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.

The study: A Moderate-Fat Diet with One Avocado per Day Increases Plasma Antioxidants and Decreases the Oxidation of Small, Dense LDL in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.  Li Wang, Ling Tao, Lei Hao, Todd H Stanley, Kuan-Hsun Huang, Joshua D Lambert, Penny M Kris-Etherton.  The Journal of Nutrition, nxz231, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz231  Published: 14 October 2019

The Press release: One avocado a day helps lower ‘bad’ cholesterol for heart healthy benefits  (thanks to reader Effie Seftel for sending).

Conclusions: “One avocado a day in a heart-healthy diet decreased oxLDL [oxidized LDL]in adults with overweight and obesity, and the effect was associated with the reduction in sdLDL [small-density LDL–the bad kind]…Avocados have a unique nutrient and bioactive profile that appears to play an important role in reducing LDL oxidation, hence decreasing LDL atherogenicity.”

Funding:  “Supported by a grant from the Hass Avocado Board.”  [I’ve written previously about other studies funded by this Board].

Author disclosures: LW, LT, LH, THS, K-HH, and JDL, no conflicts of interest. PMK-E received funding from the Hass Avocado Board to conduct this study and is a member of the Avocado Nutrition Science Advisory. The Hass Avocado Board had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Comment: Thanks to Jeff Nelson for sending this one (his interview with me is online).  He points out that the diet of the group eating one avocado a day also ate less saturated fat and more fiber, which could help to account for the favorable result.  I love avocados (who does not?) but worry about what our demand for them is doing to Mexican food culture and personal safety.  Does the Hass Board really need to do this?

Addition, October 31

The London Daily Mail has, of all things, a critique of this study:  “Eating an avocado a day will NOT cut your cholesterol: Statistician debunks the ‘hilariously unimpressive’ results of study funded by ‘big avocado’.”