Food crime is a new term in my lexicon.  I’m used to hearing it called food fraud or intentional adulteration.

As I learned from reading an article in Food Safety News, the Food Standards Agency in Great Britain established a National Food Crime Unit in the wake of the 2013 horsemeat scandal.

Examples of food crime include the use of stolen food in the supply chain, unlawful slaughter, diversion of unsafe food, adulteration, substitution or misrepresentation of food, and document fraud…Members of the public and those working in the food and drink sector can speak up about food crime through Food Crime Confidential.

The agency says it focuses on seven types of food crime:

• theft – dishonestly obtaining food, drink or feed products to profit from their use or sale
• illegal processing – slaughtering or preparing meat and related products in unapproved premises or using unauthorised techniques
• waste diversion – illegally diverting food, drink or feed meant for disposal, back into the supply chain
• adulteration – including a foreign substance which is not on the product’s label to lower costs or fake a higher quality
• substitution – replacing a food or ingredient with another substance that is similar but inferior
• misrepresentation – marketing or labelling a product to wrongly portray its quality, safety, origin or freshness
• document fraud – making, using or possessing false documents with the intent to sell or market a fraudulent or substandard product

The unit is not particularly forthcoming about its findings.  According to FoodManufacture.com, it took a freedom-of-information request to discover that the unit received 1193 reports of food crime in 2018, and 364 in the first three months of 2019.

The FOI request was filed by the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, which reports these figures but does not seem to have a formal report online.

Bottom line: Food crime is the highest it has been in the UK since 2013.

The study: Matthews LG, Smyser CD, Cherkerzian S, Alexopoulos D, Kenley J, Tuuli MG, et al. (2019) Maternal pomegranate juice intake and brain structure and function in infants with intrauterine growth restriction: A randomized controlled pilot study. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0219596.

The findings (my emphasis): “There were no group differences in brain injury, metrics or volumes. However, treatment subjects displayed reduced diffusivity within the anterior and posterior limbs of the internal capsule compared with placebo. Resting state functional connectivity demonstrated increased correlation and covariance within several networks in treatment subjects, with alterations most apparent in the visual network in per-protocol analyses. Direct effects on health were not found.

Conclusion: In conclusion, maternal pomegranate juice intake in pregnancies with known IUGR was associated with altered white matter organization and functional connectivity in the infant brain, suggesting differences in brain structure and function following in utero pomegranate juice exposure, warranting continued investigation.

Funding: This work was supported by National Institute of Health Grants R01 HD29190 (D. M. Nelson), K02 NS089852 (C.D. Smyser), U54 HD087011 and P30 HD062171 (T.E. Inder), The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (D. M. Nelson) and an unrestricted gift to Washington University School of Medicine from POM Wonderful, Los Angeles, CA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comment: This is a classic example of interpretation bias.  Studies of bias associated with industry funding find that it shows up mostly in the framing of the research question or in the interpretation, as this one demonstrates.  The study did not find anything significant but concluded that drinking pomegranate juice during pregnancy is good for the growing fetus.

Bottom line: Fruit juices (of any kind) are good for health as long as volumes are small.  Eating the fruit itself is better–less sugar, more fiber.

I’ve been seeing lots of books about meat lately.  Here are two recent ones.

Josh Berson.  The Meat Question: Animals, Humans, and the Deep History of Food.  MIT Press, 2019.

The author is an Australian social scientist, a vegan, who has produced a deep dive into the history of the use of meat as food and as cultural symbol.  As he puts it,

The aim of this book is to unpack what I’ve come to call the Meat Question–Should humans be eating meat, and if so who, and what kinds, and how much?–in the most comprehensive way possible.  The perspective…is deep deep in that it encompasses the history of human meat eating and human relationships with other gregarious vertebrates over a span of more than 2 million years.  (p. 2)

This [book’s] perspective is centered on my conviction that the economic violence of meat has less to do with who can and cannot afford it than with how meat serves to prop up a system of asymmetric benefits from all forms of human activity, not just that related to food.  Growing demand for meat is not simply an outcome of growing affluence.  It is a symptom of the inequality and oppression that have accompanied that affluence. (p. 294)

Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft.  Meat Planet: Artificial Flesh and the Future of Food.  University of California Press, 2019.

