Corteva Agroscience, the big agribiz company formed last year by merging much of Dow, DuPont and Pioneer, has apparently announced that it will cease producing chlorpyrifos.

Chlorpyrifos, according to the EPA, is “an organophosphate insecticide…used primarily to control foliage and soil-borne insect pests on a variety of food and feed crops.”  It is telling that the EPA’s definition fails to mention that this chemical has been linked to neurodevelopmental problems in children.

As the Washington Post explains,

Corteva Agriscience, the nation’s largest producer of chlorpyrifos, said the decision was driven by financial considerations, not safety concerns. “It’s a tough decision forW us to make, but we don’t feel like it’s viable going forward,” Susanne Wasson, Corteva’s president of crop protection, said in an interview. “It was a business decision.”  The announcement came the same day that California, a leading agricultural state, made it illegal to sell chlorphyrifos. It is one of a growing number of states that have moved to block the pesticide from the market.

This is big news. 

Last year, in an action considered a victory for the chemical industry, the EPA refused to ban chlorpyrifos.

The New York Times explained

The Trump administration took a major step to weaken the regulation of toxic chemicals on Thursday when the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would not ban a widely used pesticide that its own experts have linked to serious health problems in children.  The decision by Andrew R. Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, represents a victory for the chemical industry and for farmers who have lobbied to continue using the substance, chlorpyrifos, arguing it is necessary to protect crops.

The EPA’s decision reversed one made by the Obama administration, which banned chlorpyrifos in 2015 on the basis of the EPA’s own studies linking the chemical to impaired brain development in children.

Advocates for banning chlorpyrifos are not breaking out the champagne.  They say they still have work to do.  Other makers are still producing it.

Still, this has to be a win for the advocacy groups that have long been working hard to get rid of chlorpyrifos.

They deserve our congratulations and enthusiastic support.

Almonds are great foods, and almond trees are beautiful, especially when in bloom (a lovely thought on a bleak winter’s day).

To produce almonds, the blossoms have to be pollinated, a job done by bees.

The bees don’t just appear spontaneously.  Getting them to orchards is a for-profit business enterprise.  

Most varieties of almond trees require cross-pollination – the transfer of pollen from one tree variety to another – to produce any nuts at all….Roughly 1 million acres of almond trees collectively bloom over a three-week period every February, creating spectacular scenic views but also putting enormous pressure on the farmers to pollinate them quickly. Each almond acre requires roughly two honey bee hives, each of which typically houses one colony of about 20,000 bees. With 2 million hives needed, that’s well more than half of the total U.S. hive population.

Unfortunately, trucking beehives around from one orchard to another is hard on the bees.

As The Guardian recently put it, using bees to fertilize almond orchards is “Like sending bees to war.” and “the truth behind your almond milk obsession” is deadly.

A recent survey of commercial beekeepers showed that 50 billion bees – more than seven times the world’s human population – were wiped out in a few months during winter 2018-19. This is more than one-third of commercial US bee colonies, the highest number since the annual survey started in the mid-2000s.

Beekeepers attributed the high mortality rate to pesticide exposure, diseases from parasites and habitat loss. However, environmentalists and organic beekeepers maintain that the real culprit is something more systemic: America’s reliance on industrial agriculture methods, especially those used by the almond industry, which demands a large-scale mechanization of one of nature’s most delicate natural processes.

FoodNavigator USA.com has issued a Special Report on this topic: “Bee friendly?  Pollinating California’s almond crop.”  It gives the almond industry’s view of the bee problem and its various causes.

The truth, as always, is more complicated, claims Dr Josette Lewis, director of agricultural affairs at the Almond Board of California, who likes to preface any conversation on this topic with the observation that almond growers are pretty motivated when it comes to ensuring honey bees are healthy and happy, given that it costs them almost $400/acre (two hives at c. $200 apiece) to hire these furry little pollinators upon which the success of their crop entirely depends. (To put this in perspective, it cost an average of $160/acre—two hives at c. $80 apiece – in 2005).

There is a “Bee-Friendly Farming” initiative among almond growers, but only about 10% are using it.

