I learned about this one from Nutra-Ingredients-latam.com, one of those industry newsletters I avidly follow: “Grapes plus blueberries may boost cognitive function in college students.”

The study: Acute Intake of a Grape and Blueberry Polyphenol-Rich Extract Ameliorates Cognitive Performance in Healthy Young Adults During a Sustained Cognitive Effort.  Philip P, et al.  Antioxidants 2019, 8, 650; doi:10.3390/antiox8120650.

Purpose: “This study investigated the acute and sustained action of a polyphenols-rich extract from grape and
blueberry (PEGB), on working memory and attention in healthy students during a prolonged and intensive cognitive effort.”

The comparison: “Participants were asked to either consume 600 mg of polyphenol-rich active extract made from
grape (Vitis vinifera L.) and wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) (Memophenol, Activ’Inside, Beychac et Caillau, France), or a placebo containing pure maltodextrin (Maltrin® M100, Roquette, Lestrem, France) and providing no polyphenol.”

Conclusion: “Our findings suggest that consumption of PEGB coupled with a healthy lifestyle may be a safe alternative to acutely improve working memory and attention during a sustained cognitive effort.”

Funding: This study was funded by Activ’Inside (Bordeaux area, France).

Comment: All I had to do was see the title of this study to guess that it was funded by a company with a vested interest in the study’s outcome.  Activ’Inside makes antioxidant extracts for purposes like this.  I’m all for college students eating grapes and blueberries rather than taking drugs to keep them up all night, but flavanol extracts?  Not the same.  Chalk this one up to marketing, not science.

Rebecca de Souza.  Feeding the Other: Whiteness, Privilege, and Neoliberal Stigma in Food Pantries.  MIT Press, 2019.

This must be the season for books about food banking (see last week’s Weekend Reading).

Rebecca de Souza explains her book as about

food justice and, more precisely, the stigmatizing narratives that surround people who are hungry and food insecure…I argue that stigmatizing narratives about those who are hungry and food insecure—that is, poor people, women, and racial minorities—serve to uphold and legitimize the unjust food system.  I use the term neoliberal stigma to refer to a particular kind of Western and American narrative that focuses on individualism, hard work, and personal responsibility as defining attributes of human dignity and citizenship.  When people do not live up to these parameters, for reasons out of their control, they are marked as irresponsible, unworthy, and “bad citizens,” creating the “Us and Them” phenomenon.

She demonstrates these concepts through observations of two food pantries in Duluth, Minnesota.

Artificial meats constructed from animal muscle cells are in the works but not yet on the market.  Much less is being written about them than about plant-based meats, but occasionally a few items surface.

• Cell-based meat products are years away, so why are states making so many laws about them?  Seventeen laws about meat labeling were passed in 14 states in 2019, and nine states are considering similar legislation this year.
• From Capital News Service, an example:A Republican-backed bill in the Maryland state Senate would bar cell-based meat or products made with plant or insect protein from being sold as “meat.”
• Cell-based meat in focus: In conversation with Meatable, Finless Foods, New Age Meats:  While a new cell-based meat company emerges from stealth mode almost every month, the amount of money invested in the embryonic sector to date pales in comparison to the megabucks poured into plant-based meat over the past couple of years. So is slaughter-free meat still a pipedream, or something that can really work on an industrial scale?…Read more  
• Cell-based meats approaching scalability:  While barriers to commercialization remain, there are signs cell–based meat may soon be a reality in the marketplace.
• Memphis Meats Raises $161 Million: Memphis Meats, a startup company that has just raised $161 million, says it has a “clear path” to bringing cell–based meats to market. 

Coming soon to a supermarket near you?  We shall see.

I am indebted to Margarita Raycheva, who writes for the highly informative newsletter, IEG Policy Agribusiness, for her recent article, which certainly got my attention: “Coca-Cola asks DGAC to develop detailed dietary recommendations for beverages” (this is probably behind a paywall).

Her article is about comments filed by Coca-Cola to the DGAC, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  She did not provide a link to those comments, so I had to search for them.  This involved finding the DGAC comments page, searching for Coca-Cola, locating the company’s letter, and opening the pdf attachment.

The 12-page document reads like a highly sophisticated advertisement for Coca-Cola’s astounding number of beverage options, many of them low in sugar or sugar-free.

