The furor over the “don’t-worry-about-meat” papers published earlier this week (see my post) did not have much to say about the lead author’s previous association with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), disclosed in a “you don’t need to worry about sugar” review from the same journal in 2016: “This project was funded by the Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of ILSI North America.”  The meat papers did not mention the previous connection to ILSI, even though it occurred within the past three years.  They should have.

ILSI is a classic food-industry front group, one that tries to stay under the radar but is not succeeding very well lately.

The New York Times titled its recent ILSI investigation: A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World.

This reminded me of what I wrote about ILSI in my book Unsavory Truth (2018).  When I was working on the last chapters of the book, I realized that something about ILSI’s role turned up in practically every chapter.  Here, I refer to a study funded by ILSI.

The front-group funder was the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an organization that turns up often in this book. ILSI describes itself as an independent scientific think tank, but it was created and is largely funded by the food industry. This makes it, by definition, a front group.

But you might not realize this from reading the study authors’ disclosure statement, which describes ILSI as “a public, nonprofit scientific foundation that provides . . . a neutral forum for government, academic, and industry scientists to discuss and resolve scientific issues of common concern for the well-being of the general public” (1).

ILSI keeps a relatively low public profile but seems never to miss an opportunity to defend the interests of its four hundred or so corporate sponsors. Its 2016 annual report takes four pages and fifteen columns to list industry supporters of its national and international branches; these contribute two-thirds of this group’s nearly $18 million in annual revenues (the rest comes from government or private grants or contributions). ILSI’s board of trustees is about half industry and half academia, all unpaid volunteers.

Critics describe ILSI as a “two-level” organization. On the surface, it engages in legitimate scientific activities. But deep down, it provides funders with “global lobbying services . . . structured in a way which ensures that the funding corporations have majority membership in all its major decision-making committees.” (2).

(1) Besley JC, McCright AM, Zahry NR, et al.  Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175643.  McComas KA.  Session 5: Nutrition communication. The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists.  Proc Nutr Soc. 2008;67(4):428-36.

(2) Miller D, Harkins C. Corporate strategy and corporate capture: food and alcohol industry and lobbying and public health. Crit Soc Policy. 2010;30:564-89.

I have written about ILSI in previous blog posts:

• Coca-Cola’s political influence in China: documented evidence
• Mars Inc says goodbye to ILSI, hello to science policy
• Industry-funded study says advice to eat less sugar is based on bad science (surprise) 

Others have also written about this organization:

• Are industry-funded charities promoting “advocacy-led studies” or “evidence-based science”?: A case study of the International Life Sciences Institute
• US Right to Know’s facts on ILSI

It’s about time ILSI’s practices are being exposed.

Under new leadership, and in the wake of the defections of prominent food companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is changing its name.

Good-bye GMA.  Hello Consumer Brands Association.

Why?  The GMA was on the wrong side of just about every food issue.

In the past two years, food companies like Campbell, Kraft Heinz, Nestle, Hershey and Unilever left the GMA, amid disputes over how to handle these new realities. Among the issues that were fiercely debated were how and when to disclose the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The organization says each of the departing members left for individual reasons, but the common thread was a failure by the organization to adapt as consumer sentiments and trends were evolving.

Chalk this up to consumer power!  And to badly needed new leadership.

The association’s will now focus on promoting:

• Sustainable packaging
• Uniform recycling
• Trust and transparency
• Improved supply chains
• Uniform regulation of CBD

Sounds good to me.  Let’s hope the transformation works.

The press release from the Annals of Internal Medicine arrived last week under embargo, sent to me by several reporters: “New guidelines: No need to reduce red or processed meat consumption for good health.”

The press announcement was accompanied by 5 review papers, a sixth with this recommendation, and an editorial.  These are posted on the website of their publisher, the American College of Physicians, implying this organization’s endorsement of this guideline.

Collectively, these papers challenge dietary advice to eat less processed meat and red meat on the grounds of inadequate science.

These papers argue:

• Eliminating processed and red meat from the diet may reduce disease risks but the effects are small and evidence for them is of low quality and low certainty.
• Omnivores are unwilling to eat less meat.
• If you continue to think eating meat is bad for you in the face of this evidence, you are a victim of the “the less you know, the more you hold to your beliefs” syndrome.
• You can ignore dietary guidelines (regardless of source) and continuing eating meat as you always have.