Regulation, anyone?

A headline in FoodNavigator.com got my attention: “Heart-healthy walnuts could be the next big meat alternative as campaigns build on plant-based trend.”

Hoping to exponentially increase consumers’ already growing interest in walnuts, the California Walnut Board today is launching a two-prong marketing effort that will promote the nut’s health benefits and versatility.

The prongs are in-store promotions and a global marketing campaign—in nine countries no less—emphasizing how you only need to eat three handfuls a week to get their health benefits.

The article notes that the health benefits are based on published research.  Alas, it fails to mention that the cited study was ” funded by The California Walnut Commission.”

The study:  Walnuts and Vegetable Oils Containing Oleic Acid Differentially Affect the Gut Microbiota and Associations with Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Follow-up of a Randomized, Controlled, Feeding Trial in Adults at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease.  Alyssa M Tindall, Christopher J McLimans, Kristina S Petersen, Penny M Kris-Etherton, Regina Lamendella.  The Journal of Nutrition, nxz289, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz289.  

Its conclusion: “…gut microbiota may contribute to the health benefits of walnut consumption in adults at cardiovascular risk.”

The California Walnut Commission has been diligent in funding studies reporting benefits from walnut consumption.  Here’s another one:

The study: Effect of a 2-year diet intervention with walnuts on cognitive decline.  The Walnuts And Healthy Aging (WAHA) study: a randomized controlled trial.  Aleix Sala-Vila, Cinta Valls-Pedret, Sujatha Rajaram, Nina Coll-Padrós, Montserrat Cofán, Mercè Serra-Mir, Ana M Pérez-Heras, Irene Roth, Tania M Freitas-Simoes, Mónica Doménech, Carlos Calvo,1,2 Anna López-Illamola, Edward Bitok, Natalie K Buxton, Lynnley Huey, Adam Arechiga, Keiji Oda, Grace J Lee, Dolores Corella, Lídia Vaqué-Alcázar, Roser Sala-Llonch, David Bartrés-Faz, Joan Sabaté, and Emilio Ros.  Am J Clin Nutr 2020;00:1–11.

Conclusions: “Walnut supplementation for 2 y had no effect on cognition in healthy elders. However, brain fMRI and post hoc analyses by site suggest that walnuts might delay cognitive decline in subgroups at higher risk.”

Conflicts of interest: AS-V, SR, JS, and ER have received research funding through their institutions from the California Walnut Commission, Folsom, CA, USA. JS and ER were nonpaid members of the California Walnut Commission Scientific Advisory Council. ER was a paid member of the California Walnut Commission Health Research Advisory Group. JS has received honoraria from the CaliforniaWalnut Commission for presentations. AS-V has received support from the CaliforniaWalnut Commission to attend professional meetings. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Some of the authors of this study work at Loma Linda, a university run by vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists.  As is unusual for industry-sponsored studies, this one found no delay in cognitive decline among older people eating walnuts.  But the study’s conclusions spin the results to suggest that walnuts might, in fact, delay cognitive decline in higher risk subgroups—an interpretation bias.

Walnuts are good foods and eating them instead of candy or other high calorie junk-food snacks makes sense.  Are walnuts better for you than any other nut?  This study does not address that question.  Studies funded by walnut trade associations have one and only one purpose: marketing walnuts.

As a reminder, I discussed issues related to sponsored research—including why the conduct of the science is not the problem with these studies—in my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

David M. Kaplan.  Food Philosophy: An Introduction.  Columbia University Press, 2020.

Philosophy can seem impenetrable and confusing.  What I so much like about this book is its crystal clarity.

The clarity is evident from Kaplan’s first paragraph.

This book examines some of the philosophical dimensions of food production, distribution, and consumption.  It analyzes what food is (metaphysics), how we experience food (epistemology), what taste in food is (aesthetics), how we should make and eat food (ethics), how governments should regulate food (political philosophy), and why food matters to us (existentialism).