Over the last few years, Coca-Cola has been transforming to become a total beverage company that meets Americans’ fast-changing preferences across a wide array of beverage categories. We support the World Health Organization’s recommendation that people should limit added sugar to no more than 10% of their total daily calorie consumption1 and are rethinking existing recipes, package sizes and offerings to ensure we are helping consumers manage their daily intake of added sugar and other nutrients from our portfolio.  Today, we offer more than 800 drinks in the U.S. alone, ranging from soft drinks to juices, teas, coffee, dairy, sports drinks, water and more – more than 250 of which are low- or zero-sugar options. More than 40% of our sparkling beverage brands in the U.S. are now available in package sizes that are smaller than 8.5 ounces. We are increasing marketing support for low-sugar, no-sugar and unsweetened products…; we are introducing less sweet versions of classic soft drinks…; and we are accelerating our expansion into new beverage categories through the acquisition of brands….We are taking these actions because we recognize the critical role that we – and the entire industry – can play in advancing nutritional goals by using our scale for good.

Why do this?

• About 15% of energy comes from beverages
• Beverages, such as sweetened soft drinks, coffee and tea contribute more than 40% of daily added sugar intake
• Beverages, mainly milk and 100% juice, contribute over 40% of vitamin C and D intake and more than 20% intake of carbohydrates, calcium, potassium and magnesium
• Fruit intake (0.9 cup/day) is half of recommended levels (2 cups/day); 100% fruit juice contributes up to 24% of fruit intake in children, but decreases after adolescence
• Coffee and tea contribute up to 12% of potassium intake in adults
• Waters contribute up to 10% of calcium intake in adults

In other words, drink more (of our) beverages!

Coca-Cola’s proposals for how beverages can enhance diets:

• Hydration
• Nutrition and health
• Enjoyment
• Performance

What should the DGAC do?

By creating a framework that includes guidance for all types of beverages, the DGA can help drive Americans towards healthier versions of drinks they are typically consuming. Recommending limited
consumption or small shifts towards healthier beverages is more effective than simply discouraging the consumption of entire beverage categories.

The company’s proposals for how the DGAC can help it sell more beverages include sample statements like these examples [with my translations]:

• Water should be the primary beverage choice [recommend our bottled water]
• Milk plays an important role in development and health, and contributes essential nutrients to healthy eating patterns, including protein, calcium, vitamin D and potassium [recommend our milk drinks]
• When fortified, plant-based beverages may provide nutrients and support consumer choice, but generally should not be considered a replacement for dairy [please don’t recommend almond, soy, or oat milks–we don’t make any of those drinks]
• Juice contributes to the public’s consumption of essential nutrients, phytonutrient and fruit/vegetable intake [recommend our juice drinks]
• Coffee and tea are sources of health-promoting phytonutrients and are associated with reduced risk of rtain non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [recommend them; we sell those too]
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages >40 kcal that do not contribute significantly to nutrition needs with these beverages to reduce calorie and sugar consumption [if you must recommend avoing sugary beverages, at least recommend replacement with everything else we sell]
• Sports drinks can be beneficial for individuals who engage in prolonged vigorous physical activity, or those sweating for prolonged hours due to warm to hot temperatures [OK, they have sugar, but recommend them anyway]

I can’t wait to see what the DGAC does with this impressively written document.

Not that it matters, really.  Recall: The DGAC submits the research report, but the agencies—USDA takes the lead this time—write the actual guidelines.

Food politics connects to everything and Coronoavirus is no exception.  I’ve been collecting items.

For starters,  Coca-Cola gets its artificial sweeteners from China.  Oops.  Its supply chain is now disrupted.

Production and exports have been delayed for Coke’s suppliers of sugar alternatives used in the company’s diet and zero-sugar drinks, Coca-Cola disclosed Monday as part of its annual report.

“We have initiated contingency supply plans and do not foresee a short-term impact due to these delays…However, we may see tighter supplies of some of these ingredients in the longer term should production or export operations in China deteriorate.”

The primary artificial sweeteners Coca-Cola (KO) uses in its products include aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose, saccharin, cyclamate and steviol gylcosides.

In its annual report, Coca-Cola indicated that it considered sucralose a “critical raw material” sourced from suppliers in the US and China. Splenda, a sucralose product used in Diet Coke with Splenda, is made in the US and not sourced from China.

This worries you?  Join the hoarders.  Some people are trying to make sure they have a 14-day supply of food in case they get quarantined.  This situation has gotten so out of hand that stores are running out of food.

The FDA wants everyone to calm down.  It has a web page on what’s happening with supply chains.  Most of this is about the supply of pharmaceuticals made in China, but here’s what it says about food:

We are not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food or food packaging. However, it is always important to follow good hygiene practices (i.e., wash hands and surfaces often, separate raw meat from other foods, cook to the right temperature, and refrigerate foods promptly) when handling or preparing foods.

