under these circumstances.

Want to weigh in on it? 

The agencies are taking public comments until August 13.  On August 11, there will be an online public meeting for even more comments.

What’s next?

This report is advisory, only.  USDA and HHS must boil this down to the actual 2020 Dietary Guidelines.  Whereas the committee process was transparent, the boiling down process is highly secretive, or was in 2015.  It will be interesting to see what the agencies do, especially given the heavy lobbying by proponents of meat, saturated fat, and low-carbohydrate diets.

Food Dive reports: FDA study finds some CBD products are mislabeled: Of the 20 edible and beverage products tested that had an amount of CBD marketed on their labels, five had less than 80% of the amount indicated and six had more than 120%.

I’m particularly interested in CBD edibles so I took a look at the FDA CBD labeling report.

What the results mean:

• For gummies, 7 of 17 products were mislabeled by 20% or more, and 5 contained THC (the psychodelic ingredient they are not supposed to have).
• For edibles, 6 of 17 were mislabeled by 20% or more, and 3 had THC.
• For beverages, 3 of 8 were mislabeled by 20% or more, but none had THC.
• For pet foods, 5 of 22 were mislabeled by 20% or more, and 9 had THC.

If you want THC in your edibles, you’ve got a pretty good chance of getting it, and so do your pets.

Enjoy!