DairyReporter.com, one of those industry newsletters I love getting every day, tracks the international dairy industry and occasionally collects them in one place.  Here is an example.  I never can get over how the dairy industry has worked its way into countries where populations never consumed such products and are largely lactose-intolerant.  The industry has gotten the word out that children grow faster and bigger if they consume dairy foods.  That’s all it takes, and Asia is a huge consumer market.  To wit:

• Changing market heaps pressure on Vietnam’s dairies: Much of Vietnam’s domestic dairy industry has been sailing in choppy waters this year, not helped by new international market entrants and by uncertainty over whether the pan-national trade pact it entered at the start of 2019 will help or hinder the market. Read more
• International efforts are helping Myanmar build its dairy industry from scratch: All the critical factors are there for dairy to bloom in Myanmar… almost. Read more
• India turns to technology to improve dairy productivity and animal health: India has been going through a technology spurt, backed by central and state governments, as it continues an ambitious program to make agriculture more profitable for farmers. Read more
• US dairy targets SE Asia in protein charm offensive:  American dairy has been on a charm offensive in Southeast Asia recently, in a bid to persuade more food companies to feature its protein and permeate ingredients in their products. Read more
• Dairy valley program could just possibly bring self-sufficiency to Malaysia:  Malaysia has traditionally had a poor record with cows, be they of the beef or the dairy persuasion. Read more
• US dairy piles pressure on Washington to complete Japan trade deal:  Dairy companies and farmer-owned cooperatives in the US have mobilized to put pressure on Washington to conclude its negations with Japan for a “strong trade deal” to secure critical market access for the domestic dairy industry. Read more

I was fascinated to see this ad in the October 24 New York Times extolling Coke, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper’s commitment to improve recycling.

The ad says “We’re all in…But we need your help to change how America recycles.”

Sure.  Happy to.  But these companies are among the leading plastic polluters in the world, according to the latest audit.

So how about:

1.  Stop producing so much waste in the first place
2.  Stop fighting bottle recycling laws.

I just read the Intercept’s investigative report on Coca-Cola’s overt and covert opposition to recycling laws: “LEAKED AUDIO REVEALS HOW COCA-COLA UNDERMINES PLASTIC RECYCLING EFFORTS.”

As the article explains:

States with bottle bills recycle about 60 percent of their bottles and cans, as opposed to 24 percent in other states. And states that have bottle bills also have an average of 40 percent less beverage container litter on their coasts, according to a 2018 study of the U.S. and Australia published in the journal Marine Policy.

But bottle bills also put some of the responsibility — and cost — of recycling back on the companies that produce the waste, which may be why Coke and other soda companies have long fought against them.

Soda companies would much rather have us clean up the mess they make.

Mind you, I’m for cleaning up that mess and am happy to help.  But I also want bottle recycling laws that give us an incentive to take back all that waste.

Thomas Björkman, Professor of Vegetable Crop Physiology at Cornell University wrote to ask me what I thought about this new review article about the benefits of sulforaphane, an antioxidant in broccoli.  He explains:

It is a review by Jed Fahey et al on the value of sulphoraphane in broccoli. Go right to section 4, where they discuss the ins and outs of making dietary or clinical recommendations, and getting relevant research to inform those recommendations. They are pretty thoughtful and detailed about the issues so it seems like a good vehicle for discussion on your blog and elsewhere.

They particularly note, “the clinical studies that we have performed with broccoli and broccoli sprouts have already strained the academic system to the breaking point. The food industry needs to step up.”  That idea pushes against a couple of the arguments I see you making…I just figure that access to better broccoli will mean that people eat more vegetables, and that is generally good for public health.

This was easy to respond to.  I wrote about Jed Fahey’s work on broccoli 22 years ago.

Nestle M.  Broccoli sprouts as inducers of carcinogen-detoxifying enzyme systems: clinical, dietary, and policy implications [Commentary].  Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997;94:11149-11151.

I think my arguments hold up pretty well, even after all this time.  See if you agree.

At the time I wrote the article, Fahey was involved in a company promoting and selling broccoli sprouts and sulforaphane supplements.  According to a unit at Johns Hopkins, that is no longer the case.

As you may know, in the late 1990s Drs. Paul Talalay and Jed Fahey founded a company to promote broccoli sprouts and other chemoprotective foods.  This company, Brassica Protection Products, no longer is involved with broccoli sprouts in the USA, but they do sell broccoli seed extracts to the supplement industry.  Paul and Jed removed themselves from any and all management, advisory, or financial relationships with that company many years ago because it created a conflict of interest with their continuing work on broccoli sprouts.

Good for them.  Smart decision.

I get letters like this from food trade associations all the time.  Here is the latest:.

The U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council has issued a request for research proposals (RFP) for which it offers grants ranging from $75,000 to $300,000 (or larger).

Here’s the get-go bias point (my emphasis):

The goal of our research funding is to provide initial funds, or additional funds, to explore blueberry health benefits.

The Council wants research to demonstrate benefits.  Of course it does.  These will be useful for marketing.