It’s hard to calm down if the situation affects you.  The organizers of Food Expo West, the natural products show scheduled for Anaheim, says COVID-19 fears could cut Expo West attendance by as much as 60% (the article links to official and unofficial lists of companies that have pulled out).

But every crisis has winners as well as losers.  The possible winners here?  Food delivery companies (as long as they can get supplies).

Stay tuned.

Update 3/3: Expo West has been postponed.

The dairy industry, ever under siege, is doing its best to convince us to eat dairy foods.  Full disclosure: I eat and like dairy foods.  I do not, however, like the way the dairy industry funds research aimed at marketing its products.  Here are two examples.

Example 1: Full-fat dairy foods are good for you [yes, they can be, but in moderation]

The study: Potential Cardiometabolic Health Benefits of Full-Fat Dairy: The Evidence Base.  Kristin M Hirahatake, Arne Astrup, James O Hill, Joanne L Slavin, David B Allison, and Kevin C Maki.  Adv Nutr 2020;00:1–15.

Conclusions: “Emerging evidence shows that the consumption of full-fat dairy foods has a neutral or inverse association with adverse cardiometabolic health outcomes, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and associated risk factors.”

Conflicts of interest and funding (dairy groups are highlighted):

Example 2: Dairy foods can help reduce world hunger [of course they can]

The report: Dairy’s Impact on Reducing Global Hunger

Major finding: “The remarkable consistency of the positive association between dairy animal ownership,
milk/dairy intake, and child growth across the experimental and observational studies, and
the dose-response relationship between dairy consumption and child growth…provide strong evidence that, in rural
low-income settings, household milk production increases household milk consumption, and increased milk consumption results in improved child growth and reduced stunting.”

Recommendation: “dairy development needs to be accompanied by nutrition education of caregivers to ensure that milk is provided in the most critical phase of childhood, namely in the 0.5 to 2-year age group”

Sponsors: “Published by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Dairy Platform and
IFCN Dairy Research Network.

Comment:  It’s interesting to compare the first paper to another one done by investigators who are not funded by the dairy industry.  They don’t disagree, exactly, but spin the results much less favoably.  See: Milk and Health, by Walter C. Willett and David S. Ludwig. N Engl J Med 2020;382:644-54.

…guidelines for milk and equivalent dairy foods ideally should designate an acceptable intake (such as 0 to 2 servings per day for adults), deemphasize reduced-fat milk as preferable to whole milk, and discourage consumption of sugar-sweetened dairy foods in populations with high rates of overweight and
obesity.

Dairy foods are foods.  Like any other, they are not essential.  If you like them, eat them—in moderation, of course.

Graham Riches.  Food Bank Nations: Poverty, Corporate Charity, and the Right to Food.  Routledge, 2018.

I’m not sure how I missed this one when it came out.  It’s really good.

It is a tough analysis of the politics of charitable food—the institutionalized use of corporate food waste to feed hungry people, largely in OECD countries but also in the U.S.

• The analysis is seen in chapter subtitles, for example:
• Corporate capture: hunger as a charitable business
• Shaming the hungry, regulating the poor
• The “dark side” of food banking
• The corporate food charity state
• Food, as a matter of human rights

The solution?  Put rights and politics back into hunger.  The book gives examples of how to do this.

I’m still seeing articles coming out from the USDA’s Economic Research Service, now sadly moved to Kansas City.  This one is based on an older article.*  It’s about how “consumption” of sugars (in quotes because the data actually reflect the availability of sugars in the food supply—production less exports plus imports).

Here’s how I read this chart:

• Overall sugars are down almost to the level of the late 1970s.
• Refined (table) sugar dropped at about the time High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) became widely used; it is holding steady.
• HFCS accounted for the increase in total sugars from 1975-1999.  The subsequent decline is also mainly in HFCS.

The big reason for the decline is lower consumption of soft drinks (these account for nearly half total sugars consumed).

Another trend is substitution of HFCS by table sugar.  This is to the higher cost of HFCS relative to table sugar.  It used to be much cheaper but increased demand for corn to produce ethanol has made HFCS and table sugar cost about the same.

Also, HFCS has a reputation for being worse for health than table sugar, but they are about the same physiologically.  HFCS is glucose and fructose separated.  Table sugar is glucose and fructose stuck together (but quickly separated in the body).

I’m all for eating less of either one.  This, at least, is a healthy trend.

*Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: July 2019 , by Michael McConnell and David W. Olson, ERS, July 2019