This book examines the brand-new industry creating lab-based meat.  These products are not yet on the market but are of such enormous public and economic interest that they are well worth book-length treatment.

This book tells the story of what I found, and what I did not find, in the course of my time in the small, strange world of cultured meat, during what seemed to be the early years of an emerging technology.  I expected to spend time in laboratories…This did happen in some measure, but for the most part I found myself with very little laboratory science to observe and a great many public conversations about cultured meat to participate in and sort through.  (p. 15)

But cultured meat, too, raises moral questions.  Not questions about our moral regard for harvested cells, but questions about the implications cultured meat may hold for our moral regard for animals….It is relatively easy to see how cultured meat would or would not suit different philosophical arguments for animal protection….But assuming that cultured meat leads to abolition of animal agriculture, it will change our sense of what these creatures, these nonhuman animals, are doing in the world. (p. 133)

Both of these books deal with the moral, philosophical, cultural, historical, and socioeconomic implications of meat-eating, although from quite different perspectives.

No lab-based meat or dairy product is yet on the market, but lots of people are working on such things.  Here are some recent examples, starting with my favorite.

• • Grant offered to lab-grown kangaroo meat start-up: Australian lab-grown meat business has been awarded AUS$25,000 to help with its research into cell-cultured kangaroo meat products… Read
  • Kraft Heinz venture fund invests in startup making real cheese… without cows:   San Francisco startup New Culture – which is making animal-free dairy cheese with casein proteins made from microbial fermentation (instead of cow’s milk) – has closed a $3.5m seed round led by Evolv Ventures, a $100m venture fund backed by Kraft Heinz… Read
  • First products from Motif FoodWorks’ fermentation-based protein platform ready to launch in 2021:  The first three proteins from Motif FoodWorks’ fermentation-based food ingredient platform will be ready for launch in early 2021, says the company, one of a new breed of synthetic biology companies using microbes as microscopic factories capable of producing animal proteins… without animals… Read
  • Sustainable Bioproducts gears up for 2020 launch of consumer brand built around new-to-the-world protein source:  Sustainable Bioproducts – which is developing new-to-the-world protein-packed whole food ingredients from microbes – plans to launch a consumer brand to help familiarize Americans with a new fungal food source that could be used in everything from meat and milk alternatives to snacks… Read
  • Perfect Day gives fans first taste of animal-free dairy with limited edition ice cream release:  Perfect Day, a start-up producing whey and casein via microbial fermentation (minus the cows) is giving fans a first taste of its animal-free proteins via a limited edition release of ice cream sold directly to consumers via its website… Read
  • Clara Foods completes Series B, joins forces with Ingredion to commercialize egg proteins… minus the chicken:  What came first, the chicken or the egg? Clara Foods, a San Francisco-based startup producing egg proteins via microbial fermentation, has ditched the chicken in favor of yeast, and teamed up with ingredients giant Ingredion to develop and commercialize its animal-free wares after completing a Series B funding round… Read
  • ‘Cultivated’ meat could be the most-consumer-friendly term for cell-cultured meat, suggests Mattson/GFI research: The term ‘clean meat’ is confusing (and carries the tacit implication that regular meat is ‘dirty’), while ‘cell-based meat’ – a more neutral term favored by some startups – doesn’t poll well with shoppers. ‘Lab-grown’ is a food marketer’s nightmare. But ‘cultivated meat’ might just tick all the boxes when it comes to describing growing meat from animal cells, without slaughter, suggests new research. Read more  
  • Five startups form alliance to provide clear path to market for cell-based meat:  BlueNalu, Finless Foods, Forke & Goode, JUST Inc., and Memphis Meats have formed a coalition called the Alliance for Meat, Poultry & Seafood (AMPS) Innovation to carve out a clear path to market for cell-cultured meat, poultry, and seafood. Read more  
  • Selling plant-based and cell-cultured meat will be about ‘benefits for me’ says Hartman Group:  While ending factory farming and reducing GHG emissions are top priorities for start-ups such as Impossible Foods, most shoppers are primarily motivated by ‘benefits for me’ – be it taste and discovery, or health and wellness, when it comes to plant-based meat and dairy, according to a new report from The Hartman Group. Read more  
  • FDA and USDA shed more light on how cell-based meat will be regulated, but don’t weigh into naming debate… yet:  The USDA and the FDA have provided more clarity on who will be responsible for what when it comes to regulating cell-cultured meat, but have not – yet – offered their thoughts on appropriate terminology with which to describe it on food labels. Read more
  • Future Meat Technologies raises $14m to commercialize cell cultured meat: ‘We see a path to reality here, it’s not just something on a Power Point presentation,’ says S2G Ventures:  Future Meat Technologies is one of the few players in the nascent space to have shown how cell-cultured (a.k.a. ‘cultivated’) meat could move from the lab to an industrial scale, claims one of the lead investors in a $14m Series A round that will support the construction of a pilot scale production facility south of Tel Aviv, Israel… Read
  • MycoTechnology unveils texturized fermented vegetable protein for plant based meat applications: As the race to expand protein options for plant-based meats heats up, Colorado-based MycoTechnology has thrown its hat into the ring with a texturized version of PureTaste, a vegetable protein produced via the fermentation of pea and rice proteins with Shiitake mushroom mycelium (roots)… Read  
  • Future Meat Technologies raises $14m to commercialize cell cultured meat: ‘We see a path to reality here, it’s not just something on a Power Point presentation,’ says S2G Ventures:  Future Meat Technologies is one of the few players in the nascent space to have shown how cell-cultured (a.k.a. ‘cultivated’) meat could move from the lab to an industrial scale, claims one of the lead investors in a $14m Series A round that will support the construction of a pilot scale production facility south of Tel Aviv, Israel…Read