A priority for funding will be given to human clinical studies however the committee is also interested in further investigation of possible health benefits for pet or performance animals including dogs, cats and horses.

If the proposal is unlikely to demonstrate benefit, it won’t be funded.

That’s why I consider industry-funded research to be about marketing, not science.

Nina Levent and Irina D. Mihalache, editors.  Food and Museums.  Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

I love food collections in museums, the quirkier the better.  Happily for me, there are lots of them.

This book collects articles by various authors about their involvement with museum food collections all over the world.

I’ve seen some of the ones discussed here and even written about a couple of them.  I especially loved the collection of cup tops at the Smithsonian and the sugar cubes at Nestlé’s museum in Vevey.

The book organizes the articles into sections on interdisciplinary perspectives, collecting and exhibiting, engaging audiences, eating in museums, and food and art.

It does not seem to have anything on the spectacular food exhibit run in connection with the Milan Food Expo a few years ago—a disappointment.

But the articles are fun to read, make me wish I had been able to go to all the exhibits, and should inspire other museums to start collecting food objects.

No getting around it.  It’s candy time again.

Researchers (somebody has to do this) tell us that candy popularity varies by state.

Here are a few items I’ve been collecting for this occasion.

• This is America’s most popular Halloween candy—and, no, it’s not candy corn:  Black licorice is America’s favorite Halloween candy.That’s a trick, not a treat.Actually, the country’s No. 1 sweet for All Hallows’ Eve is… Read more.
• Halloween 2019: A snapshot of new treats from America’s candy pros:  From ethical chocolate to glow-in-the-dark wrappers, the industry offers trick-or-treaters a plethora of new options and old standbys to celebrate on October 31. Read more
• Halloween increases demand for Uncle Joe’s Mint Balls:  Premium sweet brand Uncle Joe’s says it is looking at a 10% rise in demand for its Halloween and bonfire night treacle toffee in the run up to this year’s celebrations. Read more
• Halloween 2019: NCA champions informed choices and portion control:  The National Confectioners Association launched Halloween Central, an online hub packed with candy stats and resources to help parents navigate healthy choices with their children. Read more

Best of all is the candy industry’s advice for Halloween.

“Since there are many treats being handed out on Halloween, it’s a good time to keep balance in mind. Also, be sure to check out our 2019 press release.”

As families gear up to go trick-or-treating, the National Confectioners Association is keeping consumers in mind with Halloween Central, a digital resource offering a variety of tools to help consumers understand the unique role that chocolate and candy can play in a happy, balanced lifestyle.

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about U.S. pumpkin production.

Trick or treat!

Just in time for Halloween, the zombie is back.

I can hardly believe that the deeply discredited Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)is on the attack again with another one of its snarky full-page ads in the New York Times (Monday, October 28).

The Center is infamous for secrecy about who pays for such things.

In this case, it’s easy to guess that the meat industry must behind it.  The most likely candidate is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) on the basis of its already aggressive campaign against plant-based meat alternatives (see below).

If beef producers are hiring the Center for Consumer Freedom, you know that their industry is in real trouble.

If they are employing the CCF, they deserve to be in trouble.

NCBA Lobbying

• Introduction of legislation against plant-based meat alternatives
• Summary of “The Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully (MEAT) Act of 2019”
• The NCBA ‘‘Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘Real MEAT
  Act of 2019.’’

CleanFoodFacts.com:  Does it exist?  I can’t find it online.

FoodNavigator-USA has a report of the press release for this, and the Center’s vague discussion of where the funding comes from.

I’m catching up on posts put on hold for quieter times.  Here’s one that’s worth a look.

The Environmental Working Group’s analysis finds that more than half of the $8.4 billion aid meant to compensate farmers for the loss of export sales went to the top 10% of farmers.  Check this for yourself in the EWG Farm Subsidy Database.

The  Farm Bill Law Enterprise points out that almost all of it went to white farmers.

Nearly 250 farms received more than $375,000 — the highest amount permitted — out of a total of more than 550,000 recipients.

Politico wrote about the second round of trade aid:

USDA last week rolled out details of the new $16 billion package, an estimated $14.5 billion of which will be sent to farmers in the form of direct payments…under trade aid 2.0, it will be easier for farmers to collect more money. USDA raised the payment limit to $500,000 per person or legal entity, and also loosened a means test that had disqualified farmers earning more than $900,000 a year in adjusted gross income from receiving assistance under the 2018 program. Those earning above that threshold can collect trade aid this year as long as 75 percent of their income comes from agriculture, a change Congress directed in recently enacted disaster-aid legislation.

The Politico article notes that farms are legally allowed to get around payment caps.  Multiple family members or business partners can receive subsidies as long as they appear to be “actively engaged” in the operation.

Politico cites one example from the EWG database: “The top recipient of 2018 trade assistance, DeLine Farms, registered three partnerships at the same address and collected $2.8 million.”

Comment: This is a rigged system that could not be better designed to put small farms out of business.