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.

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.