NutraIngredients.com alerted me to a study by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the main trade group for the dietary supplement industry.

Its conclusion: 77% of American adults say they take dietary supplements.

Here are selected results.

Who Takes Dietary Supplements? 77 percent of U.S. adults take dietary supplements.

• 79 percent of female adults
• 74 percent of male adults 
• 81 percent of adults 35 – 54
• 79 percent of adults 55+ 
• 83 percent of adults with children under 18 in the household
• 68 percent of adults without employment
• 73 percent of adults who live in the Northeast
• 80 percent of adults who live in the South

Everybody takes this stuff, apparently.  What are they taking?

What to say?

I wish we had better evidence—how about any evidence—that supplements make healthy people healthier, but we do not.

Supplements, as far as I can tell, are about nutritional magic.

Whatever works, I guess.

In the meantime, NutraIngredients cites data that the dietary supplement market was worth nearly $125 bilion in 2018.

Impressive.

For the record: I don’t take supplements.  I prefer my nutrients from food and sunshine.

Addition

A reader, Charlene Elliott, sends her study of supplement marketing to Canadian children.

This study is the first of its kind to examine the nutrient levels of vitamins, minerals and dietary supplements specifically marketed as for children in the Canadian retail environment. On the one hand, the promotion of gummy and chewable supplements using cartoon and licensed characters and claims that the products are “fun to eat” simply extends contemporary strategies found in child-targeted packaged foods. Yet vitamins are not foods, nor are they regulated as foods in Canada, and this study questions the logic of recommending that children consume up to 15 gummy candies per day in order to “improve” their health.  Beyond this, the substantial variation in dosage depending on the supplement is problematic, given that all of these supplements use the same kinds of appeals on the package.

I guest-edited a series of papers on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH).  The papers are now online and will be in print in the December issue of the journal.

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, served as Guest Editor for the special section: “AJPH Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.” M. Nestle oversaw peer review for the articles, provided input on peer reviewer selection and peer review evaluation, suggested which articles would appear in the special section, and wrote the lead Commentary.

Conflicts of interest disclosure: Marion Nestle’s retirement benefits and a small fund from New York University support her research, publications, and Web site (foodpolitics.com). She receives royalties from books—and honoraria, travel, and meals related to lectures—about matters relevant to this special section.

PODCAST

Alfredo Morabia, the executive editor of AJPH, interviewed one of the authors, Joanna Cruz Simmons, and me in his monthly podcast.

SECTION OVERVIEW

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications.  Marion Nestle.  109(12), pp. 1631–1635.

EVIDENCE

Links of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program With Food Insecurity, Poverty, and Health: Evidence and Potential.  Brynne Keith-Jennings, Joseph Llobrera and Stacy Dean.  109(12), pp. 1636–1640.  Supplemental Material

RURAL SNAP

Importance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Rural America.  Lisa Harnack, Sruthi Valluri and Simone A. French.  109(12), pp. 1641–1645.