This is a good example of what I call nutritional nihilism, an approach that insists that because observational studies are based on self-reported information and necessarily flawed, their conclusions are unscientific and should be discounted.  Therefore, because we can’t do more rigorous studies, we should not advise the public about diets best for health or the environment.

I have several concerns about all this:

• Yes, the effects are small but that is true of nutrition studies in general.  The small effects show benefits from eating less meat.  The authors could easily have interpreted their work as suggesting that eating less meat might be useful.  This is an example of interpretation bias.
• The authors took a strictly science-based approach to a problem strongly affected by social, economic, and political factors and values.
• The studies look at previous studies that compared people who eat meat to those who eat less. The authors excluded studies of vegetarians compared to meat-eaters.
• They look at meat outside its context of calories.
• The authors did not look at the totality of the evidence; they excluded laboratory and animal studies that can be more closely controlled.
• They excluded studies of environmental impact, which has a significant bearing on human dietary practices (meat production adds more greenhouse gases than vegetable production).
• The conclusions fall into the category of “everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong.”  This rarely happens.  Science usually works incrementally, not in one enormous reversal like this.

Do the authors really believe that all those other committees and commissions urging less meat were wrong and continue to be wrong?   Their strictly science-based approach seems unrealistic.

The papers come across to me as a concerted attack on dietary guidelines (national and international), on nutrition science in general, and on nutritional epidemiology in particular.

The meat industry and its supporters will love them.

Attacks on the quality of nutrition research have been coming from many sources lately: the food industry, of course, but also statisticians (John Ioannidis at Stanford is making a career of this), and some scientists (usually with ties to food companies).  The criticisms themselves are not new.

What is new is the vehemence and level of effort to discredit observational studies, particularly those based on self-reports of dietary intake.  Yes, nutritional epidemiology has flaws, but the methods have been useful in many instances, as argued convincingly by two of its leading practitioners.

In looking at nutrition research, I think it is essential to evaluate the totality of information available: laboratory, animal, human epidemiology and clinical studies—and to do this in the context of what people actually eat and the number of calories they consume, as well as adding in a hefty dose of common sense.

Common sense is what’s missing in these studies.  Do the authors really believe that:

• Meat eaters are healthier than vegetarians?
• Eating more meat is better for health?
• Meat eaters are less obese and have less heart disease and cancer than those who eat less?

If not, the conclusions make no sense.

Most of the authors report no financial ties to the food industry.  I would love to know the back story about why they chose to do these studies and to interpret them in this way.

Reactions (I will be adding to this list as they come in)

• The Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department issued a statement
• The True Health Initiative (THI) issued a press release outlining its concerns (the link is here)
• THI council members sent a letter to the journal editor stating objections (the link)
• THI collected quotes from members of its council and others (including mine)
• THI also produced graphics.  Here is one example.

• David Katz weighs in
• New York Times: 5 things you should know
• New York Times coverage: “Eat less meat, scientists said.  Now some believe that was bad advice.”
• From Dean Ornish
• Consumer Reports (I’m quoted)
• From the World Cancer Research Fund
• Vox’s crystal clear explanation
• NPR’s The Salt’s excellent analysis
• Aaron Carroll’s follow-up to his editorial

These three papers were part of a supplement to Advances in Nutrition published in September 2019: Supplement—6th Yogurt in Nutrition Initiative (YINI) Summit / More than the Sum of Its Parts, sponsored by Danone Institutes International. Publication costs for this supplement were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges.

I.  Introduction to the Sixth Global Summit on the Health Effects of Yogurt: Yogurt, More than the Sum of Its Parts.  Sharon M Donovan ; Olivier Goulet. Advances in Nutrition, Volume 10, Issue 5, September 2019, Pages 913S–916S.

Conclusion: “Ultimately, the inclusion of fermented dairy products in food-based dietary guidelines, not only as a dairy option, but as a significant source of viable bacteria and fermentation products, could contribute to improved public health and should be considered.”

Author disclosures: “The guest editor of the supplement has the following conflict of interest: SMD co-chairs the Yogurt in Nutrition Initiative. She received reimbursement for travel expenses and an honorarium from Danone Institutes International for chairing the Sixth International Yogurt in Nutrition Summit at the Nutrition 2018 meeting in June 2018 in Boston, MA….SMD and OG are co-chairs of the Yogurt in Nutrition Initiative. Travel expenses and an honorarium were paid to SMD and OG by Danone Institutes International for chairing the Sixth International Yogurt in Nutrition Summit at the Nutrition 2018 meeting in June 2018 in Boston, MA. OG is also the Chair of Danone Institutes International.