One chapter covers each of these topics.  The chapter on political philosophy, for example, deals with what food justice is, how food systems should be regulated, and the politics of food animals, again with great clarity.

Kaplan admits to three philosophical convictions:

• Food is always open to interpretation
• People and animals deserve respect
• Food is about eating–and is sometimes disgusting

Food metaphysics?  Food epistemology?  Food ethics?  How terrific to have a book like this to explain how these terms play out in real life.

Although I haven’t written anything much about pet food since Pet Food Politics  (2008) and Feed Your Pet Right (2010), I occasionally run across articles of particular interest.  These come from Pet Food Industry, the exceptionally intelligent trade magazine for this industry.

The Pet Food Business

• Global pet food sales hit $91 billion in 2018: The highest growth rates for pet food are in treats, Asia Pacific and online, according to Euromonitor.
• North American pet ownership demographics shifting: North American pet owner demographics continue to shift, which is creating new challenges for dog and cat food brands in a competitive marketplace.

Hill’s Recall Because of Excessive Vitamin D

• 35 lawsuits combine over Hill’s vitamin D dog food recall
• FDA warns Hill’s that vitamin D dog food reply deficient: FDA concluded that Hill’s response did “not address the root cause of this incident.”

Protein in Pet Foods

• Blog: Pet food protein: How much is too much? Debbie Phillips-Donaldson: The current pet food trend of pushing protein levels ever higher may not be sustainable, for a variety of reasons, and research is lacking to understand the long-term effects on dog and cat health.

Thanks to the Hagstrom Report for this item.  It revealed that The Alliance for a Stronger FDA has produced a chart of the changes to the funding levels for the FDA in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

The group reports these increases for food safety funding:

▪ $5 million for innovation and emerging technology
▪ $7 million for advancing FSMA (the Food Safety Modernization Act)
▪ $8 million for strengthening response to foodborne outbreaks
▪ $3 million for dietary supplements
▪ $5 million for imported seafood safety
▪ $2 million for CBD activities
▪ $500,000 for antimicrobial monitoring system
▪ $1 million for standards of identity

These are drops in a very large bucket of need for FDA funding.

Please note that the FDA, a public health agency, gets its funding from agricultural appropriation committees, not health committees.

This is an unfortunate accident of history, but goes a long way to explaining why the FDA is so consistently underfunded.

I am indebted to BakeryAndSnacks.com for this report on consumer [dis]trust of food products.

According to Morning Consult’s first annual State of Brand Trust report, more than half of Americans say they have little or no trust in corporate America and the country’s leadership.  In fact, Tom Hanks (34%) and Oprah (27%) are more trusted than either the US government (7%) or Wall Street (5%).  Fifty-four percent of consumers say they have little or no trust in corporations, while only 28% hold the same for the food and beverage industry.  But they do place conviction in brands like Cheerios, Oreos and Doritos.

The top five most trusted brands, according to this report, are the US Postal Service, Amazon, Google, Pay Pal and The Weather Channel.

As for foods:

The most trusted food brand was Chick-fil-A—ranking in sixth position—followed by Hershey in seventh spot, and Cheerios and M&Ms, No. 9 and No. 10, respectively.

However, despite the high level of trust placed in food and beverage brands, the industry does have its work cut out for it, as only 17% of Americans say they trust food labels.

The mind boggles.  We are doomed.

Double-blind placebo controlled trial of the anxiolyticeffects of a standardized Echinacea extract.  József Haller,| Laszlo Krecsak| János Zámbori.  Phytotherapy Research.2019;1–9.

Conclusion: “These findings suggest that particular Echinacea preparations have significant beneficial effects on anxiety in humans.”

Conflict of interest statement: JH is one of the authors of a US patent on the anxiolytic effects Echinacea preparations.

Comment: I don’t usually bother to write about supplements because so little evidence supports their benefits over placebos.  This study finds small better-than-placebo benefits for this particular Echinacea supplement, presumably the one covered by the first author’s patent.  I’d be happier with independently funded research.  In the meantime, the European Food Safety Authority continues to have doubts.  Will this study make that agency change its collective mind?  We shall see.