URBAN SNAP

SNAP at the Community Scale: How Neighborhood Characteristics Affect Participation and Food Access.  Nevin Cohen.  109(12), pp. 1646–1651

COLLEGE STUDENT SNAP

College Students and SNAP: The New Face of Food Insecurity in the United States.   Nicholas Freudenberg, Sara Goldrick-Rab and Janet Poppendieck.  109(12), pp. 1652–1658.

SNAP DATA

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed.  Jennifer L. Pomeranz. 109(12), pp. 1659–1663

SNAP PARTICIPANTS

Recommendations From SNAP Participants to Improve Wages and End Stigma.  Tianna Gaines-Turner, Joanna Cruz Simmons and Mariana Chilton.  109(12), pp. 1664–1667.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

Alternatives to SNAP: Global Approaches to Addressing Childhood Poverty and Food Insecurity.  Lia C. H. Fernald and Wendi Gosliner.  109(12), pp. 1668–1677.   Supplemental Material

The Study:  Dairy Foods and Dairy Fats: New Perspectives on Pathways Implicated in Cardiometabolic Health.  Kristin M Hirahatake; Richard S Bruno; Bradley W Bolling ; Christopher Blesso; Lacy M Alexander, et al.  Advances in Nutrition, nmz105, https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz105  Published: 25 September 2019

The Conclusions: Most observational and experimental evidence does not support a detrimental relationship between full-fat dairy intake and cardiometabolic health, including risks of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Indeed, an expanded understanding of the dairy food matrix and the bioactive properties of dairy fats and other constituents suggests a neutral or potentially beneficial role in cardiometabolic health.

The Conflicted Interests (my emphasis): SHA’s research is funded in part by USDA-Agricultural Research Project…Support for RSB is provided by USDA-NIFA…the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center at the Ohio State University, and the National Dairy Council. BWB’s research is funded in part by the National Dairy Council. Author disclosures: SHA has received honoraria from ILSI North America, the National Dairy Council (NDC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Herbalife, and the Council for Responsible Nutrition as a presenter and participant at sponsored scientific conferences. RSB has received honoraria from NDC to serve as an external research advisor and from Abbott Nutrition for serving as a presenter at a sponsored scientific conference. BWB has received honoraria from NDC and Nederlanse Zuivel Oranisatie for presenting research at scientific conferences. CB has received honoraria from NDC and the America Egg Board as a presenter and participant at sponsored scientific conferences. LMA has received funding from NDC, NHLBI, and Performance Health. KMH has received funding from NDC to coordinate author contributions and to write the article. The National Dairy Council (NDC) sponsored the 2018 Scientific Summit: A New Look at Dairy Foods and Healthy Eating Patterns. The sponsor reviewed this manuscript prior to submission. All editorial decisions were solely left to the authors, and this report reflects the independent opinions and views of the authors.

Comment: The National Dairy Council funded this study and reviewed its manuscript.  The authors receive funding from the Dairy Council.  This review should be considered a paid advertisement.  Do dairy foods have any special role in cardiometabolic health?  I doubt it, but we are unlikely to find out until such questions are investigated independently.

On World Obesity Day, I posted links to three recent reports.

An editorial in The Lancet made me realize that I had not read this one nearly carefully enough.  It deserves careful reading.

It comes from Sallie Davies, who just stepped down as Britain’s Chief Medical Officer.  In another Lancet piece, she and her colleagues insist that children have a right to live in a healthy environment:

Today, government legislation is necessary not simply because we have an obligation to protect vulnerable children, but because children have rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the most widely ratified international human rights treaty, sets out children’s rights to protection, education, health and health care, shelter, and good nutrition…a child rights approach requires us to recognise childhood obesity as the responsibility of the state and as an issue that must be addressed across society…It is time to address childhood obesity as a rights issue.

In her report, she insists that government should enact legislation to ensure a healthy food environment; Annex A lists recommendations:

• Increase taxes on sugary drinks
• Require product reformulation to reduce sugar and calories
• Tax unhealthy foods
• Label calories
• Provide free drinking water
• Remove tax exemptions for advertising
• Phase out marketing of unhealthy products
• Ban eating and drinking on public transport
• Only permit healthy options at sports facilities
• Promote smaller portion sizes

Her report also suggests ways to promote physical activity.

Worth a try?  I think so.