II.  Dairy Foods, Obesity, and Metabolic Health: The Role of the Food Matrix Compared with Single Nutrients.  Dariush Mozaffarian.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 10, Issue 5, September 2019, Pages 917S–923S,

Conclusion: “The present evidence suggests that whole-fat dairy foods do not cause weight gain, that overall dairy consumption increases lean body mass and reduces body fat, that yogurt consumption and probiotics reduce weight gain, that fermented dairy consumption including cheese is linked to lower CVD risk, and that yogurt, cheese, and even dairy fat may protect against type 2 diabetes. Based on the current science, dairy consumption is part of a healthy diet, without strong evidence to favor reduced-fat products; while intakes of probiotic-containing unsweetened and fermented dairy products such as yogurt and cheese appear especially beneficial.”

Disclosures: “DM received an honorarium from the American Society of Nutrition for the preparation of this manuscript. A freelance science writer, Denise Webb, was supported by Danone Institute International to prepare an initial draft of this manuscript for DM based on a recording of his talk and slides at the American Society of Nutrition 2018 Congress. The final manuscript was edited in detail and approved by DM. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, review, or final approval of the manuscript for publication…DM reports research funding from the NIH and the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, Nutrition Impact, Pollock Communications, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and America’s Test Kitchen; scientific advisory board, Elysium Health (with stock options), Omada Health, and DayTwo; and chapter royalties from UpToDate; all outside the submitted work.”

III.  Effects of Full-Fat and Fermented Dairy Products on Cardiometabolic Disease: Food Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts.  Arne Astrup; Nina Rica Wium Geiker; Faidon Magkos.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 10, Issue 5, September 2019, Pages 917S–923S.

Conclusion: “Although more research is warranted to adjust for possible confounding factors and to better understand the mechanisms of action of dairy products on health outcomes, it becomes increasingly clear that the recommendation to restrict dietary saturated fat to reduce risk of cardiometabolic disease is getting outdated. Therefore, the suggestion to restrict or eliminate full-fat dairy from the diet may not be the optimal strategy for reducing cardiometabolic disease risk and should be re-evaluated in light of recent evidence.”

Disclosures.  “NRWG and FM, no conflicts of interest. AA is a member of advisory boards/consultant for BioCare Copenhagen, Denmark; Dutch Beer Institute, Netherlands; Gelesis, United States; Groupe Éthique et Santé, France; McCain Foods Limited, United States; Novo Nordisk, Denmark; Pfizer, United States; Saniona, Denmark; and Weight Watchers, United States. AA has received travel grants and honoraria as a speaker for a wide range of Danish and international consortia. AA is co-owner and member of the board of the consultancy company Dentacom Aps, Denmark; cofounder and co-owner of UCPH spin-outs Mobile Fitness A/S, Flaxslim ApS, and Personalized Weight Management Research Consortium ApS (Gluco-diet.dk). He is coinventor of a number of patents owned by the University of Copenhagen, in accordance with Danish law. He is coauthor of a number of diet and cookery books, including books on personalized diet approaches. AA is not an advocate or activist for specific diets and is not strongly committed to any specific diet.”

Comment

These papers aim to dispute the idea that full-fat dairy products but have negative health effects. This is a legitimate scientific question that deserves investigation and analysis, preferably by studies funded by independent sources.  Industry-funded studies and opinion pieces are well known to produce results and conclusions favorable to the sponsor’s interest, as is the case here.

HealthyDrinksHealthyKids.org has issued recommendations on what kids should drink in collaboration with impressive co-signers:

• The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Heart Association

The recommendations for parents vary by age.  For example, for infants up to age 6 months:

Only breast milk or infant formula (or water)

• No juice
• No milk
• No flavored milks
• No transition formulas
• No plant-based milks
• No caffeinated beverages
• No diet drinks
• No sugar-sweetened beverages

This is an important report.  About half of toddlers are given sugary beverages.  Let’s hope this is an incentive to stop this practice.

Here are the documents:

• The full list of recommendations
• The website
• Drink Guidelines Consensus Statement
• Drink Guidelines 4 Pager
• Drink Guidelines Press Release

NutraIngredients.com, a food industry newsletter published in the UK, has issued a collection of articles on healthy aging.  This should give you a good idea of where products targeted to the elderly are headed.

• WATCH: How to target the ageing consumer: Despite seniors showing a strong interest in functional food and supplements, the number of products launched with senior claims in Europe does not reflect the population which means brands are missing out on a huge market, says Mintel… Watch now
• Never mind timing: This is the whey to muscle gains in ageing women : Whey protein can help ageing women gain muscle no matter when they take the supplement, say researchers… Read
• Blueberries aid healthy ageing, studies suggest: A collection of new studies further quantifies how blueberry consumption can contribute to healthy aging… Read
• First human clinical trial suggests anti-ageing benefits of pomegranate molecule: A first in-human clinical trial has suggested that dietary supplementation with Urolithin A, a pomegranate metabolite, could offer an anti-ageing benefit thanks to its impact on mitochondrial and cellular health… Read
• Could the gut-brain axis be key to fighting age-related cognitive decline?  Modifying our microbiome with prebiotic fibres could help lower levels of brain inflammation and boost brain function during ageing, according to new research in mice… Read
• Calls for supplement uptake drive as vit D deficiency highest in adults aged 50+:  More than a quarter of adults aged 50 and over are vitamin D deficient, say researchers, who urge supplement uptake and a mandatory food fortification policy as most effective in tackling deficiencies… Read
• Could faecal transplant effects on the gut microbiome be the key to healthy ageing?  UK researchers have put forward a theory that links the enhancement of gut microbiome diversity with addressing age-associated symptoms to promote healthy ageing… Read
• Food for a ripe old age: Researchers develop nutrient-dense product for the elderly: A ‘yoghurt type’ product has been developed with the ageing population in mind. According to researchers from Lithuania, the food is nutrient-dense, fortified, and easy to swallow... Read

As I’ve confessed many times, I have a hard time getting my head around how US farm policy works in practice.  Fortunately, we have Politico to help.

Politico Morning Agriculture, its not-to-be-missed daily newsletter, has a few gems on payments to agricultural producers under current farm policies.

Last ten years: farm payments have averaged $11.5 billion per year (the peak was $13.8 billion in 2018)

2019: payments are predicted to exceed $21 billion. How?

• $14.5 billion in direct trade aid for 2019 production.
• $11.5 billion in direct payments

Politico notes: These payments contradict “Trump’s claims that he’s turned the farm economy around.”

It also notes that federal payments are likely to account for 27 percent of farmer income this year.

Is this reasonable agricultural policy?  No.

Don’t we need a better and more sustainable system?  Yes.

A group called RethinkX has produced an attention-getting report: “Rethinking Food and Agriculture 2020-2030.”

Its press release argues that new lab-based technology will thoroughly disrupt dairy and cattle farming.

By 2030, the dairy and cattle industries will have collapsed as animal-derived foods are replaced by modern equivalents that are higher quality and cost less than half as much to produce. The rest of the livestock industry will suffer a similar fate.

Furthermore, the new products will be “ever cheaper and superior – more nutritious, healthier, better tasting, more convenient, and more varied.”

The press release says that via a process of “death by a thousand cuts,”

different parts of the cow (meat, milk, collagen, and leather) and the markets they serve will be disrupted separately and concurrently by different technologies and business-model innovations that overlap, reinforce, and accelerate one another…The key to understanding the disruption of the cow is that PF [precision fermentation] only needs to disrupt 3.3% of the milk bottle – the key functional proteins – to bring about the collapse of the entire cow milk industry.

The report predicts that by 2030:

• The number of cows in the U.S. will have fallen by 50%.
• Production volumes of the U.S. beef and dairy industries and their suppliers will be cut by more than half.
• The market for ground beef by volume will have shrunk by 70%, the steak market by 30% and the dairy market by almost 90%.
• The U.S. dairy and cattle industries will have collapsed, leaving only local specialty farms in operation.
• The volume of crops needed to feed cattle inthe U.S. will fall by 50%…causing cattle feed production revenues, at current prices, to fall by more than 50%.
• Half of the 1.2 million jobs in U.S. beef and dairy production (including supply chain), along with their associated industries, will be lost

Really?  Is the technology that good, approved, and acceptable?

It’s hard to take this seriously at this point, but the trends are worth watching.

I’m wondering what the cattle and dairy trade groups and lobbyists have to say about all this.